Media and the International Olympic Movement - Essay Example

The 1984 Summer Olympic games were held in Los Angeles, California. Atlanta, Georgia hosted the 1996 Summer Olympic games. Many US cities hope to be selected as hosts to Olympic Games as the potential for revenue is economically attractive. Los Angeles had such an economic boost from its prior Olympic Experience, not only in 1982, but also in 1932. Unfortunately it lost the bid to Hong Kong, China to host the 2008 Summer Olympics. Los Angeles placed the bid for hosting the 2016 Olympics, battling Tokyo, London, New York, Chicago, Paris, Madrid and Moscow for the honor. London was chosen as the host city for the 2012 games, receiving 54 of 104 votes by members of the International Olympic Committee. Interestingly, Atlanta has not submitted bids for hosting of Summer Olympic games Since 1996, while Los Angeles has submitted bids for several Olympic games. This could be due to the fact that the City of Atlanta invested so much money into building infrastructure, facilities and the relocation of public housing that it has yet to realize the kind of revenue that was expected to be generated by hosting the games in 1996. Atlanta was also plagued by the negative publicity surrounding the bombing that occurred in the nearby Olympic Village. New of the event made headlines globally for three consecutive weeks, and continued periodically for an extended period of time. Los Angeles city officials, on the other hand, planned for such events and other possible catastrophes or emergencies. It secured extra space for medical treatment facilities and extra public service workers to handle crime and traffic issues. The 1984 Summer Olympic Games went well without any major mishaps or negative newsworthy events. It can be argued that chance comes into play here. Emergencies that are unexpected tend to occur while those that are planned for do not. Proponents of this argument believe that no amount of planning can prevent certain events from occurring. There is no way to plan for every emergency or disaster. Although Atlanta is now considered the sporting even capital of the world, with all the new complexes and parks that were built for the Olympics, it has yet to realize the kind of revenue that was expected from the Olympics. Atlanta has spent even more money to promote the use of its new facilities since 1996, in an attempt to generate more Revenue from its new structures. Los Angeles earned revenues that enabled it to fund some very useful projects and organizations in the area, such as youth sports leagues and activities for underprivileged children. The types of activities and programs that Olympic revenues have funded in Los Angeles may not have brought attention or notoriety to the city, but many would agree They have been well invested. The Atlanta Chamber of Commerce claims that the 1996 Games “created a $5 billion economic impact on the city,” while “the economic impact of sporting events since then is more than $1.5 billion.” New hotels, arrival of new businesses and a revitalized downtown housing area are the results of Atlanta’s Olympic Games preparations. Both cities planned for their respective hosting of the Olympic Games, though the legacies or impacts on each of the urban areas is vastly different. While Los Angeles also realized an economic impact of $3.3 billion, “the Olympic Organizing Committee accrued a surplus of over $215 million, 40 percent of which was targeted to benefit youth sports organizations in southern California” (Lawson 1985). Atlanta’s committee did not realize a surplus, though the 1996 games welcomed more visitors than any previous Summer Games. Differences in the financial results of both games are likely due to differences in the approaches that the cities used in planning for the games and in the agendas for hosting the games. Los Angeles appears to have identified goals for success well in advance of hosting the 1984 games. It should be pointed out though, that the city also had previous experience in hosting the 1932 Games. This may have given Los Angeles a slight edge in having realistic expectations, though changes in culture, economy and population would still have to be taken into account. The Los Angeles of 1932 was not the same city in 1984. Still, the city faced challenges in 1932 that were not issues in 1984. “Despite a world-wide economic depression and predictions that the 1932 Summer Olympics were doomed to failure, 37 countries sent over 1,300 athletes to southern California and the Games were a huge success” (Pearson Education). The approach to planning that Los Angeles took for the 1984 games was one of controlling costs and generating revenue for the local economy. It appears as though the city was less concerned about notoriety and “putting the city on the global map.” Many existing buildings were used for events, housing and medical services. In fact, the activities undertaken by County agencies show a real concern for how the games would impact the well being of Los Angeles citizens. “Los Angeles County Department of Health Services used its active disease surveillance system to monitor disease occurrence and other health concerns. Reports were collected by telephone three times a week from 198 participating facilities including hospitals, prepaid health plans, private physicians, and Olympic sites. Less illness was recorded during the Olympics than during the same period for the three preceding years” (Weiss, Mascola & Fannin 1988 p.680). Obviously the city was concerned for the welfare of its residents. Contrary to the approach and mentality taken by Los Angeles, Atlanta appears to have been concerned more with notoriety and popularity, wanted the world to “stand up and take notice” of its city. It shows in the planning