Chill Out, It's the Winter Games
Terrence Burns ©2014
Headlines from today:
“Give the Olympics a Permanent Home” – Bloomberg
“Terrorism and Tension for Sochi, Not Sports and Joy” – New York Times
“Sochi's Already a Mess, for Journalists at Least” – Newsweek
“An Olympic Shame: Vladimir Putin Plays Host To Winter Games” – NPR
I don’t know if I qualify as a true Olympic expert, but I have been around and involved with enough Games, both in front of and behind the magic Olympic curtain, to recognize certain patterns.
For example, virtually every Olympic Games has issues with transport, accommodation, ticketing and yes even security, in the days leading up to and during the first days of the Games. None of this is observed on the broadcast, thankfully, but those in this business have grown accustomed to it and know full well it is normal. But, by about 7 days into the 17-day event, it all gets figured out and everything works mostly perfectly. I am looking forward to everyone’s attention turning to the performances of the world’s greatest athletes instead of stories about lost luggage, funny menu translations or vodka.
Which brings me to my point.
Why is everyone “hating on” Sochi?
Do people just not like Russia? Not like Putin? Not like Sochi?
Maybe people believe that Sochi and the Russians lied about what they said they were going to do in their bid for the Games. So, I went back and looked at the Sochi 2014 bid books (which I was honored to help write). And guess what? The Sochi bid committee (Russians) did everything they said they were going to do for sport.
Oh, did I forget to mention that the Olympic Games have sport at their heart?
Now, it seems fashionable for every sanctimonious, seasoned sports and Olympic watcher to ask the same question: How in the world did the IOC give the Games to Putin? (Note the lack of mention for Sochi, let alone Russia – it is Putin, they decry.) I understand some of that sentiment. I don’t think the Russians have handled every issue, from LGBT rights, to corruption, to cost overruns to the environment the way others would have handled it. But…the 2014 Winter Games are not in other countries. They are in Russia.
So how exactly did the Russians do it?
They put a solid bid together, answering the questions and following guidelines of the IOC’s bid process. Did they trick everyone? Deceive the world? Pull the wool over the Olympic-loving public’s eyes? Let’s take a look at what they said (Sochi 2014 bid book content in italics below):
The people of Russia invite the world to Sochi to share and celebrate the 2014 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. Russians have a special passion for winter, for winter sport and for the Olympic Movement.
Well, that seems reasonable and believable. It is very cold in Russia after all, and Russia and the former USSR won a lot of Olympic medals over the years.
The plans in this Candidature File reflect a unique and historical fusion of the long-term development needs of the Sochi region and the winter sports development needs of the Olympic Movement. Both sets of objectives fit perfectly within the Sochi 2014 Games plan…Sochi and the Olympic Movement will be beneficiaries of one of the strongest, most wide-ranging legacies ever to result from an Olympic Winter Games.
The Government of the Russian Federation has fully guaranteed and committed - and work has already begun - to deliver all venue, transport, technology, environmental and sport infrastructure necessary to host the 2014 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The US$ 12 billion “Federal Target Programme for the Development of Sochi” is the key foundation to the plans, which will provide the Olympic Movement with the certainty that all necessary infrastructures for the 2014 Winter Games will be completed on time and on budget.
Ah-ha! They (Russians) said it would cost $12b and it ended up costing $50b! They (Russians) lied to “us” (whoever “us” is…).
To this I would simply say that I was a member of that team that came up with the $12b budget for the Sochi Games; in fact I hired or recommended most of them. Where we certain of the number? Well, not totally, so we padded it a little to make sure (yes, you read that right). Neither our Russian colleagues nor we had any benchmarks to use or any examples to follow for such an undertaking. Nothing like Sochi 2014 had ever been attempted before…ever.
Looking back seven years later, should we have used more precise projections, better models to arrive at the $12b figure? The obvious answer seems to be yes. But often the obvious answer is not always a feasible one – we used the only information we had at the time.
The point is the $12b figure was vetted and approved by a raft of Olympic facilities, transport, sport, finance and venue and other experts. So how did $12b become $50b? Obviously, many people think they know. Here is my question: How much does it cost to build an entire city when one has to bring virtually everything in via a broken, barely existing infrastructure system? I have no idea if it cost $20b, $30b or $50b, but I do know it cost a lot more than anyone, even the experts, thought that it would. And hey, it’s their money.
