The 2016 announcement is just hours away. Will it be Chicago? Rio? Madrid? Tokyo? The favorites appear to be Chicago or Rio, but who knows. I’d like to see Chicago win.
As as Chicagoan, I’ve seen the campaign close up. A recent poll suggests Chicago citizens are about equally split on whether or not they want the games. The results show slippage from the 2-to-1 support found in an earlier Tribune poll in February.
I think this reveals a flaw in the local marketing of the games. And I think there’s a good lesson in all this: Chicago sold the features, not the benefits. Chicago didn’t tell its citizens why the games would be good for Chicago. Chicago didn’t lay out the lasting legacy of the games for the city. What’s really in it for us? Why should we really support it? What happens after they are over? 8 years of work for a few weeks of sunshine. Then what?
This is a bit of Friday-morning quarterbacking, but here’s what I would have loved to have seen: A campaign centered around Chicago 2017. Show us what the city will look like after the Olympics. Give us a reason to want the games for the decade after the games. Give us examples… If a kid’s 16 years old today, what will the city be like for her when she’s 26? How will the games make Chicago a better place for Chicagoans. Will it be a better place to grow up? Why? Will it be a better place to work? Why? Why would we want to put up with all the construction, traffic, congestion, and attention? Why will it all be worth it?
I do hope we get the games. I do think it will be great for the city. But I have a hard time communicating why. And if I can’t say why, I can’t tell other people why. Shallow support is barely support. That’s a problem.
The bad reasons — the reasons not to support the bid — are the easy reasons: Debt, higher taxes, corruption. A Chicago 2017 campaign could have given me the good reasons. They could have made the good reasons easier to remember and communicate than the bad reasons. I think Chicago 2017 would have put more people into the “I’m for the games” camp than just under 50% and falling.
Eduardo
on 02 Oct 09Totally agree with you, Jason. Well said.
Rob H
on 02 Oct 09Jason, Excellent observations as usual! I’m also a native Chicagoan born and raised in the Windy City and I’m split over having the Chicago host the Olympics.
On the one hand it would be awesome to host the games! A great way to showcase the city and live out Burhnam’s dream.
But on the other hand I know that the citizens of Chicago are going to be stuck footing some part of the bill, one way or another. I can’t help but be cynical.
R
Dennis Martinez
on 02 Oct 09There was a recent article on Sports Illustrated about Beijing, one year after last year’s wonderful Olympics. In short, there really isn’t much going on, in particular with the massive sports locations erected solely for those two weeks in August.
Anonymous Coward
on 02 Oct 09I hear the Bird’s Nest is being turned into a mall.
modsognir
on 02 Oct 09@Dennis: But thats Beijing. Speaking as an Australian, the games were amazing for Sydney back in 2000 – and the sporting facilities built for the two weeks are mostly still in use today. Not to mention all the social and tourism benefits. I can imagine that Beijing would not so easily reap the benefits of such an event.
David Trang
on 02 Oct 09Count me in as a nay-sayer. A 2017 campaign would have certainly helped, but the city failed to communicate anything besides your typical stump speeches for the past few years/months.
I happen to live in the South Loop, and that area in particular is going to feel the brunt of the games harder than other areas, with its close proximity to the lakefront, soldier field, downtown and proposed new stadium areas. Rumors of new housing will sprout all around the near south side, but we already have abandoned lots/condo developments that are not selling due to the economic meltdown.
I just don’t want parts of the city to turn into expensive, oversized ghost towns once the games are over. We see parts of the loop that are already a microcosm of the same situation. Sure, we might get a boost in certain areas like a circle line public transportation system after everything is said and done, but what are we going to have to live through and pay for to get these things done? I’ve seen pictures of Athens after they hosted, and it isn’t pretty.
brandon sheats
on 02 Oct 09I’m with you on this one. They completely missed making what comes next a core of their strategy. Pat Ryan completely dodged the Prince of Monaco’s question. Atlanta did a great job of making an Olympic case – we made it essential to being a world class city.
Wow. Chicago oversold the technical aspects of it.
Paul
on 02 Oct 09Interesting, that’s precisely the approach that London took in pitching for the 2012 games.
If I remember right, for the final pitch they rocked up with a bunch of kids from the area of London where the games are being held and basically said “this is who we are doing this for, these kids, and the futures of all the other people in that area”. They’ve taken on the more down-at-heal parts of London, and they are putting a lot of effort into making sure that the effect on the local area is a lasting positive.
It remains to be seen how much impact it will really have in the long run, but the intent is clearly there.
Astonishingly the construction is actually well on track, the main stadium’s superstructure is almost finished, and we’ve still got two years to go. As a sceptical brit, I’m mildly (but pleasently) astonished at this. I think that in spite of ourselves, we are actually starting to look forward to it :o)
It’s certainly going to be a different Olympics to Beijing, but hopefully in good ways.
David Trang
on 02 Oct 09Well, we just got eliminated so forget my post :)
Martin Pilkington
on 02 Oct 09As Paul pointed out, this is exactly what London did for the 2012 days. The area for the olympics in London will be the east end, which is the poorer, more run down side of London. There was a lot of focus on how the whole scheme would coincide with a redevelopment of that area of London and massive improvements to transportation links, as well as providing the sporting facilities.
