Terrence Burns ©2017

For those of you wondering, the title of this post is “borrowed” from the 1997 movie, L.A. Confidential, starring Russell Crowe, Danny DeVito, and Kim Basinger.  It’s the first time I’ve ever worked movie stars’ names into an Olympic blog post, but, it is LA, so… By the way, the movie’s plot and its title have nothing to do with the LA 2028 bid, this post or the Olympic Games. I just thought it was an apt title.

Note: I use both LA 2024 and LA 2028 in this article, but not interchangeably; I do so in an attempt to capture the nature of the bid at specific timeframes in the two-year long, unprecedented campaign.

This story is an Olympic story, which means, it is a children’s story; a story for children aged from 5 to 105. If we are lucky we all retain that special spark of childhood, the belief in what really matters in life – dreams, and hope. That is the essence of the Olympic brand. This is LA 2028’s version. Oh, and I should add, this is also a bit of a love story between this humble writer and a city and her people.

My own LA 2028 story began very late on a cold, snowy, February evening in Almaty, Kazakhstan, at the offices of the Almaty 2022 bid committee.

Boston was just selected by the USOC in January to compete with Paris, Rome, Hamburg, and Budapest for the 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games.I got a call from the brand-new Boston 2024 CEO, John Fish.

John said, “we want you on the team – tell me what it will take, and I’ll send you a contract.” He talked very fast in a strong Boston accent, but the mobile reception was terrible; frankly, it was hard to understand him. But I got the gist.

I told John I appreciated the call but wasn’t quite ready to commit to any 2024 city and was in discussions with another city. Then I went back to the evening, which was in the middle of the IOC Evaluation Commission’s visit to Almaty – a tense week. But eventually, due to some issues surrounding our firm’s other business interests, we said “yes” to Boston 2024. So, after many years working around the world, Boston was to be my first American Olympic bid, and the opportunity to work in the United States for the first time since 1996.

We began work on 1 April 2015. Then things got weird. To make a short story even shorter, Boston 2024 didn’t work out so well. By June it was obvious the bid was dying, and by July, it was dead.

One of our firm’s principals called and asked me if I’d considered LA 2024. I said, “no, I haven’t really, and given what just transpired with Boston I don’t really think I want to….”

To make another short story even shorter, he and I had a call with the LA 2024 Bid Chairman, Casey Wasserman. I’d never met Casey but knew of him by reputation in our industry. I knew he had a growing and thriving business and was well connected in sports, entertainment and political circles. And, I knew he was young and on the move – up.

All of these things piqued my interest because frankly, he seemed exactly what a US bid needed in a leader.

I had about ten questions on the call. Casey answered them. He asked me some questions, I answered them. For a phone call between two strangers about something so important, it went pretty well. We agreed to a deal.

One week later I flew to LA to meet Casey in person. He was as advertised – charming, smart as a whip, and surprisingly funny as hell. I thought we hit it off quite well personally, which is always a plus with a new client.

In bidding, chemistry is incredibly important because there is nothing, and I mean nothing, more emotionally intense than the client/consultant relationship in an Olympic bid. For me, it is always a romance, and each time I do it leave a piece of my heart when it’s over. Yes, I’m aware of how dramatic that sounds, but ask anyone who has ever worked with me on a bid; I’m all in.

You cannot deliver a winning bid without total, 100% emotional commitment. You have to trust each other implicitly and have each other’s backs. It’s a high wire act and its uncomfortable for anyone not used to it – there are no do-overs or second chances. Get it right, you win. Get it almost right (or wrong, they’re the same thing in a bid) and you lose.

The day was a stunning Southern California day; the kind of day that you read about or see in a movie but aren’t quite sure it’s real: incredibly blue skies, low humidity, swaying palm trees and a temperature of about 78F/25C. Casey said, “It’s like this all the time.” I was smitten.

The truth is it probably had a lot to do with the view from his office on Wilshire Boulevard, overlooking Westwood and the campus of UCLA, with mountains in the background and the Pacific Ocean to the west. For two years I had a one-on-one weekly meeting in Casey’s office, and every time, I stopped for a moment and looked out that window and enjoyed the view. And whenever I mentioned the beauty of the place, Casey always shared my enthusiasm; he really loved his city.

I also met Casey’s Chief of Staff, Patricia Feau, who, over the two years became a dear friend, a confidant and key part of the bid. Her French husband, David, is the Head Chef at one of Beverly Hills most chic restaurants, Wally’s. It’s an amazing place to eat and a must if you ever visit.

That day I also met with Danny Koblin and John Harper, two key Wasserman employees who were leaders in LA’s domestic USOC bid that lost (inexplicably) to Boston. The meeting was hastily thrown together in a Wasserman meeting room. I hadn’t prepared anything specifically, so we spoke about the recent Almaty 2022 presentation and watched it online as an example of the type of work we’d be doing for the bid. Danny went on to become the Chief Bid Officer of LA 2024, and John the COO. Our team would work extensively and very closely with these two for the next two years

 

It’s often delicate parachuting into a team that already exists and has been working together on a project for a time, and even more delicate when you are billed as the “external expert.”

