1

Case Number: MKT04-02

Date: December 2004

NYC2012

“At the heart of the Olympic movement are a set of values that we believe New York City uniquely reflects, in which

individuals from every corner of the world and all walks of life come together, transcend their differences, and

engage in fair and friendly competition to achieve their dreams. That’s what the Olympic Games mean to New York

City, and that’s what we believe New York City can mean to the Olympic Games.” Dan Doctoroff, New York City

Deputy Mayor for Economic Development. Source (USA Today, 5/28/2004)

In early November 2004, Amy Stanton, NYC2012 Director of Marketing, surveyed the

crowd that had gathered at the Brooklyn Bridge for the New York City Olympic Bid Book send-

off. Amidst the cheering New Yorkers, she felt reinvigorated by the realization of how much

the NYC2012 team had accomplished. Amy hoped that they had created an Olympic Bid Book

that embodied the heart and soul of New York City’s Olympic dreams. Although she and Dan

Doctoroff, New York City Deputy Mayor and NYC2012 Founder, felt confident that they had

crafted a competitive bid, Amy could not help but worry about two things:

She wondered whether local opposition to the controversial, West Side Stadium proposal

would steamroll the city’s Olympic prospects. The West Side Stadium would be the only

suitable venue for the Opening and Closing Ceremonies and Amy knew that the bid would fail

if the New York City Planning Commission rejected the Stadium proposal.

She knew that the consequences would significantly affect all of their hard work, but

also knew that she had very little control over this factor and turned her attention to the question

that had been occupying most of her thoughts: would the marketing efforts she and her team had

developed over the last several years still be relevant?

Just a week earlier, President George W. Bush had won his re-election bid amidst a highly

contentious political atmosphere in the United States. International perceptions of the US had

already been negatively affected by the US War on Terror, War in Afghanistan, and War in Iraq.

Amy contemplated how President Bush’s re-election would be interpreted by the international

2

Jinsong Du, Rebecca Horan, Katsura Kikuzawa, Dana Meir, Esilda Seng and Juliana Wu ( all MBA ’05) prepared

this case under the supervision of Professor Russell Winer as the basis for class discussion rather than to illustrate

either effective or ineffective handling of an administrative situation. community. Would the NYC2012 team be able to counter any negativity or doubts about New

York City’s suitability as an Olympic Games host and its ability to embody one of the Olympics

most important values, peace? And even if they were to develop the “perfect” pitch, what would

be the most effective way to communicate it to its numerous stakeholders?

According to IOC guidelines, the official kick-off of the candidate cities’ international

marketing efforts would begin in late November. With a diverse group of stakeholders

including IOC members, athletes, heads of international sports federations, transportation

experts, environmentalists, business leaders, and the public, however, she feared that the

campaign had fallen into the position of trying to say too much, and not saying anything at all.

In addition to international and local political tensions and the complexity of

communicating to constituents, New York City faced a highly competitive bid process. The city

was up against four strong opponents: Paris, London, Moscow, and Madrid. Although Moscow

and Madrid presented compelling reasons to believe in their Olympic bids, Amy was

particularly concerned with the perceived frontrunners, Paris and London. As she watched

Brooklyn native and 2004 Athens Gold Medal Winner Justin Gatlin ceremoniously present the

NYC2012 bid book to a DHL Courier, Amy felt a sense of heightened urgency to turn her

attention to the next stage in the Olympic bid process.

The History of the Olympic Games

The first games were held in Olympia in 776 B.C. as a dedication to the Olympian gods.

Every fourth summer thereafter, a sacred flame would be lit continuously at the altar of Zeus

and Greek men would assemble to compete on the ancient plains of Olympia. Popularity of the

ancient Olympic Games peaked in the 4th

century B.C. The Games continued until the Roman

Emperor Theodosius I suppressed them in A.D. 393 as pagan acts.

In 1894, French educator and thinker Pierre de Coubertin proposed the revival of the

ancient Olympic Games to promote a more peaceful world. Within two years, de Coubertin and

79 delegates from nine countries established the infrastructure for the modern Olympic Games.

In 1896, under de Coubertin’s term as the first chairman of the International Olympics

Committee (IOC), the Olympic Games were revived in Athens. The Games were attended by

3

over 300 athletes from 14 nations with the largest delegations from Greece, Germany, France

and Great Britain (Exhibit 1)

In the 20th

century, the IOC established the Olympic Games as an international sports

competition. Consistent with the timing of the ancient Olympic Games, the modern version was

held every four years with the exceptions of the 1916, 1940 and 1944 Games, which were

interrupted by the World Wars. As the Olympic Games gained international prominence, the

Games were no longer just embodiments of collaboration or athleticism, but an international

stage to further political agendas and ideals. In 1936, the Berlin Olympic Games hosted by Nazi

Germany included only two Jewish athletes. In the 1972 Munich Olympic Games, agents from

the Palestinian Liberation Organization took 11 Israeli Olympic Athletes hostage in exchange

for the release of prisoners in a tragedy that resulted in the deaths of eleven Israeli athletes, five

Palestinians, and a German officer. From the 1940s through the 1980s, additional political

tension arose from divisive issues such as the diplomatic recognition of China and Taiwan or

East and West Germany. Political tension also impacted Olympic participation. In 1980, to

protest the December 1979, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan the US led a boycott of the 1980

Moscow Games, which reduced the number of participating nations to 80, the lowest since

1956. In retaliation, the USSR led a boycott of seventeen countries of the 1984 Los Angeles

Games.

