The Olympics always have been an occasion where companies spend beaucoup bucks to promote their products and their products’ ability to promote world unity and peace, but this year’s broadcast more than ever seems to be filled with those types of sponsorships you know were created to fill NBC’s coffers. Chevy’s Gold Medal Moments is the big one that jumps to mind.
But I wonder if this sort of pandering to potential advertisers—and by pandering, I mean creating vehicles for them to sponsor based on their needs and not the needs of the audience—is as obvious to the average Joe as it is to an editor who has had to create something that doesn’t necessarily further the mission of the magazine but instead brings in some extra dollars.
And if it is getting to be as obvious to the public at large, will there be a public outcry for change. I can’t be the only person who’s annoyed by the constant disruption during sporting events for this or that being brought to you by some company.
But back to my original point: does what you see in the mainstream media, both print and online, make you feel any better about the position many B2B editors fall into, with having to create sponsorship opportunities for advertisers that might not necessarily be in the best interest of the readers?
Labels: B2B audience, Olympics, pandering to advertisers, sponsorships