It’d been a long time since I worked with Americans and I admit, it took a while for us all to get used to each other. I thought we made a good team. And in the end, it’s results that matter, and together we achieved something wonderful for LA; for that, I am proud and thankful.

Another key player on the team from the domestic bid was Jeff Millman, LA 2024’s Chief Communications Officer. Jeff’s background was political campaigns, and he worked tirelessly to help ensure the local LA community remained engaged and supportive of the bid – no small feat in the new era of “No Olympics.”

Also, Jeff is also a fashion pioneer, spearheading the marriage of the New Balance classic 574 with dress pants and Lacoste polos. He graciously treated George Hirthler and me to a lovely evening of tacos at his house and, on my many long weekends alone in LA, would invariably send me a text inviting me for a bite or to hang out (much appreciated Jeff, thank you).

During this trip, I was also treated to a private meeting with LA’s mayor, Eric Garcetti at his office in the iconic LA City Hall. I recall describing him as an “Olympic bid mayor out of central casting.”

 

By the end of the campaign, I realized just how insufficient a description that was. Mayor Garcetti was simply amazing – in everything he did for us.

I’ve been around the Olympic Movement a long time. I’ve met with and worked with heads of state, politicians of every stripe, royalty, athletes, and celebrities. I’d never met a civil servant like Eric Garcetti. I used to say, “the brightest and best no longer go into public service in America.”  Eric Garcetti proved me wrong; very wrong.

He was approachable, easy to work with, very generous with his time for everyone and a consummate professional at public speaking. He helped our speakers and me with guidance many times during the campaign. He and Casey cut a path of personality and charm (and ultimately friendship and trust) through the Olympic Movement like two hot knives through butter.

Allow me to stop here for a moment because I believe that this is important: The Olympic Movement and the USOC owe the city of LA and its team a tremendous amount of gratitude for what they did.

They not only picked up the utterly horrific mess left by the Boston 2024 debacle, but they also agreed to jump into a race where they were a year behind in planning, and clearly not a favorite by any stretch of the imagination. And they did it with grace and confidence, setting a new standard for an American bid committee.

That’s the LA I came to know and love. So, bravo and thank you Mayor Garcetti and Casey for saying “yes, not only are we still interested, but we also want to do what is best for the Olympic Movement.” And they meant it. It was bold. Bold wins, always.

I was on my annual off-road motorcycle trip, this time in Utah, and I missed the 1 September 2015 bid launch that featured Olympic legend Janet Evans as the MC. Of course, I knew who Janet was – I was at Opening Ceremony in Atlanta in 1996, when she passed the Olympic Flame to Muhammed Ali to light Atlanta’s caldron, opening those Games. And of course, I remembered Janet dominating her sport during her competition years. Janet Evans is Big Time. But I’d never met her or heard her speak professionally.

When I got home, I watched a video of the launch, and I was impressed by her confident style and easy grace. Casey and I had a chat, and I told him that every bid needed an “Athlete Commission” and that he should hire Janet to run it (selfishly, I could already see her as a principal speaker in future presentations – which she was).

Internally, Brock Park on our team and I worked on a job description, a mission statement and set of principles for the Athlete Commission. We shared it with Janet, and she agreed to come onboard. One of the best hires ever. Janet may be from the single athlete, lonely sport of long-distance swimming, but she’s one of the best team players I’ve ever worked with; and most importantly in the Olympic world, she isn’t a Diva, she’s a genuinely good person.

The Times, They Are a’ Changing

It was a very different race from the start. I’d just endured a Winter Games race where only two cities were left standing in the end, Beijing and Almaty, neither of which generated much real enthusiasm. The Movement was reeling from the blinding-speed cultural, societal and economic changes taking place around the world. Suddenly, it seemed as if no one wanted the Games.

I won’t go into the myriad of reasons why, but I will say that much of the world seemed ambivalent at best, and cynical at worst to hosting a Games. This is a problem many years in the making and an issue that everyone in the Olympic Family – myself included – played a role in creating.

This race was different because even though there were five great cities vying for 2024, Olympic insiders could already sense a few of the bid’s fragility. We were all holding our collective breath over the two words that have become the new challenge of the Olympic Movement’s efforts to find Candidate Cities: public referendum.  In fact, Hamburg 2024 and its great team of my friends was the first 2024 Candidate City to fall victim on 20 November 2015.

But, I’m getting ahead of myself.

Right about this time, Gene Sykes, Goldman banker and “technology deal-whisperer” was named as CEO of the bid. Gene brought an abundance of experience, managerial skills and a wealth of unique relationships that would help serve the bid. How unique? Well, it was the first time I ever proofed a new hire press release with quotes from both Tim Cook of Apple and Bob Iger of the Walt Disney Company – that’s how unique. Gene became a trusted colleague, and I always found him to be thoughtful, earnest, contemplative and a quick study in a new and very different world – the Olympic world.

One of my team’s first assignments for every bid is to help create its vision, its story, its brand, and the answer to the question, “why LA?”. It begins with research. Our team consisted of me, Mark Smith, Brock Park and my longtime friend, mentor, former business partner and Olympic aficionado, George Hirthler.

