3 Really Important Learnings For the Dutch from The London 2012 Olympics Bid Approach

Isn't it great when someone reads your blog post! Even greater when they think it is okay too!



Below was my reaction to Loek's and Geert's comments:

Thank you for reading my blog and for your nice comments. I have read the infrastructure document you talked about and it is great to hear that you have already spoken with the key figures of the 2012 bid. Indeed one of the key success criteria for the London bid is cited as being, the step by step plan and legacy. However they did not say they were “ready” when they went for the bid – because then the IOC would not have been able to say that the games will have a big and lasting impact on the country.

London worked on the bid as far back at 15 years before [1997] and 12 years before a report was delivered to parliament with recommendations, it was not until 2003 that they got the go ahead that was 9 year out. So the Dutch timings seem to mirror what happened in the UK with even more time to activate the necessary support locally for the bid, which for London was at 95% just before the bid.

Beyond infrastructure, there are 3 really important learning’s for the Dutch from the UK bid:

1. BEST CITY CHOICE - after three failed consecutive United Kingdom (UK) bids (Birmingham in 1992 and Manchester in 1996 and 2000), the decision was made to bid with London, given the clear indication that it was the only city in the UK that had a chance of being selected by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) when put up against other world cities in a competitive bidding process, even though Manchester held the Commonwealth Games in 2002. Once this choice was made, differences where quickly put behind them and to the outside world they communicated a “united front”. The choice of Dutch city will be crucial and Amsterdam seems to be the obvious choice for historical and awareness reasons in particular, think about it when you ask foreigners to name the 1st Dutch city that comes to mind, 100% would name Amsterdam.

2. RIGHT BID CHAMPION – after an unsuccessful start to the UK bid under the Direction of Barabara Cassani, a successful American business woman living and working in London; it was decided that they needed a strong sporting ex-Olympian to lead the bid. Someone with enough charisma and business clout to convince the IOC members and have the energy and passion to get the British [not just Londoners] people behind the bid. Sebastian Coe was the obvious choice for Britain an ex-Olympian himself, a very good networker, but not in your face, in a subtle way and able to click with different nationalities. On top of that he fit perfectly with the message about “opportunities for youth”. I am unable to name this combination in one person for Holland, but it could be a duo, with a sporter like Esther Vergeer, as she would fit very well with a Dutch bid message like “Celebrate difference, challenge the status quo”.

3. CLEVER MARKETING – London used every opportunity to promote the (possible) bid, using every worldwide and local sporting event to promote the bid or to network with the right people to get the message across about aims of the different stages of the bid and the desire to go for the Olympics. Holland needs to do this, ie. Making the most of the opportunity to promote the “Netherlands as the gateway to the London 2012 games” – it seems that currently the Netherlands has missed this massive marketing opportunity and that is a shame, but could be salvaged still with an organized approach.

It is great to hear that there are many learning’s that have already been taken into account from other successful bid, especially London as it is a good base for comparison, and infrastructure is one of those, but not the only one.

Cheers Claire

_________________________________________________________________
Kees de Voogd • @ Claire, thank you ! I have two questions:
1. how different was the Paris bid from the London Bid, and why do you think they lost ?
2. how about finances, as far as I understand that is also a very important aspect of Olympic bidding.

bye
Kees

Claire Powell • @Kees, It is not to do with being "ready", as Paris was 90% ready and London still had 4 stadiums that needed building in 2005. London spent 17M pounds [25M dollars] on their bid, but I am sure this included lots of wastage - I can't find any public bid figure for Paris [even if I search in French in Google], which suggests that it was also a large sum of money. The words "trust & relationships" can explain the difference and this is created by "getting inside the heads of the decision makers, understanding what makes them tick and giving them what they want to hear/see, without the arrogance & within the IOC standards!" [which is a sound marketing and sales strategy].

Compare Apples with Apples: Rio 2016 or London 2012 learnings!

