Understanding the Olympic Marketplace - Research Proposal Example

CAN TODAY’S OLYMPICS PROMOTERS UTILISE THE ONE-BRAND POSITIONING STRATEGY TO INCREASE CONSUMER INTEREST? BY YOU YOUR ACADEMIC ORGANISATION HERE YOUR TUTOR HERE DATE HERE Table of Contents 1. The research question……………………………………………………………. 3 2. The research objectives…………………………………………………………… 4 3. Literature review………………………………………………………………….. 4 4. Research methods………………………………………………………………… 9 5. Project time-table………………………………………………………………….. 12 Bibliography Can today’s Olympics promoters utilise the one-brand positioning strategy to increase consumer interest? 1. The research question The Olympic Games, as a single brand, generates over $20 billion every four years, representing a significant revenue stream for Olympics promoters and the specific communities where the Games are held. The Olympics Marketplace is important both for businesses and community citizens as the local infrastructure developments which occur during Olympics preparation, as well as the consumer-related activities which accompany the Games, bring considerable value to the host region. However, despite the importance of the Olympic Games, there is considerable importance in the role of marketing as a means to bring in even higher revenues. The Olympic Games occur as a series of preparatory business activities involving the establishment of brand partnerships from a marketing perspective in which well-known companies such as PepsiCo and Coca-Cola bring their own, unique brand power into the forefront of Olympics activities. However, should Olympics promoters rely on the brand strength of other well-known companies to lure higher volumes of consumers to the Games or can the Olympics (as a single organisation) rely on its own singular brand to accomplish the same goals and build consumer interest? The one-brand strategy occurs when a company or organisation which carries a multitude of brands remains focused on utilising marketing to create a singular brand image which incorporates all existing brands into a single unit. The one-brand strategy might very well be an efficient model by which to promote the upcoming 2012 London Olympics by relying less on the power of other brand sponsorships and creating a singular brand image which appeals to a wider variety of potential customers to the Olympic Games. This proposed research study intends to test the hypothesis of whether Olympics promoters can actually utilise the one-brand strategy, over that of traditional brand partnerships, to build consumer interest in the Games and increase total revenues. 2. The research objectives This proposed research study maintains three distinct objectives: To examine consumer reactions to both historical and existing Olympics marketing literature which focus on brand partnerships and compare these reactions to motivation to attend the Olympic Games. To examine consumer reactions to the current 2012 London Olympics marketing literature in the pursuit of feedback about the existing campaign. Gather consumer feedback regarding their unique perspectives of the current 2012 Olympic Games sponsors in order to determine consumer attitudes about existing brands. The aforementioned research objectives are designed to offer a distinct picture of what drives the contemporary consumer to attend the Olympic Games and to understand their individual viewpoints of brand sponsorships. These objectives are intended to offer a clear picture as to whether Olympic Games promoters can utilise a one-brand strategy or whether powerful brand sponsorships are the most viable marketing option for these events. 3. Literature review Marketing is certainly not an exact science as maintaining an understanding of a very diverse group of consumers both domestic and foreign requires substantial marketing research. Understanding what specifically drives customers toward a purchase is all part of the marketing research model, however despite the best models available, changing consumer preferences can serve to negate pre-existing marketing efforts, making it crucial for businesses to be flexible and adapt new strategies to build consumer interest. This study maintains the ability to recognise whether the Olympic Games currently maintains enough brand power to establish a one-brand strategy (thus saving money through excessive sponsorship agreements) or whether the event promoters must rely on stronger brand loyalty and brand awareness to sell the event effectively. In 1988 and 1992, the Snickers candy brand, owned by M&M Mars, became one of the foremost brand sponsorships of the Olympic Games (Varey, 2002). However, during this time period, there were no singular brands which could be recognised and identified across the entire globe (Varey). Because of this, the Olympic Games relied on multiple brand sponsorships and partnerships in order to bring a diverse, multi-national blend of brands into the event marketing efforts in order to build global interest in the Games. Though this was during a period where global marketing efforts were in their infancy and global brand recognition was not a reality, it does tend to illustrate that Olympic Games promoters have, historically, relied on other brand power