We conducted about 75 one-on-one interviews within the Olympic Family, asking about LA as a potential Host City. It’s mainly a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis. We also conducted a comparative SWOT for the competing cities, then we mapped out the various findings in a matrix that began to compare and contrast the functional and emotional differences.

After two months, we had an initial call with Danny, and Matt Rohmer, the new Marketing Director for the bid to give them a preview of where we’d landed on the brand model and the tagline.

Basically, people around the world perceived LA (and California – the two were interlinked in foreigner’s minds, so we purposefully used them interchangeably at times) in finite terms.  The most used words or phrases were: sunny, cool (meaning hip and trendy), creative, technology-savvy, Hollywood, innovative, traffic-clogged, smog-clogged, and full of shallow and superficial people.

So, we presented the good, the bad and the ugly, and then our recommended positioning, along with a tagline (or “slogan” in IOC speak) for the LA 2024 brand. This is difficult to do on a phone call, and the response was somewhat reserved on the brand work, and relative silence on the tagline; silence in a creative presentation is not a good thing, by the way.

We listened to their comments, worked on it a bit more and scheduled a meeting in LA to present to the entire team. Now, it wasn’t lost on me that I, a 57-year old man from the South was going to the most creative city on earth and tell everyone in the room – all younger than me – what their cool, new Olympic brand was all about. It was a bit intimidating. But I was confident that our work would resonate with the target audience – the Olympic Family – and I give Casey tremendous credit for allowing us to run with it.

Below is a one-page overview of the LA 2024 brand’s positioning, values, attributes and initial messaging (thanks to Matt (!) for suggesting this one-page format to summarize a 40-page deck). Happily, this work served us and the bid well over the course of the next two years. It was the bedrock of our competitive positioning, and it echoed in every speech, press release and external communication of the bid. It clearly differentiated LA 2024 from the pack.

The Tagline

Taglines are always tricky and extraordinarily subjective. We’ve had some winners over the years (PyeongChang’ 2018’s “New Horizons”), some good ones that didn’t win (Almaty 2022’s “Keeping it Real”) and some forgettable ones such as Moscow 2012’s “Imagine it Now.” We had a beautiful one (and a beautiful brand) for Rome 2020, which never saw the light of day (they dropped out of the race at the last moment) called “A Time for History.”

So much of the research around LA 2024 was focused on the sun, sunshine, optimism, etc., that it was hard to ignore it. Even though some of the LA team felt it was kitsch and too predictable, it was the critical attribute that LA owned vis-à-vis the competitors and it was essential to the target audience. It was important not to take it literally, and this proved a hard thing at first for some of our team members.

Here is how we described the sun and its importance to the LA 2024 brand:

The Sun is a metaphor for progress, the future, for hope, for health, for optimism and ultimately for happiness.

 The pioneers followed the Sun all across the North American Continent, finally to California – a state that has become synonymous with progress, innovation, imagination – and opportunity, the promise of tomorrow.

We knew that none of this sentiment resonated with our competitor cities of Paris, Hamburg, Rome, and Budapest. We believed that we could own it and make a great story and brand out of it.

In our quest to come up with an LA 2024 tagline, we scoured many sources for quotations or statements involving the word sun. Late one afternoon on the magical beach in Carmel, California, I stumbled upon this quote:

“Following the light of the sun, we left behind the Old World….”

The quote is by Christopher Columbus. Currently, not the most politically correct historical figure, yet his sentiment expressed precisely what I was trying to communicate – leaving the past behind to embrace the future. To get to the future, you have to get to tomorrow and to get to tomorrow you have to follow the sun. So, there it was.  “Follow the Sun.”

I saw it both as an invitation and a challenge. Some of our LA team thought it was too passive. But, I could see the arc our brand message (and the campaign) would take over a two-year campaign, and I felt that “Follow the Sun” would eventually be seen for what it really was – a challenge to embrace the future. It worked. Our brand message was so on point that ultimately a few of our competitors started using some of our brand’s keywords and phrases – optimism, progress, and innovation – in their communications and speeches. We found that rewarding.

Interestingly, some Paris 2024 team members chose to portray our tagline literally. They launched a sardonic social media effort using hashtags such as #celebratethesun, and other statements such as “the sun belongs to everyone”.  We didn’t engage them or respond with anything similar. We purposefully took the high road throughout the campaign, but we secretly celebrated every time someone on the Paris team used or referenced our tagline.

So, we had a brand model and a cool tagline. What’s next? A bid logo. And if you think selecting a tagline is a subjective circus, try coordinating collective agreement for a new logo.

LA 2024 hired one of LA’s hottest ad agencies, 72 and Sunny, to produce our films.

I remember giving the 72 team their first Olympic brand and LA 2024 Brand Model briefings at their very cool offices in Playa Vista (Howard Hughes’ old headquarters). Again, a bit intimidating with many of the youngest, most creative minds in LA in the room, but they were attentive and excited about the Olympics. They were very supportive of our brand model and direction for the LA 2024 brand. 72 would remain great partners and produce fantastic work throughout the campaign.

LA2024 then chose Bruce Mau Design to design our logo; we briefed them as well. After a few weeks with frustrating results, we asked one of 72 and Sunny’s founders, Robert Nakata, to take a swing at a logo because, before advertising, his first love was design.

