FYI Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 "I'm only saying that the IOC shouldn't make decisions based on the source of funds, since the values are 'regulated' by the market." Well, how long would that "value of the market" hold up if an organization or business kept ignoring the main source of "value" for that market? In time, people in that ignored area would lose the interest because of being left out, therefore driving the value of the market *down*. And no business would want that, including the IOC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feheva Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Money talks and people walk!A United States Olympic bid will always be attractive as it's TV revenues, corporate sponsor sector etc provides more money than any other nation on earth. The United States does not get prefferential treatment but rather, due to it's ability, it does host the Olympic alot - which is rightfully so. Imagine if you were paying more for a product and investing more into a business than anyone else. You wouldn't expect other people to get given the same power as you. Regarding the Olympics, it is obvious that the United States will earn them alot as it does more for the Olympic movement than anyone else! I think you missed my point. Have a look at the post #16 of this thread and you will understand what I mean... No companies invest in IOC, it is a pure comercial bussiness. It is all about paying and selling. If a favour is expected because of a worst deal, by paying more, that would be bribing and an unffair pratice. Anyway, I don't think this is the case... It is all about local competition... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aluz Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 "I'm only saying that the IOC shouldn't make decisions based on the source of funds, since the values are 'regulated' by the market."Well, how long would that "value of the market" hold up if an organization or business kept ignoring the main source of "value" for that market? In time, people in that ignored area would lose the interest because of being left out, therefore driving the value of the market *down*. And no business would want that, including the IOC. Well, the source of value is not the US, but its companies and their markets. NBC pays a lot to the IOC because the SOG have a huge audience in the US. If the Games are kept away from the US, is this audience going to decrease? It seems unlikely unless the US loses its status as a great Olympic super power. Besides, most of the other sponsors are multi-national corporations for which markets other than the US are important for their income. Maybe going to emerging markets might be even more interesting to them at this point. Last, the US is far from being an ignored area for the IOC, since it hosted more times than any other country. Even when not hosting, privileges are given, such as the morning finals for swimming in Beijing 2008. So, the market value for the US Olympic sponsorship is to a great extent non-dependent from hosting the SOG. The Games itself are valued, regardless of where they take place. Maybe an American SOG would make more sponsorship money, but the value might not be significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakydoky Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 I think you missed my point. Have a look at the post #16 of this thread and you will understand what I mean...No companies invest in IOC, it is a pure comercial bussiness. It is all about paying and selling. If a favour is expected because of a worst deal, by paying more, that would be bribing and an unffair pratice. Anyway, I don't think this is the case... It is all about local competition... I get your point. However, I was replying to your post#23 specifically! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Well, the source of value is not the US, but its companies and their markets. NBC pays a lot to the IOC because the SOG have a huge audience in the US. If the Games are kept away from the US, is this audience going to decrease? It seems unlikely unless the US loses its status as a great Olympic super power.Besides, most of the other sponsors are multi-national corporations for which markets other than the US are important for their income. Maybe going to emerging markets might be even more interesting to them at this point. Last, the US is far from being an ignored area for the IOC, since it hosted more times than any other country. Even when not hosting, privileges are given, such as the morning finals for swimming in Beijing 2008. So, the market value for the US Olympic sponsorship is to a great extent non-dependent from hosting the SOG. The Games itself are valued, regardless of where they take place. Maybe an American SOG would make more sponsorship money, but the value might not be significant. Well, other than Samsung, Atos-Origin, Acer and Phillips, where are all these other so-called global companies that will replace the US-based TOP sponsors? Where are they? (Lenovo,actually a half-CHina,half-US company) folded up after Beijing.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feheva Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 "I'm only saying that the IOC shouldn't make decisions based on the source of funds, since the values are 'regulated' by the market."Well, how long would that "value of the market" hold up if an organization or business kept ignoring the main source of "value" for that market? In time, people in that ignored area would lose the interest because of being left out, therefore driving the value of the market *down*. And no business would want that, including the IOC. THe IOC cannot be responsible or acountable for the regulation of the american market value of the TV rights. For the TV rights, NBC, ABC, FOX, etc. will fight until the prices reach a value wich broadcasting will be no longer profitable. What will happen then? The values will be driven down... No business would want that, but it simply happens from time to time... It's capitalism... For the sponsorships, only global companies put money into it, since the Olympic Games will allways be global. Some of these companies could have american origins, but it doesn't matter... They are worried about the global market, not the regional. If they were, they could put money into the Superbowl, NBA, Baseball, etc. The grandiosity of the Olympic movement should be always be ajusted according to the availble founds, regardless of its origin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 The grandiosity of the Olympic movement should be always be ajusted according to the availble founds, regardless of its origin. In a perfect world, feheva. But it's not one we inhabit, is it? Besides, a lot of these long-term business relationships are grounded