to foster consumer interest in the event. The Snickers brand changed all of their packaging and sales promotions to illustrate the brand’s connection with the Olympics and experienced higher sales through the efforts, suggesting that the only real winner in the sponsorship might be the secondary sponsor rather than the Games itself. David D’Assandro, executive at the large investment firm John Hancock, suggests that “The Olympics represent the highest levels of achievement as well as trust and credibility” (Stanton and George, 1999: 27). If this is the image that the Olympics promoters wish to adopt or to appeal to consumers who share D’Assandro’s belief, can the business really manage to project this image by incorporating various brand logos on the Games’ promotional and advertising literature? Do the other sponsors’ brands represent similar qualities which the Olympic Games shares and will other brand images erode the Games’ attempts to project this image of trust and achievement? These are questions which must be considered prior to adopting a one-brand strategy or whether to rely on other brands to fuel consumer interest. Kahle and Riley (2004) offer that when high arousal regarding a sporting event occurs in a consumer population, their recognition of various sponsor stimuli is reduced. Though this is rather startling research evidence, it tends to point to the notion that if the Olympics promoters are able to establish a sense of excitement solely about the Olympics, the necessity for other brand sponsorships will not necessarily be a powerful tool for building consumer loyalty. If high levels of consumer arousal can be achieved through Olympics marketing, the authors indicate that brand sponsorship literature will go largely unnoticed by consumers. This offers significant reinforcement of the potential for one-brand strategies for the 2012 London Olympic Games. Additionally, the notion of trust and credibility is supported by Charles (2008) who offers that brands which show consumers open communication and honest presentation have the most successful histories of gaining consumer trust. Could PepsiCo, as one relevant example, possibly portray the achievement and trust associated with the Olympics or does the sponsor’s logo and brand name actually hold a completely different meaning for consumers? It would appear to be an important element when selecting an appropriate sponsorship to determine whether the sponsor brand is able to reinforce the Olympic Games’ desired image. If consumers have found loyalty toward PepsiCo (or other brands) based on quality and pricing alone, then trust and credibility would be missing from the sponsorship and could erode the Olympic Games’ long-term brand-building expectations. One marketing expert flatly suggests that despite the growth in brand sponsorships, sponsorship identifications (in the minds of the consumer) have become “little more than wallpaper” (Clark, 2007: 19). The author is assessing the broadcast marketing environment, however there is a clear discussion that consumers find it difficult to link certain brand sponsorships with particular shows, offering that sponsorships are simply too obscured and the consumer will not even recognise them. High-level sponsorships are costly endeavours and if such brand sponsorships go largely unnoticed, these brand partnerships may not be in the best interest of increasing consumer loyalty. Interestingly, a recent survey conducted by the Chartered Institute of Marketing discovered that the 2012 London Olympics games logo, in its current form, is ineffective. 58 percent of all surveyed suggested it was not an effective design and would not capture consumer interest (Cim.co.uk, 2008). Outside of the traditional brand sponsorships, the creation of the Olympic Games logo is to create an image for the event which ultimately becomes instantly recognisable by the global community. It was important to this background study to recognise that even reputable marketing agencies strongly reinforce the importance of creating a solid brand for the Olympics through innovative and creative logo design and to create an appealing identity for the event. Ineffective logo presentation would rely on additional brand sponsorships to carry the event if the marketing efforts fail to elicit a response in an organisation’s desired consumer audience. However, utilising a one-brand strategy would put stronger emphasis on the logo design and building a brand for the 2012 London Games without necessarily relying on secondary sponsorships and other brand power to create consumer interest. Conflicting brand images can also be a significant problem, which may add further credence to the importance of a one-brand strategy for the Olympics. Bainbridge (2007) identifies that as more and more companies expand into new, international regions, sponsorships become more commonplace. For multi-sponsor organisations, such as the Olympic Games, conflicts between brand images can occur. For instance, one brand might be well-defined in terms of quality whilst another brand strongly reinforces the needs of the frugal consumer. In this scenario, the Olympics Games promoters may be attempting to create an image of trust and