After a relatively short amount of time, Robert came up with the LA 2024 Angel (for the City of Angels). As with all creative presentations, acceptance was not universal on our team. But with a few alterations, it evolved into a logo that everyone bought into, and over time, everyone came to love. What I loved about the logo is that it was a human form, an athlete, and a female; quite distinct from any previous bid logo I’ve ever seen. By the way, I loved the distinctive Paris 2024 logo, too.

During those first few months another crucial, all-encompassing process took place, the entire team worked feverishly on the first of three Candidature Files Submissions (bid books). These are very detailed, complex documents (in English and French) whose content is prescribed by the IOC to help them in their technical assessment of each bid.

Our bid book project was led by the competent Hilary Ash. In the “small world” department, Hilary’s father, Kevin, also worked on the Atlanta Games in 1996. Her first Olympic memory was at Atlanta’s Closing Ceremony as a five-year-old. Hilary remained a key player throughout the bid.

At a meeting in Lausanne in 2017, I joked that if LA did get the 2028 Games, by that time everyone would be working for her and another young lady named Cosette Chaput. Cosette was the lead consultant from LA’s exceptional partner agency handling social media, Laundry Service (more about Cosette and Laundry Service latter). Both of these young women were overachievers for the bid, and their contribution to LA’s victory was immense.

The first bid book was due on 17 February 2016, and it covered “Vision, Games Concept and Strategy.” The second volume was due on 2 October 2017, and it covered “Governance, Legal and Venue Funding.” The final volume was due on 3 February 2017 covering “Games Delivery, Experience and Venue Legacy.”

For each submission, we arranged for a member of our team to fly to Lausanne and hand deliver them to IOC headquarters to ensure they were there on time and intact. One of the most significant achievements of the IOC’s new bid process was that we did not have to print these books any longer.

In the old process, bid cities spent hundreds of thousands of dollars (I should know, I loaned Sochi 2014 the deposit money to get their bid books printed when the bid was short on cash) producing coffee-table quality books that hardly anyone read. The new electronic format made much more sense and saved a ton of money.

In February 2016, we had the unprecedented opportunity to test our brand and messaging on a very unique focus group of one: IOC president Thomas Bach. President Bach and his entourage came to visit LA on their way to Silicon Valley.

During his visit to our office, I was asked to share the LA 2024 Brand presentation with him. It was the first time I’d ever shown an IOC member an Olympic bid’s brand work, let alone the IOC president.

I’d know President Bach for many years, but it had been a very long time since I presented anything to him; almost two decades to be exact – back when I worked for the IOC’s external marketing agency, Meridian Management. So, in our very crowded conference room, we began. It took about thirty minutes. I finished with the tagline. Silence. Then he said, “I’m not sure if I am allowed to do this but…”  And then he started clapping his hands. Then his team started clapping their hands, albeit a bit nervously, then we all joined in.

He congratulated the team on the work and then he said, “you used two words there that really stuck out to me…optimism and progress…we at the IOC don’t speak enough about these…”  In my business, that counted as a good day, and one I will remember for a long time. I was glad that he appreciated it, but I was even more happy and proud that the LA 2024 team had begun to embrace it as their own brand – not mine or my team’s.

Stay tuned for LA Confidential, Part 2

Terrence Burns ©2017

It’s been a while; I’ve been busy with LA 2024 and our quest to host the 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games. As the debate for the 2024/2028 Games heats up with two great potential Host Cities vying for the honor, the IOC continue to review and consider a new approach to bidding on and hosting the Games.  I thought I’d share my thoughts and recommendations that I sent to the IOC back in 2014, for their then-new Olympic Agenda 2020 process. In light of recent events, it makes for interesting reading.

May 2014

Thank you for the opportunity to present my thoughts pertaining to the Agenda 2020 Committee on Bidding for the Olympic Games.

Background

I began my Olympic “life” as a sponsor, managing Delta Air Lines’ sponsorship program for the Atlanta Games.  After the 1996 Games, I joined Meridian Management SA, the IOC’s then new marketing agency where I was responsible for managing the marketing relationships with the TOP Partners and helping to institute a first-ever brand management program.

After leaving Meridian in 2000, I’ve had the opportunity to work on many Olympic bids as an advisor, among them Beijing, Vancouver, Sochi, PeyongChang and the Russia 2018 FIFA World Cup.  I also worked on many bids that were not successful such as Moscow 2012, Doha 2016, Rome/Baku/Madrid 2020 (that may be a record, by the way, for one campaign) and Lviv 2022. One often learns more by losing than by winning.

For bids, I have traditionally worked on the image, marketing, communications, and branding areas, which included the presentations to the Olympic Family and global sports community.  Sometimes, although rarely, we work on the technical plans. For a variety of reasons both personal and professional, I have never engaged in lobbying IOC members on behalf of bid clients.

Rightly or wrongly, because of my background and experience, I tend to view virtually everything that happens in the Olympic Movement through the lens of “brand management”.  Much has been said and written about the foundation of the Olympic Movement, which to me is the athlete.

