olympic sponsorship activation and the creation of competitive advantage

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Romanian Ministry Consortium]On: 2 March 2010Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 918910197]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Promotion ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792306911

Olympic Sponsorship Activation and the Creation of CompetitiveAdvantageDimitra Papadimitriou a; Artemisia Apostolopoulou b

a University of Patras, Achaia, Greece b Robert Morris University, Moon Township, Pennsylvania, USA

To cite this Article Papadimitriou, Dimitra and Apostolopoulou, Artemisia(2009) 'Olympic Sponsorship Activation and theCreation of Competitive Advantage', Journal of Promotion Management, 15: 1, 90 — 117To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/10496490902892754URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10496490902892754

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792306911

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10496490902892754

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Journal of Promotion Management, 15:90–117, 2009Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1049-6491 print / 1540-7594 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10496490902892754

Olympic Sponsorship Activation and theCreation of Competitive Advantage

DIMITRA PAPADIMITRIOUUniversity of Patras, Achaia, Greece

ARTEMISIA APOSTOLOPOULOURobert Morris University, Moon Township, Pennsylvania, USA

The present study explores the leveraging activities of the Grand Na-tional sponsors of the 2004 Athens Olympic Games and attempts toapply a resource-based view in their assessment. Data were collectedthrough semi-structured interviews with seven of the ten GrandNational sponsors and through a systematic review of secondarysources. The more active sponsors invested in and utilized a num-ber of leveraging methods, including advertising, sales promotions,and special events. Furthermore, they seemed superior to the lessactive sponsors in the use of their tangible and intangible resourcesas well as the capabilities of their organization. On the other hand,the less active sponsors appeared to have missed the opportunity toutilize their Olympic sponsorship to gain a competitive advantage.This article concludes with suggestions to companies investing insport sponsorship for effective exploitation of acquired sponsorshiprights.

KEYWORDS competitive advantage, Grand National sponsors,Olympic Games, resource-based theory, sponsorship activation,sponsorship leveraging, sports.

INTRODUCTION

In his review of the sponsorship process in the early 1990s Meenaghan (1991)argued:

Address correspondence to Dimitra Papadimitriou, Ph.D., Department of Business Man-agement, University of Patras, Rio Patras, Achaia 26504, Greece. E-mail: [email protected]

90

Downloaded By: [Romanian Ministry Consortium] At: 18:51 2 March 2010

Olympic Sponsorship Activation 91

The success of the sponsorship programme will be dependent to a largeextent on how it is implemented. A critical factor is that the sponsorshipbe implemented as part of a marketing campaign and thus integratedwith other elements of marketing communications. The sponsor must alsosupport the sponsorship by additional advertising and promotions (p. 43).

Similar to Meenaghan, many scholars have subsequently highlightedthe importance of sponsorship implementation or sponsorship leveraging,activation, or exploitation if sponsors are to maximize returns on their in-vestments. (Note: These terms will be used interchangeably throughout thetext.) However, there has been a void in the sponsorship literature dealingwith this topic specifically. Surprisingly, only a handful of studies have ex-plored the topic of leveraging sponsorship agreements, and that has usuallybeen as part of a larger study that examined a number of other sponsorship-related topics (e.g., Gardner & Shuman, 1987; Farrelly, Quester, & Burton,1997; Arthur, Scott, Woods, & Booker, 1998; Meenaghan & Shipley, 1999;Cornwell, Roy, & Steinard, 2001; Cornwell, Weeks, & Roy, 2005; McKelvey,McDonald, & Cramer, 2005).

Past marketing and sport marketing research has focused mainly on is-sues of sponsor objectives and motivations (e.g., Abratt, Clayton, & Pitt, 1987;Irwin & Asimakopoulos, 1992; Scott & Suchard, 1992; Ludwig & Karabetsos,1999; Apostolopoulou & Papadimitriou, 2004); the impact and benefits ofsponsorship for corporate brands (e.g., Stipp, 1998; Gwinner & Eaton, 1999;Cornwell et al., 2001; Amis, 2003); and the evaluation of sponsorship ef-fectiveness (e.g., Cuneen & Hannan, 1993; Sandler & Shani, 1993; Stotlar,1993; Pope & Voges, 1995; Crimmins & Horn, 1996). Other research ef-forts have explored the topic of ambush marketing (e.g., Sandler & Shani,1989; Meenaghan, 1994), or have offered overviews of the development andprogression of theory-building in the area of sponsorship (e.g., Cornwell &Maignan, 1998; Meenaghan, 1998).

Interestingly, an area of sport management research that started to gainmomentum in the late 1990s was applying a resource-based view in thestudy of the management and exploitation of sport sponsorship. Buildingon previously published work on resource-based theory and competitiveadvantage, scholars argued that sponsorship is a resource that if managedand leveraged properly could become a source of competitive advantage fora firm and differentiate that firm from its competition (Slack & Bentz, 1996;Amis, Pant, & Slack, 1997; Amis, Slack, & Berrett, 1999; Amis, 2003; Fahy,Farrelly, & Quester, 2004).

The present study attempts to build on the relatively narrow body ofknowledge on sponsorship activation by focusing exclusively on that issue.More specifically, the study uses the Olympic Games as a platform andprovides empirical evidence of sponsorship activation from multiple casesof Greek companies that served as Grand National sponsors of the 2004


92 D. Papadimitriou and A. Apostolopoulou

Athens Olympic Games. Moreover, Olympic sponsorship is approached as adistinctive resource that has the potential to develop a position of sustainablecompetitive advantage. Through a regular review of secondary sources andthrough personal interviews the study explores how the 2004 Grand NationalOlympic sponsors developed their agreements into a distinctive competencevia systematic involvement in leveraging activities.

OLYMPIC SPONSORSHIP

The Olympic Games have become one of the most attractive properties,bringing in significant amounts of revenues from broadcasting, sponsor-ship and licensing agreements. For the period 2001–2004 the InternationalOlympic Committee (IOC) reported revenues that exceeded US$4,000 mil-lion. Fully 34% of those revenues were the result of corporate sponsorshipagreements of The Olympic Partner program (TOP), the IOC-managed crownjewel of Olympic sponsorship (“Marketing Revenue,” n.d.). Local organizingcommittees of the Olympic Games (OCOGs) receive approximately 20%(Winter Games) to 30% (Summer Games) of the IOC’s sponsorship rev-enues, but need to supplement that amount with revenues from their ownsponsorship agreements. National sponsorships provide unique opportuni-ties for local companies to develop an association with the Olympic brandand to receive marketing and other corporate benefits. By providing mon-etary and in-kind support to the organizing committee and by investing toexploit rights received through their sponsorship agreements national spon-sors can become a fixture in a country’s Olympic effort for at least fouryears.

The value associated with the Olympic property, both at the national andglobal level, comes from a number of factors. The most notable factors arethe event’s broad appeal and widespread media coverage and participation;notions of exclusivity; prestige and national importance; the sophistication (inspite of the scandals and criticisms) of its governance by not only protecting,but also strengthening the value of its brand; and the public’s increasingacceptance of commercialization.

In his discussion on the value of the Olympic brand, Redgate (2002)focused on four cornerstones of Olympic image: hope; dreams andinspiration; friendship and fair play; and the joy in effort. Redgate arguedthat by becoming associated with the event and appearing to help bringthat experience to the people of a country and the world, sponsors reallyanticipate the transfer of consumers’ positive feelings from the event totheir brands. He also contended that because the attributes of the Olympicbrand are general enough, they not only become relevant to a varietyof potential sponsors (e.g., global vs. local, national companies), but alsoallow for leveraging through a number of different means. In that spirit, the



involvement of national corporations in Olympic sponsorship and their ef-forts to leverage their sponsorship agreements becomes a worthwhile topic ofstudy.