achievement, only to have this image eroded by multi-brand sentiments. Thus, under this assessment, it would seem that the Olympics promoters must actively consider the power of the current positioning strategies of multiple sponsors to determine whether a one-brand strategy is more effective both short- and long-term. Samsung, a large electronics manufacturer, follows a one-brand strategy and aims to build a clear positioning strategy for the Samsung family of brands. In the 1990’s, the Samsung brand was “one which you bought if you couldn’t afford Sony or Toshiba” (Pfortsch, 2008: 1). This was when the company relied on a multitude of different brand strategies instead of a one-brand philosophy. Today, Samsung has experienced significant sales increases due to its one-brand positioning, making the company a leader in modern electronics and similar component technologies. It was important to identify Samsung’s attempts at building a singular brand as these efforts not only built higher sales volumes, but took a company which was considered to be inferior by most consumers and made it a leader in its appropriate market. This could very well be evident within the Olympics promotional environment as the removal of multiple sponsor brands could allow the event to focus on building its own, singular brand image and find successes similar to that of Samsung. There is no evidence that such a dramatic turnaround from inferior quality to superior quality can be achieved through multiple brand sponsorships. Though the 2012 Olympic Games has already secured multiple brand sponsorships, such as with British Petroleum, British Airways and Lloyds TSB (the2012londonolympics.com, 2008), there is still ample time for the event to focus on a one-brand strategy if appropriate consumer research is conducted. However, uncovering whether one-brand philosophy or the multi-sponsor focus is necessary to build higher consumer interest is paramount when the Olympics committees are already facing problems with ineffective logo and other marketing aspects. 4. Research methods This research project will take both a qualitative and quantitative approach to research. In order to fulfill the study’s objectives, both approaches are required. A series of survey instruments will be constructed which highlight questions regarding the consumer preferences involved with Olympic Games attendance and associated Olympics activities. The survey will be constructed utilising eight to ten different questions with closed-ended responses, such as the yes and no response. This will grant the researcher a portrait of consumer behaviours regarding the Olympic Games and allow for a quantitative comparison of individual demographics to determine whether a specific, regional trend exists. From a qualitative research perspective, surveyed respondents will be shown the current 2012 London Olympics logo and other associated marketing materials currently in existence to gain feedback about how customers feel about the campaign and how it affects them personally. This session of the research is designed to determine areas of strengths and weaknesses of the existing Olympics marketing campaigns and make the correlation as to whether these consumer perceptions lean toward the necessity for a one-brand strategy or multiple sponsorships to send the appropriate consumer message. Based on consumer responses, this session will indicate favourable, unfavourable or even neutral opinion regarding existing brand sponsors for the 2012 Olympics. If, for instance, one particular company on the sponsor list maintains widely-negative consumer viewpoints, the necessity for a one-brand strategy might be in order to satisfy today’s consumers instead of projecting other brand images which meet with unfavourable consumer response. The recruited survey sample will consist of a wide variety of citizen and businessperson demographics, encompassing the responses of 50-100 consumers in the UK. Each surveyed respondent will be shown several pieces of marketing literature and asked to respond about various brand features (both Olympics-based and other sponsor brands). Responses from the survey sessions will be compared to individual demographics to determine whether specific consumer trends exist which point toward a one-brand model for Olympic Games organisers or the necessity to rely on secondary brands to build consumer loyalty and interest. The secondary research portion of this project will consult with various journals, marketing textbooks and Olympics Committee reports to uncover the existing marketing focus being undertaken by Olympics planners and to understand various marketing theories regarding the one-brand advertising and promotional strategies. Additionally, secondary sources will be conducted which emphasise consumer preferences and consumer behaviour so as to contribute to the wide body of existing literature in an attempt to paint the proverbial portrait of the modern consumer. As understanding consumers is the focal point of quality marketing, this is vital to the secondary research portion of this project. Secondary research into previous Olympics events, dating back to 1984, will further indicate whether multi-sponsor marketing efforts