The Sochi region will be transformed into a modern, world-class, year-round destination for sport, tourism and commerce, and Russia will develop its first world-class, elite alpine sports training and competition infrastructure – a complete winter sports centre that will benefit athletes from the entire Middle East and central Asian region.
That is an admirable goal for a bidding nation. This was a foundation of Sochi's messaging and positioning. Sochi 2014 met the needs of Russia, of the region of central Asia and offered the Olympic Movement the ability to develop sport in an underserved region. That seems fully aligned with the Olympic Charter and the IOC’s stated objectives for bid cities. The same could not be said for the bid of our magical, and fully developed winter sports competitor, Salzburg.
The bid committee has listened to and incorporated the guidance of the IOC, International Federations, National Olympic Committees and the Russian winter sports federations in developing the plans in this Candidature File. The plans focus on the needs of the athletes as the cornerstone for the Sochi 2014 vision and Games concept:
- Imagine walking or traveling by shuttle from the Olympic Village to any of the new ice venues in less than 5 minutes – all within the protected security zone of the innovative Sochi Olympic Park.
- Imagine needing only 40 minutes of travel time from the ice venue cluster to the mountain venue cluster - all via dedicated-Olympic lanes, dedicated-Olympic roads and rail.
- Imagine being less than 18 minutes travel time to any mountain venue from the mountain Sub-Village.
- Imagine an Olympic Village placed along the magnificent Black Sea shore in 4-star resort hotels or a Mountain Village nestled among the peaceful forests in 4-star lodges and chalets, all designed to provide the ultimate opportunities for preparation and focus.
- Imagine competing in new, state-of-the-art venues that offer ideal conditions for every athlete.
Well, you don’t have to imagine it any longer – the Russians built these things. And they built all of them for the comfort and convenience of the athletes – and the Olympic Family. As they said they would.
To me, the recent news coverage about Sochi seems a lot like piling on. “Look – two toilets side by side!” “Elevators not working in brand new hotel!” “Delays at airport!” “No sheets on my bed!” “My bus was late!” “First order in the Village McDonald’s was wrong!” “I don’t have a shower curtain!”
Here is the reality: in seven years, Russia has built about 100 new hotels in Sochi and the surrounding area, four new Alpine Resorts, five new power plants for the city and a new sewer system, upgraded the airport and improved or built close to a million of square feet of new roads and sidewalks. Oh, and they also built eleven state-of-the-art sports venues for the Winter Games. Eleven (11). See them here http://www.olympic.org/news/all-about-the-sochi-2014-venues/219150
The legacy of the XXII Olympic Winter Games will endure for decades, forever changing and enhancing the lives of its citizens, as well as profoundly affecting the youth of Russia. Key legacy components of the Sochi 2014 plans include:
- The development of the critically-needed alpine, sliding and ski-jumping facilities, which will:
- Help to broaden the interest and participation of Russian youth in these popular winter sports
- Provide world-training facilities for Russian elite-level athletes;
- Provide for the first time venues for national and international alpine competitions in Russia;
- Create a year-round tourism industry to expand upon existing summer tourism. This expansion will improve economic conditions for the local population and sustain employment levels year-round;
- The development of modern entertainment, exhibition, retail and accommodation facilities along the coast, which will ensure that Sochi becomes a world-class resort destination;
Time will tell if this legacy holds true, but you cannot argue they don’t have the hardware in the ground now to do it.
Finally, to the foreign visitors in Sochi who have seemingly never been out of their home state or village: yes, Russia is different. Your hundreds of daily, naïve tweets and posts about it do nothing but prove that you may not even have basic cable at home. Russia is unique. It is not like America, or Japan, or Australia, or France or frankly anywhere else one has ever been; that is why it is interesting. Russia is its own continent. Enjoy the differences instead of denigrating them – you might learn something.
First in 1998, then in 2003, 2005, 2007 and in 2009 we conducted research in Russia about the Olympic brand, or about bids we were working on in Russia. We learned something fascinating from older Russians. Time in Russia is like the country itself – it is vast, it can seem eternal (which it is) and it is relentless.
Many of the older Russians we interviewed told us that they thought Glasnost and Perestroika began with the 1980 Games in Moscow. They drew a clear, straight line from 1980 to the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 from the Olympic experience. They believed that the influx of foreigners into Moscow, even with a boycotted Olympic Games, started an inexorable movement of change and progress that they believe continues to this day.