I slept so badly after Monday evening at the Linkedin Group Olympics 2028 group meeting at the Olympic Stadium in Amsterdam, and I think I know why! It was such an interesting, but at the same time frustrating event, that I had so much to process and hence I couldn't switch off.

I should have given up trying to sleep and got up and written this blog post immediately ...

Learning from others who have been successful in gaining the Olympics, is very important, in fact crucial in any plan [especially a marketing and bid plan], but it is essential to ensure you are comparing "apples with apples" and not "apples with pears" otherwise you run the risk of drawing the wrong conclusions.

Why compare Brazil and not London 2012? I know a study trip to Brasil is far more exciting than one to London with its Dutch like weather conditions, but when doing analysis of what works and doesn't work, you must compare like with like or as close as you can get.

I feel qualified to write about this as half of my family live in Brazil and the other half in the UK near London, and despite being British myself, I have lived in the Netherlands for the last 12 years. Also I have 15 years experience in "Measurable Marketing" projects.

The London 2012 bid experience would have made a better learning platform for the Dutch Olympic bid [2028???] because there are lots of similarities between the Dutch and the English situation/people ...

1. The people [despite being lovely] are very cynical, skeptical, need to be sold to and are not by nature proud people and more importantly they need something solid to get behind and support, for them it is not automatically an honor to host the Olympics. [However Brazilians are by nature optimist, hopeful, trustful, proud people who see getting the Olympics as a real honor].



2. The people are overall less sporty and passionate about sport, other things bind the British and Dutch people more. [For the Brazilians music and sport are everything. They went into mourning for a week after their loss in the world cup, in fact they got 2 days off work and school to get over it and my nephew who lives there, wouldn't answer my SMS messages!]



3. The selling reason, "THE WHY US", is not obvious and requires very clearly thought out reasons and messaging locally/nationally and internationally. [Unlike Rio where this reason was simple "Pick us, South America has never had an Olympics, we are ready to party and show that South America can pull this off and make you proud."]

Then there are the even more obvious reasons why London would make a better base for comparison and learnings:

Same continent [where many Olympics have taken place and many bids have been focused], same level of economic development, small sized country with many mid sized cities close to each other [issue of compact/dispersed games], low percentage economic growth potential and the same level of infrastructure and infrastructure challenges.

I would encourage the Dutch Olympics 2028 bid organizers to take the learning's from the London 2012 bid team; many of whom have moved on, but are very approachable; into consideration in order to help create the right plan that will work for the Netherlands and the Olympics 2028 bid.

Planning my next holiday at the end of my current holiday

I am not sure if it is healthy to plan my next holiday before my "current" holiday is over! It seems to suggest that I am not totally living in the moment or enjoying the here and now. Well it is not as bad as it sounds, I actually just dream of the destination, but not finalize the details. Now that would be unhealthy wouldn't it?

Between Christmas and early January we were in Fuerteventura in the Spanish Canary Islands. Not chosen for its culture, cuteness or history, but for its very pleasant weather and exquisite beaches. What a fantastic place to relax, read, jog, eat succulent Spanish tomatoes and generally enjoy the warmth of the sun of your vitamine D starved body.

Seven days is enough however, as the island lacks culture, cute white stoned cities and green lucious nature. Well it would seeing as it is effectively a desert and pounded by the sand filled wind storms all year long.

While walking on the magnificent beaches there, it got me thinking about how much I enjoy being away from wet cold snowy countries like the UK or Holland. So I started making my list of possible future holidays ... below is the start of the list in no particular order. The only problem I see now is, do I have enough years to actually visit all these places on my list?

• Cycling and camping in French Alpes and French/Spanish Pyrenees
• Windsurfing in Bonaire
• Mountain biking in Scotland, Peak District and Lake District
• Snorkling off small island near Zanzibar/Maldives, Seychelles or Fernando de Noronha
• Walking in Autumn/fall in New England [US] combined with trip to Boston to see friends
• Travelling through Thailand and Malaysia on bicycle
• Touring with camper van around North New Zealand
• Mountainbiking in Austria and Switzerland
• Touring round Norwegen Fiords and mountains
• Trip down the Nile, plus snorkling in Red Sea
• Driving through Grand Canyon and across North America
• Travelling round Costa Rica, with visit to see a friend
• Serengeti park in Tanzania, with visit to see an old family friend
• Touring round Japan

One of these is my next holiday, "planned" while on holiday in Fuerteventura this year.