maintained measureable profit increases and how consumer attitudes have evolved over the decades. Any potential conflicts between brand sponsors which may have served to erode the image of the Olympics can be uncovered through this research, either supporting or refuting the necessity of adopting the one-brand positioning strategy. The formal interview was originally considered as a viable research instrument for this project, however structuring an interview to encompass the unique viewpoints of a random sampling of respondent demographics was unrealistic. Scheduling these interviews with enough community members to add validity to this research approach would be time-consuming and not feasible for a student. Observational research, also, was rejected as an appropriate option for gathering consumer research as there are not currently Olympics events happening in the UK, thus providing no appropriate forum by which to observe consumer behaviours in this environment. All of the research materials utilised for this research project will be designed to focus on the consumer and the brand power of other sponsor brands (or upcoming brands which have not formally signed up for sponsorship), vital components to understanding whether a one-brand strategy would be most effective. If the research uncovers a majority of unfavourable responses regarding a variety of brands, then it might be a viable marketing model for the Olympics promoters to consider creating a distinct image and building on this image without the support of secondary sponsor brands. Any transformation or evolution of existing 2012 London Olympics marketing literature, if occurring, will be incorporated into both the primary and secondary research approaches. All of the analysed research results will be presented in chart or tabular format if any measurable correlations are uncovered through the primary research sessions. The most notable ethical issue in this project involves the presentation of various brand names which might be experiencing negative consumer sentiment. Business leaders, as well, have interests to protect in terms of any legalities stemming from potential commentaries about particular brands. Therefore, all surveyed respondents will be guaranteed anonymity, as well as granting anonymity for individual brands when appropriate. The only limitation to this study involves being unable to witness behaviours or to survey respondents in the midst of Olympic Games activities. Preferences today may not be consumer preferences tomorrow, thus a 4-year planning strategy such as the Olympic Games will likely be forced to be both flexible and adaptable to changing consumer preferences. By observing behaviours in the Olympics event environment, characteristics illustrated in the primary research portion of this study can be measured and correlated based on tangible consumer behaviours in the appropriate Olympics environment. Since the Olympics will not be underway until 2012, there is no method available by which to measure consumer behaviours in this fast-paced marketing environment to witness which brands are able to lure higher volumes of customers and which brands the customers tend to avoid. These would be sizeable factors to consider when determining which brand sponsorship, if any, would be the most fitting for projecting the image of the Olympic Games. 5. Project time-table The Gantt chart below illustrates the appropriate time-table for conducting all aspects of research through the final project submission. The research represents a 20 week commitment once final approval has been granted to conduct the research project. As the secondary research portion will require the most research dedication, secondary research encompasses eight weeks of the entire research project commitment. Bibliography Bainbridge, Jane. (2007). ‘Agencies at odds with brand loyalty’, Promotions & Incentives, London: 18-20. Boone, L. & Kurtz, D. (2007). Contemporary Marketing, 12th ed. Thomson South-Western, United Kingdom: 340-342. Charles, Gemma. (2008). ‘Breaking their silence’, Marketing, London. 15 Oct 2008: 14-16. Cim.co.uk. (2008). ‘The latest marketing trends’. [Online www]. http://www.cim.co.uk/NewsAndEvents/MediaCentre/NewsRelease/2012%20Olympics%20logo.aspx (Nov 19, 2008). Clark, Nicola. (2007). ‘Too tied to one brand’, Marketing, London. 20 Jun 2007: 19. Kahle, L. and Riley, C. (2004). Sports Marketing and the Psychology of Marketing Communication – Advertising and Consumer Psychology, Mahwah, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Marketing Week. (2007). “Market Research: Into the mind of the consumer”. London, Mar 1, 2007. Pfortsch, W.A. (2008). ‘Samsung: Clear brand positioning’. [Online www]. http://www.pfoertsch.com/wiki/index.php/Main/SamSung. (Nov 19, 2008). Stanton, J. and George, R. (1999). Success Leaves Clues: Practical Tools for Effective Sales and Marketing, Los Angeles, Silver Lake Publishing. The2012londonolympics.com. (2008). “Marketing strategies for Olympics 2012”. [Online www] http://www.the2012londonolympics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12345 (Nov 19 2008). Varey, Richard J. (2002). Marketing Communication: Principles and Practice, London, Routledge. Read More