There are, however many other important moving parts such as IOC Members, National Federations, International Federations and of course National Olympic Committees.  I believe that there is one item often missing from the list: Bid Cities.  Without bid cities, there would be no Host Cities.  Thus, in my mind, Bid Cities also have a place at the heart of the Olympic brand; they are the seedlings of the Olympic forest.

Situation

Olympic bid cities are the “canaries in the coal mine” of the Olympic Movement.  The number and “quality” of bid cities is a direct indicator of the future health of the Games. I say future because there seems to be a cycle (or two) delay in how the future bid cycle reacts to the current economic situation due to the seven-year timeframe between bidding and becoming an OCOG.

As economic pressure increases on cities, regions, and nations (as it has since 2008/2009), coupled with a seemingly never-ending escalation in size, scope, demands, amenities and costs of Games editions, we are finally seeing negative responses to the perceived cost/benefit analysis for hosting the Olympic Games.

 Looking ahead

Bid Cities as Brand Ambassadors

First and foremost I firmly believe that Bid Cities competing to host the Olympic Games present a tremendous yet undervalued brand opportunity for the Movement. Bid City campaigns take place virtually every month of every year regardless of the timing of an Olympic cycle. The opportunity to “generate good news” (and what could be better than a city and its citizens yearning to host the Olympic Games?) year-round is self-evident.

Imagine the 2012 race, when the Movement had New York, Paris, London, Moscow and Madrid pursuing the Games. What a communications opportunity for the Olympic brand!

Unfortunately, the IOC’s highly constrictive rules on bid city promotion preclude virtually any brand benefit to the Movement from a bid cycle campaign.

I am not advocating letting the bid cities do as they please, what I am advocating is that the IOC use them and the race as branding and communications opportunities.  A healthy field of bid city candidates with the proper promotion and communications activities helps to create positive news about the Olympic Games – and will encourage future bids.

Recommendations:

-The IOC team should craft a global communications and promotional framework that includes all bid cities’ activities aligned with the existing Olympic calendar

-The IOC brand and communications team should meet with bidding cities (potential and current) early in the process and explain the program their roles in it and what is trying to be achieved

-The Olympic Movement should look for creative opportunities for bid cities to promote themselves within a set of standard parameters that generates parity for all cities, yet creates the greatest opportunity for news and content for the Movement

-The IOC needs to take the lead on a true, unbiased economic study of past Games but it cannot only be economic; it should attempt to track and measure progress across a variety of measurements including, quality of life, health, brand image, education, etc. Too often opponents of bidding have an array of negative reports and studies purporting to illustrate the “waste” of hosting an Olympic Games.  Some of the data is, unfortunately, accurate; however, the Movement needs to engage in this debate honestly and with data of its own.

Planning for Future Host Cities

Per my recent post, I believe that the IOC has entered a new era of brand stewardship and the bid process can no longer just be a “game of chance” around parameters that can be manipulated.

I am not advocating a systemic process whereby the IOC chooses a city ahead of time.  I believe the Movement still needs the “thrill and excitement” of a real bid city campaign, but the cities should be chosen and prepared ahead of time, prior to bidding.

I believe the IOC should review and identify where and when they believe the Games should be held over the next four bid cycles based upon the needs of the IOC, the IFs and NOCs and global sport. This review should include:

1.  Where in the world the Games can help develop sport (such as emerging economies)
2.  Where do the Games have to be every ten years or so to keep the brand relevant in the first-world economies, and
3. What is the true risk basis for each city and its bid (sophisticated financial and political risk analysis tools exist in the private sector that the IOC should use instead of asking bid city to provide what is most likely, inflated or exaggerated data)

The IOC should then make a list of the global regions where they desire to see the Games hosted.  In these regions, they should then make a list of cities/nations “most likely and most desirable for the Olympic brand to succeed”, and implement a long-term plan to assist those cities and nations to be prepared to bid when the time comes.

Recommendations:

-This means fully engaging the public and private sectors early on in the process

-This means that teams of IOC experts, IOC members, and former OCOG executives should visit the potential bid cities with advice, encouragement and above all, facts about bidding for and hosting the Games

-This means laying the groundwork by helping create a rational, long-term venue development (use of existing facilities, more temporary facilities, only new facilities as a last resort) plan tied to their city’s long-term municipal or regional planning.

-This means setting criteria that must be met in order to bid for a Games, e.g., 70+% of the needed venues must exist or be in process with fully transparent funding models in place; the city/country must have hosted a certain amount of world championships/cups to illustrate operational competence ability; the potential host nation and NOC have a desirable record as it pertains to anti-doping; the public and private funding discussions and responsibilities should be fully agreed to in writing ahead of bidding; etc.

-This means asking the bid cities to address the “Fundamental Principles of Olympism” per the Olympic Charter in their bid applications, point by point

-This means implementing a communications plan foundation around the potential bid to illustrate the “what’s in it for me” rationale to the general population and local, regional and federal governments.

-This means engaging the National Olympic Committees to be part of this process and every National Federation

-This means utilizing former Host Cities and their leadership as case studies and, never allowing a member of the Movement to denigrate a former Host City (as is often done with Atlanta, for example). That is unprofessional and self-defeating – former Host Cities are also still part of the “franchise” and should be treated accordingly. It is also insulting to the thousands of Volunteers who gave the Movement months and months of their personal time for the Games, and to the citizens who supported the bid, the Games and welcomed the world with open arms.