By the end of the 20th

century the Olympic Games experienced a surge in popularity,

provoking criticism that the public and private sectors had adopted an opportunist attitude that

was incongruent with the vision of the Olympic Games. Host countries can earn substantial

revenues from the sale of television rights and the increase in tourism. Corporations pay

significant amounts to acquire sponsorship rights to use the Olympic symbols in their

advertisements and be associated with the equity of the Olympic Games. Profitable Olympic

Games also contribute to the IOC’s ability to subsidize the development of sports in less affluent

nations. Improvements in infrastructure and urban redevelopment can benefit the residents and

businesses of the host city. The emphasis on the economic benefits of hosting the Olympic

Games has led to the commercialization of the Olympic movement, creating additional

complexities in the communications strategies of the candidate cities and increasing the

competitive nature by which candidate cities bid for the games

Bribery scandals erupted from the Salt Lake City 2002 Winter Olympics and led to the

revision of IOC guidelines regarding communications between candidate cities and IOC

members. Reformed IOC guidelines stipulate that international marketing cannot begin until

4

after Bid Books have been submitted and IOC members cannot be contacted directly by

representatives from the candidate cities. These new rules create additional pressure to target

IOC members effectively during all official interactions.

In the 21st century, controversies are still present and continue to complicate the games.

Drug abuse of banned substances by athletes have called into question whether the Olympic

Games can still be upheld as a symbol of good sportsmanship and have concerned those

affiliated with the games that cynicism by spectators may impact attendance in future games.

The events of September 11, 2001 have also significantly impacted the emphasis of security.

With over 10,000 athletes participating and numerous spectators, the IOC has become

increasingly concerned with the host city’s ability to ensure public security

The Bidding Process

“All cities applying to become Candidate Cities to host the Olympic Games shall be subject to a

Candidature Acceptance Procedure, conducted under the authority of the IOC (International

Olympic Committee) Executive Board, which shall determine the details of such procedure. The

IOC Executive Board shall determine which cities shall be accepted as Candidate Cities.”

(Olympic Charter, By Law to Rule 37)

The first phase of selecting a host city starts nine years prior to the date of the Olympic

Games. A city interested in hosting the games must submit an application to the IOC through

its country’s National Olympic Committee (NOC), a supervisory board for all activities related

to the Olympic Games. The IOC requires NOC approval from all candidate cities.

This preliminary assessment examined government support, public opinion, general

infrastructure, security, venues, accommodation, and transportation. However, subjective

considerations such as the previous hosting record of the candidate country and other countries

on that continent also factor into the assessment. In addition, the personal agendas of IOC

members who wish to secure a near-future bid for their own country cause alliances to be made

between IOC members that affect how their votes will be cast. Also political interests have

become an implicit factor in the evaluation process. The selection of the candidate city and host

city is a highly complex and nuanced process that is determined by the votes of IOC members

with diverse interests. (Exhibits 2 and 3)

5

The Road to the Dream

The concept of NYC2012 was conceived during the 1994 World Cup game between

Italy and Bulgaria held at Giants Stadium. Dan Doctoroff1 hesitantly attended the event with

little expectation that he would actually enjoy himself . Upon entering the stadium, Dan found

that the stands were filled with enthusiastic fans, fueled not only by the usual team allegiances,

but also by an intense feeling of national passion. Dan was instantly overwhelmed by the wave

of energy and excitement:

“I’d been to the Super Bowl, the NBA finals, the World Series, and only a month before I’d seen

the Rangers win the Stanley Cup, but that soccer game turned out to be the most exciting event

I’d ever seen...I was thinking the amazing thing about the New York area is, you could play that

game with almost any two countries in the world and you’d generate the same excitement and I

started wondering how it was that the world’s most international city had never hosted the

Olympics, the world’s most international event.”

(New York Magazine, June 21, 2004)

Dan left the stadium with the vague notion that New York City ought to stage the

Olympics, and over the next year and a half, that notion became a personal obsession. “I’m

normally a very rational person,” he said. “I’d made my living making very rational decisions.”

However, the quest to bring the Olympic Games to New York City took on a life of its own. The

more time he spent on the project, the more enthralled he became.

In December 2000, the United States Olympic Committee received eight bids to be the

candidate city for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. These cities were Cincinnati,

Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, New York City, San Francisco, Tampa, and Washington,

D.C./Baltimore. The intense competition to secure the USOC nomination was described by

USOC Chair Sandra Baldwin:

"The United States Olympic Committee and America's Olympic athletes are thrilled by this

tremendous outpouring of enthusiasm for the Olympic Games by eight tremendous communities.

The delivery today of the eight bids doubles the previous level of interest by U.S. cities in

hosting the Games. I know we will have a competitive and spirited process ahead of us, and I

1 At that time Dan Doctoroff was a managing partner of Oak Hill Capital Partners Inc., a private equity investment

firm formed with Texas investor Robert M. Bass. He took ownership of the Olympic dream by serving as the

president of NYC2012, a nonprofit group he set up to plan the New York Games. In December 2001, New York

Mayor Michael Bloomberg tapped him as deputy mayor for economic development and rebuilding, a job that

includes overseeing the sensitive and highly public process of planning a new World Trade Center site. As a result,

he left Oak Hill Capital Partners and stepped down as the president of the NYC20012, though he remains chief

spokesman.

6

am convinced that we can bring the 2012 Olympic Games to the United States, and stage these

Games in the same successful way that previous American cities have."

In 2002, the USOC selected New York City following final presentations from the

NYC2012 and San Francisco 2012 organizations. However, the competition had just begun.

Worldwide Competition

In 2002, Leizpig, Istanbul, Havana, and Rio de Janeiro were eliminated as contenders

and the the possible location for the 2012 Olympic Games was narrowed down to Paris, New

York City, Moscow, London, or Madrid. The scorecard for candidate city selection is shown in

Exhibit 4.

As some of the world’s most renowned destinations, each city could easily boast the

same advantages: rich history and culture, a hotbed of multiculturalism, diversity that would

support fan bases for all sports, proven ability to host large-scale events, and a passion for sports

and athleticism. Each candidate city also promised variations of the same advantages to the

IOC: cultural stimulation for visitors, further development of the Olympic legacy, a clustered

and accessible Olympic Park. Hoping to differentiate itself, each competitor established various

claims: Paris, the number one destination for tourists; London, the world’s transport center,

helping 65 million people travel between destinations; Moscow, home to over 500 Olympic

champions; Madrid, the first car-free Olympics. While it may have been relatively easy for

these cities to differentiate themselves from other cities within their respective countries,

differentiation among the final candidates was much less clear.

