Q: Cities, countries even, are increasingly seeing major sporting events as way to market themselves as destination and of reaping some economic benefits. Is this wishful thinking or can the massive cost be justified economically?
A: Bringing great sporting events to nations is an emotional short-cut to the heart. When Barcelona and Beijing ran the Olympics, when South Africa ran the Rugby World Cup, these were events that galvanised nation, that gave hope and belief. Feeling sense of pride, of belonging, of community is good for you.
Q: China got the 2008 Olympic Games right, but India mis-stepped with the 2010 Commonwealth Games. Are these events getting too big for many countries to host?
A: India had tough run. They are under terrific threat from terrorism. They have Pakistan on the border. They had chutzpah, they had courage in asking, but I think they found they have long way to go. Ideas are the right of everyone, execution is what makes the difference. China and Sydney executed superbly. I hope that New Zealand executes what will be the world’s last traditional tour next year superbly.
Q: For some countries, might the money be better spent elsewhere? In other words, even if an event can pull large international audience, might it nevertheless divert too many resources and stir up too much resentment and division at home to be worthwhile?
A: Not at all. I think the fact that people talk about them shows that it is important. We live in world of “and-and” not “either-or”. It isn’t we either become Mother Teresa and look after the world’s poor one by one, or we run great sporting event. Life is much more complex than that. Sport is one of the few ways out for all of these people. It is great equaliser.
Q: How do you measure success from branding or marketing perspective, and is this even done? More than 700 million watched the 2006 Soccer World Cup final in Germany, but did that translate into anything meaningful in marketing terms?
A: We are drowning in the statistics. There are great economic justifications for all of these events which may or may not be true because they are based on forecasts and then on rewriting the past. What you do know is that Barcelona was redeveloped as city because of its Olympics, that Auckland would not have the Viaduct if we hadn’t got the America’s Cup, that South African tourism and economic vitality have increased massively since they were able to demonstrate that they had security under control.
Q: Closer to home, great things have been promised from the Rugby World Cup. What is your feeling about its potential, and have the organisers got it right?
A: Martin Snedden and McCully are doing fantastic job. Most of the calls that have been made have been good for New Zealand, good for rugby. The next World Cups are going to go to gigantic commercial places. This is going to be the last great tour. I’m the chair of USA Rugby. Our guys are going to be living in Taranaki, in New Plymouth and they are excited. They want to see the real New Zealand, real grass-roots rugby. This will be great opportunity to showcase New Zealand and our people.
The real work, frankly, is not in 2011. We will get this right. The real task is how do we take advantage of this from commercial point of view. How do we invite the movers and shakers to New Zealand and then show them that they should invest in New Zealand, recruit New Zealanders and have joint ventures with our companies. That we have intellectual capital that travels. That is one area I am little concerned about. I am telling businesses here, don’t peak in October 2011. That is for Graham Henry and the boys. We have got to be peaking in the two years after because that is what will matter to New Zealand, when the World Cup is over.
Kevin Roberts is Honorary Professor of Innovation and Creativity at the Auckland University Business School. With thanks to the University of Auckland Business School Quarterly.
