Marketing the Olympic Rings: Examining the Marketing Impacts and Expectations of the 2006 and 2010 Olympic Winter Games
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The breadth and scope of the marketing programs and policies of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is diverse and complex and provides considerable opportunity for analysis and discussion regarding the overall impact and management of the Olympic Games. Sponsorship, broadcasting, ticketing and licensing all provide opportunities for partnership as well as means of revenue for Organizing Committees for the Olympic Games (OCOGs), as well as contributing to the overall legacy and success for the host community. Thus, the purpose of this research paper is to examine the overall marketing impact of the 2006 Torino Winter Olympic Games with the projected marketing expectations and programs of the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympic Games. Specifically, this short essay will focus on the domestic marketing programs and partnerships of VANOC within a sponsorship marketing framework. Introduction Much has been written about the growth and development of the modern Olympics. These advances have not only enhanced the size and structure of the Games themselves, but they have contributed to a transformation in the management of the programs and policies of the IOC, the Olympic Movement, and the Olympic Games. Central to this managerial growth and development has been the success of the contemporary Olympic marketing programs--including policies for the sponsorship, broadcasting and ticketing of the Olympics--all which are credited for creating opportunities for innovative partnerships and significant revenues for the Olympic Games and affiliated partners. These partnerships and revenues can be examined in a number of contexts, but will be discussed here in a contemporary context, through a comparative case study analysis of the marketing programs of the 2006 Torino Winter Olympic Games superimposed on the projected marketing expectations for the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympic Games. Sport Sponsorship Sport sponsorship is recognized as a rapidly changing and dynamic component of the sport industry. (1) While there are multiple benefits of this marketing tool, sponsorship, understood as the mutual exchange between a sport entity and a corporation (2) offers sport properties and corporate partners unique opportunities to share strategic objectives (including brand promotion and market penetration). As the sport industry--and corresponding marketing communications--has grown more cluttered and complex, marketing partnerships are prompted to create innovative platforms towards achieving end-goals for a myriad of sport properties, partners, and ultimately, consumers. Further, modern marketing partnerships are demonstrating enhanced holistic models of interpretation, and offer a multitude of enhanced opportunities for marketing success. The current context of the Olympic Games-considered as the pinnacle of marketing properties--offers an excellent opportunity to analyze the breadth and depth of sophisticated marketing programming. Olympic Marketing TOP stands for The Olympic Partners Program. Launched in 1985, the TOP program is managed by the IOC and offers exclusive worldwide marketing rights to both the Winter and Summer Games within a set marketing cycle. (3) By 1992, for example, the TOP II program's share to the world's NOCs was $35 million (US); the current projected contributions for TOP VI are expected to reach $139 million (US). (4) This TOP program is important in that it significantly contributes to the revenue of Olympic Games Organizing Committees. The tremendous growth of the TOP program has enabled the IOC to provide equitable revenue distribution throughout the Olympic Movement, which ultimately assists in the training and developmental support of Olympic athletes and teams, including the support to many needy nations and territories. (5) The current TOP Partnership program (VI) is supported by eleven multinational corporations and is projected to generate approximately $866 million (US) for the 2005-2008 Olympic quadrennium in combined financial and in-kind support for the Olympic Movement. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».