In order to win an olympics in the 21st Century you need to show that it isn’t just a 2 week display to the world but a lasting legacy for all those involved. Especially with the world finances as they are, the money spent on an olympic games needs to be seen more as an investment in the future than ever before.
D
on 02 Oct 09SPOT ON! We Lost BUT Perhaps We Won—
Joshua Kaufman
on 02 Oct 09Chicago Dumped In First Round Shocker
Theo Mills
on 02 Oct 09There was an interesting piece on NPR about the indirect benefits to a city hosting the Olympics, though it’s not what you would typically expect:
“You have to have some enormous indirect benefit, and that’s what we’ve been focusing on in our research,” Rose continues. His study did not find the kind of indirect benefits Olympic boosters promote, such as increased tourism or new industries. Instead, Olympic host cities, on average, experience a 30 percent increase in international trade.
original npr story
GeeIWonder
on 02 Oct 09Vancouver, London, Sochi.
I’d bet on Tokyo.
GeeIWonder
on 02 Oct 09Er… since they’re out, let’s say Rio then. Not Europe or NA.
sorry chitown
on 02 Oct 09Chicago… Olyminated!
Matthew Murray
on 02 Oct 09I have to say I don’t understand what Chicago really would have gained from the Olympics. For a city like SLC or Atlanta it makes sense as those cities were not known internationally prior to the Olympics (but then again one could argue that Atlanta is even less thought of after those Olympics so there is a downside too).
In other words, Chicago is already a world class city – even the most perfect Olympics won’t improve its already stellar international appeal. In my opinion the US should be supporting bids from cities like Denver, St. Louis, Austin, Cleveland, San Diego, etc. – cities that aren’t known by the international community.
Ahmad Alhashemi
on 02 Oct 09The promise of benefiting from hosting the olympics seems very similar to that of free web services: lets spend billions of dollars on building a huge infrastructure and get a billion people to come to us then we’ll figure out how to ‘monetize’ that.
nixternal
on 02 Oct 09Hey ‘sorry chitown’ I trademarked Olyminated before you used it, please send me money ASAP! Google it if you don’t believe me :)
Andrew Wicklander
on 02 Oct 09I agree – but I don’t think it was just a marketing problem. They didn’t actually consider how it would benefit normal Chicago residents in the long run and so there was nothing to market.
Daley’s attitude during the whole thing was how the people who lived here were getting in the way of what HE wanted to do.
And doing things like giving rides to the committee voters in hybrid buses while we were being picked up in mass pollution machines only served to piss people off more.
It’s called not involving your stakeholders. Daley thought he could plow this through with his political machine like he does with everything else. Obviously, he was wrong.
Benjy
on 02 Oct 09It’s too bad Chicago didn’t get the Olympics… it seems that many who were against our hosting the games did focus on a few negatives, or made their decisions on misinformation, without looking at how we would benefit from the games.
I love this city and wanted to share it with the world. But there were more tangible benefits for a city ramping up to hold such an event. the Chicago 2016 Bid Book outlined $4.8 billion in spending to get the city ready—not counting upgrades to things like the transportation system. But the vast majority of that money would’ve come from outside of Chicago. TV revenue, ticket sales, sponsorships, federal transportation funds, etc. The amount the local government would have spent was small relative to the overall budget. And all that money would bring jobs to the city. Spending would boost sales tax revenue without raising tax rates. We’d end up with upgraded/additional assets.
I lived in Atlanta from ‘95-’01 (first visiting ATL in ‘93) and I saw tangible ways in which the city was improved due to hosting the games.
Luke
on 02 Oct 09Michelle Obama thinks it will help lower obesity:
“When we’re seeing rates of childhood obesity increase, it is so important for us to raise up the platform of fitness and competition and fair play; to teach kids to cheer on the victors and empathize with those in defeat, but most importantly, to recognize that all the hard work that is required to do something special.”
Source: http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/09/30/first-lady-michelle-obamas-remarks-at-chicago-mayor-daleys-welcome-reception-in-copenhagen-denmark/
Anonymous Coward
on 02 Oct 09Rio just won
EH
on 02 Oct 09It’s too bad Chicago didn’t get the Olympics… it seems that many who were against our hosting the games did focus on a few negatives, or made their decisions on misinformation, without looking at how we would benefit from the games.
Or maybe how “we” would benefit seemed to be the most important criteria. However, it appears that the travel difficulties of people who might be visiting from outside the country were an afterthought, if considered at all. That the US is a travel nightmare is neither misinformation nor a mere “negative,” so why would the IOC even dip its toe into the water of, “Oh, looks like half of the athletes who qualified just happened to be on a mysterious Terrorist Watch List.”
carlivar
on 02 Oct 09King Richard II must be rather disappointed that he lost a great reason to further tax his subjects.
Fernando Emmanoel Borba
on 02 Oct 09We won!! Rio 2016!! It’s something so important to our country that I think that even Chicago citizens were cheering up for Brazil.
