The varied impacts of international events, particularly their apparent economic and business-oriented benefits, have provoked governments and private entities to utilize institutional frameworks and marketing executives to capitalize on such events (Stokes 2005).
In recent years, international events such as the Olympics or World Cup soccer are increasingly been perceived by host nations and cities as catalysts for economic growth (Chung & Woo 2011; Emery 2002), image and reputation enhancement (Zeng et al 2011), and social and infrastructural development (Westerbeek et al 2002).
To derive these critical advantages, however, governments should not only use all the marketing tools at their disposal to ensure they create international awareness but must also leverage their own investments and business relationships, alongside other major sponsors, to facilitate the successful promotion of the mega event (Stokes 2005; Cornwell 2008).
The aim of the current paper is to further advance our understanding on the effectiveness of marketing concepts, especially public relations and relationship marketing, to the successful promotion of an international event.
Using the example of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games, the paper will touch upon the theoretical perspectives associated with the concepts of public relations and relationship marketing, and how these perspectives relate to the successful promotion of the Olympic Games. Specifically, the paper will evaluate the four models of public relations, 3Ps model of public relations, social exchange theory, and commitment-trust theory
As acknowledged by Hamakawa & Elam (2011), “…the Olympic Games – which take place once every four years in various cities throughout the world – are a sporting spectacle that consists of some 10,500 athletes from more than 200 countries who compete in 28 sports over a period of 17 days” (p. 2).
The sporting event is not only the largest and most prestigious of its kind but has the capacity to draw unprecedented opportunities for host countries to stimulate economic growth and enhance their image and reputation (Heslop et al 2010), as well as for marketers and sponsors to showcase their companies’ brand image to millions of dignitaries, tourists and ordinary citizens in attendance (Lee 2012).
The justification to use the Beijing 2012 Summer Olympics derives from the fact that China was able to use its marketing prowess to catapult the event to new heights.
Indeed, event scholars and mainstream commentators have all acknowledged China’s efforts as the first country ever to have succeeded in contracting an array of heavyweight corporate sponsors, including Visa, General Electric and Coca-Cola, for sponsorship deals (Hamakawa & Elam 2011; Lee 2012). It is therefore important to assess how all these stakeholders employed various marketing strategies, especially public relations and relationship marketing, to successfully promote the 2008 Olympics.
Cutlip et al (1985) cited in Gurel & Kavak (2010) defined public relations as “…the management function that identifies, establishes, and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and the various publics on whom its success or failure depends” (p. 43).
A strand of emerging literature (e.g., Emery 2002; Papadimitriou et al 2008; Rese 2008) views public relations and marketing as playing complimentary roles when illuminated under the prism of dominant theories and paradigms in the field.
In the context of an international event such as the Beijing 2008 Olympics, research demonstrates that marketing initiatives are done to influence the behaviour of the participating or viewing audiences (Grunig 2000), while public relations initiatives are primarily responsible for shaping, maintaining or changing the attitudes of the participating or viewing audiences, which in turn influence behaviour toward the sponsoring organization and its products (Gurek & Kavak 2010).
Here, it is imperative to introduce the four models of public relations to provide a theoretical frame for the issues under discussion. Grunig & Hunt (1984) cited in Gurek & Kavak (2010) introduced the models in two dimensions of communication, namely “…the nature (one-way versus two-way) and purpose (asymmetrical/unbalanced versus symmetrical/balanced)” (p. 44). The first model, known as press agentry or publicity, revolves around spreading propaganda to change the attitude of the publics (Papadimitriou et al 2008).
As noted by Grunig (2000), this model is the least effective and most ethically questionable, but nevertheless assist in the promotion of a mega-event as corporate sponsors strive to shape, maintain or change the attitudes of the publics without necessarily telling the truth. In the second model, known as public information, the participating publics are fed on truthful information by the sponsoring agents and left to make a decision on their own (Gurek & Kavak 2010).
Most sponsors of international events use either the two-way asymmetrical model or the two-way symmetrical model of the four models of public relations to successfully promote the event.
While the former model uses unbalanced scientific persuasion to alter the attitudes and perceptions of the publics (Gummesson 2004), and to persuade the publics to support the product or the event and behave as the entity wants them to behave (Gurek & Kavak 2010), the latter model rests on the presumption of mutual understanding between the sponsoring entity and the publics through the use of dialogue and collaboration (Olkkonen 2001).
Consequently, the two-way symmetrical model is the most ideal and effective instrument that organizations can use to successfully promote an international event as it seeks dialogue, negotiation and collaboration with the participating and/or viewing audience.