The remainder of this article is organized in four sections: first,an overview of relevant literature is provided, followed by a review ofthe study’s methodology. Thirdly, the findings are presented. The paperconcludes with a discussion of the findings, as well as implications of thisresearch effort.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Sponsorship as a Resource and a Source of Competitive Advantage

A few authors have underlined the dearth of empirical research in under-standing the strategic use of sport sponsorship for the creation of competitiveadvantage (e.g., Slack & Bentz, 1996; Amis et al., 1999; Amis, 2003). Thereis a void in the literature on how corporate sponsorship should be managedand exploited in order to create a position of advantage—particularly in re-lation to mega sport events, such as the Olympic Games, that involve uniquebrand elements and brand associations. This section provides an overviewof research efforts that have attempted to introduce a resource-based viewin the study of sport sponsorship.

One of the first efforts to discuss sport sponsorship as an intangibleresource that can lead a firm to a position of advantage was presentedby Amis et al. (1997). The authors built on past work on resource-basedtheory (Barney, 1986; Barney, 1991; Grant, 1991; Peteraf, 1993) to proposethat organizations should evaluate resources in terms of their potential toprovide competitive advantage using four criteria: the heterogeneous distri-bution of resources, the difficulty tied with the ability to copy a resource,the difficulty to trade a resource or make it available to a competitor,and inherent limitations to competition. Their findings support the notionthat employing a resource-based view in the understanding and manage-ment of sport sponsorship could prove beneficial for achieving competitiveadvantage.

Amis et al. (1999) continued that discussion by proposing that in orderfor sport sponsorship to become “a distinctive competence” and “a potentialsource of competitive advantage” it must meet three conditions: offer some-thing of value to consumers; differentiate the sponsor from its competition;and have the ability to be extended (via leveraging) to a number of newopportunities (p. 253). (A discussion on those three conditions can also befound in Fahy et al., 2004). The authors further argued that “any firm enter-ing into a sponsorship agreement should treat its sponsorship as a resourcewhich, . . . can be developed into an area of distinctive competence which in



turn can assist the firm to a position of sustainable competitive advantage”(Amis et al., 1999, p. 250).

As a sport property, the Olympic Games provide the platform for spon-sors to fulfill all three of those conditions. First, through their investment andoverall involvement sponsors help bring to a country and its people an eventthat is, for most nations, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and an undisputedsource of national pride. Especially in the case of the 2004 Olympic Games,which were surrounded by controversy and suspicion as to the readinessof the country to handle the event, and so the sponsors’ perceived role inassisting the organizing committee and supporting the greater national effortwas of even greater importance (Apostolopoulou & Papadimitriou, 2004).

Secondly, the guaranteed exclusivity, that accompanies Olympic spon-sorship agreements both at the international and the national level and alsothe “official” affiliation granted to companies, provides a source of differ-entiation for sponsors. Moreover, increased efforts to protect official spon-sors from ambush marketing campaigns contribute to the efforts of ensuringsponsors’ benefit from their partnerships.

Thirdly, the attractiveness and emotional appeal associated with theOlympic property, as well as the length of most Olympic sponsorship agree-ments (that can reach up to four years) offer countless opportunities tointroduce new products, new services and a number of brand extensions—depending of course on sponsors’ existing resources and capabilities.

In a latter research effort Fahy et al. (2004) proposed a conceptualmodel that connects organizational resources acquired through a sponsor-ship agreement to organizational competitive advantage and superior per-formance. The authors distinguished resources to tangible assets, intangibleassets, and capabilities, all three of which are necessary in order to allowthe sponsorship not only to lead to favorable consequences (i.e., competi-tive advantage and superior performance) but also to sustain them. Tangibleresources refer mainly to the financial resources of a firm and, although nec-essary, are not enough to lead to competitive advantage in part because ofthe ease with which they can be duplicated. Intangible resources, which areharder to imitate, deal with a firm’s equity, image, and brand building skills,while capabilities involve the skill sets, experiences and processes availablewithin an organization. Interestingly, capabilities are viewed as “the mostlikely source of sustainable competitive advantage” (Collis, 1994, cited inFahy et al., 2004, p. 1019).

In another effort to look at sport sponsorship from a strategic resourceperspective, Slack & Bentz (1996) studied small businesses in order toexamine whether a strategic approach was adopted in their sponsorshipactivity. They found that some of the sponsors in their sample weremore proactive and, to a certain degree, strategic in their approach—eventhough formalized processes were seldom in place. Those companiesviewed their sponsorship agreements as a way to achieve a competitive



position by improving their brand image and building relationships withinfluential groups (i.e., community decision makers, the media), as well asby neutralizing efforts from their competitors.

These research efforts not only highlight the need to approach sportsponsorship strategically, but also provide an alternative way to evaluatesponsorship opportunities. Furthermore, the leveraging of sponsorship part-nerships becomes very relevant as it is through those activities that rightsgranted to the sponsor can become resources that could in turn be used toachieve corporate goals and objectives and lead the firm to a position ofcompetitive advantage. The following section provides more information onexisting literature and trends in sponsorship activation.

Sponsorship Activation

Sponsorship activation or sponsorship leveraging refers to “collateral com-munication of a brand’s relationship with a property” (Cornwell et al., 2005,p. 36). In addition to paying the fee to acquire a sponsorship, an extrainvestment in material and other resources needs to be made in order tocommunicate the formed partnership to the sponsor’s target audiences andto create programs that will take advantage of the rights gained through thepartnership to achieve sponsor objectives. If sponsorship is approached asthe true business-driving tool it can become, a lack of leveraging activitieswill equate sponsorship to philanthropy that aims at no other return thanthe benefactor’s satisfaction from assisting a beneficiary in need.

Meenaghan & Shipley (1999) found that consumers assess sponsorshipcategories differently in terms of the amount of goodwill they can create forthe sponsor as well as the acceptable degree of exploitation. Sports as a spon-sorship category are seen as delivering significant commercial benefits to thesponsor and, thus, the authors suggested, they carry lower levels of goodwillcompared to other categories of sponsorship, such as environmental causes.However, due to their unique and rather emotional character, the OlympicGames might be the exception to Meenaghan & Shipley’s contention, asthey typically possess the ability to generate elevated levels of goodwill onbehalf of their corporate partners. Interestingly, the authors also argued thatbecause of the more commercial profile of sport sponsorship, consumers aremore open to extensive leveraging and exploitation activities. Cornwell et al.(2005) cautioned that “both the weight and the nature of leveraging activitiesare central to communication effects achieved in sponsorship” (p. 36) andproposed that leveraging activities should aim to strengthen the relationshipbetween the sponsor and the property in a creative manner.

Sponsorship activation is necessary if the sponsor is to receive returnson their investment. Whether sponsors’ goals relate to building the brandor achieving financial growth, leveraging of sponsorship rights should be



undertaken with the particular goals in mind and should make use of otherelements within a company’s communications mix (Arthur et al., 1998). Infact, the ability to complement a sponsorship program with other commu-nication tools is an important factor in assessing the value of a sponsorshipproposal (Farrelly et al., 1997).

The two most commonly used means to leverage a sponsorship agree-ment are advertising and sales promotions (Polonsky & Speed, 2001), while“employee tie-ins” (Gardner & Shuman, 1987, p. 13) and “PR and cliententertainment” (Farrelly et al., 1997, p. 178) have also been discussed inthe literature. Advertising can prove valuable in highlighting the associa-tion between the sponsor and the property, but its effect is limited to in-creasing awareness and not necessarily impacting consumer behavior. Salespromotions, on the other hand, have a more direct chance at impacting con-sumer behavior by inviting consumers to action with a promised incentive(Polonsky & Speed, 2001).

