A few days ago, I was discussing the marketing of the Olympics with John Buck, a video producer and editor visiting Boston from Sydney, Australia. John is no stranger to either the Olympics or marketing, having recently edited a Lenovo TV commercial created specifically for the Olympics featuring a flock of Samoan sumo wrestlers.
It wasn't long before our conversation turned to Michael Phelps and how Speedo had pledged $1 million to him if he won all eight gold medals. As I began bemoaning the blatant commercialization, John made a most astute and pragmatic comment: "Speedo has gotten far more than a million dollars in free advertising just from the announcement, whether Phelps wins all eight medals or not." Surely he was right: there had been Phelps in a photo on page one of The New York Times with the Speedo endorsement in the caption. Now it is all over the Times Web site, and certainly a multitude of others.
Is this brilliant marketing? Of course. Is getting all that ink, whether print or electronic, hype? Sure it is. Should we care about the distinction? Probably not. Will Speedo sell gazillions of dollars of Michael Phelps-endorsed low-rider swim pants to wannabees? That's the name of the game.
Takeaway: Marketing is becoming more and more indirect, oblique, the result of the convergence of both intended and unintended consequences. In case you hadn't noticed how much marketing and advertising have changed in the past forty years, take in an episode or two of AMC's hit prime time soap opera, "Mad Men" - which, by the way, is also available as an iTunes download. How's that for marketing?
Cheers,
Jack B. Rochester
Recent Comments