The organizers and sponsors of the Beijing 2008 Olympics, for example, used the two-way symmetrical model of public relations not only to make the public aware of the upcoming event and influence their perception and image of the games through press releases and news conferences, but also to maintain the goodwill amongst them for the Olympic Games and for the products associated with the sponsoring agents.
David (2004) cited in Gurek & Kavak (2010) proposed the 3Ps model of public relations, which is primarily based on the presumption that symmetry in communication is the hallmark of professional public relations and the importance of professional values, practice and pragmatics (3Ps) in informing the public relations practice and decision making.
Consequently, according to these authors, “…the original contribution of this model is the integration of the situational pragmatics to the excellence ideals of symmetry” (p. 48). The framer of this model is well aware of the relationship that exists between public relations and marketing, and presents entrepreneurship and citizenship as twin functions of an entity in the market.
When we focus this theoretical perspective on the successful promotion of the Beijing Olympic Games, it can be appreciably argued that the public relations strategies initiated by the event organizers and sponsors were effective in fostering relationships and experiences between the citizenship side of the organizers/sponsoring corporations and the publics through the development of trust, commitment and satisfaction (Lee 2012).
In this context, the term ‘publics’ is used to refer to “…groups of individuals who realize that there is a common issue, who feel that their collective efforts can influence the issue and who in turn participate in collective action to influence the outcome” (Gurek & Kavak 2010 p. 48).
Coca Cola, for example, has over the years used this model to rally millions of people behind a common issue – the Olympics Games – while, in return, the company receives a public opportunity to reach its target audience for its products through enhanced exposure and the associations made between the company and the Olympic Games.
This section now evaluates the effectiveness of relationship marketing in ensuring the successful promotion of the 2008 Olympic Games. Relationship marketing has been defined in the literature as a form of marketing strategy that establishes, maintains, and promotes “…relationships with customers and other partners, at a profit, so that the objectives of the parties involved are met…This is achieved by a mutual exchange and fulfilment of promises” (Gronroos 1997, p. 324).
The relationship marketing perspective, according to Gronroos (2004), rests on the assumption that the existence of a relationship between two entities generates added value for the customer and also for the service provider. The key processes of relationship marketing include communication, fulfilment of promises, interaction, trust, value creation and satisfaction (Shi et al 2009; Olkkonen 2001; Emery 2002).
Although relationship marketing is still in its infancy as a conventional marketing concept (Gronroos 2004), it has rapidly emerged as one of the dominant paradigms of marketing (Eiriz & Wilson 2006), particularly in the promotion of international events that attract millions of people due to their unique experiences (Cornwell 2008).
The marketing paradigm is particularly important in events such as the Olympic Games because the host country is expected to not only attract millions of people to the event location but also to build a solid relationship with the attendees and viewers so that the economic objectives of the event are achieved.
For example, the Chinese government used this paradigm to build relationships with major sponsors and event attendees, and succeeded in staging “…a series of sporting, cultural, and hospitality events for the world through media outlets and through in-person tourist visits” (Heslop et al 2010, p. 410).
There are a number of theories that inform the relationship marketing paradigm (Shi et al 2009), but this section will draw on two of such theories – the commitment-trust theory and the social exchange theory. The commitment-trust model theorizes that “…the presence of relationship commitment and trust is central to successful relationship marketing, not power and its ability to condition others” (Morgan & Hunt 1994, p. 22).
According to these authors, the two contextual variables (commitment and trust) are important not only because they function to encourage marketers to preserve relationship investments by cooperating with other stakeholders, but also to oppose short-range alternatives in favour of the expected long-range advantages of sticking with existing partners.
In the events leading to the 2008 Olympic Games, for example, the Chinese government nurtured an environment of trust and commitment between the event organizers and long-term event sponsors, such as Coca Cola and GE, before it leveraged its own investments and business relationships to promote efficiency, productivity, effectiveness and cooperative behaviours between the organizers and sponsors (Wonjun & Chang 2011).
Consequently, there is compelling evidence of the effectiveness of relationship marketing to the successful promotion of the Beijing 2008 Olympics.
The social exchange theory of relationship marketing presupposes that individuals and organizations construct social behaviour around an exchange process (Ratten & Ratten 2011), and that the purpose of the exchange process is to maximize benefits and minimize costs (Rese 2006).
Consequently, using this model, marketing can be conceptualised as involving different types of exchanges and associated meanings that are transacted in the exchange process with the view to maximize rewards and reduce risks (Eiriz & Wilson 2006). The model is self-explanatory when evaluated under the lens of the 2008 Olympic Games in that the host country, in this case China, bid to host the event to build its image and reputation, as well as to gain economically (Wonjun & Chang 2011).