efforts and measures that city officials took in preparing for the 1996 games. In Atlanta, $1.5 billion was spent on preparations for the 1996 games. It built many new sports complexes, the infamous Centennial Olympic Park where the bomb went off and relocated many of the cities poorest residents. Many public housing units were destroyed for downtown building projects, while residents were sent to units in the suburbs or outskirts of the city. Official claims for such actions, especially with the relocation efforts were explained as measures taken to insure safety of visitors, and need for more building and housing space. Critics argue that city officials did not want visitors to see how poor some residents were and wanted to maintain an image of success. Even Olympic officials did not view the 1996 games in Atlanta as the most successful, but rather toned down their assessments. “The president of the International Olympic Committee “was muted in his assessment of the Games in his speech at Sunday nights closing ceremony. Juan Antonio Samaranch, the IOC president, called the Atlanta Games an event of "universality and unity." He referred to them as "most exceptional." His speech, however, did not award Atlanta his customary verbal pat on the back as "the best Games" (Longman 1996). As London prepares to host the 2012 games, many citizens and groups are voicing concerns about treatment of residents and out of control expenditures for the event. Differences seen in advertising activities reinforce the motivations and the approaches that each city had taken in preparing for the games. Atlanta’s advertising and promotion efforts are sometimes labeled as a spectacle. Atlanta took the branding approach, focusing on making a name for the city in their efforts. Beginning in 1991 boosters began contacting journalists to promote the city. City officials began working with various media forms globally to promote the games. The Chamber of Commerce also took advantage of co-branding efforts with airlines and hotels, to ensure that accommodations and travel to Atlanta were more accessible to visitors. Companies like Delta Airlines were promoted through advertising, along with the city of Atlanta. The problem with branding is that continuous exposure over an extended period of time is required to become effective. So, long after the Games ended, Atlanta found that it needed to continue its branding efforts to make its mark in the world. To add insult to injury, the negative impressions and comments from visitors created more of a challenge for the city in obtaining recognition. More than 15,000 journalists who were invited to the 1996 games found themselves in less than desirable accommodations, like the Atlanta Union Mission, “while electrical wiring was installed and sheetrock taped and painted at the unfinished housing complex of Clark Atlanta University” (Stafford 2006). The best accommodations were reserved for Olympic Sponsors. Among Atlanta’s greatest critics were journalists from Greece who were unimpressed With the offerings of the city. “You give us old photographs. In Greece we would have given you art” (Stafford). Though Atlanta has learned from the Olympic experience and continues its branding efforts, progress has been slow. Recently the city has stepped up its efforts with a new slogan “Every day is opening day,” art exhibits from the Louvre, museums such as World of Coca Cola and the Centennial Olympic Games Museum. The current Mayor plans to appropriate more money over two years for Brand Atlanta. Corporate funds are also expected for advertising efforts such as TV Commercials. Advertising for the 1984 games in Los Angeles was approached in a much different spirit. With the assistance of Los Angeles Olympic Committee president Peter Uberroth, unique activities such as the cross country carrying of the Olympic Torch from New York to Los Angeles raised awareness, while also raising funds for youth athletic programs. For Los Angeles, the goal was not so much to promote the city, but to promote the games and athletic competition in general. A vote in 1978 by the people of Los Angeles prohibited spending government funds, which included taxes, on the event. Corporate sponsorship was the only option for Los Angeles. Twenty nine corporate sponsors, including giants like Anheuser Busch, donated $4 million, which also gave them “rights to include the use the Olympic theme in advertising” (Eason 1984). Additional money came from the sale of broadcasting rights to ABC at a price of $225 million. Uberroth had stated that he did not want the games to be known as the corporate sponsorship games or to be connected to politics. In this sense, the promotions were successful in achieving goals. Other advertising efforts included giant billboards in downtown Los Angeles, picturing well known athletes with a Nike logo in the corner. UCLA donated its facilities for housing of athletes and for the events themselves, making sports fields and pavilions that were already in place. IBM donated communications equipment and computers for athletes, coaches and officials to communicate more easily. Los Angeles was truly fortunate as the first host to be permitted corporate sponsorship. The IOC had changed the ruling in 1981. Otherwise, Los Angeles would not have been to support the event. Though the games proceeded without incident, there was much controversy surrounding the boycott of the games by the Soviet Union, East Germany and other Communist countries. However, China did participate in a United States Olympic Games for the first time. Thorough planning and strong leadership of city officials are cited as contributing factors in the smooth and incident free event. The games were not without spectacle. In typical Hollywood fashion, closing ceremonies