I remember writing First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation Alexander Zhukov’s speech for Sochi 2014’s presentation in Guatemala. I asked him what he knew about the Olympic Games. He said “not much, but I do remember the Moscow Games…it was a different time and a Russia was a different place…I was a student volunteer, mixing and pouring concrete to help build Olympic venues”. Mr. Zhukov is now an IOC member. A lot has happened in seven years.
So, I’d like to visit the Russia of 2048, 34 years from now, to see if Sochi 2014 had an impact similar to Moscow 1980. Maybe the 2014 Games’ influence will be faster – it almost has to, given technology and the Russia of today versus 1980.
Let’s give Sochi and the people of Russia a chance. They asked for the Games. They’ve done their absolute best to get ready, and achieved what I believe no other country on earth could achieve in seven years. And again, they did it with their own money.
Let’s also hope, wish, pray or whatever it is you do when you really want something – that the 2014 Winter Games begin and conclude peacefully.
Chill out – it’s the Winter Games.
The Olympic Brand Challenge
Terrence Burns ©2014
The Olympic brand. I love working on it. It makes my heart beat faster. It feeds my family and has (mostly) for over 20 years. It still makes the world a better place; but it's hard work.
One of the best things I love to do is to give lectures around the world to university students; mostly graduate students about the Olympic Brand. There is one particular presentation that I give regularly to one particular university every year – they ask for it each time. It is a school that only churns out international business and international relations MBAs; so, very global in its focus. I update the presentation each year, but the guts are basically the same. I was in New York this week doing the yearly spiel for about 40 MBA candidates.
For the first time in 9 consecutive yearly versions of this, the crowd was restless, aggressive and well, a bit edgy. Yes, they loved the research, they loved the anecdotes and stories, and yes they loved the films. But... They (mid-20's, highly educated, and only 3 or 4 from the USA) also were willing to call BS on the Olympic dream I was painting on the screen. Why? Because they felt the picture I was painting did not live up to the reality they believe they understand as the Olympics. That is not good for any brand.
Bear with me.
They asked good, thoughtful questions like:
"How can you stand there and talk about values when the Olympics bankrupt cities…when 50% of the people in Spain under 30 are unemployed?"
"How can you defend "White Elephants" of recent Games...?" (I told you, they did their homework)
"Who can afford the Games anymore - they are for rich people, not for the common man – no one can afford to go to Russia and most Russians can’t afford to go to their own Games!"
"Why did Rome, Munich (and now Stockholm) say "no" to the Games if what you are saying about the Olympic brand is true…?"
“Why do we have some as sponsors in the Games that sell things soft drinks and fast food, if it is about sport and healthy lifestyles…?”
I could go on and on.
But it was actually a very good, very fruitful session – and I had defensible, rational points of view on most of their questions; some agreed with me, a lot didn’t. I have been expecting this reaction for the last two years. What struck me most is how strongly interested, if not demanding, they were in real answers, not BS or spin.
This generation knows "spin". They are marketed to from the moment they wake up to the second they fall asleep by phones, laptops, emails, texts and soon to be wearable technology. They are suspicious and jaded about "spin". Can’t blame them. So, I didn’t spin. We had a real and substantive debate. Passions ran high but remained respectful.
It was probably the best time I ever had giving this presentation, by the way.
So what has happened?
For one thing, the media reports - deserved or not - surrounding Rio and Sochi have rightly raised awareness of the problems each of these two cities have endured. Every student in that room knew a lot about the issues and challenges of both Rio and Sochi. So, in a perverse sort of way, these problems have heightened awareness of the Games...but in unintended ways.
In previous years, the students rarely even knew where the next two Games were being held (!), and these are international business and affairs students from all over the globe. The students were highly sensitized to the “risk” and “cost” of hosting the Games (and the World Cup) in countries/cities that they told me “were not ready yet.”
One Indian student mistook my critique of the current situation, in which I do participate as a consultant to bid cities, as a suggestion that the Games should never go to developing countries. I emphatically did not say that nor do I agree with it (people hear what they want to hear..). I said I thought the Games should go to those countries; as a matter of fact, I’ve helped send them there. But it should be within certain parameters that currently don’t exist in the current bidding process.
He remained agitated and unconvinced. So I asked him what he thought the 2010 Delhi Commonwealth Games debacle did for future bidding efforts in India. I told him Delhi set India’s large event hosting aspirations back 25 years, because they were not ready. The Indian IOC has been suspended from the Sochi Games for heaven’s sake (but not for the Commonwealth Games mess, for other, Olympic reasons)…I didn't want to hammer him, but he needed to hear the facts.