London – “Back the Bid” & “Olympic Games and Paralympic Games for the Next

Generation”

The crux of London’s bid was its reputation as the capital of sports, culture, and the

world. London positioned itself as the world within one city by citing the presence of over 50

ethnic communities, 70 international cuisines, and 300 different languages. Communication

pieces highlighted the city’s reputation as the capital of sport by calling attention to iconic

venues such as Wimbledon Stadium, Wembley Stadium, and Lord’s Cricket Ground. The 2012

7

London bid also harkened back to the city’s Olympic heritage as the birthplace of the

Paralympics and the inspiration for Pierre de Coubertin’s original vision. In addition, London

had hosted several world-class sporting events including the 2002 Commonwealth Games. In

communicating these attributes, London chose two different approaches.

Using “Back the Bid” London petitioned for public support for the bid as well as

demonstrated strong nationalism to the IOC community. In order to bolster support, London

called on its most famous citizens to back the bid and asked its other citizens to do the same.

Support for the city’s bid manifested itself through both physical and virtual flags that had been

signed by bid backers. A flag of London, covered with signatures was submitted to the IOC

with the bid book. This was an important symbol, as London has been criticized for having

some of the lowest public support scores, with less than 75% of the public vowing support as on

November 2004.2

Additionally, London focused much of its communication strategy articulating its

promise for an “Olympic Games and Paralympic Games for the Next Generation.” London had

already hosted the Olympic Games twice and gained a reputation of being able to host the

Games in a very efficient manner. In 1908, after an unexpected volcanic eruption caused

significant damage to the original host city, Rome, London was able to quickly coordinate its

resources to successfully host the Games. In 1948, after a twelve year hiatus due to World War

II, the Olympic Games were revived at London. This rich Olympic legacy demonstrated

London’s capability as a host, as well as its commitment to the Olympic vision and values. It

used its strong foundation as a previous host to suggest that it would be able to act as "…a

model for the next generation of athletes and for planning around the long-term needs of

Olympic host cities and communities," said London 2012 Chairman, Sebastian Coe.3 As part of

the “next generation” campaign, London babies born on 20/12/2004 (12/20/2004), will be given

the opportunity to participate in the Opening ceremonies of the games should London with the

bid. 4 (Exhibit 5)

Moscow – “Imagine It Now.”

Using the “Imagine It Now” tagline, Moscow articulated the balance between its rich past and

new present. Hosting the 2012 Olympic Games would serve as a symbol of Moscow’s, and

2 “London submits final 2012 plans” BBC.com 11/15/2004

3 Press Release “London 2012 unveils Olympic Games and Paralympic Games for the next generation” 11/19/2004

4 “Events Help London 2012 Launch Drive For Supporters” Gamesbids.com 12/17/2004

8

more specifically, Russia’s recent entry into the democratic world. Barcelona, Athens, and

Beijing’s successful bids had set precedence for leveraging political changes to their favor to

win the Olympic bid. And Moscow’s positioning had strong appeal to the IOC members’ wish

to award the Games to a city that would be able to reap long term benefits. Moscow’s bid

claimed that:

“For Moscow and the Russian people, realizing that dream will crown a decade that has

heralded social, political and economic freedom unprecedented in scale and timeframe. We

want to share that dream – to demonstrate before the world how much Russia has grown and

changed, how much it has to offer all humanity. Moscow, partnered with the Olympic

movement, can be a beacon for a brighter future of the world.”5

Moscow proposed that the Olympic Games would be an ideal backdrop and offer a truly unique

opportunity for the world to experience the new face of Moscow and a symbol by which to

welcome Russia to the family of nations. Moscow also emphasized its geographical advantage

between the Eastern and Western worlds to underscore its multiculturalism and diversity.

The tagline was also a direct reference to the 1980 Moscow Olympic Games, which

were considered one of the most controversial in history. The “Imagine It Now” tagline suggests

notions of even more Olympic success given the country’s new economic and social

environment. While some spectators believed that bidding so soon after having recently hosted

games would be a negative, the fact that over 70% of the venues used for the 1980 games were

in great condition – a fact that the IOC would certainly consider given the widely-public budget

problems associated with Athens’ infrastructure for the 2000 games.

Finally, Moscow’s visual communications included heavy use of the Moscow River as a

representation of the change and fluidity of the country’s evolution. The Moscow River would

be the center element of the Olympic Park. All venues would be clustered around the “Olympic

River” as a reminder of Russia’s unmistakable heritage and movement towards the future.

(Exhibit 6)

Madrid6

Madrid was the only major European capital that had never hosted the Olympic Games.

5 Moscow 2012 website: http://www.m2012.ru/en/ 6 Madrid 2012 website: http://www.madrid2012.es/home/index.asp

9

Unlike some of the other candidate cities, who used explicit taglines, Madrid used an illusory

theme as the centerpiece of its messages. Specifically, the candidate city centered the messages

of its bid on the idea of humanism in two ways:

1) “Green games” where people and nature fully integrate and 2) As “the world meeting point”

where all humans regardless of social, cultural political or religious affiliation can participate in

the Olympiad values.

To create the “Green Olympics,” Madrid proposed integrating environmental criteria

into all decisions of the Games. Specifically, it concentrated on minimizing the consumption of

natural resources and implementing state-of-the-art environmentally-friendly tactics. These

tactics included hydrogen-powered public transportation and the fueling all instillations with

renewable energies. The result would be a “city of the future” that promotes environmental

well-being and thoughtfulness – certainly, a legacy that no other candidate city claims.

