Is the Olympics a brand in trouble after contentious decision to let Russia into Rio?

A number of investigations by The Sunday Times into doping alleged that one British doctor treated “at least” 150 athletes (not all Olympic) with the banned substance EPO while a separate investigation into the British team’s high-altitude base in Kenya has suggested that medics have given at least four Britons as well as a Kenyan the same performance enhancing drug.

However, it's the revelations that Russia operated a state-sponsored doping programme during London 2012 and the Sochi Winter Games in 2014 that is causing the most damage. A damning report on the extent to which the country’s athletes were cheating drugs tests led to calls from a number of sporting bodies and Wada (the World Anti-Doping Association) for the nation to be completely banned from the Rio Olympics.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) had the final say on the matter and yesterday (24 July) chose not to impose a blanket ban on Russian athletes as many hoped it would. Instead, it will leave it up to individual sports' governing bodies to decide if Russian competitors are clean and should be allowed to take part.

It's a move that has prompted condemnation for the IOC, with many saying the body has failed to take the strong stance against drug cheats it promised it would. “If not now, if not against Russia and against doping at this scale, then when?” it has been asked. And ultimately, it’s this question which will undermine all of the values the Olympics stands for.

Heads in the long jump pit?

Yet, when the question of the Olympic brand health was put to the head of marketing at the IOC Melinda May at the Cannes Lions festival this year (crucially, before the final report into Russia had been published) she remained optimistic.

Speaking to The Drum, she said doping is a long running issue that its president has vowed to tackle with a firm fist. The implication that it had in any way damaged the Olympics was swiftly brushed away.

“It is an issue and that’s a fact but our president who’s been there four years has made protecting clean athletes the top priority in his administration and imposed a zero-tolerance policy. He’s committed millions of dollars to protecting clean athletes. He knows we need to combat it for the long-term positive future of the brand. Despite all of that happening the brand has this amazing resilience,” she said.

“Every attribute we have – whether it be excellence or unity – hasn’t wavered from any high point. Every time I talk to a sponsor or broadcaster and they say “tell me the bad news” I say “I’m sorry, I just don’t have any”. The awareness remains high, the appeal remains high and the key attributes of being so closely associated [as a sponsor] remain high.”

So in the eyes of the IOC, there are some issues being addressed, of course, but do people still respect, admire and buy into the Olympics? Absolutely.

Research commissioned by The Drum paints a slightly different picture. Social monitoring agency Brandwatch analysed all English language conversations happening across the world on social media between 1 June and 27 July. It found that the emotional sentiment leading up to the Rio Olympics has been noticeably more negative than it was leading up to the London Olympics. In fact, negative sentiment peaked on one day at 41 per cent in 2012 and 59 per cent this year, suggesting the intense media scrutiny around the doping scandals may have taken its toll.

Yet the long-term impact is likely to be minimal. According to research firm Millward Brown’s head of UK marketing, Jane Bloomfield, May is most likely right in her belief that ‘brand Olympics’ will survive and thrive long after the furor surrounding Russia has died. The same as it did after the Olympic boycotts during the Cold War, the Ben Johnson doping scandal, and the 2002 Winter Olympics bidding controversy.

At the end of the day it’s the individual, the team, or indeed the entire country whose reputation will be irrevocably tarred. Not the sport itself.

“As long as they create enough distance from the scandal the Olympic brand is unlikely to be tainted,” says Bloomfield.

“It’s a similar situation to when a big brand distances itself from someone it sponsors when that individual has been involved in a wrongdoing – it tends to suffer very little from its spokesperson’s fall from grace.”

Tiger Woods, for example, lost five major endorsements following the media exposure of his adultery, but none of those brands suffered by association. When Maria Sharapova failed a drugs test earlier this year, brands she had promoted such as Nike, Tag Heuer and Porsche all distanced themselves from her within 24 hours. Damage to the brands' bottom line has been minimal.

“The Olympic Games is also an extremely strong and well-loved brand, and these are qualities that help brands to withstand scandals and crises,” adds Bloomfield.

It’s a sentiment echoed by Pedro Avery, global chief executive of Havas Sports and Entertainment, who says that there remains a reservoir of goodwill and affection for what the Olympics represents, which is as cherished today as it’s ever been and goes far beyond sport.

“It’s still a symbol of fairness, international cooperation and goodwill – values that most people want to be associated with in a scary world. Brands pay large sums in sponsorship fees because they too agree with the world view espoused by the five rings, and the global marketing programmes of the commercial partners help carry the Olympic message to new markets. “

But, the fact that the Olympic brand is about celebrating the very best of human achievement lies at the crux of why the doping issue is so fundamental. And so the IOC's decision not to impose a blanket ban for Russian athletes across all sports calls into question the ideals of integrity, decency and fair play by which it stands.

Accentuate the positives

So, what has the IOC done – and what can it do – to counter any cynicism around this year’s Games?

Its marketing campaign in the run up to Rio took on a grittier tone than the previous adverts, an intentional creative direction it took in a bid to reflect the realities of the world today.

While the concept ‘Together We Can Change the World’ harks back to the heritage and values of the Olympics brand, the advert moves beyond the picture perfect images of triumphant athletes and instead shows people from around the world, young and old, rich and poor, engaging with sport or their community in some way.

“In the past we might have done a very wholesome representation of the [Olympic] values but this campaign is a reflection of how the world is today,” says May.

“There is some emotional tension that we wanted to be part of the story. The line – ‘I’m a football field, not a battlefield’ – to me that’s one of the stronger lines in the whole thing.”

And this campaign is going to now have to work twice as hard to help it recover from the doping fallout. The creative agency behind it, VML, has devised a strategy for how this concept will play out for the next four years to ensure the Olympics and their values are in people’s minds longer than the two weeks of the tournament This will see it focus hard on telling the real-stories behind some the athletes performing.

As May concludes: “If anything it shows how the Games can sustain the world and bring people together to change the world. It is a force for good and inspires people every day. It has an importance place in society – what other brand has people saying that about them?”

To view more marketing insights into Rio 2016 visit The Drum’s Olympics hub here.