-This means making International Federations a working partner in the process. To be honest, and I’ve been there, in the past many IFs placed inordinate demands and expectations on Bid Cities. And Bid Cities being Bid Cities have no choice but to try to comply in order to attempt to obtain votes. This process is upside down and it leads to ever-increasing and often illogical venue commitments. I understand that many IFs want gleaming new, state-of-the-art venues at every Games, but that is just not sustainable and in the end, it is not good for sport because it inevitably leads to White Elephants, which scares away future potential Bid Cities.

 Whose Brand is it?

The IOC has to take control of the image and reputation of the Olympic brand. During and after the Slake Lake City Bid scandal, I worked on the IOC crisis team that helped made the decision that the OCOG or Games brand should be the “hero” brand in all Olympic communications activities because, essentially, the brand image of the IOC itself was in serious trouble.  This made sense at the time, but no longer.  The IOC’s image and reputation cannot be left up to others to define (Germans and Norwegians claim they like the Winter Games – just not the IOC!); the IOC must define its own image and reputation going forward.

The Games are too complex, too expensive and too subject to geopolitical machinations for the brand to be left in the hands of amateurs (Organizing Committees, and I use the world amateurs in the most respectful manner possible) every two years. The IOC cannot leave “success” up to a group of well-intentioned people who have never done it before – and only in seven short years. And, I mean “success” in a context that is far beyond the 17-day hosting of the Games.

If we want healthier bid cities in the future, we need to ensure that once chosen, Organizing Committees are great sources of news about progress and are a brand investment in the Movement. A thriving and healthy Organizing Committee preparing for the Games creates a positive media environment and helps stimulate interest in hosting the Games instead of fear of hosting the Games.

Is “Great Sport” Enough to define Success?

I think that the IOC can no longer afford to say “sport was great, so the Games were a success”. Because of costs and investment, it has become more complex than that in the eyes of those outside the Olympic Movement – the Olympic Movement is no longer the sole target market for appraisal of success or failure. Many more variables are now at play.

Look at Sochi and Rio, for examples. For Sochi, the venues were perfect and sport on the field of play was successful by virtually any measure. But in the end, what did the negative reports leading up to Sochi cost the Olympic brand? Well for starters, we know negative media reports around Sochi (again, real or imagined) have cost us two, possibly three European first-world capitals as bid cities in the 2022 race.

I would state unequivocally that this is NOT Russia or Sochi’s fault.  They did what they said they were going to do. They built a city for the Winter Games. It is the IOC’s responsibility or should have been, to “manage the world’s expectations” about the Sochi Games.  It would have been, and still is, easy to say “No single Games is a perfect example for future Games. The expenditures made by the Russian government to host the Sochi 2014 Winter Games made sense for Russia, and we thank them for a tremendous Winter Games.  But we do not, by any means, expect similar investments by future bid cities going forward.”

We cannot hide behind the shield of sports success as the sole arbiter of an Olympic Games’ effectiveness. The Games have to make sense for local communities.

Recommendations:

–National brand building as the sole source of hosting an Olympic Games “isn’t good enough”. Potential bid cities must illustrate the value of their bids beyond their own borders – not just with words, but also with deeds years ahead of time from their bids.

-Rewarding desired behavior. As an example, look at the 2018 Winter Games race.  When appraising the technical plans of Munich and PyeongChang, there was no “bonus weighting” applied to Munich’s creative use of existing venues or its world-class environmental plans.  From the IOC’s members’ perspectives (the people who vote) it appeared as if the Munich and PyeongChang technical plans were both of equal value, when in fact, Munich’s was much more visionary and one could argue better for the Movement at the time.  The IOC selection criteria must be more objective with quantitative metrics and it should be willing to give “credit” (enhanced value) to cities that put forth responsible, prudent plans instead of being impressed (or blinded) by expensive new building projects.

In closing, allow me to summarize:

1. Bid Cities can and should be key pieces of the IOC’s overall global communications strategy – let them compete more openly, yet under control of a strategic IOC communications plan designed to achieve objectives
2. The IOC should alter the Bid City selection process by 1) looking 20 years into the future to determine where and when the Movement would like to see the Games hosted, and 2) identifying potential cities far in advance and helping them “get prepared” to bid
3. The IOC should consider more stringent criteria (such as existing venues, experience, etc.) that must be met before allowing a city to bid
4. Allow the “bid city race” to continue (it generates media interest and excitement – or should), knowing that the Movement has prepared cities whose plans are predicated on the IOC and the Movement needs, rather than left to chance, or worse.
5. The IOC needs to implement a communications program (not just PR) to take control of its own image and reputation. This can be done in concert with OCOG brands but the IOC has to control its own reputation destiny
6. If the IOC doesn’t want bids that are based on theory and fiction, then stop rewarding them. Given credit and praise (openly) to cities who provide thoughtful, affordable, responsible plans to host the Games.
7. The IOC needs to be more involved with the operational success of the OCOG. True functional matter experts in Games operations and planning, Sport, Sectary, Branding and marketing communications, Sponsorship, etc. should work alongside the OCOG
8. As to member visits, I think that is up the IOC Members themselves to debate and discuss. But I do think it is unusual (and perhaps ill-advised) to ask one hundred-plus people to make a multi-billion dollar decision without ever having seen the city.

