Sponsorship reactions

Image: FreeDigitalPhotos.net

While watching the magnificent victory of Bradley Wiggins in the Tour de France on Sunday, I considered my own reactions to sponsorship and specific companies.
Specifically on this occasion, Sky. I don't like Sky. I don't like the "hijacking" of top flight football that has happened over the last few years...the lack of live TV matches on free to air, the match timings to fit the Sky schedule etc. Even the general Murdoch empire, some of which has been exposed through recent enquiries, and does seem to be changing.
When it comes to cycling and the Tour de France, though, I have no such negative reaction. Instead, I applaud the achievements of the members of the team - especially Wiggins, Mark Cavendish and this year also Chris Froome - without a tinge of negativity.
Why?
I think the main reason is that of choice. The TdF has been on free to air TV. I am therefore able to watch it with a free choice, and do not feel "forced" into giving money to Sky. Their sponsorship of the event does not impact on my choice. I will not give my hard-earned money to the Murdoch empire, but their sponsorship of the cycling team with most of the Brits in it doesn't mean I have to. Sure, some people will sign up to Sky as a result of the sponsorship and the exposure it gets them. But that's different...
Is it?
My mind moves on to the Olympics sponsors, about which I have previously blogged. The sponsorship by McDonalds and Coke doesn't force me to consume their products (since I didn't get tickets...) so why am I so bothered about this one?

• There is of course, the possibility that my response is illogical to some degree
• There is an element that McDonalds and Coke ARE forcing choices - not mine, but those of every Olympics Park visitor. And that feels wrong to me...so maybe it's not the sponsorship but the extreme brand protection techniques?
• Lastly, it is possible that it is the incongruity of food and beverage manufacturers that I consider to be extremely unhealthy, sponsoring an event that should be celebrating the ultimate in fit and healthy

Ultimately from a business point of view, the following observations are relevant:

• We live in a capitalist society and the market forces behind all of these sponsorships are dominant in making these things happen. Consumer choice is paramount...I choose not to subscribe to Sky, but many do. That provides them the cash to invest in football sponsorship that restricts viewers to their medium (they would indeed be crazy not to restrict in order to protect their revenue stream). But it also provides the cash for the cycling team. I choose not to eat at McDonalds and drink Coke, many choose to consume. If enough choose the products, then the cash will be there for sponsorship.
• We cannot cherry pick the good bits of living in a market driven economy and complain about the bad bits - especially if they are only "bad" in our own personal estimation.
• The companies themselves are rarely to blame for the "bad bits". All of the above-named companies, as far as I'm aware, act honestly and legally in regard to their business practices. Some may not be what we would all like in some "ideal" world. But ultimately they are what WE choose, collectively.
• Only a massive change in consumer choices will change the products, companies and sponsorship deals we see.

In our free market economy, it's important that we express our own choices, allow others to express theirs, but also it's important to speak up about what we believe is right and wrong. If our opinions resonate and enough people change behaviour, great. If not, we accept it and move on...ultimately we can only control our own choices, and that's the beauty of the free market.

To sum up, going back to my favourite subject of the TV documentary series, The Men Who Made Us Fat...the point is this:  they didn't make us fat. I am the only man that is responsible for making me fat. I don't have to eat the sugar, I don't have to eat large portions. I choose.