Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
baron-pierreIV

McDonald's bails out of TOP programme

Recommended Posts

13 was never a lucky number.  McDonalds is calling it quits with the IOC's TOP programme thereby severing the $100 million/year programme (which I find VASTLY over-priced).  That supposedly leaves only 12 companies in the TOP programme.

McD's had been an int'l Oly sponsor since the Montreal Games of 1976.  

Boo-hoo.  But so long as McD's keeps its Shamrock-Shake tradition on St. Paddy's day, I am fine with their withdrawal from TOP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

13 was never a lucky number.  McDonalds is calling it quits with the IOC's TOP programme thereby severing the $100 million/year programme (which I find VASTLY over-priced).  That supposedly leaves only 12 companies in the TOP programme.

McD's had been an int'l Oly sponsor since the Montreal Games of 1976.  

Boo-hoo.  But so long as McD's keeps its Shamrock-Shake tradition on St. Paddy's day, I am fine with their withdrawal from TOP. 

Interesting.

I wonder if their equivalent in the unhealthy youth-oriented drinks business is also experiencing diminishing returns from its association with sporting achievement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one can answer the question; is this McDonald's not wanting to be associated with the Olympics any longer or is this McDonald's not being able to afford the sponsorship any longer because of the current business struggles they have been having?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting and odd. I've only known with the Olympics all my life, like a lot of people here. Doesn't McDonald's make the bulk of their money off of real estate the company owns? Who do you see that will overprice themselves as a TOP sponsor as a food company to replace the Golden Arches? Burger King? They have no sports sponsorship right now since the NFL several years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah.  I think the $100 million (even if it's for one-quadrennium) was really, to use a pun, eating into McDoo's profits -- especially now that they are making operating expenses higher in order to cater to their customer's tastes (like I love the idea of offering breakfast fare 24/7 which only chains like Denny's or IHOP's used to offer).  And McD's loyal fans of older seniors and aging boomers, didn't really care whether those rings were there or not.  And with the Games not happening in No. AMerica for at lesat another 11 years, their bottom line will be a lot healthier w/o that Olympic yoke.  And come 2026 (for the World Cup) and 2028, they can always be a USA Soccer/USOC and LAOOC sponsor -- and probably get the same $$ results, even if it's just for the US market. 

The IOC has realized that cities will not be putting up with their exorbitant demands; I think they should turn their attention now to their TOP programme,  There are only so many billion-dollar SUCKAs who will put with those Lausanne gnomes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it’s unusual for an Olympic sponsor to leave early, companies in the top sponsors program change regularly For example, China’s Alibaba Group recently signed a sponsorship deal this January that will end in 2028.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rio2016man said:

it’s unusual for an Olympic sponsor to leave early, companies in the top sponsors program change regularly For example, China’s Alibaba Group recently signed a sponsorship deal this January that will end in 2028.

Leave early?  McDonald's started out as an Olympic sponsor in 1976.  As of today, that's 41 years.  That's too early?  Besides, all these companies' primary accountability is to their stockholders -- not to the IOC.  

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Leave early?  McDonald's started out as an Olympic sponsor in 1976.  As of today, that's 41 years.  That's too early?  Besides, all these companies' primary accountability is to their stockholders -- not to the IOC.  

I'm sure he meant leave earlier than what their current contract had their partnership expire, which I think they still had 3 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, LatinXTC said:

I'm sure he meant leave earlier than what their current contract had their partnership expire, which I think they still had 3 years.

Oh, but those contracts have "opt-out early" clauses, too, and I'm sure the older sponsors, like McD's, Coke, VISA, -- for loyalty reasons -- have more favorable terms than the johnny-come-late'lies.  A report just came out that Intel will be coming in as a TOP sponsor at est. $200 mil for the 2018-2022 quad.  McD's expiring contract was for est. $100 mil for whatever their unfinished quadrennium would have been.  

