Yesterday, I was watching the World Championships in track and field held in Helsinki. Now, whenever there is a big sports event, the organizers always present estimates of how the event will improve the country's image in the world. That good image will then generate income and translate into improved exports and investments in the country.
Really? I wonder.
The Finnish Broadcasting Company announced a few days before the track and field World Championships that it would lose money on the project. The organizers aren't sure if they are going to make money, either.
The organizers also say that the event will have four billion viewers around the world. And while it is true that you couldn't ever buy the same amount of television time by other means, what is being advertised is a little hazy. What does Finland (in this case) get for its investment?
Have you watched the events? Did you see the opening ceremony? Have you become more curious about Finland?
And: are the big sports events worth the money?
Related Stories: | Topics:Innovation, blogjam 2005, Finland, Helsinki, Sports, Track and Field, Media Sector |
Email
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Buzz Up!
LinkedIn
Recent Comments | 5 Total
August 8, 2005 at 9:46am by Roberto
Aren't global sporting events a chance for countries, especially, er, smaller countries, to self-validate? The legendary (and now long-past) exploits of Paavo Nurmi aside, Finland is badly in need of sporting self-validation these days, isn't it? So it's not really about mmoney, is it? ;-)
August 8, 2005 at 9:54am by francis s.
I watched a short bit, but only because I was with people who were interested in watching to see whether a track and field star would win a gold medal (which she did).
It was entirely a moment of Swedish self-validation.
And my only thought about the games being held in Helsinki was that it meant there seemed to be a lot of Swedes cheering in the stands, proportionally speaking.
My question is, how did they come up with the figure of 4 billion viewers? I'm skeptical.
August 8, 2005 at 10:33am by Roberto
They came up with 4 billion viewers because the IAAF, like the IOC, sells its TV in packages to every nation on earth. Many nations, let's pick China as one, have state-run TV stations that are dying out for non-controversial (no sex, not much violence, no Falun Gong rabble-rousing) content to feed their populaces ... These countries run 10 hours a day of e.g. the World Championships and everyone in the country sees some (QED count 'em all!).
Sweden self-validated in Gothenburg, what was it, 10 years ago?
And to be fair, everyone self-validates ... the Greeks last year, the Chinese in 2008, and so on, and so on. As an American, I can say my country does it too, but for different reasons ... we do it to prevent others from self-validating. Microcosm of our schadenfreudistic (like it? new word!) culture ...
August 8, 2005 at 10:40am by anil sharma
i think these kind of events do enhance brand image of the host country as more and more people become aware of the country, as people interested may also visit the country. and this may result in foreign exchange
August 8, 2005 at 11:41am by Risto
It's the comment by Anil that all these organizers are repeating, and you all may be right. What I am wondering about comes back to Roberto's comment above in that of course it's self-validation. But he's not talking about the 1952 Olympics or the 1983 World Championships or the 1997 Hockey World Championships -- he's talking about an athlete.
So, would it be more cost-efficient to put all the money into top top athletes and have them represent the country and build the brand image?