Consequently, the host was bound to develop strong relationships with event sponsors and find ways to add value to the relationships through a mutually beneficial exchange processes so that the country could benefit from economic growth and reputation enhancement, while the sponsors could benefit from achieving favourable publicity of their brands among relevant target groups (Ratten & Ratten 2011).
To conclude, it is evident from the assessment that public relations and relationship marketing are effective to the successful promotion of international events.
The paper has adequately dwelt on how the Chinese government, event organizers and multinational sponsors used these marketing paradigms to successfully promote the 2008 Summer Olympics to unimaginable heights. As a direct consequence of establishing mutually beneficial relationships, the country benefited from increased economic growth and image enhancement, while the corporate sponsors benefited from improved public exposure of their products and brand names.
However, two main recommendations arise from this assessment. First, scholars need to examine the rationale that exists for the establishment, development and maintenance of mutual relationships as such knowledge will assist future event organizers and sponsors to establish more fulfilling and mutually beneficial relationships. Second, academics and practitioners need to put in place appropriate structures that have the capacity to manage such processes and relationships to ensure they exist for the long-term.
Reference List
Cornwell, T.B 2008, ‘state of the art and science in sponsorship-linked marketing,’ Journal of Advertising, vol. 37 no. 3, pp. 41-55.
Eiriz, V & Wilson D 2006, ‘Research in relationship marketing: Antecedents, traditions and integration’, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 3 no. 3/4, pp. 275-291.
Emery, P.R 2002, ‘Bidding to host a major sports event: the local organising committee perspective,’ The International Journal of Public Sector Management, vol. 15 no. 4, pp. 316-335.
Gronroos, C 1997, ‘Keynote paper: From marketing mix to relationship marketing – towards a paradigm shift in marketing’, Management Decision, vol. 35 no. 4, pp. 322-339.
Gronroos, C 2004, ‘The relationship marketing process: Communication, interaction, dialogue, value’, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, vol. 19 no. 2, pp. 99-113.
Grunig, L. A 2000, ‘Public relations research? A tripartite model’, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, vol. 5 no. 2, pp. 75-80.
Gummesson, E 2004, ‘Return on relationships (ROR): The value of relationship marketing and CRM in business-to-business contexts’, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, vol. 19 no. 2, pp. 136-148.
Gurel, E & Kavak, B 2010, ‘A conceptual model for public relations in museums’, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 44 no. 1/2, pp. 42-66.
Hamakawa, C & Elam, E (2011), ‘Beijing Olympics: Games of epic proportion’, Journal of Business Cases and Applications, vol. 5 no. 1, pp. 1-12.
Heslop, L.A, Nadeau, J & O’Reilly, N 2010, ‘China and the Olympics: Views of insiders and outsiders’, International Marketing Review, vol. 27 no. 4, pp. 404-433.
Lee, J.K 2012, ‘Marketing and promotion of the Olympic Games’, The Sport Journal, vol. 15 no. 2, pp. 35-54.
Morgan, R.M & Hunt, S.D 1994, ‘The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing’, Journal of Marketing, vol. 58 no. 2, pp. 20-38.
Olkkonen, R 2001, ‘Case study: the network approach to international sport sponsorship arrangement’, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, vol. 16 no. 4, pp. 309-329.
Papadimitriou, D, Apostolopoulou, A & Dounis, T 2008, ‘Event sponsorship as a value creating strategy for brands’, Journal of Product and Brand Management, vol. 17 no. 4, pp. 212-222.
Ratten, V & Ratten, H 2011, ‘International sport marketing: Practical and future research implications’, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing’, vol. 26 vol. 8, pp. 614-620.
Rese, M 2006, ‘The explanatory foundations of relationship marketing theory: A Comment’, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, vol. 21 no. 2, pp. 88-91.
Shi, G, Shi, Y, Chan A.K & Wang, Y 2009, ‘Relationship strength in service industries’, International Journal of Market Research, vol. 51 no. 5, pp. 659-685.
Stokes, R 2005, ‘Relationship marketing during Rugby World Cup 2003: A comparative analysis of public and private sectors sponsors’, International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorships, vol. 7 no. 1, pp. 49-56.
Westerbeek, H.M, Turner, P & Ingerson, L 2002, ‘Key success factors in bidding for hallmark sporting events’, International Marketing Review, vol. 19 no. 3, pp. 303-322.
Wonjun, C & Chang W.W 2011, ‘The effects of hosting an international sports event on a host country: The 2008 Summer Olympic Games’, International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, vol. 12 no. 4, pp. 281-300.
Zeng, G, Go, F & Kolmer, C 2011, ‘The impact of international TV media coverage of the Beijing Olympics 2008 on China’s media image formation: A media content analysis perspective’, International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, vol. 12 no. 4, pp. 319-336.