The end of www.e-sporters.com - my 10 learnings

After debating long and hard over what to do with www.e-sporters.com my sports community website, I made the decision in July 2010 to cut my losses and close down the Ltd company and the site itself. But what a fantastic learning experience I have had over the last 3 years.

I set up ESPORTERS Ltd when I was still living in the UK with my parents in July 2007. I had sold my house in Amsterdam and used the proceeds to invest in the development of www.e-sporters.com. Little did I know then that it was to be an investment in my knowledge, as opposed to one with the chance of a financial return.

This is my list of 10 learnings in no particular order:

1. Having a passion for an idea is not enough. Use your head as well as your heart!
2. Setting up an .com company is lonely on your own. Don't do it without a partner!
3. If you prefer not to sit behind a computer all day/night, then a .com is not for you!
4. Taking a copy of a site and adapting it doesn't work. Start with a fresh canvas!
5. If the site is not built in a search engine friendly way, you may as well give up now!
6. Don't bite off too many segments too soon. Make a niche target segment a success first!
7. A consumer need for something doesn't always materialize into wanting your solution!
8. Rather than setting up a Ltd co., start with as sole trader, it costs less money and hassle!
9. Never regret taking a risk and following your passion. At least you had the guts to try!
10. Cutting your losses and stopping something, is a strategy, it doesn't mean failure!

The biggest competitor of www.e-sporters.com, isporty.com also folded a few months before I made my decision and they had thousands of pounds of money invested and the backing of the BBC in the UK, so all and all I don't feel bad about my attempt at capturing the online heart and minds of sporters, in fact quite the opposite, it has been an investment in my education.

Hmmm the fact that I incorporated the company and site on the "13th" (of July 2007) may also have had something to do with it not being a run away success! But what a lot of valuable learnings and I also got a a personal signed letter from Sebastian Coe [ex-Olympian & London 2012 champion] thanking me for my sports community idea!

Women's sport suffers from lack of visibility

Let us dispel some myths firstly:
Womens sport does not lack talent
Women sporters do not train less hard than the men - they push their bodies to the limit too
Womens sport is not less interesting to watch - in fact in some sports it is more exciting to watch as the rallies are shorter.
Yes less women play sports than men, but this gap is decreasing and in the last Olympics the split was 50:50.

Women's sport suffers from lack of visibility. The media coverage ratio between male and female professional sports in the developed world is 10:1. The fan base is a lot smaller too, in fact world championships for some women's individual sports don't exceed more than 200 spectators. Men don't want to watch the women and women neither it appears. The sports spectator culture among women hasn’t kept pace with the participatory one.

Some believe the only way to increase the visibility of women's sport, is for women to compete in the mens competitions, but due to the physiology of men versus women, it would be impossible for women to compete at that level. If you compare the top 10 women tennis players they would find it hard to compete against men in the top 1000 rankings. In squash the top 10 women on the national arena, find it difficult beating men ranked 600 nationally. This is not a solution for those sports which require physical exertion.

Now if you compare one sport where the women get as much publicity and have just as many fans as the men, it is tennis. The game is easy to understand and follow for non-players of the sport. Remember understanding of the game is necessary to enjoy it and to want to follow it. During the breaks, the analysis helps to understand the game, the key moments and the decisive decisions, and ultimately builds up the excitement and enjoyment.

The tennis tour has a number of women "personalities" including the likes of Serena Williams who in fact has far more twitter followers than Roger Federa. Women in tennis has benefited from part of the women's ATP tournaments being played at the same time as the men's. So the media and the fans are already there, so they get the visibility. Equally tennis benefits from a lot of women role models, including the likes of Sue Barker the tennis commentator.

