The Olympic motto Citius, Altius, Fortius (Faster, Higher, Stronger) is being adopted well by the ongoing anti-Olympic campaign making its reach faster, higher and stronger than the excitement related to the Games itself.
The recent Wall Street Journal article: ‘Olympic Sponsors Face Balancing Act’ highlights the potential problem of the Olympic sponsors on their association with the Beijing Olympics 2008. Do they support the Chinese government in conducting a grand Olympics? Do they withdraw their sponsorship to support the ethical issues raised by the Olympics protestors? They seem to be taking the ‘hands-off’ approach for now.
Most have chosen to concentrate on the spirits of the games and stay away from politics. Some like Lenovo has supposedly followed the news regarding the recent violence in Tibet with concern and regret but choose not to muddle up business with politics. The private nature of the some executives of the sponsor firms’ claims of lobbying the Chinese government and International Olympic committee to improve human rights issues has not helped.
The protestors have decided to hit the sponsors where it hurts the most. As per the article, the protestors would launch a ‘Turn Off/Tune In’ campaign to make people ‘Turn Off’ Olympic sponsors’ ads during the Games, and ‘Tune In’ to the daily broadcast of Mia Farrow from a refugee camp in Darfur. How strong this campaign would be depends on whether these sponsors really think the benefits of sponsoring would be higher than the cost.
Let’s face it, ethics and morals are not the primary concerns of most of these sponsors. They want to save their company reputation and adhere to acceptable business ethic. I guess if majority of their target customers support the cause of the protestors; probably, it would not be worth tapping the Chinese market while raising threats of losing the present stakeholders (customers, suppliers, distributors, employees etc.) worldwide. However, if majority of their stakeholders feel that it has a more positive feedback of their association with the Beijing Olympic, they would go ahead, and why not?
Reference:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120570507375240027.html
The recent Wall Street Journal article: ‘Olympic Sponsors Face Balancing Act’ highlights the potential problem of the Olympic sponsors on their association with the Beijing Olympics 2008. Do they support the Chinese government in conducting a grand Olympics? Do they withdraw their sponsorship to support the ethical issues raised by the Olympics protestors? They seem to be taking the ‘hands-off’ approach for now.
Most have chosen to concentrate on the spirits of the games and stay away from politics. Some like Lenovo has supposedly followed the news regarding the recent violence in Tibet with concern and regret but choose not to muddle up business with politics. The private nature of the some executives of the sponsor firms’ claims of lobbying the Chinese government and International Olympic committee to improve human rights issues has not helped.
The protestors have decided to hit the sponsors where it hurts the most. As per the article, the protestors would launch a ‘Turn Off/Tune In’ campaign to make people ‘Turn Off’ Olympic sponsors’ ads during the Games, and ‘Tune In’ to the daily broadcast of Mia Farrow from a refugee camp in Darfur. How strong this campaign would be depends on whether these sponsors really think the benefits of sponsoring would be higher than the cost.
Let’s face it, ethics and morals are not the primary concerns of most of these sponsors. They want to save their company reputation and adhere to acceptable business ethic. I guess if majority of their target customers support the cause of the protestors; probably, it would not be worth tapping the Chinese market while raising threats of losing the present stakeholders (customers, suppliers, distributors, employees etc.) worldwide. However, if majority of their stakeholders feel that it has a more positive feedback of their association with the Beijing Olympic, they would go ahead, and why not?
Reference:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120570507375240027.html
No comments:
Post a Comment