on personal relationships with the top brass of those corporations, so it's not so easy to just say: "...should be always be ajusted according to the availble founds, regardless of its origin." If these were Arab, Russian or Brazilian sources, you can be sure there will be a little bending in those directions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feheva Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Yes. Like I would throw in free freight...or maybe preferntial treatment in the next auction; a free trip to Vegas or MOnte Carlo. I mean frequent fliers get more free miles because they bring more business to the airline than that casual flyer; repeat cruise passengers get good upgrades, all sorts of discounts, special places at the Captain's table for sending a lot of business the shipping company's way, so...why shouldn't the IOC's biggest moneybags?? It's just good business practice. True, but a frequent flyer that bought 10 tickets from NY to LA for U$100,00 would get the same benefits of a frequent flyer that managed to buy the same 10 tickets fot lets say U$90,00, for example. You see? Usually benefits are indexed to the product, not its price, since it is volatile and depend on many other variables (in this case the local competition). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feheva Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 In a perfect world, feheva. But it's not one we inhabit, is it?Besides, a lot of these long-term business relationships are grounded on personal relationships with the top brass of those corporations, so it's not so easy to just say: "...should be always be ajusted according to the availble founds, regardless of its origin." If these were Arab, Russian or Brazilian sources, you can be sure there will be a little bending in those directions. I completely agree! Thats why I wrote in the post #16: "I dislike, but I agree that all of this (especially the TV rights) play a significant part in the IOC choices. However I don't think it is determinant..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 True, but a frequent flyer that bought 10 tickets from NY to LA for U$100,00 would get the same benefits of a frequent flyer that managed to buy the same 10 tickets fot lets say U$90,00, for example. You see? well, feheva, in that example, the one who purchased $100,000 tickets would still have 10,000 more miles in his account than the $90,000-er. So maybe a "Platinum" Club member as opposed to a "Gold" Club member; and maybe the Platinum might have more free drinks at the lounge or something like that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feheva Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Well, other than Samsung, Atos-Origin, Acer and Phillips, where are all these other so-called global companies that will replace the US-based TOP sponsors? Where are they? (Lenovo,actually a half-CHina,half-US company) folded up after Beijing.) The US-based sponsors (McDonald's, GE, CocaCola, Acer and Visa) are all global companies and only part of its revenues comes from the US market. If US decide not to watch the SOGs, there would still the whole world to buy their products... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feheva Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 well, feheva, in that example, the one who purchased $100,000 tickets would still have 10,000 more miles in his account than the $90,000-er. So maybe a "Platinum" Club member as opposed to a "Gold" Club member; and maybe the Platinum might have more free drinks at the lounge or something like that... No, because it is based on the mileage... The product, not the price you bought it... A person who travels 10 times from NY to Tokyo would get more benefits than a person who travels 10 times from NY to Boston, even if the person who traveled to boston paid more in total... Either the first did a incredible deal or the secon person simply did a terrible one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aluz Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 The US-based sponsors (McDonald's, GE, CocaCola, Acer and Visa) are all global companies and only part of its revenues comes from the US market. If US decide not to watch the SOGs, there would still the whole world to buy their products... Thanks Feheva!!! I was about to write that! By the way, McDonalds usually targets higher income segments of the market in countries outside the US. Apparently Baron doesný know the meaning of multi-national corporations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakydoky Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Thanks Feheva!!! I was about to write that!By the way, McDonalds usually targets higher income segments of the market in countries outside the US. Apparently Baron doesný know the meaning of multi-national corporations. C'mon, theres no need to start being bitchy! I think Baron knows more than you you do about the given topic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feheva Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 C'mon, theres no need to start being bitchy! I think Baron knows more than you you do about the given topic! It was only a sarcastict comment from aluz... I'm sure Baron knows the meaning of multi-nationals... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dino Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 It's true that many American-based MNCs rely on the global market, there's also the fact that these companies shouldn't lose sight of the largest market in the world (the US). In the case of McDonald's after watching these games being hosted around the world, sometimes it's just nice to root for the home team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dino Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 THe IOC cannot be responsible or acountable for the regulation of the american market value of the TV rights. For the TV rights, NBC, ABC, FOX, etc. will fight until the prices reach a value wich broadcasting will be no longer profitable. What will happen then? The values will be driven down... No business would want that, but it simply happens from time to time... It's capitalism... For the sponsorships, only global companies put money into it, since the Olympic Games will allways be global. Some of these companies could have american origins, but it doesn't matter... They are worried about the global market, not the regional. If they were, they could put money into the Superbowl, NBA, Baseball, etc. The grandiosity of the Olympic movement should be always be ajusted according to the availble founds, regardless of its origin. But they do put money into Super Bowl, NBA championships and the likes. Speaking of TV rights in America and the possibility of driving down the value of telecasts, there's one thing I can think of that may or