In addition to their “humanist” theme, Madrid touted its reputation as a leading global

sporting city as an advantage. Madrid home to Real Madrid, the largest and most followed

football club in the world. Several of the club’s most famous players served as spokesmen for

the Olympic campaign. In addition, Real’s Bernabeau Stadium, with capacity for 100,000 fans,

was extremely attractive from a venue perspective. However, despite the IOC’s public praise of

the 1992 Barcelona Games as one of the most successful and best organized, it seemed unlikely

that the IOC would award the Games to the same country within two decades. (Exhibit 7)

Paris7 – “L'amour des jeux [love of the games]”

The “City of Lights” had garnered the highest ranking during the competition for

candidate city status. As the number one tourist destination in the world with over 45 million

visitors annually, Paris offered accommodations, transportation, and amenities for travelers.

Having hosted the 1900 and 1924 Olympic Games and the 1998 World Cup, Paris had the

infrastructure and ability to host grand scale events. The World Cup Stadium could

accommodate 80,000 people and was in perfect condition for the 2012 Olympic Games. Due to

its existing backbone, Paris boasted that it could host the Olympics with the construction of only

four additional large scale sports venues. In addition, private companies that value the long-

term financial benefits of hosting the events had already contributed over $33M to the

7 Paris 2012 website: http://www.parisjo2012.fr/fr/index.jsp

10

marketing campaign, second only to London’s marketing budget of $44M. This was a

considerable advantage due to the publicity surrounding Athens’ budgetary problems.

Paris’marketing campaign was the most focused of all candidate cities. The positioning

statement, “For the Love of the Games,” was an effective combination of the city’s global

reputation as the capital of romance and the Olympic celebration of the thrill of sports. This

communication was woven through all marketing materials, including the logo. Literature

romanticized the use of iconic Parisian landmarks to stage the Games: beach volleyball at the

foot of the Eiffel Tower and equestrian events at Versailles. Paris’ ability to integrate this theme

throughout its campaign represented a comprehensive marketing effort that differentiated it as a

serious contender.

Finally, Paris had significant experience with the Olympic bidding process due to its

failed campaign for the 2008 Olympic Games. However, like London, Paris had already hosted

the games twice. That, coupled with the immediacy of another European Olympic Games

(Athens 2004), made it highly uncertain if the IOC would award Paris the 2012 Games.

(Exhibit 8)

New York City Bid: “Let the Dreams Begin”

After the events of September 11, 2001, New York City became the sentimental favorite

for the USOC bid. Dan believed that the tragedy awakened many to the true character of the

city--a character exceptionally well aligned with the spirit of the Olympics.

“The rest of the world sees us in a different way than before September 11. They see the true

face of New York City--the courage, resiliency, and patriotism. And in what other city is the

Olympic spirit more alive? More than any city on earth, New York is a city for people with

dreams." (Business Week, November 4, 2002)

While Dan’s statement found resonance within the United States, international

perceptions of the United States shifted after September 11th and the subsequent wars. Results

from a recent GMI World Poll are shown in Exhibit 9. Amy Stanton was uncertain how the

team should respond, if at all, to the current world sentiments. She believed:

“People don’t look at New York City as an American city, but as a world city that happens to be

in the United States. People have a love for New York City and IOC members really want to

pick a city for everyone.”

11

US travel restrictions after September 11, 2001 also placed New York City in an

unfavorable position. A significant number of visas had been denied due to heightened scrutiny

by immigration services. The collection of digital personal information for those who were

granted visas resulted in protests over privacy concerns. Overall, immigration issues

contributed to concerns that a considerable number of athletes or athletic staff would be absent

from the Olympic Games. Although NYC2012 had already taken efforts to advocate potential

changes to the visa restrictions, it was difficult to forecast what the immigration issues would be

in 2012.

The Redevelopment of New York City

Both Amy and Dan knew that success of the New York City Olympic bid would result

in permanent changes to the infrastructure and economy of New York City. Proposed

construction efforts centered on a plan called the Olympic X (Exhibit 10). According to the

Olympic X, every sports venue would be located along one of two intersection transportation

axes. The North-South axis would follow the waterfront from Staten Island to the tip of

Northern Manhattan. The East-West axis would follow the extension of the Number 7 train

from the Flushing Meadowlands to the Javits Center. The Olympic Village would be situated

near the intersection of the two axes on the Queens waterfront directly across from the United

Nations. Ferries traveling along the waterfront and dedicated train service from the Olympic

Village would be committed to transport athletes and staff to the appropriate venues.

The proposed West Side Stadium would serve as the Olympic Stadium which would

stage the events of the Opening and Closing Ceremonies. However, the proposal was mired in

controversy as several powerful players would be affected. Proponents of the West Side

Stadium believed that the far west side would become a thriving center of culture, sports,

tourism, and entertainment. The presence of cafes, restaurants, shops, a 1,500-room hotel,

office and residential space as well as a ribbon of parks along the waterfront would draw

pedestrian traffic and revitalization to the area. A grand boulevard with a center esplanade

nearly twice as wide as Park Avenue would be carved out between Tenth and Eleventh Avenues

and run from 33rd

up to 42nd

Streets. The open rail yards on the east side of the site would be

covered by a six-acre park. Plans for a cultural institution on the south side of the site were also

being discussed.

12

The “Let the Dreams Begin” Vision:

In July 2004, NYC2012 launched its marketing campaign. Following the same path as

Paris and Moscow, New York City chose to use its unique positioning as the centerpiece for its

marketing strategy. Dan Doctoroff explained the vision behind “Let the Dreams Begin”:

“We are delighted to launch this spectacular campaign that embodies the spirit of New

York City – a spirit that also is the embodiment of the Olympic ideals,” said Doctoroff,

“These new ads present everyday New York scenarios to depict the city as a place where

people from all over the world come to fulfill their dreams, where they come to push

themselves, to compete with the very best and to pursue the ultimate glory, just like the

athletes who participate at an Olympic Games.”8 (Exhibit 11)

New York City’s Communications Strategy

Targeting the IOC

Amy Stanton knew that her team had a lot to prove to the IOC before the July 2005 vote.

