dlehnersauder

Case 3, class 23, and class 24 all involved analyzing Bell’s $200 million dollar bid which won Bell exclusive telecommunications sponsorship of the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. Debates regarding whether the pricey investment was a good investment and whether it paid off for Bell absorbed Comm 101 class. My case 3 assignment argued the Olympic sponsorship was a good investment for Bell. Many persuasive arguments justifying both sides were made during class discussions. I still contend that the sponsorship was a good investment. I will present additional justification for the sponsorship (from a financial standpoint) which I excluded from my assignment (I focused heavily on marketing).

Bell experienced a 61 percent jump in profit the first quarter following the Olympic games. Bell Canada largely attributes their massive revenue growth to their aggressive Olympic marketing and advertising. Additionally, because Bell had exclusive Olympic-centric telecommunications marketing during the Olympics, their competitors’ (TELUS and Rogers) ability to counter Bell’s aggressive marketing (especially in Western Canada) diminished significantly. Bell boasted their market share for postpaid wireless phone activations rose to 42 percent, compared to just 19 percent the year previous. Bell CEO George Cope stated Bell’s overall market share growth goals from Olympic marketing were surpassed, meaning Bell’s initial goals measuring the worthiness of the expensive sponsorship (increasing its market share in mobile phone and satellite TV services by more than 1 percent) paid off.

Since Bell’s 2010 Q1 results, Bell’s revenue and profit growth has increased at a decreasing rate. More time is needed to measure whether Olympic sponsorship will benefit Bell in the long-run. If McDonalds and Coca-Cola’s successes from Olympic sponsorship are any indication of long-term benefits, Bell could be looking forward to a profitable future. Bell secured their brand presence in Canada to a similar extent that McDonalds and Coca-Cola position and secure their brands. All three companies fulfill the circumstances determining if costly Olympic sponsorship will be beneficial (I defined these circumstances in my case). Bell’s increased brand presence in Canada has already brought the company profits, and could potentially increase Bell’s long-term profitability, demonstrating that Bell’s Olympic sponsorship was a good investment.

Daniel Boissonneau-Lehner