Thank you again for this remarkable opportunity to share some of my views with you and your colleagues in Lausanne; please know that all my observations and suggestions are my own, and they reflect my complete respect for the Olympic ideals.  Every day I wake up and am so thankful that I have the chance to be a (small) part of the Olympic Movement.  Thank you for all that you do to make that happen.

Sincerely,

Terrence Burns

So, that’s was my point of view three years ago. It remains so, today. Time will tell if these ideas and concepts have any impact on the 2024/2028 decision, or beyond. I hope so. If so, you read it here first.  Thanks as always.

Terrence Burns ©2015

Hamburg 2024.  Where to start?

Let me begin by offering my sincere condolences to the 48.4 percent of Hamburg citizens who wanted to host the 2024 Games and, to my many friends (e.g., Bernhard, Nikolas, Susanne, Claudia, Stefan, Carla, Michael, Alfons, Christian …) who worked on the bid. They are actually more than friends; they are family – so is Germany to be exact. Germany is a great sporting nation full of welcoming people. I am hopeful that Germany’s Olympic time will come again sooner rather than later.

What happened?

I should state up front that I believe the soul of the Olympic brand isn’t really about sport; sport is the path, but eternal human ideals and values are the destination of the Olympic brand.

Brands live in the emotional sphere, not the rational. BMW owners buy “driving excitement”. Mercedes owners buy “prestige” and Volvo owners buy “safety” – what they don’t buy are well-made, expensive, highly engineered automobiles. Consumers buy the brand promise in each of these products.

So, let’s think about that in the context of the Olympic brand; specifically, what are its core values? The IOC states that they are “Excellence”, “Respect” and “Friendship”. Those are indeed uplifting, admirable values. But alone do they truly differentiate the Olympic brand from other sporting events? I’m not so sure because I think sport at every level embodies these three values. And given the current events transpiring in global sport regarding bad governance, corruption, doping and worse, the Olympic brand desperately needs to differentiate itself – Hamburg’s citizens just proved that.

Somehow, over the course of time these three core values have become a commodity. A shared positioning with others. A diluted promise. And what happens in this circumstance with any brand? It loses the meaning of its original purpose, its emotional payoff, its power to stand distinct and apart – it loses its power to inspire.

So what does this have to do with Hamburg 2024?

A lot, I think.  Not enough people in Hamburg were sufficiently inspired by the Olympic brand.

To me, the Olympic brand is and has always been about hope. The stated vision of the Olympic Movement is “building a better world through sport”.  I’ll buy that. But what is the emotional pay off? What is the IOC’s singularly unique promise that no other brand can deliver?

Again, I think it is hope. Hope inspires human beings to dream with no limitations.

Hope is the emotional output of the Olympic brand. The Games, and more importantly the athletes, give us hope that something better resides deep inside of us, and, if only for 17 days every four years, we are capable of undeniable grace. Nothing other than perhaps theology offers humankind a similar promise through the demonstration of human achievement.

I am under no illusion that the IOC will suddenly revisit its core values in favor of the word “hope”. What I am suggesting is that by ignoring the concept of hope, we are missing something  powerful that is needed right now.

My friend Christian Winkler’s recent Facebook post help put it in perspective for me: The world is not talking about the value of the Games, only its cost. Cost and value are two distinctly different, yet linked ideas.

The good people of Hamburg can be forgiven for missing that salient but subtle point because the Olympic message has been hijacked. It has been masked by supposedly tangible arguments. It has been too easily compared with lesser things.

I am a big fan of what Olympic Agenda 2020 is trying to achieve regarding the costs of bidding for and hosting the Games. Quite simply, hosting a Games must leave a sustainable and affordable legacy, not only during the 17 days of the Games but for generations that follow. This is the new reality, the new “given”. I applaud the IOC for trying to corral the excesses of the past into a responsible way forward into the future.

What does this have to do with hope or Hamburg?

A city and a community must be inspired to achieve Olympic dreams. Bid Cities and Host Cities come and go – with predictable regularity. What is permanent, what is eternal and what remains are the IOC and the Olympic Movement. They are and must remain the voice and the living expression of the Olympic brand.

If an astute and media savvy anti-Olympic Games minority are allowed to control the bidding dialogue with a discussion based simply on cost, yet without any consideration of value, what is the chance of a fair discussion? How does one quantify the value of a marriage, an education, a friendship or a belief?

The Olympic world must inject and include the concept of  “value” for hosting an Olympic Games alongside the very necessary variable of “cost”. Either without the other is a false computation.

I don’t know the optimal relative weight of each, but I do know it is up to each bid city and its local community – not an exportable set of anti-Olympic arguments by outsiders – to define what does and does not make sense for that particular city’s future.

Hamburg 2024, as with every Olympic bid city before it, began with hope in the belief that the Games would be good for the city and its people’s future. That dream was eventually smothered by an atmosphere of confusion, distrust, alarm and perhaps fatigue.