Despite the strengths of New York’s competitors, Amy believed that NYC2012 could more

effectively demonstrate the ways in which the New York bid would not only meet, but exceed

the criteria established by the IOC. Specifically, the campaign boasted:

o High levels of support from both residents and businesses

o An alignment between Olympic development plans and the city’s existing long-term

development plans

o A variety of options for accommodations

o An ease of transportation with New York City’s extensive public transportation system,

as well as supplemental transportation for the athletes themselves.

The NYC2012 bid also claimed the ability to generate a lasting contribution to building

awareness and increasing the fan base of all sports due to the diversity of interests represented in

the population of New York City. Finally, Amy’s team recognized that some IOC members

8 http://www.usoc.org/73_21566.htm

13

entertained hopes of securing future bids for their own countries, which potentially could work

to New York’s advantage as only a small percentage of the IOC board was from the US.

In answer to the IOC’s request for demonstration of adequate advertising space, New

York City Mayor Bloomberg announced in 2004 that 95% of the city’s advertising signs were

under contract to be reserved for Olympic use. Areas committed included outdoor signage,

airports, subways, buses, transit platforms, bus shelters, taxi tops, newsstands, street poles, and

phone booths. This would be the largest amount of signage ever to have been committed in

advance by a candidate city. This unprecedented commitment reinforced New York’s

reputation as the media capital of the world. Unfortunately, unlike most of its competitors, New

York was not able to guarantee 2004 advertising rates, as the IOC had requested.

New York City fortified its reputation as one of the world’s most popular tourist

destinations by creating an Olympic Hotel Network, which included the commitment of 45,000

rooms at 200 area hotels at guaranteed rates for the entire seventeen-day span of the 2012

Games. These rooms would be available to members of the IOC, the National Olympic

Committees, the media, and international sports officials, among others.

Communicating to Various Constituents

In order to obtain IOC support, NYC2012 had to demonstrate support for the bid from

all other constituents. These included New York City residents and businesses, athletes, and the

international community. Consequently, NYC2012 not only had to have a distinct message that

would appeal to all groups, but also had to have more targeted messages crafted for each

constituency.

NYC2012 marketing efforts included the submission of short films written and produced

pro bono by NYC2012’s Creative Council, a group of top marketing executives from leading

New York agencies who were charged with developing the advertising, promotions, licensing

and design initiatives for the bid. The media campaign consisted of eight television spots, two

radio spots, print and guerilla advertising9. It showcased quintessential New York City

personalities such as Jerry Seinfeld and Billy Crystal as well as celebrated New York icons such

as yellow taxis and Yankee Stadium. Additionally, NYC2012 hoped that IOC members visiting

New York City for the evaluation tour, would gain a sense of the excitement surrounding the

Olympic Games through communications delivered during “Welcome” messages by flight

9 http://www.usoc.org/73_21566.htm

14

attendants on flights in the New York City. And utilizing one of the city’s most iconic symbols,

the NYC2012 committee worked out a deal in which the city’s world-known taxi drivers would

point out future Olympic sites while driving people about the city.

Reaching out to New York City Residents

As the media capital of the world, New York City needed a truly unique and inspiring

communications strategy in order to bolster support from its eight million residents. Through

on-going polls, New York City officials estimated that 70-80% of the city’s residents supported

NYC2012. This was in the same realm as other candidate cities’ support estimates, and it was

especially impressive considering New York City’s extensive diversity and assertive reputation.

The fact that most of the support for the bid was shown in the outer boroughs of the city

underscored the message that NYC2012 wished to impart to New York City: that the Olympic

Games would be an historical event for all New Yorkers (not just those living in Manhattan) to

experience and share. Despite the apparent support however, controversy arose with many

residents.

Flushing Queens

NYC2012 faced resistance from community leaders and residents in areas like Flushing,

Queens, where the city planned to join two lakes to create an Olympic rowing venue. NYC2012

representatives and city officials argued that all changes made to New York City neighborhoods

would be improvements. They also informed residents that the games would create 125,000

jobs and put $11 billion into local economy. However, many residents and community leaders

were skeptical of the alleged benefits, based on Sydney’s lessons and especially in light of the

media exposure Athens had recently received after excessively going over budget and extending

much of the tax burden onto its residents (See appendix 12 for additional information). In

addition, controversy surrounding the West Side Stadium contributed to polarizing sentiments

surrounding the Olympic bid.

The Stadium

As part of a neighborhood redevelopment plan, a $1.4 billion stadium for the New York Jets (an

American football team) had been proposed for construction on the West side of Manhattan.

The costs for building the stadium would be sourced from multiple streams: $800 million would

be paid for by the Jets, $300 million would come from New York City, and the remaining $300

15

million would be paid for by New York State. The West Side Stadium would serve as the

Olympic Stadium where the Opening and Closing Ceremonies would take place.

Those opposed to the stadium argued that it would impose a huge burden on New York

taxpayers, and that it was too much of an economic risk for the city and state. Opponents of the

plan further argued that $600 million would be better spent improving public schools, hospitals,

parks, and roads. In addition, Cablevision, the corporate owner of Madison Square Garden, was

another active opponent that had the resources, savvy, and ability to battle the West Side

Stadium plan.

Proponents claimed that the stadium would be a boon to economic development on the

West side and that the new income would more than offset any cost to the city or state.

Revenues from the stadium would provide funding for these very same public initiatives. In

addition, the stadium’s sole use would not be for the New York Jets, who would only use it for

eight to ten games per year. Rather, the stadium’s primary use would be as an extension of the

Javits Center, New York City’s largest show and convention center. Many in the city believed

that the Javits Center, ranked only as the 16th

largest in the US, was a poor facility for the scale

of New York City and that expansion would be necessary for growth of the tourism and

convention industries.

The stadium plan had stirred passionate arguments from both sides of the debate, but one

thing was clear: the West Side Stadium was a crucial element of New York City’s Olympic bid.