Arthur et al. (1998), in a review of sponsorship-related issues, presentedwork previously published by Wilkinson (1993) that offered seven methodsthat could be used to effectively utilize a sponsorship program. In addition toadvertising, sales promotion, public relations, and client entertainment (“cus-tomer hospitality”) discussed previously, they also listed on-site activity, em-ployee motivation, and product sampling as ways to activate a sponsorship(Arthur et al., 1998, p. 55).

In their study of sponsors’ perceptions of the value of sponsorshipfor their firms, Cornwell et al. (2001) found a significant relationship be-tween the amount spent on leveraging activities and sponsors’ perceptionsof brand differentiation benefits and financial gains received as a result. Eventhough there is no consistent guideline as to how much should be investedin sponsorship activation, the literature has proposed anywhere between a$1-for-$1 to a $5-for-$1 or, in some cases, even greater spending to acti-vate a sponsorship (e.g., Cornwell, 1995; Farrelly et al., 1997; Arthur et al.,1998). Interestingly, in one of the earlier sponsorship studies, Gardner andShuman (1987) reported that only 10% of the corporations in their samplespent as much as or more than their sponsorship entry fee to leverage theiragreement, while 46% allocated less than a quarter of that expense to lever-aging initiatives. Those figures appear rather conservative compared to morerecent indicators. It is possible, however that those numbers reflect an eraduring which sponsorship activation was not at the forefront of corporatesponsorship strategy.

Corporations that have traditionally invested in sport sponsorship arefaced with increased pressure to maximize resources and bring in sizablereturns. In addition, more than ever before they are taking a harder lookat all properties available to them for sponsorship. The arts, social causes,and other non-sport properties are viable business options if they can de-liver the desired target audience and project the desired brand image. The



need to approach all assets of an organization as resources in the pursuitof competitive advantage is ever-present. Provided that rights and benefitsreceived via sponsorship are seen as an organizational resource, it is up tothe sponsors to exploit those in a way that will differentiate the companyfrom its competition. Understanding more about the process and ways ofsponsorship activation can assist firms to maximize the use of resources andfurther their organizational agenda. It is the hope of this research effort thatit can assist in that process. Furthermore, this study can prove beneficial tosport properties, such as teams, leagues, and event organizing committeesthat are faced with increasingly greater demand from corporate partners tosupport them in exploiting their investment.

METHODOLOGY

The present study adopted a multi-case study method to explore how Greekcorporations that signed on as Grand National sponsors of the 2004 AthensOlympic Games exploited their sponsorship agreements to achieve corporateobjectives and develop a position of competitive advantage. These compa-nies entered into sponsorship agreements with the Athens Organizing Com-mittee of the Olympic Games (ATHOC) at the highest of three levels of thenational sponsorship program. They were selected for study because of theextent of their commitment and, also, their size and potential to engage insponsorship activation initiatives.

The 10 Grand National sponsors were: Alpha Bank (private bank); Athe-nian Brewery (beer producer); DELTA (dairy product company, co-sponsorwith FAGE); FAGE (dairy product company, co-sponsor with DELTA); Hel-lenic Broadcasting Corporation (E.R.T., national broadcasting company);Hellenic Post (E.L.T.A., national postal services provider); Hellenic Telecom-munications Organization (O.T.E., national telecommunications company);Hyundai Hellas (automotive company); Olympic Airlines (national airlinecompany); and Public Power Corporation S.A. (D.E.I., national electricalpower provider).

All companies were contacted during the first part of 2004 for an in-terview, and semi-structured interviews were conducted with the MarketingDirectors of seven of the ten sponsors. From those interviews, data were col-lected on the resources that those companies were devoting to leverage theirsponsorship agreements as well as specific leveraging initiatives they wereundertaking. Those data were complemented by systematic field research ofa number of secondary sources, including popular press, the organizations’websites, and published documents of ATHOC.

For the analysis of data this research drew upon previously publishedwork on leveraging methods (mainly those discussed in Arthur et al., 1998)to investigate their application in a real context, such as the 2004 Grand



National Olympic sponsors’ activation programs. In addition to presentingsponsors’ leveraging activities, an effort was made to interpret those activitieswithin Fahy et al.’s (2004) conceptual framework on utilizing sponsorship tocreate competitive advantage through the deployment of key organizationalresources and capabilities. The results and discussion are presented in thisstudy.

RESULTS

Ten (10) Greek corporations signed official agreements with the organizingcommittee of the 2004 Olympics to become Grand National sponsors. Areview of available data indicated that of those corporations, seven appearedparticularly active in leveraging their sponsorship rights throughout the yearsleading up to the Games, whereas three of the corporations appeared to beless active. Since the leveraging activities of the “active” sponsors were tosome extent overlapping, the choice was made to provide accounts for onlythree of those seven companies. In addition, information on all three of the“less active” sponsors is provided below.

Leveraging initiatives of the active sponsors were grouped in sevencategories informed by examples and cases discussed in existing literature.Those categories included: media (electronic and print) advertising, salespromotions, publications, special events, new products/services, customerhospitality, and employee programs.

Active Sponsors

CASE 1: A PRIVATE BANK

Following the merger of two national banks, Alpha Bank became the largestprivate bank in Greece and the most visible member of the Alpha BankGroup. In addition to the Greek mainland, the bank’s branch network ex-tends to Southeastern Europe, where it is implementing a dynamic expansionstrategy.

Consistent with its long commitment to supporting cultural and sportingactivities and performers (e.g., Athens Classic Marathon, Athletics eliteathletes), in February 2001 Alpha Bank announced its commitment as aGrand Olympic sponsor. The company paid the highest fee among the 10Grand sponsors (74 million Euros) to become “The Official Bank of the2004 Athens Olympic Games” and the exclusive partner of the organizingcommittee in all its financial transactions, including the processing of over170,000 ticket applications that significantly boosted point-of-sale traffic forthe bank. Shortly after the agreement was signed, the company created an



“Olympic Sponsorship Division” for its management and also committed aconsiderable amount of resources to exploiting its ties to the Games.

The data collected in this study clearly indicate that Alpha Bank ap-proached their Olympic sponsorship as a core competence and workedhard to leverage it, starting as soon as the agreement was signed. This wasmanifested in the words of their Olympic Sponsorship Director when askedto explain the role of the agreement in the overall strategy and brand man-agement of the firm. As he noted:

For us this agreement was a great challenge and an honor, and we havea few strategic objectives to achieve including creating awareness forour new brand name and image, expanding to new markets, increasingsales and profit levels, and strengthening our internal corporate culture(personal communication, January 20, 2004).

Alpha Bank used a consistent Olympic-themed signature to denote itsexclusive relationship with the Games. In addition, the company imple-mented multiple strategies to leverage its association to the Games andachieve its goals. Some examples include:

Electronic and print advertising

• Alpha Bank launched an advertising campaign utilizing various media andother outlets including television, newspapers, magazines, posters, and theinternet.

Sales promotions

• Users of the two new Olympic-themed credit cards (see following) wereencouraged to use their cards by being offered attractive interest rates anda special reward scheme called “Epathlon.”

• Extensive use of Alpha Bank’s cards gave users the opportunity to col-lect points toward Olympic gifts, the chance to win admission tickets toOlympic events, or full packages to travel to and attend the Games.

• In cooperation with the Cypriot Ministry of Education and Culture, thecompany sponsored a national art contest with the theme “The OlympicGames throughout the Centuries.” This competition was held in March2003. The winners of the various contests were offered the opportunity toeither visit the premises of the IOC at Olympia or win tickets to the Games.