involved the landing of a 50 foot wide space ship on the field of the main stadium. Complete with lights and landing gear, like something from a science fiction film, visitors were pleasantly surprised and amused. Though not advertised or promoted in any way, it is events such as this that often create the most memorable moments for vacationers and visitors. Such events prompt visitors to return. Impact of residents for each host city can also be compared, to determine if the cities different approaches to Olympic Games preparation took into consideration any ongoing financial benefits to the communities. A study of the economic impact of host cities indicates that no new jobs were created that continued beyond the dates of the Olympic games. The greatest benefits to the city are the funds dedicated to youth sports programs, revenue created by return visitors to theme parks such as Disney Land and exposure to college campuses for the many international visitors and athletes who may wish to study abroad. Benefits for Los Angeles then are subtle and have a very subtle economic impact through hotels, airports, academic institutions and tourism attractions. Atlanta did not have nearby tourist attractions of the same magnitude as Disney Land prior to the 1996 Olympics. However, some new jobs were created that remain as construction and revitalization of the downtown areas continue. The economic benefits are small though, estimated at .50 per resident, as a result of Olympic activity and preparation. Atlanta has built a few new museums, though tourism does not appear to be its goal in attracting visitors. National and world wide sporting events and business conventions seem to be the main attractions to the new branded city. Problems with housing and increased homelessness are complaints still heard from Atlanta residents, as a result of the relocation of public housing prior to the 1996 Olympics. The poorest residents of Atlanta now face challenges in access to county offices and community agencies, due to transportation issues brought about by relocation. As a result, crime rates have not decreased since the revitalization of downtown Atlanta began. Determined to maintain its image, Atlanta officials have been accused of underreporting crime statistics. One former Atlanta Police Chief believes that Atlanta actually outranks Cleveland as the US city with the most crime. As other cities look to past Olympic host cities and their successes or failures, it is unfortunate that many look to Atlanta as an example of how not to operate. London is currently preparing for the 2012 games, while Bejing is finalizes its preparations for 2008. London appears to be extremely focused on long term planning, compared to both Los Angeles and Atlanta. According to London 2012 Organizing Committee Deputy Chairman Keith Mills, “by far the most important thing is to possess an outstanding product or plan” (IOC 2006). London has already planned for use of the structures and sites well beyond the Olympic games. Bejing is taking a different approach of rebuilding or altering existing structures. It is difficult to predict whether this will allow for long term revenue to the city over a period of time. It certainly creates jobs. London plans to built the Olympic Village in one of oldest, most run down and Areas of the city. Like Atlanta, it hopes to revitalize the area for economic gain. What Remains to be seen is whether it will be successful. Much of the success may hinge on London’s approach or purpose in taking on the project. Funding is coming from both public and private sectors. If it hopes to benefit its residents beyond temporary jobs, it must develop a very thorough plan. Officials are responsible for deciding what kind of legacy should be left by hosting the 2012 games. The 1984 Los Angeles games left a legacy of youth sports programs to the community. Its future Ability to host Olympic Games may be hindered by the fact that some IOC committee members are upset with the city’s failure to share the revenue to benefit the Olympic cause. Fostering youth sports can be seen as a way of promoting amateur sports and competition. Atlanta’s legacy is a bit more negative in the eyes of the world. New structures and some new businesses to the downtown area create minimal economic benefit. Bejing is gearing up for the games by putting new faces on existing infrastructure. It is difficult to ascertain what the city wants to leave as its Olympic legacy. Both Bejing and London have an opportunity to recreate or what legacies of hosting Olympic Games will give to the world and to their communities. Bibliography Atlanta Chamber of Commerce. Available from http://www.metroatlantachamber.com/ images/olympiclegacy.pdf. 2 August, 2007. Eason, H 1984, ‘The unstated message of the 1984 Olympics’, Nation’s Business. International Olympic Committee 2006, ‘Bid Profile and Fact Sheet’, 2016 Summer Olympic Bids. Longman, J 1996, ‘On the Playing Field, Atlanta Games Were a Success’, New York Times. Available from http://www/nytimes.com/specials/Olympics/0805/oly-rdp.html 2 August, 2007. Owen, J 2005, ‘Estimating the Cost and Benefit of Hosting Olympic Games: What can Bejing expect from its 2008 games?’, The Industrial Geographer. Pearson Education, Inc. 2007, Available from http://www.infoplease.com/ipsa/ A0114502.html, 2 August, 2007. Stafford, L 2006, ‘Atlanta’s Olympic Legacy; Spotlight on city proved fleeting; 10 years later, a new branding effort tries to sell Atlanta as a destination’, Atlanta Journal-Constitution Available from http://www.kellogg.northeastern.edu/news/hits/ 060719ajc.htm 1 August, 2007. Weiss, L, Mascola & Fannin, S 1988, ‘Public health at the 1984 Summer Olympics: the Los Angeles County experience’, American Journal of Public Health, Vol 78, p 680. Read More