Amy knew that the city could not win the Olympic bid without approval of the stadium plans.

Support from Local Businesses

Because NYC2012 relied on private contributions rather than public funding,

garnering support from local businesses was critical not only to bolstering enthusiasm and

support, but also to keeping the effort afloat and the organization running. As of November

2004, several hundred local corporations, unions and foundations had already committed more

than $35 million to the cause. Companies such as Visa USA, Time Warner, Goldman Sachs,

and Verizon were among the major corporate donors.

In addition to monetary support, NYC2012 also won tactical and symbolic support

from businesses. For the first time in history, New York City construction and hotel unions

agreed to a “No Strike” pledge that would be in effect for the ten years prior to the Olympics.

Efforts were underway to sign similar agreements with other unions. Nearly 400 ethnic non-

profit businesses and organizations representing over 40,000 nationalities had joined

16

NYC2012’s “Nations of New York” in support of New York City’s bid. These organizations

were charged with reaching out to their ethnic communities worldwide to generate support for

the New York City Olympic Games. They emphasized the city’s international population and

ensured other countries that if they sent their athletes to New York, an abundance of their

national fans would be present.

Winning Over the International Community

Worldwide support for a candidate city’s bid was a critical factor in the IOC’s

decision-making process. In reaching out to the international community, NYC2012 had

decided against using the US flag or any national symbols on bid material in order to separate

the brand of New York City from the image of the United States. NYC2012 wanted to show

that despite the political atmosphere at the time, New York City was still an open city that

welcomed everyone, truly a city for citizens of the world. NYC2012 initiatives sought to

reinforce perceptions of New York City’s openness, freedom, and diversity.

Support from the Athletes

NYC2012 believed that it would be crucial to communicate with and earn the support

of Olympic athletes. The athletes would give a face to the Olympics; they were the most visible

constituents and therefore some of the most important people to win over. In theory, if past and

present Olympians supported the Games in New York City, their excitement and enthusiasm

would be contagious—to the IOC, to New York City residents, and to the international

community at large. NYC2012 had worked to garner the support of Olympians and

Paralympians worldwide and as of late 2004 had a record number of athletes (representing 45

countries and all 50 states in the U.S.) included in its “Circle of Olympians and Paralympians.”

This group of 1,700 athletes was thought to be the largest group of Olympians and Paralympians

ever to come out in support of an Olympic bid. They served as ambassadors for the New York

Bid in various countries and participated in community and school activities within New York

City.

The Future

With the NYC2012 Bid Book on its journey to Lausanne, Switzerland, Amy

turned her attention to the issues facing the bid campaign. Did the NYC2012 positioning

effectively leverage the brand of New York City while taking the brand of the United States into

17

consideration? How would the current political environment affect the perceptions of IOC

members? Could the NYC2012 team undertake any efforts in response to the recent political

developments? Which of the competitors posed the highest threat to the success of the

NYC2012 bid? Had Amy’s team crafted a campaign that differentiated New York City from

the other candidate cities and was the messages communicated effectively? How would the

controversy around the West Side Stadium evolve and what would be the effect on the

NYC2012 bid? Finally, Amy wondered if the NYC2012 team had focused on the key issues in

preparation for the critical IOC Evaluation Commission visit. Amy believed that corporations

would be unlikely to repeat the unprecedented levels of financial support if the bid for the 2012

Olympic Games should fall short. Therefore, it was unlikely that New York City would be able

to stage a bid for the 2016 Olympic Games. Amy knew that the stakes were higher than ever,

but with so many critical questions remaining, she was unsure how to proceed.

18

Glossary

IOC - International Olympic Committee - The IOC is an international non-governmental

non-profit organization and the creator of the Olympic Movement. The IOC exists to serve as an

umbrella organization of the Olympic Movement. It owns all rights to the Olympic symbols,

flag, motto, anthem and Olympic Games. Its primary responsibility is to supervise the

organization of the summer and winter Olympic Games.

NOC - National Olympic Committee - an organization authorized by the IOC to oversee

Olympic activities within a particular country such as organizing national teams, hosting

Games, marketing and sponsorships, etc.

USOC - United States Olympic Committee - the NOC for the United State.

Bid City - A bid city is any city that has announced their intention to bid to host an Olympic

Games.

Applicant City – A city that has received approval from their NOC and has submitted an

application to the IOC to be considered for a candidate city.

Candidate City - a City bidding for the opportunity to host an Olympic Games. The City has

already received the approval of their NOC, has submitted an application and questionnaire to

the IOC and have been selected to the short-list.

Short-List - The short-list is created by the IOC from the pool of applicant cities based on

reviewing the questionnaires. If they meet minimum requirements, they become candidate cities

and proceed to the final vote.