Special events

• The company designed and implemented a number of interactive initia-tives, the most representative example of those being the “Alpha Bank



Panorama of Olympic Sports” tour. During the three years leading up tothe Games, the Panorama tour traveled to 75 Greek and Cypriot cities. It isestimated that throughout the tour 1.5 million individuals had the oppor-tunity to obtain information about 11 lesser-known Olympic sports. Thebank also invited well known athletes to demonstrate these sports andtheir rules and to guide the participation of people in testing their ownstrengths. Through this interactive event, the bank attempted to demon-strate its connection to the Games and to transfer to its brand image theOlympic ideal that sport is, above all, a celebration.

• In cooperation with the Hellenic Literary and Historical Archives Societythe bank sponsored a traveling exhibition titled “Olympic Memorabilia1896–1956,” which started in April 2003 and continued up to the Games.

• Another event was “Alpha Bank’s Ten Days on Olympism,” a programdedicated to the promotion of the spirit and values of the Games. Thatprogram was held in April 2003 in Cyprus.

• In cooperation with the Cypriot Sports Association, the bank sponsored anart exhibition titled “Games Evolution,” which was held in a few Cypriotcities. The event took place in May 2003.

New products/services

• As the official bank of the Games, Alpha immediately launched two newcredit cards in the market, Athens 2004 Gold Visa and Athens 2004 SilverVisa, which were made available in collectible designs with the mascotsof the Games. Part of the revenues from all new accounts went towardATHOC’s budget.

• Right before the Games, Alpha Bank opened several new Olympicbranches (Olympic Village branch, Main Press Center branch, Interna-tional Broadcasting Center branch, Hilton branch, and ATHOC branch).The bank also installed 16 new ATMs and 650 POS in cooperation withVISA International, in order to handle the needs of the thousands of visitorsand spectators inside and outside the Olympic venues.

• Through its extensive network, the bank sold over 60,000 commemorativeOlympic coins and made available an exclusive pin collection.

Customer hospitality

• The company implemented an extensive hospitality program for 3,700special clients from around the world.

Employee programs

• Over 500 bank employees were given the opportunity to offer their servicesas volunteers to the Athens 2004 organizing committee.



• Sixty (60) bank employees were selected as Olympic and Paralympic torchbearers.

Following the Olympic year, the bank announced consistently strongperformance in volume growth. The bank continues to consider sport spon-sorship an invaluable resource for supporting its desired brand image andfinancial performance. Accordingly, the company has negotiated new spon-sorship agreements with the Athens Classic Marathon, the Hellenic AmateurAthletics Federation and national team, and the Hellenic Equestrian Federa-tion. In addition, the tour “Alpha Bank Panorama of Olympic Sports” contin-ues to visit various cities under a new name, “Alpha Bank Sports Panorama.”The concept of the event remains the same: to spread the athletic spirit andsurprise visitors with large contests, unique gifts, and opportunities to meetwell known athletes. The key message of the tour: “With Alpha Bank sportis a celebration!”

CASE 2: A BREWING COMPANY

The Athenian Brewing Company has been dominating the Greek market foryears, with a 90% penetration rate (the highest of all European markets) anda turnover of 376 million Euros in 2005. Business from the Greek marketaccounts for 3.42% of the company’s global sales and 7.94% of its profit.This historical company trades a number of beer brands (e.g., Amstel, Alfa,Mythos); however, their Heineken brand has led the company since 1981.

In 2001 Athenian Brewery announced that it would become a Grandsponsor of the upcoming 2004 Olympic Games in the brewing category.The company’s main objective for entering this relationship was to promotetheir Heineken brand; to increase brand awareness and make Heineken ayear-round choice for consumers. The company paid 11.7 million Euros incash and kind for this right, and, thereafter, worked consistently to leverageits sponsorship. This was evident from the formation of an “Olympic Spon-sorship Directory” through which 15 company employees worked to fulfillcorporate objectives.

Consistent with their objectives, Athenian Brewery focused activationof their Olympic sponsorship exclusively on Heineken beer. The companydisplayed the Olympic signature in all printed material and related productsover the three years of their sponsorship. In addition, they invested in thefollowing leveraging initiatives:


• The company’s relationship with the 2004 Olympic Games was exten-sively supported by repeated full-page advertising campaigns in popularnewspapers.



• In addition, the company launched eight different television spots fea-turing popular Olympic sports and promoting the message “Right beer,right now.” It is noteworthy that for the unique elements in its advertisingcampaign, Heineken received the first Effie Hellas award in the category“Olympic Sponsors’ Campaigns.”

• The internet was also used extensively to denote the company’s associationto the Games and its commitment to promoting the Olympic ideals to thebroad public. On their web site, the company introduced a new link withextensive information on Olympic history and all activities conducted priorto the Games.

Sales promotions

• Athenian Brewery’s Olympic sponsorship proved to be a powerful toolin promotional activities, as well. Through their purchases, Heineken con-sumers were able to win access to 20 Heineken VIP suites and 1,600 ticketsfor different sport events.

• Other Olympic-related promotional contests gave Heineken buyers theopportunity to win gifts-products of other national and international spon-sors.

• Athenian Brewery worked closely with Kodak (one of IOC’s TOP sponsors)to create innovative photo kiosks that provided costumers the opportunityto take pictures.

Publications

• A high quality 30-page publication titled “Go Heineken” was producedquarterly over the three years of the partnership and distributed throughpopular newspapers. The publication contained interesting historical andeducational information on Olympic-related topics.

• An internal newsletter, “Heineken—Athens 2004,” was available for em-ployees and collaborators.

Special events

• A painting exhibition by a famous Greek artist, Koukos, who was inspiredby the 28 Olympic sports, was sponsored by Heineken and opened atATHOC Headquarters.

• A similar exhibition with all 42 official Olympic posters since 1896 wasfeatured in company premises. Both this and the activity described pre-viously took the form of a conjectural road show and were featured in anumber of Greek cities.




• A Heineken collection shop opened in one of the most prestigious neigh-borhoods of Athens, Kolonaki, which offered, among other items, specialcompany pins for Olympic collectors.

• The company also introduced a number of Olympic-inspired bottles andcans that had collectible value, such as the “Heineken Identity Can,” the“Magnum Collectors Bottle,” and the “Paco” bottle.

Due to their active leveraging, Athenian Brewery/Heineken was oftenfeatured in ATHOC’s newsletter, titled “Sponsor’s News,” and was visiblein many Olympic-related activities. Athenian Brewery’s sponsorship involve-ment continued after the Olympic Games with their support and leveragingof mega events such as European soccer competitions of the ChampionsLeague and Greek sailing events.

CASE 3: A TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY

Another successful leveraging example of a Grand National Olympic sponsorwas the joint venture of OTE—COSMOTE—OTEnet, which was presentedas the most expensive private investment in Olympic history for the par-ticular category. These companies are well established telecommunicationsproviders in Greece and in a few Southeastern European countries (e.g.,Bulgaria, Serbia). The companies have already built a strong corporate so-cial responsibility profile by supporting other initiatives in sport, education,culture, and science. Therefore, the Olympic Games were seen as a naturalextension of their prior involvement in sponsorship that also had immensenational significance.

Given the highly competitive business environment of telecommuni-cations services, this consortium considered the Games to be an excellentopportunity to differentiate their brands, products, and services, with ex-cellent fit for their type of business. Early in the process, the companieswere extensively involved in a multi-faceted communication strategy thatintegrated a number of leveraging activities aiming to (a) strengthen brandimage by raising awareness of the close ties to the Olympic Games; (b)to increase sales by promoting new Olympic-themed products; (c) and toachieve internal marketing benefits.

Here are some specific examples of their leveraging programs:


• To generate awareness of their exclusive agreement and their associa-tion to the Games, the consortium implemented an extensive advertising



campaign with the key message, “One idea, one team, one voice.” Thesponsors used almost all forms of media within their campaign. They cre-ated four movie-like television spots themed around four selected Olympicsports (i.e., Weightlifting, Road Running, High Jump, and 400-meter Re-lay), providing the context to integrate the corporate activities. Overall, theconsortium used 10 TV spots to promote its ties to the Games. A few ofthose spots featured Greek Olympic medalists whom the companies werethanking for their superb athletic performance.