Thanks Chicago, Rio loves you!
Carlos Taborda
on 02 Oct 09Good thing Rio won. Rio needs it way more than Chicago.
Felipe Coury
on 02 Oct 09I think this win is a flagship of something greater. There’s no room for central power in the world anymore. With the recent phenomenon where more and more developing countries are slowly growing out of poverty, rising in the world scenery, it’s natural for a developing country city to win.
Did Chicago need this win? Of course it did, we all know after this recent financial crisis things aren’t that good anymore. But, because I am a Brazilian, I know how it is to live in Rio.
One thing that can give us a boost out of the current sub-humane conditions people live there is this Olympics game.
I am confident we have all the technology, the wealthiness and more than anything else, one of the most friendly and welcoming people in the world to make this happen, and be proud of it.
This can – and really I hope it does – become a landmark for this ongoing movement that can make this world a better place, with less people suffering.
Is this Utopia? Maybe, but it’s happening :) and I am really proud to be live to see this unfolding.
Best regards, Felipe.
EL
on 02 Oct 09did someone say “shitown”? I thought I read it in earlier comments… sounds about right though… not surprised Chicago lost.
Tom Morris
on 03 Oct 09I’m not sure the London Olympics were very well sold to us. The arguments seemed to be mostly that we hadn’t held the Olympics since the forties and isn’t it time that we did? etc. Then they claimed that the Olympics would inspire a generation of young athletes – I don’t quite see how, since those young athletes would be watching the Olympics on TV and it wouldn’t matter much where the Games were hosted. Then they said it would promote health and wellbeing and get more people out doing sport and exercise. Which seemed a fairly poor argument.
Regeneration of the East End of London is a perfectly reasonable thing: but they really ought to have been a bit more specific. What sort of regeneration? More jobs? Well, there would be jobs for a few years building the Olympic Village, but after that, what? What about education? What about racial harmony and tolerance? Just making some building jobs available for a few years isn’t exactly sustained investment in the area. During the whole process, I always wanted to just but in to the conversation and say “if it’s worth investing money in regenerating East London, it’s worth doing regardless of the Olympics”.
They tell us now that it’s going to create lots of new housing and parks as well as “102 hectares of open space… the largest new urban green space in Europe”. Also a clinic which will be used for athletes during the games, but kept open afterwards for local residents.
The side of it that will affect all Londoners is transport though: to cope with 100,000 spectators a day going to Stratford, and they claim they are going to have a 7 minute ‘Javelin’ service that will run between Kings Cross/St Pancras and Stratford. Which is fine, but what they don’t tell us is how much disruption the Olympics is going to cause to ordinary commuters in London, and whether the Olympics is changing funding priorities for other London transport projects like the redevelopment of Thameslink, Crossrail, “Routemaster II” and installing better air conditioning and cooling on the Underground. Another thing: was the High-Speed Link in North Kent and the move of Eurostar to St. Pancras motivated by the Olympics? Because, if it was, then the Olympics has made transport for me worse – because it’s taken investment away from the train service I use to get to London, and the touted plan a few years ago to set up a Eurostar terminal at Tonbridge rather than Ebbsfleet.
There is a disconnect here: the kind of questions that we all have about the Olympics aren’t matters of principle – they are really whether about whether or not everyone in the City is going to benefit. For London, I’m not at all sure that we will. It’ll give some local benefits to the Stratford/Lower Lea Valley area, but is it benefitting the city as a whole? We’ll have to wait and see. And when the Olympics are on, I’m going to be staying as far away as I possibly can from London: the transport system, and all the security and policing, will make the city hell for citizens.
Coward Hater
on 03 Oct 09Is there a way to ban the doucebag known as the Anonymous Coward? Do it to the other drive-by zealots too while you’re at it.
Sean McCambridge
on 03 Oct 09I spent almost 3 weeks in Chicago over the list 6 weeks. I was surprised how little marketing I saw for the Games. It’s like they thought the could just drop Oprah and Obama on their campaign and get the Games. I heard some pundit say they thought OO’s trip to Denmark would be the icing on the cake. I’m not sure what they thought the cake was.
Compared to what I was in Paris in 2005, where every landmark had a huge Paris Olympics logo on it, Chicago dropped the ball. Not that Paris got the games, either. But if you want to sway the public, you’ve got to do something.
I’m sure there were plenty of other factors, but this is one big contrast I noticed. I’m glad they went to Rio. Congrats to all of Brasil.
Ray Pryor
on 04 Oct 09D’oh! Oh well … BTW, whoever came up with Olyminated is brilliant.
Tom Morris
on 04 Oct 09Sean McCambridge: in London they covered trains and buses with adverts and even reupholstered the seats with garish yellow fabric. For a few months, you couldn’t go anywhere in the city without Olympics ads glaring back from every flat surface. Did they sell it? Well, they advertised it a lot that’s for sure.
Michael
on 06 Oct 09I’m glad Chicago didn’t choose a good marketing campaign because Chicago might have won the bid.
This discussion is closed.