With the Winter Olympics just under our belt, it’s a great opportunity to discuss the power of media during this event. There were many firsts during the Olympics- not only in terms of medals but also with regards to the audiences.

From the beginning, it was clear these games were held in North America. This was evident with the opening ceremony. Whether it was the aboriginal dancers, the Canadian singers or the customs, we knew these were our Olympics. Throughout the games, there were differences between this Olympics and the summer Olympics from 2008, where China was the host. China brought their own style and beauty to them. However, China is a communist country and the differences from a media perspective were quite apparent. China has strict regulations on internet usage and has recently implemented guidelines for Google.  Of course Google is questioning them. But could you imagine America without Google? We are very dependent on it. But alas, I digress.

The Canadian games were completely represented in the media. In the US, NBC owned the rights to the games but by contrast, in Canada, there were over ten networks (CTV, TSN, RDS, RIS Infosports, Rogers, OMNI, OLN, V, APTN, ATN, etc…) that carried them. Granted there are certain factors to take into consideration. First, Canada was the host country. Second, there are two official languages in Canada, thus needing to be aired in both. And probably the most relevant factor, it’s fair to assume that not one of those stations could afford to buy the rights outright. So what does this mean for the audience? Well, we could say we were not as lucky because if you were tired of watching the umpteenth time Apollo sped around the rink – too bad! Yes I am giving away a secret here; technically the games on NBC were not live. In Canada, if you did not want to watch skating, you could simply change to another station for different coverage. I am not revealing a deep dark secret here, as this was completely obvious through whichever means of social media you were following. Although I am a big believer in the power of social media, at times I found it difficult to follow them. It is hard to watch a sport, when you know the outcome. However, the benefit was that you never felt like you were missing anything. The added bonus to social media is that you can follow the athletes on Twitter for instance. This gives you the extra sensation of being involved in the games. You can feel their angst, their excitement, their fear… Imagine if it was your child competing and you could not be there with them. What a great way to share this special moment with them.

All in all, NBC did a great job, but more importantly so did our athletes. Congrats to all!

When it comes to sporting events, there have been a variety of proud sponsors over the years. Typically these exclusive sponsorships are reserved for big brands with big budgets and can afford to seek after the spotlight of The Olympics, The Masters or the Ther Super Bowl. Although these sponsors pay handsomely for these coveted sponsorships, the exposure is hard to beat.

But as we begin a new decade, a new type of sponsorship has emerged. Gone is the the sponsorship of the event and in its place is the sponsorship of a target audience.

Proctor and Gamble supported the 2010 Winter Olympics with an emotionally riveting campaign called Thank You, Mom. 60-second advertisements focused on the support Olympian’s moms give to them throughout the years as they strive for athletic excellence. And each spot comes to a close with the P&G, Proud Sponsors of Moms message. 

After seeing the commerical for the first time, I had the same reaction as many mothers I polled, it sparked an emotion for moms who want the best for their kids and would do anything to support them. But after seeing the spots over the last two weeks, as an advertising professional, I found myself asking: do they really need to keep saying “proud sponsors of moms” at the end of every spot? The spots were emotional enough that if they just ended with a simple P&G product message, the audience could have made their own connection to the spot. It almost felt like I was seeing the strategy line being broadcast over and over: P&G products are purchased by moms and we wat to show our support of our key target audience.

As a mom, I also pondered, how does Dad feel right now. The Winter Olympics draws not only the female members of the household but the entire family. And with approximately 75% of moms in the workplace, the household responsibilities are falling more onto Dad. And I know the Dad in my household was annoyed that he wasn’t getting any love for supporting his son.

So I applaud P&G’s effort to create a commerical that wasn’t product focused and engaged the audience, but I wish we didn’t see their mom strategy over and over. Moms appreciate a brand that understands what it takes to be a mom, but they engage with brands because they organically fit into their lives. I’m not sure because P&G said they were a proud sponsor of mom, that mom returned the favor and claimed they were a proud sponsor of P&G products. And a mom marketers true sucess is measured by the mom advocates that willingly sponsor and support its products as that is the ultimate driver of sales.

What do you think, did P&G’s Thank You Mom campaign gain them more followers, or did it just make Mom feel good (and Dad feel left out)?

Probably the biggest global sponsorship in which a company can participate is the Olympics.  As we are in the middle of the winter games, many of our products and TV tags express that a product is “an official sponsor” of the Olympics.  We can all name more than a couple of brands that are supporters of the games, and that is what they want, for us as consumers to associate their products with a cause, movement or event.  

But who would have thought that posting a Twitter message – one that celebrates and encourages the accomplishments of individual athletes would cause havoc with the sponsorship gurus at the IOC.  That is what happened this week when several companies posted entries about the games on their Twitter™ and Facebook™ accounts.  The entries had nothing to do with self promotion, rather joined the spirit of all Americans in wishing our athletes well.

Yet, simple posts such as:

“We’re rooting for you @LindseyVonn @Shaun_White @GregBretzz and @Drahlves in the 2010 Winter #Olympics!”

“Guess what? Team USA is rockin’ out the #Olympic medal count in 1st place with (drumroll, please) 18!”

have been met with a response from  Lisa Baird, chief marketing officer of the U.S. Olympic Committee, who declined to comment on specific examples but says nonsponsors are barred from referring to the Games and their athletes in name, likeness or imagery that evokes the Games in any media without a waiver from the committee.

I understand that companies pay huge sums to be an official sponsor, and in many cases it has become a great marketing tool, but are posts that highlight the unity that an individual or company feels for our country and athletes during the Olympic games something to be governed and restricted in a medium that has become a part of our everyday culture and source of information?

There has to be some happy ground that won’t offend the OIC lawyers.!