• Other forms of advertising included newspapers, the internet, and outdooradvertising. In fact, the particular companies implemented an extensiveprogram of outdoor advertising in which the most famous Greek athleteswere featured in huge banners (as big as 1500m2) placed on buildingsunder renovation. Using the profile of these successful athletes OTE andCOSMOTE attempted to transfer the message, “We communicate better.”

Sales promotions

• The companies conducted countless Olympic-themed contests. Throughthose contests, customers could win tickets, authentic Olympic products,and other gifts often offered by other Olympic sponsors.

Special events

• The key leveraging activity of this consortium was a spectacular road shownamed “Athlopolis.” The companies worked together to create an Olympic-themed multi-activity park, which harmoniously linked client entertain-ment and promotions. The visitors were able to experience the OlympicGames’ atmosphere through the use of cutting-edge technology and inter-active games and to become informed about the companies’ key products.Between 2001 and 2004 the show traveled to 50 Greek cities, while 500,000visitors watched its multi-media creative attractions. The show was success-ful in promoting the modern Games and their ties to Greek history, theOlympic ideals, as well as the profiles and key products of the three spon-sors to the people outside of Athens. During the Games, the road showwas situated within the Park of the national Olympic sponsors, which wasan additional joint leveraging activity themed around the Olympics forthe aversion market. Overall, Athlopolis served well in ensuring that thethree companies had a long lasting visual attachment and association tothe Games.


• Greek athletes of the Olympic Games and the Olympic mascots werefeatured on new telephone cards and on mobile phone packages thatoffered free talk time.



Customer hospitality

• The companies implemented a hospitality program that targeted 3,500clients and managers.

Employee programs

• The consortium had internal marketing objectives attached to their Olympicsponsorship agreement. These objectives related to demonstrating to theirown employees how beneficial their investment was for the OlympicGames. In that spirit, OTE employees participated in the Olympic TorchRelay and were included in the volunteer force of the Games.

• Company employees also participated in the innovative volunteer programof the City of Athens titled “Show them the Athens you love.” These par-ticular activities built a strong association to the Games within the workingenvironment of the three companies.

It is evident that these companies approached the sponsorship as an op-portunity to strengthen their image as socially responsible firms. Accordingly,they maximized their investment by signing individual deals with nine GreekOlympic medalists and promising champions to support their preparation forthe Games, and also with the men’s national volleyball team, which quali-fied for the Olympic tournament. The athletes were featured in virtually allof the advertising material (e.g., gigantic outdoor banners, bus decorations,magazine advertisements) and were often called on to support point-of-salepromotions, social events, and corporate culture building activities.

For their contribution to the Olympic Games these sponsors were re-warded with two special awards, the Corporate Responsibility Award and theAdvertising and Communications Companies Union’s Ermis Bronze MedalAward in the “Event Organizing” category.

Apparently, these sponsors have recognized the potential of sport spon-sorship to create competitive advantage, and that is reflected in OTE andCOSMOTE’s decision to extend their involvement in sport by jointly signingan agreement to become the official sponsor for one of the most popularGreek soccer clubs, Panathinaikos. The companies also renewed a few al-ready existing sponsorship agreements with the international sailing event“Aegean Regatta 2004” and the international Track & Field meet “Venizeleia.”

Less Active Sponsors

Three of the 10 companies that signed on as Grand National Olympic spon-sors approached this unique resource more as a stand-alone technique, asthey were involved in limited leveraging.



The first company in that group is Hellenic Post (E.L.T.A.), the nationalpostal services provider that signed an agreement as a Grand sponsor butspent limited resources on leveraging its sponsorship rights. The particularcompany was a significant supporter of the 1896 Olympic Games and thusfelt the duty to be involved in the 2004 Olympic Games, as well. Their inten-tion was to use this sponsorship as a means to enhance the company’s imageand reputation. However, as a public corporation in the process of privati-zation, the company entered this agreement with a fragmented managerialstructure for leveraging and with limited commitment to potential returns oninvestment. As explained by their Marketing Director:

Other issues dominate currently the management of our firm . . . we en-tered this agreement because of historical reasons and thus we hold lowexpectations for financial return on investments (personal communica-tion, February 2, 2004).

Consequently the leveraging activities were confined mainly to point-of-sale signage, which was synchronized with the company’s newly renovatedbranches, and logo display on company documents, web site, and otheradvertising material. There was also an attempt to activate the associationthrough philatelic-related activities and products. Those attempts involvedthe issuing of collectors’ stamps and albums and the staging, in collaborationwith the IOC, of the International Exhibition for Olympic Stamps and Recordstitled “OLYMPHILEX 2004.”

The second company is Olympic Airlines, the larger and more historicalof the nation’s two international airlines, which has been operating since1958. Since the company had enormous debts and had failed several ef-forts for privatization, the agreement involved mainly primarily an in-kindcontribution (i.e., airplane tickets) equal to 8 million Euros, but also a cashcontribution of 2 million Euros. As their Marketing Director explained:

The Olympic sponsorship is costly and bound to a lot of restrictions for uswho compete internationally. We plan to keep a low profile on expensesbecause we are a public corporation with enormous debts (personalcommunication, March 2, 2004).

Therefore, with little money to spend, the company placed its effortson building a coherent image by integrating the Olympic logo on companydocuments, web site, and advertising material. The association to the Gameswas mainly promoted through point-of-sale signage and by painting sevenaircrafts with the Olympic mascots and colors. As it was explained by acompany representative, “such expenses cannot be legitimized by any meansas the company is in debt” (personal communication, March 2, 2004).



The last company is the Public Power Corporation S.A. (D.E.I.), the solenational electrical power provider, which entered this agreement mainly be-cause the leaders of the company felt the obligation to support the country inthis grandiose challenge. The company devoted limited effort in linking thesponsorship with its services and employees. The only activities undertakenincluded some advertising during the last year of the partnership in newspa-pers and magazines with the message “All lights on the big celebration” andsome signage on the site of the company. It is noteworthy that, even thoughthe particular company played a key role during the four-year preparationphase for the Games as they made a huge investment to ensure adequateenergy supply for the Games, its Grand sponsorship agreement involvedlimited meaningful interactions between the company and the public andwas largely reduced to logo display.

DISCUSSION

The evidence provided above clearly indicates that the Grand Nationalsponsors of the 2004 Olympic Games differed on their intentions to supporttheir sponsorship agreements with the deployment of resources and capa-bilities. This inevitably led the companies to derive significantly differentreturn on their Olympic investments. The most active companies seem tohave approached sponsorship as a resource with a potential to make it asource of sustainable competitive advantage, whereas, the less active onesseemed to have missed this unique opportunity. Furthermore, one of themost obvious differences between the more active and less active sponsorsis that the former manifested strategic thinking regarding their investmentand long standing commitment immediately following the acquisition oftheir Olympic sponsorship, whereas the latter seemed to have relied ontheir initial investment and generally demonstrated poor sponsorship-linkedmarketing orientation.

In an effort to explain the findings of this study through some type oftheoretical foundation, the discussion is framed using the three categories ofresources proposed by Fahy et al. (2004), that is tangible assets, intangibleassets, and capabilities. The more active sponsors are compared to the lessactive firms to demonstrate how the first worked to create a position ofcompetitive advantage in a period of increased business activity.

