Although we’re over a year away from the London 2012 Olympics the commercial competition to be part of this amazing spectacle is already running.

A quick check reveals more than 40 brands that are linked to this event in some form or another: “Worldwide Partners”, “Official Partners”, “Official Supporters” and “Official Suppliers”.

So what’s in it for a sponsor? After all, we’re watching the athletes not the advertising banners. And why might some of these brands do much better as a result of their sponsorship than others?

The Unconscious Marketing ‘Victim’
Whilst you will not be directing your conscious attention at the names dotted around the stadium, your powerful unconscious mind will be picking it up anyway.

This will have three important consequences: firstly, you will be more likely to find yourself thinking about those brands than you otherwise would have done.

Secondly, when you encounter those brands you will possibly feel slightly better about them: they will be unconsciously more familiar and studies have shown that we like things we’ve seen around and about more (possibly because we feel they are safe because nothing bad has happened when they’ve been present).

Thirdly, there is the chance that you will build an unconscious association between the brand and the excellence, excitement, stature of the event and national pride that many people will associate with the Olympics as they watch their nation’s top sportsmen and women compete. Such inadvertent connections, or misattributions, happen frequently without us realising.

Of course, in addition, some sponsors will make extensive use of the opportunity to entertain important corporate clients; a separate area of influence.

Winners and Losers?
But can we predict who might do better from their sponsorship of the games in consumer impact terms? Assuming that their exposure is equal, will a bank do better than an electronics company? Will a car do better than a burger chain?

A recent study published in the Journal of Consumer Research sheds an interesting light on this. The researchers invited people to take part in an experiment that was ostensibly about memory.

In fact, depending on which story they were being asked to remember, participants were either being primed to feel a particular emotion: contentment or pride (or neither in a control condition).

Then, in a product preference test that people were told was to fill the time before the memory recall test was undertaken, participants rated their desire and the perceived attractiveness of six products. The products included some that had been identified as being for show (such as a laptop, shoes and a watch) and some for home use (a dishwasher, vacuum cleaner and a bed).

In a second study they also compared what impact the priming stories had on clothes designed for going out and those intended for lounging around the house in.

Both studies revealed that where people had been primed to feel pride they were more attracted to products that would be seen by other people; but when they were primed to feel contentment they were more attracted to products they would use around the home.

This study has important implications for the way in which marketing people select events to sponsors (and for the way they design advertising).

Returning to the London 2012 Olympics which sponsors do you think will gain the most?

I believe that, whilst most stand to benefit from the status of the event, brands like BMW and Omega will gain the most.

Everyday consumer brands like C0ca-Cola and McDonald’s will gain from people finding themselves thinking of the brands more readily and feeling (unconsciously) that they want them more than they otherwise might.

Adidas, through the link to excellence, will also gain significantly (although it’s likely the competitive gains will be balanced by the individual athlete sponsorship and other marketing activity of key competitors like Nike).

Other brands, such as Panasonic and Samsung, will do well with certain products (those that have a status like portable electronics and flat screen televisions).

Some brands may do less well. Leaving aside the corporate entertainment dimension, Lloyds TSB, EDF, BT and BP aren’t products that link naturally to the emotions I believe are primed by watching the Olympics.

This study gives brand owners a valuable insight into how they can select sponsorship opportunities that will benefit them the most.

It also reveals how consumers product preferences can be influenced without them realising and how we may find ourselves feeling that we want to buy a particular type of product on one day and a different one on another.

Source: Vladas Griskevicius, Michelle N. Shiota, and Stephen M. Nowlis. The Many Shades of Rose-Colored Glasses: How Positive Emotions Influence Desire for Consumer Products. Journal of Consumer Research, August 2010