Other Commonwealth students in the room concurred with me, by the way. I felt a little bad that he was outnumbered, but he didn’t have his facts straight and he took a run at it. That’s what happens when one doesn’t have one’s facts straight and takes a run at it. Reality intervenes, emotion recedes and faces redden.
Two. Long ago (and I was a small part of this exercise and suggestion) the IOC, in the middle of the Salt Lake City Bid Scandal, realized that its own image and reputation around the world was not very rosy. So they decided to let the Games be the focal point of the Olympic Brand. This made good sense at that time; let the IOC, as an organizational brand, take a back seat because everyone loves the Games. But times have changed.
And there are parallels with other sports properties - no one really likes the NFL, or the NBA or NASCAR or even the NCAA - but people love their events, teams and athletes. Sanctioning bodies are seen as enforcers, etc. But - there was something deeper, something more systemic with the negative attitudes from the students in that room about the Olympics.
They told me that they did not trust the IOC (so did Germans by the way when they said “no” to Munich’s 2022 Winter Games bid two months ago). And that, by extension, means they have minimal interest in the Games, the Movement and its future. This, contrary to wishful and misplaced hope, will not just automatically change with time. They won’t magically turn into Olympic fanatics when they hit 40.
It is said by some that the Olympics have lost an entire generation. Core fans of the Games are now 45+. 18-35 year olds (the marketing sweet spot) have waning interest in or affinity for the Games as they exist today. Is that a “product” problem (i.e., what is on the field of play; are the sports relevant to this age group – to any age group?). It is a “promotion” problem (who really markets the Games other than a few global sponsors at best)? Is it a “presentation” problem – this demographic doesn't sit around the TV with their folks watching Games like we did 30+ years ago.
So…that is my 2-hour focus group report in a highly consistent, highly controlled exercise over many years. Doing what I do, and knowing what I know about the subject, I noticed it and noted it. And it is alarming.
Why? Because these young people will become the future business leaders around the world, making marketing and communications decisions. I have no doubt that an Olympic sponsor will at some time employ one or more of them. Think about that.
Here is the good news: there are many, many things the IOC/Olympic Movement/Olympic Games CAN DO to remain relevant, and I think the new administration of President Thomas Bach very much understands this challenge.
To my friends (and detractors) in the business, I repeat, “I really do think President Bach is aware of this alarming trend and intends to address it – he gets it”.
But what consumers and read in the media is at best 1/3 of the real story going on behind the scenes – both good and bad by the way. And no, I am not claiming that the Movement is without its dark corners. It is an ideal that is managed by people; and people make mistakes.
The IOC and the Olympic Movement - of which the United States Olympic Committee is a key, key member - do unseen, incredible positive work around the world every day in 204 countries – they really do, folks. But that story is rarely told.
So consumers around the world see what others want them to they see (because the IOC and Movement are not managing their own narrative destinies) and, consumers often see want they want to see too, regardless of the facts. Frankly, left with no alternative perspective, I understand their negative perceptions. The cost of the Games, environmental damage, respecting human rights, etc.; how do these correlate with the Olympic ideals?
The Olympic Movement is comprised of 204 National Olympic Committees, 28 international summer sports federations and dozens and dozens of national summer federations; and 7 international winter sports federations and dozens of national winter federations. Twelve Global IOC Sponsors, hundreds of other sponsors, rights holding broadcasters and other commercial partners help fund the Games and athletes around the world - and the Paralympic Movement as well.
It is a very, very fragile world; it is a wonder to me that the Games actually take place at all given the competing agendas and objectives around the Olympic table's limited resources. But they do.
However, to remain relevant for the next 100 years (even though the Olympic Games are 3,000 years old, the modern Games have only been around since 1896), the next 10 years of President Bach’s presidency are perhaps the most important in Olympic history.
Time is of the essence because the Olympic Games are worth it. The IOC is an amazing organization full of men and women (all volunteers by the way) charged with heady, important work. And they take it seriously. And within them lies the answers to make the next 100 years a true “Golden Age” for the Movement. Not an easy task nor one to address casually. 3,000 years of history is on the line.
My final point is, they need our support, respect and assistance. Let's all pitch in; we all, however big or small, have a role to play in the Olympic Movement.
So, stay tuned. A new day is coming I believe; it has to.