When I read the article "Brands Winning Big at London Olympics" I inferred a lot about brands, sponsorships, and different terms such as the halo effect and brand equity.
The halo effect is when one company tries to benefit from the positive influence of where they are advertising, and not really trying to prove anything. It's like people watching Dr. Oz because he comes across as healthy because of all the things that he talks about on his show. During the commercial, a product may be advertised and assumed healthy or worthwhile just because it airs during a show that promotes a healthy lifestyle.
Brand equity is where a product has immediate value based on it being well-known. An example of this would be the Martha Stewart brand. Whether it be her magazines, her goods sold at Macy's, or her paper crafts at Hobby Lobby, they all exemplify her impeccable taste and attention to detail.
Nike's "Make it Count" campaign was not an official sponsor of the 2012 London Olympic Games. Instead, they took a different approach by opening a huge Nike store near the Olympic venues, and advertising with with athletes all over the world in sporting events. Nike did what they had to do to advertise and make it appear "Olympic" without the official sponsorship and the rings.
I feel that there should be laws to protect the sponsors because it protects their investment. Advertising is a constantly changing industry, and the more creative you can be to make the most of your advertising budget should be promoted.
No comments:
Post a Comment