Edited by baron-pierreIV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read its $25 million per year (so 100 million per quad)


The Globe and Mail is reporting that McDonalds viewed television ratings as diminishing returns (NBC had 8.6% less viewers for Rio vs London)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting take on this posted by Rob over at SkyscraperCity (C'mon Rob, you really should have posted it here as well ;))

 

Anyway, he says former IOC marketing director Michael Payne (would like to see the link for that) posits that it may have been more a case of the IOC nudging McDonalds out rather than the other way around. And it makes some sense - if anything, sponsorships like McDonalds' and Coke's have sparked a lot of negatives for the IOC and the games in recent years - how many of us have seen articles like this: Olympics are a carnival of junk food marketing, say campaigners .

I can see some plausibility that the IOC may be quietly wanting to ditch some of the negative baggage sponsors - much like much of the sporting world ditched cigarette advertising an sponsors in previous decades.

Edited by Sir Rols

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I'm sure there will be leaks and hints that McDonald's was pushed. Even if it's not true, the IOC will want to save face. They could go the health food angle, or suggest McDonalds was too pushy and demanding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll see whether they have the nuts to dump Coke as well then. If they do, then that'll show that maybe they are serious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

Very interesting take on this posted by Rob over at SkyscraperCity (C'mon Rob, you really should have posted it here as well ;))

 

Anyway, he says former IOC marketing director Michael Payne (would like to see the link for that) posits that it may have been more a case of the IOC nudging McDonalds out rather than the other way around. And it makes some sense - if anything, sponsorships like McDonalds' and Coke's have sparked a lot of negatives for the IOC and the games in recent years - how many of us have seen articles like this: Olympics are a carnival of junk food marketing, say campaigners .

I can see some plausibility that the IOC may be quietly wanting to ditch some of the negative baggage sponsors - much like much of the sporting world ditched cigarette advertising an sponsors in previous decades.

It was literally nothing more than a few tweets from him (https://twitter.com/MichaelRPayne1). But it was a different perspective from someone who's been in that world so I thought it was worth posting. As I said on SSC, not really sure how much I believe it, but it's not implausible given how incongruous this sponsorship is and that it's always brought up by the media and critics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The IOC can parcel out individual food and drink categories as well. Starbucks for the official coffee, Danone for dairy provider, etc.

The health food thing is a bit silly. Virtually all major food corporations are selling "junk" food. Bread has lots of calories, seaweed has too much sodium for the amount of energy it provides, etc. Humans are designed to move around a lot (fit humans are potentially faster than horses in a marathon) rather than sitting in chairs all day. There's no diet in the world that is good for sedentary humans, because being sedentary is not good for humans.

Edited by Nacre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nacre said:

, because being sedentary is not good for humans.

...but how would you have had all those medieval manuscripts?  Or all those monitors at Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, the NSA and Gamesbids?  Maybe Weightwatchers should shoot to be a TOP sponsor?  :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, baron-pierreIV said:

...but how would you have had all those medieval manuscripts?  Or all those monitors at Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, the NSA and Gamesbids?  Maybe Weightwatchers should shoot to be a TOP sponsor?  :wacko:

Depression and obesity were first noted on a large scale in monasteries. There were also some obese Roman aristocrats, but they too were lazy bastards being carried around in litters instead of walking.

It is worth noting that pro athletes like McDonalds because they need to eat lots of calories. Many NBA players eat more than 5000 calories per day at <5% body fat. I myself am an office worker (well, home office) and have not eaten at McDonalds in about 15 years. But there is no question that the most fit and healthy I have ever been was when I walked the Pacific Crest Trail (about 2,500 miles/4,000 km) and ate junk food every day: nuts, chocolate bars, lots of starchy foods, salty foods to replenish sodium lost in sweat, etc. And I still dropped from 180 lbs to 155.

EDIT: I forgot to add that Michael Phelps used to burn 12,000 calories per day when he was training. That is a lot of burgers.

Edited by Nacre
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this sucks. I was hoping to get my "Hidy and Howdy Reborn" Happy Meal toys if we got 2026! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×