Tangible Assets

According to Fahy et al. (2004), “although not the only tangible assetsrelevant to sponsorship, financial resources are by far the most important tan-gible asset to consider when examining sponsorship activity” (p. 1020). In the



context of the present study, financial resources would have been requiredin at least two cases: first to acquire and then to activate the national Olympicsponsorship. The relevant literature indicates that successful sponsorshipsdemand the additional investment of two, three, or even five times the entrycost in order to maximize returns (e.g., Meenaghan, 1991; Fahy et al., 2004).

Through interviews conducted with representatives of most of the spon-sors in the sample, some information regarding the initial investment to be-come a sponsor was reported. However, not much specific information onthe financial investment made by the firms to leverage their agreements wascollected. Company representatives appeared hesitant to reveal that infor-mation, either because of lack of the concrete and total investment or lackof willingness to share those figures.

Even so, the findings show that the firms in the sample differ in the de-ployment of financial resources to create value from their sponsorship. Theactive firms supported their initial investment with marketing activities to-ward the following directions: media advertising, signage, sales promotions,new products or services, and other special promotional events. Further-more, considerable resources were spent for other sponsorship activationinitiatives such as the opening of new branches and distribution (merchan-dise) outlets, the installation of new points-of-sale (e.g., ATMs), the openingof shops with collectible items, and the establishment of promotional kiosks.In addition to that, two of the most active firms devoted significant resourcesto create a unique marketing event through which to promote their associ-ation to the Olympic Games, which also differentiated them from the lessactive sponsors. The private bank committed significant resources for theirtour “Alpha Bank Panorama of Olympic Sports” and the telecommunica-tions consortium acted similarly for their “Athlopolis” road show. Both tours,because of their uniqueness, complexity, and long lasting character wereparticularly resource demanding but successful in achieving corporate brandobjectives.

The extensive leveraging initiatives of the three most active sponsors,compared to the less active ones are indicative of the significant tangibleresources devoted to those companies’ sponsorship. The most active firmsover the years of their partnership continuously sought new ways to promotetheir association to the Games and create value for consumers and theirfirms. In contrast, the less active sponsors placed the initial investment tobecome involved in the Games but failed to approach it strategically basedon commercial principles. The limited investment in activation from the partof the less active firms indicates that their Olympic sponsorship was not fullyused as a platform to create a strategic advantage.

In regards to the active sponsors, it also needs to be stressed that theextent of their total sponsorship investment in conjunction with the right toexclusivity in their specific category—inherent in the Olympic sponsorshipprogram—acted as a barrier to competitors that might have looked to enjoy



similar advantages during the particular period of time. Even if competitorcompanies had been involved in other sponsorship relationships at the time,those would have been significantly differentiated from Olympic sponsor-ships that were at the center of the business and marketing activity creating“barriers to duplication” and possibly competitive advantage (Fahy et al.,2004, p. 1018).

Intangible Assets

Spending a high acquisition fee for an Olympic sponsorship and even moreresources to leverage the agreement is not enough on its own to guaranteea firm a position of sustainable competitive advantage. The issue becomeswhether a firm can utilize the rights acquired to differentiate itself from itscompetition. A few authors have argued that the Olympics can become astrategic resource that leads to a competitive edge because of the event’sglobal appeal and also the exclusive rights, unique image, and enhancedbrand equity attached to the agreements (e.g., Amis et al., 1997; Brown,2000; Amis, 2003). For the companies in the sample that were involved atthe national (vs. TOP) level of sponsorship, the need to capitalize on thisonce-in-a-lifetime opportunity presented by the Olympic Games being heldin Greece was even more crucial.

Intangible assets can become sources of competitive advantage as theycannot be easily copied or imitated by competitors (Grant, 1991). In the con-text of sponsorship, intangible assets involve the brand equity that can bebuilt as a result of the sponsorship relationship (Fahy et al., 2004). Further-more, brand reputation is one of the most critical intangible assets, because itcannot easily be duplicated and it creates a significant barrier for competitors(Grant, 1991).

Each of the firms in the study placed some effort on exploiting their linkto the Olympic Games in hope of achieving brand equity-related outcomes.However, the most active sponsors demonstrated clarity in their corporatebrand objectives and superior brand building initiatives that projected a clearand consistent message to the targeted Olympic audience. The sponsorshipactivation initiatives that assisted firms in their pursuit of brand-related goalswere mainly their advertising campaigns and special events. Through boththose initiatives, strategic sponsors aimed to communicate their relationshipwith the Olympic Games and highlight their contribution to this national ef-fort, both in terms of the organizing committee as well as individual athletes.These initiatives were intended to evoke emotional responses and positivebrand associations from consumers; to offer something of value to the pub-lic in hope of a return endorsement of their products and/or services; and,ultimately, to differentiate their firms from the competition.

The telecommunications consortium consistently promoted its link tothe Games through the key message “One idea, one team, one voice,” which



along with the appropriate signage, advertising and newly packaged prod-ucts worked well to imply a sense of closeness and allegiance between thesponsor and the Olympic Games, and hopefully the consumers. The privatebank, on the other hand, promoted their designation with the Games (“TheOfficial Bank of the Olympic Games of Athens 2004”) in an effort to project asense of exclusivity and privilege. The company worked consistently to cre-ate brand associations of expertise and credibility based on their functionaland image-based fit with the Olympics (e.g., the customer could use theirAlpha Bank credit card to pay for tickets to the Games or could go to one ofthe bank’s branches to apply for tickets). The brewing company exploitedthe celebration element of the Olympic Games and invested on promotingits selected product (Heineken) as the “Right beer, right now.”

The Olympic Games are particularly unique in generating excitementand emotional attachment among a very broad audience. Such attachmenthas been seen as a valuable tool for achieving brand equity objectives andcreating competitive advantage (e.g., Copeland, Frisby, & McCarville, 1996;Fahy et al., 2004). Sponsors, especially the more active ones, were also ableto generate favorable brand associations by capitalizing on the celebratoryand entertainment-related elements inherent in sport events. Both the privatebank and the telecommunications consortium created their unique eventsthat toured in different regions in Greece and in Cyprus. Through many cre-ative attractions and interaction with a large number of people—includingmany who would not have the opportunity to attend the Olympic competi-tions in person—these events helped the firms to strengthen their associationto the Games and enhance their brand image. Furthermore, the bank and thebrewing company were involved in educational and cultural events, whichstrengthened their image as socially responsible companies. They also hosteda number of parties and special events, usually in their premises, often fea-turing elite Greek athletes.

It is worth highlighting that most of these activation initiatives hadas beneficiaries the public, people who were longing to connect with theOlympic event and live the excitement and celebration that had penetratedthe entire nation. By offering them something of value and making peo-ple part of the experience, these sponsors were able to create a caringand community-driven image among current or potential consumers. Inter-estingly, in their discussion on involving consumers in brand-building ex-periences, Joachimsthaler & Aaker (1997) highlight how “these experiencescreate a relationship that goes beyond the loyalty generated by any objectiveassessment of a brand’s value” (p. 45).

The active sponsors in the sample seemed to also have recognizedthe role of their Olympic sponsorship in building intangible assets such asclient networking and hospitality programs and, to a lesser extent, inter-nal corporate culture building. Confirming previous findings (Amis et al.,1999; Brown, 2000), the active sponsors created entertainment opportunities



during the Olympics for their important clients and influential stakeholders,which indicates that they were well aware of how opportunities for client en-tertainment could assist them in generating incremental business. However,those same firms demonstrated considerably less attention in strengtheningtheir corporate culture, and limited their activity to opportunities for theiremployees to take part in the Olympic volunteer program or the OlympicTorch Relay.