19

Exhibit 1 Candidate Cities10

10

http://www.olympic.org/uk/games/index_uk.asp

Year City Country Sports Candidate Cities

1896 Athens Greece 9 -

1900 Paris France 18 -

1904 St. Louis United States 17 Chicago

1908 London UK 22 Berlin, Milan, Rome

1912 Stockholm Sweden 14 -

1920 Antwerp Belgium 22 Amsterdam, Lyon

1924 Paris France 17 Amsterdam, Barcelona, Los Angeles, Prague, and Rome

1928 Amsterdam Netherlands 14 Los Angeles

1932 Los Angeles United States 14 -

1936 Berlin Germany 19 Barcelona

1948 London UK 17 Baltimore, Lausanne, Los Angeles, Minneapolis and Philadelphia

1952 Helsinki Finland 17 Los Angeles, Amsterdam, Minneapolis, Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia

1956 Melbourne Australia 17 Buenos Aires, Los Angeles, Detroit, Mexico, Chicago, Minneapolis,

Philadelphia and San Francisco

1960 Rome Italy 17 Lausanne, Detroit, Budapest, Brussels, Mexico City and Tokyo

1964 Tokyo Japan 19 Detroit, Vienna and Brussels

1968 Mexico Mexico 20 Detroit, Lyon, and Buenos Aires

1972 Munich Germany 23 Detroit, Madrid, and Montreal

1976 Montreal Canada 21 Los Angeles and Moscow

1980 Moscow Russia 21 Los Angeles

1984 Los Angeles United States 23 -

1988 Seoul Korea 25 Nagoya

1992 Barcelona Spain 28 Amsterdam, Belgrade, Birmingham, Brisbane, and Paris

1996 Atlanta United States 26 Athens, Belgrade, Manchester, Melbourne and Toronto

2000 Sydney Australia 28 Beijing , Berlin, Istanbul and Manchester

2004 Athens Greece 35 Buenos Aires, Cape Town, Rome and Stockholm

20

Exhibit 2 IOC Selection Criteria and Weights

11

Criterion Weight

Government Support, Legal issues and Public Opinion (including compliance with the

Olympic Charter and the World Anti-Doping Code*)

2

General Infrastructure 5

Sports Venues 4

Olympic Village 4

Environmental Conditions and Impact 2

Accommodation 5

Transportation Concept 3

Safety and Security 3

Experience from past sports events 2

Finance 3

Overall project and legacy 3

11

Report by the IOC candidature acceptance working group to the IOC executive board, Lausanne, 12 march 2004

21

Exhibit 3 2012 Bid Timeline12

November 2, 2002 - United States Olympic Committee elects its 2012 candidate (New

York)

January 21, 2003 - Spanish Olympic Committee elects its 2012 candidate

February 27, 2003 - French officials meet to decide Paris' intentions for 2012

April 12, 2003 - German Olympic Committee elects its 2012 candidate

May, 2003 - IOC to send circular to NOC's inviting them to submit the name of an

applicant city.

July 7th, 2003 - Brazil Olympic Committee to elect 2012 candidate, Rio De Janeiro or

São Paulo.

July 15th, 2003 - NOC's to inform the IOC of the name of an applicant city (by letter)

August 30th, 2003 - USD $150,000 fees due from applicant cities

October 7 to 10, 2003 - IOC Applicant City Seminar in Lausanne

November 21-22, 2003 - Bids to visit Athens for 2004 organization update

January 15th, 2004 - Applicant Cities to reply to IOC questionnaire

January 15th to June 2004 - Examination of replies by IOC and experts

May 18, 2004 - Acceptance of short-listed candidate cities by the IOC executive board

August, 2004 - Candidate City Observer Programme at the Games of the XXVIII

Olympiad in Athens

November 15th, 2004 - Candidature files submitted to IOC

February 3 to March 17, 2005 - Visits of the IOC evaluation committee to the

Candidate Cities

o Madrid: February 3 to 6

o London: February 16 to 19

o New York: February 21 to 24

o Paris: March 9 to 12

o Moscow: March 14 to 17

May 2005 - Evaluation commission report

July 6, 2005 - Election of the 2012 host city by the IOC session in Singapore.

12

http://www.gamesbids.com/english/bids/2012.shtml

22

Exhibit 4 IOC Scorecard for Candidate City Selection13

New York Madrid Moscow Paris London

Public Opinion 5.7 8.3 7.1 6.5 5.4

General Infrastructures 7.0 8.5 6.8 7.8 7.0

Sports Venues 7.7 8.7 7.1 8.0 7.1

Olympic Village 7.7 8.7 8.0 8.3 8.0

Environmental Conditions 7.6 8.6 7.6 8.6 8.6

Accommodation 10.0 8.4 7.4 10.0 10.0

Transport 6.7 9.0 6.2 8.0 6.7

Safety & Security 7.2 7.4 6.4 8.3 7.7

Past Experience 8.0 7.4 7.0 9.0 6.8

Finance 7.5 8.0 7.2 8.0 8.0

Overall Project & Legacy 8.0 9.0 7.0 9.0 8.0

13

Report by the IOC candidature acceptance working group to the IOC executive board, Lausanne, 12 march 2004

23

Exhibit 5 London - logo and website (http://www.london2012.org/en)

24

Exhibit 6 Moscow - logo and website (http://www.m2012.ru/en/)

25

Exhibit 7 Madrid - logo and website (http://www.madrid2012.es/home/index.asp)

26

Exhibit 8 Paris - logo and website (http://www.parisjo2012.fr/en/index.jsp)

27

Exhibit 9 GMI World Poll14

14

http://www.worldpoll.com/press_room_wppk_pr_10212004.phtml

28

Exhibit 10 Proposed Development Plan and West Side Stadium

29

Exhibit 11 New York City - logo and website (http://www.nyc2012.com)

30

31

Appendix 12 Recent Olympics – The Athens and Sydney Games

ATHENS 2004

32

Athens’ Bidding History

After losing the 1996 Centennial Olympic Games to Atlanta, the Athens Organizing

Committee was eager to prove the city’s ability to host the most memorable modern games

to the world. Their chance came when, on September 5, 1997 at the 106th

IOC Session in

Lausanne, Switzerland, Athens was elected as the host city for the Summer Games in 2004.

Athens’ Marketing Strategy

The crux of Athens’ communications focused on the emotional appeal of the return

of the Olympic Games to their birthplace. The public face of the Olympic bid centered on

support for the bid by the people of Athens. The Athens Olympic Committee estimated

95% of the public, the political parties, the Sporting Authorities, and the Municipality

agreed that Athens wanted to undertake the hosting of the Games. To corporate sponsors,

the Athens Olympic Games was promoted as an opportunity to advertise products and

services in an association with the authentic setting of the Olympic spirit. An official

Athens 2004 Sponsorship Program was implemented to “provide a partnerships and broader

exposure with less message clutter.”