may not be a good example: the Miss Universe contests. It's interesting that it's an international event, yet people in the US don't really care/talk about it. I know in my family we would never hear about it until relatives overseas would tell us. I don't know the statistics but could it be because US contestants rarely wins; and therefore, over time the US market loses interests? I know the analogy is not that great and there are major differences between the Olympics and Ms Universe, but I guess it just shows how fickle minded Americans are when it comes to watching TV and how it can easily influence "investments" on broadcast rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aluz Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 But they do put money into Super Bowl, NBA championships and the likes.Speaking of TV rights in America and the possibility of driving down the value of telecasts, there's one thing I can think of that may or may not be a good example: the Miss Universe contests. It's interesting that it's an international event, yet people in the US don't really care/talk about it. I know in my family we would never hear about it until relatives overseas would tell us. I don't know the statistics but could it be because US contestants rarely wins; and therefore, over time the US market loses interests? I know the analogy is not that great and there are major differences between the Olympics and Ms Universe, but I guess it just shows how fickle minded Americans are when it comes to watching TV and how it can easily influence "investments" on broadcast rights. I guess you have mentioned something important here. The main reason why Americans watch the SOG, hence the highest broadcast rights paid, is that the USA is expected to win dozens of gold medals. This would not be affected by the choice of the city to host the Games, except for convenience circumstances, such as time differences. Considering that, the revenue from sponsorship and broadcast rights should not vary a great deal whether the SOG are held in the US or not. Just to compare, the FIFA WC gets much higher ratings in Brazil than the SOG. As a result, Rede Globo, the main network in Brazil has agreed to pay large sums of money to keep the WC rights, but gave up competing with Record for the 2012 SOG. The reason for this choice is obvious: Brazil has more chance to win the WC than the Olympics. It is not only the Americans. People behave like this all around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feheva Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 It's true that many American-based MNCs rely on the global market, there's also the fact that these companies shouldn't lose sight of the largest market in the world (the US). In the case of McDonald's after watching these games being hosted around the world, sometimes it's just nice to root for the home team. Of course the American-based MNCs should care about the largest market in the world, but this very same market is very saturated. In the other hand the people from developing countries are hungry to consume. I think these corporations know that, that's why I believe the location of the SOGs is not that important to them. Pehaps SOG in USA could be worst... These corporations are owed by stakeholdres with no feelings related to the origin. They only look for profit... If it means SOGs will no longer be hosted in the USA in order to maximize their profits, so be it... I don't like it, but it's true... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feheva Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 But they do put money into Super Bowl, NBA championships and the likes. Sorry, i meant only Super Bowl, NBA championships and the likes... My foult... Bank of America could sponsor the Super Bowl, for example, but I don't see it sposoring a SOG... Even though it is huge in value... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feheva Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 I guess you have mentioned something important here. The main reason why Americans watch the SOG, hence the highest broadcast rights paid, is that the USA is expected to win dozens of gold medals. This would not be affected by the choice of the city to host the Games, except for convenience circumstances, such as time differences. Considering that, the revenue from sponsorship and broadcast rights should not vary a great deal whether the SOG are held in the US or not.Just to compare, the FIFA WC gets much higher ratings in Brazil than the SOG. As a result, Rede Globo, the main network in Brazil has agreed to pay large sums of money to keep the WC rights, but gave up competing with Record for the 2012 SOG. The reason for this choice is obvious: Brazil has more chance to win the WC than the Olympics. It is not only the Americans. People behave like this all around. Agreed! That's why I believe the sums of money provenient from American-based companies shouldn't play a part in the IOC decision. It's not charity... They know exactly what they are doing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 Agreed!That's why I believe the sums of money provenient from American-based companies shouldn't play a part in the IOC decision. It's not charity... They know exactly what they are doing... Nobody said it's charity. But who really can come forward and meet the onerous demands of being a TOP sponsor? How come there are fewer non-US companies than there are US cos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feheva Posted September 17, 2009 Report Share Posted September 17, 2009 Nobody said it's charity. But who really can come forward and meet the onerous demands of being a TOP sponsor? How come there are fewer non-US companies than there are US cos? I think I already made myself very clear in various posts that all TOP sponsors are multi-nationals and the origin of the companies really doesn't matter... USA is home of a great number of the biggest multi-nationals in the world and this is represented by the distribution of non-US and US companies in the TOP's list... But this is irrelevant... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pure facts Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 Actually, the current split between non-US and US TOP partners is now in favour of non-US partner. - US: Coca-Cola, Mc Donalds, GE, VISA - Non-US: Acer, Atos-Origin, Panasonic, Samsung and Omega Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feheva Posted September 18, 2009 Report Share Posted September 18, 2009 Actually, the current split between non-US and US TOP partners is now in favour of non-US partner.- US: Coca-Cola, Mc Donalds, GE, VISA - Non-US: Acer, Atos-Origin, Panasonic, Samsung and Omega I think Acer is US-based, isn't it? I doesn't matter anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.