Another example of women getting a lot of visibility in their sport, is when they compete at the Olympics. In part this can be explained by the fact that they compete at the same venues and times as the men and therefore the press and fans/audience are already present. Patriotism plays a role here too, we will all cheer for a women from our country if it means another gold medal for the medal table.

Technology and scoring/rule systems have a huge role to play in increasing the interest in following certain sports, look at what the rule changes did for the game of rugby and the use of technology to help analyze football games at half time and checking refereeing decisions in tennis. However for some sports, like squash even changing the scoring for the women's game to match the mens scoring system has not managed to increase the fan base of the women's game.

The huge gap between opportunities, funding and media exposure given to males and females in the sporting world persists. However major inroads have been made in pay equity for international sporting competitions. In tennis, the French Open and Wimbledon joined ranks with the Australian and US Opens by offering both men and women competitors equal prize money. Also, the 2005 Standard Chartered Singapore Marathon paid winners of men's and women's categories equal prize money. But these sports are in the minority. For instance, according to the US National Committee on Pay Equity, the average salary in the Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA) is only 2 per cent of the all-male National Basketball Association's (NBA) average.

There are many lessons to be learned from tennis, in the stride to increase the visibility of the womens sports:

- Combine the men and women's pro events as much as possible
- Ensure the audience understands the sport
- Use technology to make the sport more understandable & exciting
- Make women personalities and role models accessible

Sports world champions using twitter

Twitter is one of the best ways for sports stars to stay in touch with their fans and keep their fans engaged with their progress. Of course Lance Armstrong is the best example of a sporter using twitter to stay in touch with fans and well wishers. But I wondered how many WOMEN world champions/number 1's are actually using twitter to this end.

Well not that many as it turns out. I did a quick check of 13 individual sports and their current world number 1 (as of 7 Oct 09). So in order of popularity (most number of followers on twitter as of 7 Oct 09):

- Serena Williams (tennis) - 1,207,513
- Lindsey Vonn (downhill skiing) - 1,288
- Nicol David (squash) - 590

The following world number 1's do not yet have a twitter account:

- Wang Lin (badminton)
- Yue Guo (table tennis)
- Jeter Carmelita (100m sprint athletics)
- Britta STEFFEN (50m freestyle swimming)
- Mariane Vos (road cycling)
- Elisabeth OSL (mountain biking cross country)
- Lorena Ochoa (golf)
- Emma Moffat (triathlon)
- Ana BRANZA (fencing)
- Veronica Blackmann (boxing heavyweight)

Vicious circle - financial support for topsporters

Over the last few days I have been at the Forexx Women's world squash championships in Amsterdam, voluntarily doing video interviews for a fellow website www.squashstars.com run by Nicol David number one in the world. You can view the videos on their YouTube channel www.youtube.com/squashstars

During the course of my chats and interviews, it has come to my attention that there is a viscious circle created in the financing of topsporters in Holland by the NOC NSF Olypmics association, which is not wholly supportive of the players that actually need the most help.

The current situation means that you can only get NOC NSF/topsporter status if you fall into the top 4 or 8 in the world. This excludes the rising stars. However if you earn too much money over a certain threshold, you are also excluded from the financial support of the NOC NSF. So if you are top in the world, you are winning tournaments so you may actually earn over the threshold and therefore by being too good, you dequalify yourself from the right to have financial support from the Olympics association.

Effectively they have created a viscious circle, you have to be very good, but not too good to get support. What about all those that fall into the most needed category, not quite in the top 10 in the world, but could be with more time to practice and more support could make it. Effectively unless that category have financial support from other means, ie from friends, family, or if they are lucky a sponsor, they have little chance of reaching the top 10. Should financial support from the NOC NSF be means tested like with university grants?

So again, it boils down to the topsporter needing the right support network, beyond the support or lack of support of their national olympics association to succeed. This was one of the many reasons I created www.e-sporters.com to aid sporters with developing a sport network.