It is important to stress that, due to the strict protection policies of theIOC against ambush marketing that were fully applicable to the nationalsponsorship program as well, the leveraging activities described could notbe easily replicated or imitated by competitors, providing a platform fordifferentiation from the competition and an opportunity for the creation of aunique advantage (Grant, 1991). Also, the element of exclusivity attached tothese agreements gave sponsors the chance to be positioned in the marketas the only company in their particular category officially aligned to thehistorical Games. (The only exception occurred in the dairy product category,where two firms entered the sponsorship agreement jointly.) That fact couldhave deterred any efforts from competitors to ambush these agreements.

Capabilities

It has been suggested that the key to the successful management of a spon-sorship is organizational capabilities, which refer to “experienced sponsor-ship managers, market orientation capabilities and organisational routines”(Fahy et al., 2004, p. 1022). These capabilities can warrant that a firm notonly recognizes the value of a new resource—in this case the rights and op-portunities received through an Olympic sponsorship agreement—but, also,that it has the ability to exploit that resource in order to create advantage(Grant, 1991).

Each Grand sponsor in the study had access to similar exclusive rights,benefits, and opportunities for sponsorship activation, at the national level atleast. Yet, the firms demonstrated different levels of experience in activatingtheir agreements in a way that would create competitive advantage and raisebarriers to their competition. The private bank and the brewing companyestablished entirely new departments for their Olympic sponsorship with atleast 10 members each in order to coordinate the invested internal resources.They also demonstrated market orientation capabilities in defining specifictarget markets and in creating Olympic-themed products, services, and pro-motions with highly perceived customer value. All active sponsors workedconsistently on building their image and reputation as socially responsiblecompanies that made significant contributions to the national goal of hostinga successful event.



Grant (1991) argues that the creation of competitive advantage alsostems from internal routines, a term used to describe “regular and predictablepatterns of activity which are made up of a sequence of coordinated actionsby individuals” (p. 122). Those routines are developed over time in theinternal environment of firms. In the case of sponsorship routines, thoseroutines are developed through a firm’s prior experience in exploiting suchagreements (Fahy et al., 2004). Because it requires consistent commitment tosponsorship, such experience needs time to build up, but once developed itensures the skills, ability, and values needed to create competitive advantage.

It appears that the three most active sponsors were particularly experi-enced in this respect, a fact that also differentiated them from the less activesponsors in the sample. Those active firms have demonstrated long commit-ment in sponsoring individual elite athletes and major sporting events, notto mention the augmentation of their Olympic agreement with additional(smaller) sponsorship deals. Interestingly, the same firms have attemptedto preserve the competitive advantage gained from the Olympics over timeby entering in new sponsorship agreements following 2004. In contrast, thelack of a marketing approach by the less active sponsors was associated withambiguous or fragmented internal structure (usually a committee of mem-bers from different departments) and lack of experience in sponsorship andsponsorship activation.

It should be noted that all managers interviewed failed to recognize thevalue of evaluating the return on their Olympic investments or assessing theimpact of their leveraging activities on brand image and reputation—eventhough some companies made mention of plans for post-event sponsorshipevaluation. However, that fact did not seem to discourage companies fromfurther investments in sport sponsorship, especially in the case of the morecommitted sponsors.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS AND CLOSING REMARKS

This article dealt with the efforts of Grand National sponsors of the 2004Athens Olympic Games to activate their sponsorship agreements during theyears leading up to the Games and attempted to deconstruct their effortsusing a resource-based view. The data revealed two groups of sponsors:(a) those that were more active in their sponsorship activation and clearlyhad a plan to use the sponsorship in order to fulfill corporate objectives,and (b) those that were less active and seemed to have approached theiragreements with limited planning and a lack of appreciation for what thesponsorship could do for their brand and overall market position. Eventhough all sponsors appeared to have tangible and intangible resources andcertain organizational capabilities, the way those resources and capabilitieswere put to use in sponsorship activation and overall corporate strategy



might prove to be directly correlated to the return benefits received by eachsponsor. As Grant (1991) suggests, “The essence of strategy formulation . . . isto design a strategy that makes the most effective use of these core resourcesand capabilities” (p. 129).

Stotlar (1993) contends that exploiting a sponsorship agreement for com-petitive advantage can be limited only by a manager’s creativity and imagi-nation. Other authors have also stressed that the more the company and thesponsoring property are linked together in a meaningful way in the eyes ofthe public the higher the benefits for the sponsor and their brand image (e.g.,Meenaghan, 1991; Amis et al., 1999; Gwinner & Eaton, 1999). The results ofthe study, particularly in relation to the more active firms, show that Olympicsponsorship is a platform that provides countless leveraging opportunitiesthat, if exploited effectively, can lead to a position of market advantage.However, managing a sponsorship agreement for competitive advantage re-quires the investment of tangible resources, mainly financial, the availabilityof organizational capabilities, and a clear understanding of how the medium(i.e., sponsorship) can be used to further build intangible assets of the cor-poration. It is interesting to note that even the less active sponsors madesignificant investments to acquire the sponsorship and engaged in some ac-tivation programs. However, their programs were not as extensive as thoseof the more active sponsors and did not appear to be guided by a strategy toreach brand-related objectives or bring the firm to a position of advantage.

This study can offer some guidelines to companies that are involvedin sponsorship agreements and are looking to gain competitive advantagefrom their partnerships. First, it was evident that the more active sponsorsemployed a variety of methods to activate their sponsorship in comparisonto the less active sponsors. Advertising, sales promotions, special events,and the introduction of new products and services were some of the mostcommon techniques utilized. Since each method might be more appropri-ate to reach a particular segment or to generate a specific type of impact,employing a multi-method approach in sponsorship activation could ensurethat sponsors are able to simultaneously reach multiple targets and pursuedifferent objectives. Surprisingly, there was limited evidence of the use ofelectronic media and technology in the particular companies’ activation ini-tiatives. This is an area that is expected to grow substantially in the future andprovide even more tools to companies looking to exploit sponsorship rights.

Second, it appeared that in their leveraging efforts the sponsors werewell aware of the unique brand associations of the Olympic property. Manyleveraging initiatives, especially the special events and some of the salespromotions, were designed to allow sponsors to tap into the emotion,national pride, sense of unity, and enthusiasm connected with the Olympicproperty in hope of reflecting those same feelings back to their brands.Moreover, the inclusion of Olympic athletes in sponsors’ leveraging activitieshelped companies trigger positive emotions by highlighting their companies’



contributions to the ability of those athletes to participate in the event withthe appropriate preparation. Identifying and evaluating the unique elementsassociated with any property can assist companies in not only evaluatinga sponsorship opportunity but also exploiting a sponsorship once acquiredby capitalizing on those associations. Those unique elements, as well as theexclusivity of the relationship (provided it exists) should become the basis ofthe sponsor’s strategy to differentiate the company from its competition. TheOlympic Games are a mega event that generates considerable excitementto a broad audience and unprecedented opportunities for building uniqueand exclusive associations to products, services, and brands (Stotlar, 1993).The more active 2004 Grand National Olympic sponsors showed throughtheir efforts that they recognized that opportunity and made investmentsaccordingly.

Third, it became evident that in several of their initiatives the more ac-tive sponsors tried to provide something of value to consumers. Especiallythrough their interactive experiences, some of the Grand sponsors in thesample were able to capitalize on the sentimental and celebratory characterof the event to provide direct, often tangible, benefits to current and potentialconsumers and foster emotional responses. Clearly, it is not only about whatthe company gets (as is typically the case with advertising where the rela-tionship is one-way), but also about what the company gives to the athletes,to the organizing committee and the event, to the country as a whole, and ofcourse to the public. Leveraging activities have the opportunity to strengthenthat message and position sponsors as caring and giving organizations.

