Shoestring Marketing

In this consumption-driven society, great celebratory events have a way of focusing attention on the brands that support them. The recently completed Olympics is a case in point. Billions of dollars were spent by both media and advertisers in claiming bragging rights, which is nothing more than code language for what we, in marketing circles, term "elevating the brand."

The Sydney Olympics saw its share of marketing winners and losers, which is not surprising.

Let's start with NBC

We know that the ratings were down, not an astonishing revelation given the suspense-destroying 15-hour time delay.

Where they failed was in their inability to view the Olympics through a more contemporary set of eyes. What kept us glued to the event in previous decades is no longer compelling. With the demise of Communism, the traditional blood-and-guts, nationalistic rivalries are gone. Give Juan Antonio Samaranch his due; he's turned the Olympics into a modern marketing marvel, an athletic juggernaut that generates billions in revenue and considerable hype every two years.

Few Medals For Advertisers

Suppose that marketers will want to feature their best advertising product at all times, particularly for the world's most watched event, why then is Olympic advertising so mediocre and off-strategy? Who controls the process inside the ad agencies that lets such poorly conceived material get on air?

Let's quickly assess some of the main players.

Five stars to Daimler Mercedes-Benz for its highly evocative and extremely charming work for the new C Class lineup. That campaign will sell a lot of cars. There was an exceptionally relevant and a highly intelligent viewpoint from Sun America. I was one of those impressionable fools who bought a $60,000 car that could now be worth $300,000 if I had invested the money in a Sun America retirement account. They got my attention. And there was an imaginative use of animation from AT&T in communicating the speed and flexibility of its new broadband service

On the other side of the fence, we saw the same barrage of vapid, heart-tugging nonsense from advertisers such as Home Depot who still live in a time warp. Their advertising reflected a style that was executed much more effectively by Budweiser and McDonald's in the 80s.

But the real criticism we must reserve for Coca Cola and, to a lesser extent, Nike ("Chain Saw") and John Hancock ("Divorced Couple") all of whom ran ads that put consumer teeth on edge and, in some cases, had to be pulled within the week. How could these otherwise respected brands and acknowledged leaders in their marketplace allow the release of advertising that is so discordant and antithetical to the very nature of the brand? In the case of Coca-Cola, little of its advertising made sense. Generational differences aside, can anyone please explain the significance of that self-absorbed, dancing doofus and the seemingly drugged-up, drunk group for whom he was performing. Worse still, were the mean, hateful vignettes featuring grandma, returning soldier and Japanese exchange student all of whom respond with venom and spite to the news that there's no Coca Cola at hand.

It was ill-conceived, destructive advertising to begin with, made even more so when one considers that Coca Cola made its bones and established its imagery based on representing an America that we all loved and cherished, one built on respect for family, patriotism, and people of other lands.

In medieval times kings had food tasters to insure that the body royal was never poisoned. Perhaps the same principle should be applied to advertising. How about a class of ad tasters to test the product before it hits the airways and poisons the brand?

(Alf Nucifora has spent the last 10 years as a professional speaker. His column, entitled "Shoestring Marketing" is syndicated bi-monthly in more than 50 business publications in the U.S.)