This is precisely the moment when hope must triumph over doubt. And this is precisely the moment when we can surprise ourselves by adding just a little bit of hope to the equation.

 

 

 

 

Terrence Burns ©2015

Boston, the Great Hope of the USA for the 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games ended in painful, dizzying demise this week. We worked for Boston as advisors, joining the team on April 1^st of this year. Our role, as with all the bids we’ve worked on, was to focus on the international brand development and the presentations to the Olympic Family. We were looking forward to eventually helping Boston tell its unique Olympic story to the world – but that was not to be.

When we learned that the USOC selected Boston in January, our team was in Almaty, Kazakhstan helping prepare the Almaty 2022 bid for their presentation to the IOC Evaluation Commission. We got a call from the Boston team asking if we would join the bid. We were definitely interested, but wanted to know more about their bid, the team, etc., before deciding.

We scoured the Internet to find any materials we could on the bid – it wasn’t easy as the USOC’s 2024 bid process was closed. The four cities’ (San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston and Washington DC) bid documents were not public.

But, we eventually found the Boston 2024 “Bid 1.0” documents and frankly, after reading them, we thought it looked like a spectacular bid in many ways.

The Games Concept was innovative and intimate for a Summer Games. Boston is of course, a jewel of a city. Boston is a tremendous sports town. Boston is endowed with the finest collection of universities and colleges in one place in the world. Boston is a powerhouse of financial stability and power. And, Boston has some of the smartest and most accomplished people in the United States; we thought, “imagine the energy and new thinking they could bring to hosting an Olympic Games”. Boston is also one of if not the most progressive cities in America.

It seemed like a slam-dunk. I am sure the USOC thought the same.

I have been doing this type of work a long, long time. I’ve made great friends around the world that I will cherish forever. In my business, you get hired or re-hired for doing a good job, for keeping your word and telling the truth.

In Boston, I admit that I was taken aback by the sheer viciousness of the public debate about the bid, the petty, personal social media attacks – which others and I continue to endure – and the stunning lack of civil dialog from a city full of very bright people. I was told “this is how we do it in Boston…”

I’m not so sure.

The people with whom I worked at Boston 2024 were, without exception, exceedingly nice, hard-working and fair; it was the same with our USOC colleagues. I enjoyed them as people; and to be honest, that is not always the case.

But, the people of Boston said “no thanks” to the Games. And guess what? That is their prerogative. That is how it works in a democracy.

I am sure pundits will argue, some gleefully, “what happened to Boston 2024?” for years to come. As best I can tell from living through the past four months, opponents of the bid felt as if they were not consulted at best, or mislead at worse. Either is a no-go for a bid.

Did the USOC make a mistake? Did Boston? Whose fault was it? Who knows…? And that is not the point, anyway. The important point is what does this mean for the future, and what can the Olympic Movement – or any of us – learn from it?

I have a few thoughts.

First, I don’t think that the Olympic Movement can distance itself from local politics any longer. Too many great cities have opted out of the great Olympic experience for the wrong reasons. These are not stupid or ill-willed people. They are people who were and are rightly concerned with the cost/benefit analysis of hosting an Olympic Games. Future bid cities needs facts, not spin, to make decisions that will affect generations to come.

Second, I think that the “Boston 2024 experience” is not only a USOC or Boston problem. It is everyone’s problem in the Olympic Movement. The new Olympic Agenda 2020 reforms are designed to force fiscal responsibility and true sustainability into the bidding and hosting process. Let’s pray it works. The alternative is what just happened in Oslo, Stockholm, Krakow and now Boston.

Third, and this is one that will not be popular with some of my friends in Lausanne (apologies in advance), is this: the IOC has to lead on the issue of why hosting an Olympic Games is a good idea.

They own the franchise.

They own the long-term knowledge and history of the Games.

And, I truly believe the IOC can no longer leave it up to NOCs (even sophisticated ones like the USOC) or new bid cities to understand the complexity of how to express the long-term benefits of hosting an Olympic Games in today’s challenging economic times, and instantaneous and often hostile social media environment. The entire Movement has to work together to tell the world why hosting the Games makes sense.

The paradigm is a simple one: the more real and viable information that cities have about the long-term benefits of hosting an Olympic Games, the more cities will (perhaps) bid on hosting an Olympic Games. The question is where does this information come from, who disseminates it to the world and how? Maybe the Olympic Channel, for a start?

Initially, my colleagues around the world watched the Boston 2024 drama unfold with surprise, and then with growing alarm because they knew, “There go I but for the Grace of God…”.

Olympic Agenda 2020 is based on change; let’s help the IOC make sure it is change for the better. That has to start with encouraging more cities to bid for the Games by providing them with the right information and motivation.

Finally I leave you with this – my dear friend and mentor George Hirthler, telling it like it is on why the Olympic Movement really matters.  God Bless you, George for refocusing, or trying to, the conversation with the good professor.

This is what the IOC should be saying, every day, in addition to all the great (but as George points out, unknown and unappreciated) work the IOC does every day on behalf of sport and kids around the world. It is a shame Boston didn’t have a chance to add their very special character and legacy to this incredible force for good in the world.