The debate on gay rights in Russia defined a lot of the hype around the recent Sochi Winter Olympics. Corporate sponsors were the primary targets for activists. Even sponsoring a unifying event like the Olympics isn’t a simple decision anymore.
The Olympics are supposed to be about building a better world, bringing people together in celebration of sport. The Olympic Rings symbolise the union of the five continents. In this regard, corporate partners and sponsors prefer to stay apolitical.
However, such was the pressure that mounted on the main sponsors, that several of them released statements in response to the criticisms. Coca Cola went as far as running a “pro-gay” advert during the Super Bowl in the United States. Even non-sponsors got involved. Google released a rainbow Google doodle showing its support for gay rights. American Apparel took it a step further by launching a new merchandise range based on the Olympic charter’s Principle 6, which states that “Sport does not discriminate on the grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise”.
But, should companies be getting involved in what were highly politicised issues? Should activists use events such as the Olympics to raise awareness of a particular agenda? Doesn’t this detract from the achievements of all the dedicated athletes taking part?
These are all great questions. I’m not going to attempt to answer them. However, I will point out what I think a few companies did right when faced with complex and potentially conflicting forces.
Sporting and cultural events remain a unifying and progressive force in society. Being involved in sponsoring the Olympics is to be part of something very positive. It can help brands connect with their consumers.
What happened in the Sochi Winter Olympics isn’t a new phenomenon. Leading companies have learnt not to ignore issues like this when they arise. Understandably, companies are wary of saying the wrong thing. Sitting it out in the hope that it will all blow over means losing control. Which isn’t a good place to be in this day and age.
Engaging in the debate allows the company to have a voice and demonstrate their values. And here to be authentic is to be effective. Meaning it is important to have strong principles and to stick to them.
So how much real damage did any particular brand suffer as a result of all the negative chatter around Sochi? It is questionable. What sticks out in my mind though, is how companies like Coca-Cola, Google and others responded with statements and ad campaigns stating their position (Albeit this was in those countries where criticisms were most vocal).