Marketing is often referred as the set of techniques by which a company makes consumers buy its products. However, marketing can also be seen as a wider activity, that includes selling ideas and services, that do not only fulfill indivudual needs but also organizational objectives. Paris 2012, as a candidate city to host the Olympic Games, is an example of such a product. For instance, Paris 2012 marketing objectives were to obtain public support by having the French people and the journalists share their enthusiasm, and eventually to convince the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to entrust the 2012 Games to their capital . Of course, the IOC members only made the final choice, but a strong popular adhesion could make a real difference
[...] In fact, internal analysis of the services offered by the Paris 2012 bid shows they were very much in accordance with the IOC recommendations, or needs, and of a “very high quality”, as the IOC experts themselves said. The promotion campaign, through traditional means of communication, reached its objectives too, bringing a consensus around the French bid, among official actors, among the media and among the public in general. The paradoxical effect of the quality of the bid and the success of its promotion was that maybe it made Parisian representatives too confident, and thus reluctant to any lobbying strategies that were not needed to win. [...]
[...] It can basically be summed up as a logo (multi- colored Paris 2012 candidate city) and an enthusiastic motto : l'amour des Jeux. Put together, they form the following logo : These elements were targetted towards both the public and the IOC : “l'amour des Jeux” was presented to the IOC commission as a reflection of the genuine love of the French people for the Olympics, and in the same time it was meant to persuade the people that it was attached to the Games. [...]
[...] For instance, all daily newspapers editorialists clearly expressed their anger against the trade unions that hold a demonstration in the streets of Paris on the very day that the Evaluation commission was paying a visit to the city. Whereas the London bid faced a more ambiguous reaction of the British media, mainly for economical reasons : for example, the Economist once wrote an article entitled London a favor : give the Olympics to Paris”. Of course, the promotion campaign did not only consist of the motto and the logo previously studied, but was also based on more rational elements, such as the repercussions on the French economy (incomes were expected to easily outweigh the public expenditures made by the city and the government), and the positive changes it would catalyse, in term of urban development (most people agree that almost all the planned projects will be held irrespective of the Olympics, but that it will take a much longer time). [...]
[...] Such information is very hard to check, and certainly not appear in marketing strategies, but such practices are plausible, in the run for Olympics as in other activity where billions of dollars are involved ! Conclusion The market that Paris 2012 had to position itself on, although being of a special kind, can be defined as a monopsone, where the IOC picks up only one city to offer its services for the Olympic Games. Competition was tough, and Paris, despite the quality of its bid, was only second best. [...]
[...] Among the opportunities, Paris could argue that despite its historical relation with Olympism, it had not hosted any Games since 1924, and that a failure to obtain them in 2012 would have been the third in twenty years, and the second in a row (Paris already failed to host the Games in 1992 and 2008). But complaining of a so-called injustice from the IOC was not a very efficient way to be chosen to host the Games As the Herald Tribune puts it, in front of such high quality proposals, IOC must pick a bidder able to offer something extra the magic ingredient that distinguishes the exceptional from the mundane”. [...]
using our reader.