Fourth, obtaining access to a unique sponsorship resource of the mag-nitude of the Olympic Games is of limited value if a company is not readyto place the additional resources for exploitation and has not developedfull understanding of the opportunities attached with, and the capabilitiesrequired, for creating competitive advantage. There is little doubt that theless active sponsors, as national corporations with great history in the Greekand, in some cases, European market, indeed possess the most fundamen-tal resources (e.g., finances, physical resources, technological infrastructure)for sponsorship activation. Their failure to adequately exploit this particularresource may be the result of a lack of prior experience and organizationalcapabilities. One other contention specific to this case is that the particu-lar firms purchased the Olympic sponsorship under the influence of strongemotional factors, as they felt obligated to support this national cause. Al-though it is beyond the scope of this study to formulate evaluations aboutthe corporate and brand strategy of the Grand National sponsors, there issuspicion that some of the agreements were handled more like corporatedonations than corporate investments.

In closing, the resource-based view [i.e., Fahy et al.’s (2004) framework]that was incorporated in the discussion provides a platform on which to com-pare the activation plans of the Grand National sponsors. The results overall



support the application of the particular model in developing a more in-depthunderstanding of the leveraging process and the investments undertaken bythe particular sponsors. However, in agreement with Fahy et al. (2004), it isthis study’s contention that the propositions of the model need to be testedfurther with empirical research in larger samples. Additional research to thisdirection can be an important and significant contribution toward a betterunderstanding of the use of sport sponsorship as a strategic resource forcreating durable competitive advantage in highly competitive markets.

REFERENCES

Abratt, R., Clayton, B. C., & Pitt, L. F. (1987). Corporate objectives in sports sponsor-ship. International Journal of Advertising, 6(4), 299–311.

Amis, J. (2003). “Good things come to those who wait”: The strategic managementof image and reputation at Guinness. European Sport Management Quarterly,3(3), 189–214.

Amis, J., Pant, N., & Slack, T. (1997). Achieving a sustainable competitive advantage:A resource-based view of sport sponsorship. Journal of Sport Management,11(1), 80–96.

Amis, J., Slack, T., & Berrett, T. (1999). Sport sponsorship as distinctive competence.European Journal of Marketing, 33(3/4), 250–272.

Apostolopoulou, A., & Papadimitriou, D. (2004). “Welcome Home”: Motivationsand objectives of the 2004 Grand National Olympic sponsors. Sport MarketingQuarterly, 13(4), 180–192.

Arthur, D., Scott, D., Woods, T., & Booker, R. (1998). Sport sponsorship should . . .

A process model for the effective implementation and management of sportsponsorship programs. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 7(4), 49–60.

Barney, J. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy.Management Science, 32(10), 1231–1241.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal ofManagement, 17(1), 99–120.

Brown, G. (2000). Emerging issues in Olympic sponsorship: Implications for hostcities. Sport Management Review, 3(1), 71–92.

Collis, D. J. (1994, Winter). Research note: How valuable are organizational capabil-ities? Strategic Management Journal, 15, 143–152.

Copeland, R, Frisby, W., & McCarville, R. (1996). Understanding the sport sponsor-ship process from a corporate perspective. Journal of Sport Management, 10(1),32–48.

Cornwell, T. B. (1995). Sponsorship-linked marketing development. Sport MarketingQuarterly, 4(4), 13–24.

Cornwell, T. B., & Maignan, I. (1998). An international review of sponsorship re-search. Journal of Advertising, 27(1), 1–21.

Cornwell, T. B., Roy, D. P., & Steinard, E. A., II. (2001). Exploring managers’ per-ceptions of the impact of sponsorship on brand equity. Journal of Advertising,30(2), 41–51.



Cornwell, T. B., Weeks, C. S., & Roy, D. P. (2005). Sponsorship-linked marketing:Opening the black box. Journal of Advertising, 34(2), 21–42.

Crimmins, J., & Horn, M. (1996). Sponsorship: From management ego trip to mar-keting success. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(4), 11–21.

Cuneen, J., & Hannan, M. J. (1993). Intermediate measures and recognition testingof sponsorship advertising at an LPGA tournament. Sport Marketing Quarterly,2(1), 47–56.

Fahy, J., Farrelly, F., & Quester, P. (2004). Competitive advantage through spon-sorship: A conceptual model and research propositions. European Journal ofMarketing, 38(8), 1013–1030.

Farrelly, F. J., Quester, P. G., & Burton, R. (1997). Integrating sports sponsorship intothe corporate marketing function: An international comparative study. Interna-tional Marketing Review, 14(3), 170–182.

Gardner, M. P., & Shuman, P. J. (1987). Sponsorship: An important component ofthe promotions mix. Journal of Advertising, 16(1), 11–17.

Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Impli-cations for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), 114–135.

Gwinner, K. P., & Eaton J. (1999). Building brand image through event sponsorship:The role of image transfer. Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 47–57.

Irwin, R. L., & Asimakopoulos, M. K. (1992). An approach to the evaluation and se-lection of sport sponsorship proposals. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 1(2), 43–51.

Joachimsthaler, E., & Aaker, D. A. (1997). Building brands without mass media.Harvard Business Review, 75(1), 39–50.

Ludwig, S., & Karabetsos, J. D. (1999). Objectives and evaluation processes utilizedby sponsors of the 1996 Olympic Games. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 8(1), 11–19.

Marketing Revenue. (n.d.). Lausanne, Switzerland: International Olympic Com-mittee. Retrieved July 1, 2007, from http://www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/facts/revenue/index uk.asp.

McKelvey, S., McDonald M., & Cramer R. (2005). MasterCard and Major LeagueBaseball: Metrics for evaluating a most “memorable” promotion. Sport MarketingQuarterly, 14(4), 253–261.

Meenaghan, T. (1991). The role of sponsorship in the marketing communicationsmix. International Journal of Advertising, 10(1), 35–47.

Meenaghan, T. (1994). Point of view: Ambush marketing: Immoral or imaginativepractice? Journal of Advertising Research, 34(5), 77–88.

Meenaghan, T. (1998). Commercial sponsorship—The development of understand-ing. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 1(1), 19–31.

Meenaghan, T., & Shipley, D. (1999). Media effect in commercial sponsorship. Eu-ropean Journal of Marketing, 33(3/4), 328–347.

Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-basedview. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191.

Polonsky, M. J., & Speed, R. (2001). Linking sponsorship and cause related marketing:Complementarities and conflicts. European Journal of Marketing, 35(11/12),1361–1385.

Pope, N. K. L., & Voges, K. E. (1995). Sponsorship evaluation: Does it match themotive and the mechanism? Sport Marketing Quarterly, 3(4), 37–45.



Redgate, C. (2002). An ideal partnership: Supporting and leveraging the Olympicvalues. Special Advertising Section reprinted from the February 18, 2002 issueof Fortune magazine. Retrieved August 3, 2007, from http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en report 284.pdf.

Sandler, D. M., & Shani, D. (1989). Olympic sponsorship vs. ‘ambush’ marketing:Who gets the gold? Journal of Advertising Research, 29(4), 9–14.

Sandler, D. M., & Shani, D. (1993). Sponsorship and the Olympic Games: Theconsumer perspective. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 2(3), 38–43.

Scott, D. R., & Suchard, H. T. (1992). Motivations for Australian expenditure onsponsorship: An analysis. International Journal of Advertising, 11(4), 325–332.

Slack, T., & Bentz, L. (1996). The involvement of small businesses in sport sponsor-ship. Managing Leisure, 1(3), 175–184.

Stipp, H. (1998). The impact of Olympic sponsorship on corporate image. Interna-tional Journal of Advertising, 17(1), 75–87.

Stotlar, D. K. (1993). Sponsorship and the Olympic Winter Games. Sport MarketingQuarterly, 2(1), 35–43.

Wilkinson, D. G. (1993). Sponsorship marketing: A practical reference guide forcorporations in the 1990’s. Toronto, Canada: The Wilkinson Group.


olympic sponsorship activation and the creation of competitive advantage

Documents