Funding

With an estimated Olympic budget of 4.6B Euro and final costs of approximately 7B

Euro, the Athens Olympics comprised 5% of Greece’s GDP and were the most expensive

modern games to date. Security costs that were unforeseen when Greece first submitted

their Olympic bid amounted to 1.3B Euro alone. This included the cost of “posting 40,000

troops along the northern border of the country to prevent illegal entry and the installation of

a new security system so sophisticated that it could photograph people’s faces, intercept

phone calls, and deduce cell phone numbers almost anywhere in the city.”

The Athens Olympics was funded by a combination of government support,

television rights, corporate sponsorships, and ticket sales. NBC paid $800 million for the

broadcasting rights to the Olympics in the US and expected to net $1,000 million for ads that

ran during the Olympic Games. Ticket sales were disappointing due to late construction

schedules that delayed purchase of tickets, a lack of interest in attending some events by

Greek citizens, a major religious holiday, and the disqualification of a popular Greek athlete

over a doping controversy. At the same points in time before the opening ceremonies of the

Sydney and Athens games, 9.5 million tickets had been sold in Sydney while only 2.9

33

million tickets had been sold in Greece. In fact, two weeks before the start of the Olympics,

3.1 million tickets of 5.3 million tickets remained unsold.

Infrastructure

The Greek government undertook major improvements to the existing transportation

infrastructure in anticipation of the convergence of Olympic athletes and staff, spectators,

and tourists upon the Olympic sites. The existing Metro system was extended to provide

access between the Athens airport and the city center in order to accommodate the influx of

tourists. In addition, two new means of transportation, the Light Rail System and the

Suburban Railway were completed to improve transportation between Olympic sites within

the Athens area.

The availability of hotel accommodations for travelers was also a challenge. Prior to

the games, Greek hotel staff staged a series of one-day strikes over wage disputes. With

only 90,000 rooms available in the metropolitan area, many travelers were left without

rooms or were charged highly inflated prices. Relief for travelers came when the Athens

Olympic Committee arranged for cruise liners to serve as floating hotels. Although

accommodations for travelers were considered poorly handled, the Athens Olympic Village

was praised for its comfort, security, and ease of access for housing 11,000 Olympic

athletes. The 2,000 units in the Olympic Village had since been turned into social housing

and student accommodation.

The Aftermath of the Athens Olympic Games

The Athens Games was the formal introduction of Athens as a modern city to the

world. The regenerative power of a major sporting event revitalized the country’s tourism

industry. In addition, Greece hoped that construction of state-of-the-art athletic facilities

would be a benefit to the citizens of Greece. However, the costs of hosting the Athens

Olympics were exorbitant. Greece’s Finance Ministry projected that the country’s debt-

already among Europe’s highest – would top 100% of GDP in the following years. In

addition, concerns abound that Greek taxpayers would pay for the costs of the Olympics for

many years while the wealthy business enterprises would benefit. For example,

telecommunications mogul Socrates Kokkalis agreed to repair a stadium for Olympic soccer

matches in exchange for a 49-year lease for his soccer team. However, most experts agreed

34

that it was too soon to tell what the true legacy of the Athens Olympics would be. SYDNEY

2000

Sydney’s Bidding History

On September 23, 1993 the IOC announced that Sydney, Australia would get its

second chance to host the Olympic Games in 2000. Sydney won over Beijing by two bids

prior to previously loosing the bids for 1992 and 1996.

Sydney’s Marketing Strategy

Sydney won the 2000 bid based on the unique positioning of a “greener and

friendlier” Olympic Games. Two entities played significant roles on the success of Sydney

Olympics. One was the Sydney Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games (SOCOG)

which was a franchisee of the IOC and managed the Games as a sporting event. The other

was the Olympic Coordination Authority (OCA) which supervised all construction on

Games related venues with both public and private funding.

The city’s bid to host the Games was launched in 1991. From the start, planners

made care of athletes the top priority. In addition to the facilities available, Sydney offered

natural beauty and boundless enthusiasm for sport. Sydney’s bid also emphasized the

compact city size, the state government’s commitment to sports, the security and political

stability, and the support of the entire country.

Funding

The Auditor-General of New South Wales (NSW) found the eventual cost of Sydney

2000 was over twice the budget estimated by the bid committee. When Sydney bid for the

2000 Games, the bid committee estimated a total cost of AUS 3.0 billion, of which just AUS

363.5 million would be collected from the public. However, the true cost of the Games was

close to AUS 5.9 billion.

35

The reason for the huge discrepancy was that the bid budget excluded capital costs

for facilities and infrastructure, as well as most of the costs of security. However, the

original Sydney bid budget included in its calculations all potential revenues, including

$AUS 600m of putative increases in tax income to the Government.

Infrastructure

Facility development and supporting infrastructure had its greatest direct impact

prior to the Games and has left a legacy of world-class sporting facilities and enhanced

transport and communications infrastructure.

Over $1.9Billion was spent on Games related venues and infrastructure by the NSW

Government, the Commonwealth Government, SOCOG and other public sectors. In

addition, $1.1 billion was used for those facilities from private sectors.

Also, Sydney completed construction projects of major transportation facilities that

enhanced Sydney as a business capital and assisted the efficiency of the city during the

Games. These projects included $2 billion Sydney airport upgrade and $700 million Eastern

Distributor.

The Aftermath of the Sydney’s Olympic Games

The NSW and Commonwealth Governments organized the most comprehensive

business development program ever held in association with an Olympic Games. Given the

broad range of objectives, Sydney Games delivered on the expectations of almost all of its

stakeholders, both public and private. Strong partnerships and cooperation among the public

and private sector organizations involved were critical to the successful implementation of

numerous business programs. These programs yield substantial business and economic

benefits to NSW as well as Australia.

The Olympic Games also served as an advertisement for domestic and international

tourism. Sydney Games accelerated the process of elevating Australia’s international profile

and brand in a way that would not have been possible otherwise.

In the long run, the benefits to business generated by the Games – in terms of

capabilities, networks, international awareness, partnering and investment – may come to be

recognized as the most enduring legacy.