OlyBLOG - strategies to help small & midsize
businesses (SMBs) profitably leverage Olympic momentum
Regional Business News
regarding the 2010 Olympics
in British Columbia, Canada
OlyBLOG is for businesses across Canada,
especially in Vancouver / Whistler and throughout B.C. We also
hope companies in Alberta and United States (i.e. Washington, Oregon,
Idaho, Montana and California) will find OlyBLOG interesting and informative.
#1 Industry to Profit
from the Olympics
The IOC's Best Kept Secret - CHECKBOOK
Some companies make a fortune off the Games. And they
do it repeatedly in almost all Olympic regions. They make billions of
dollars right under your nose and you probably don't even know it. Unfortunately,
you should, because they often do it at your expense.
When the Bid is won everyone is excited about the wealth the Olympics
brings to a region. Politicians and boosters go on ad nauseum about how
good it is for the community. Everyone starts salivating over the prospect
of cashing in on his or her own little pot of gold. In some respects it
is true, but for most small and midsize businesses, unless they are proactive
and innovative, all they see are higher costs of doing business, increased
rents, taxes, and expensive confusion.
The #1 industry that collectively makes billions off the Games
is media (next to sports-related and construction companies of course).
Anything media-related is a veritable gold mine, especially if it is mainstream
news media like newspapers or television. In fact, the absolute #1 media
company to make a fortune off the Games in Vancouver will be foreign-owned
NBC television. They sold advertising during the 2004 Games in Athens
to over 4,000,000,000 viewers. That's a lot of zeroes. Thanks to NBC,
4 BILLION people regularly connect the Olympics with companies like McDonald's
You're probably thinking, 8 billion eyeballs? I thought Greece had an
Olympic debt of $12 billion dollars? How could an entire country go into
grievous debt, while one company alone stuffs their pockets to overflowing?
It happens because gullible citizens and SMBs let it happen. You do it
because they lead you to believe that you are going to share in the booty.
News Flash! They are not going to share anything with you - ever, unless
you literally force them to do so. Life is a negotiation, not a free lunch.
The Olympics is the government, and by their own admission, they are very
tough negotiators. Frugal does not begin to describe their attitude. If
you expect to profit, you must be innovative.
The #2 news media company to reap huge rewards will be CTV - they
won the television broadcast sponsorship and a license to print dough
as a result of agreements with NBC and VANOC.
The #3 company in the media industry to make a killing is your
trusted local newspaper, or in some cases, plural, as in, newspapers.
(We still don't know, July 06, which newspaper it will be.) Locally, and
by far, local newspapers have much to gain. The surprising part of this
little union is that not only do they make a killing at the expense of
the community; they surreptitiously get in bed with Olympic organizations
to do it. Some are doing it already.
Olympic organizations like VANOC literally need to partner with at least
one local newspaper in order to manage their event efficiently. So far
they have not devised any other way to do it. I offer a viable solution
in my book, but it is so forward-thinking that it might be years before
a local Olympic organizing committee (like VANOC) is brave or progressive
enough to even consider it. Remember, Olympic organizations continuously
operate on the brink of confusion, and it is often all they can do to
keep their head above water, let alone develop a new lifesaving device.
Based on past history of other Olympic regions, and public responses to
significant overrun challenges that Vancouver/Whistler is already experiencing,
it looks like VANOC is approaching an operational state where decisions
are influenced by panic. It doesn't help that the "so-called experts"
(blind leading the blind) in Turin recently stated in a post-news conference
that VANOC has seriously underestimated what it will cost to build Olympic
facilities. Unfortunately, Olympic VIPs in Turin do not know any more
about what happened to them today, than they did while they were immersed
in their self imposed chaos. Taking their advice after the fact is an
exercise in futility. You may recall that only two months before their
Games they threatened bankruptcy, and that if the Italian government wouldn't
bail them out, they would shut down the event. Previous to that, the Turin
Games CEO threatened to quit if he didn't get more cooperation. It's not
a good idea to take advice from IOC puppets guilty of holding their community
up for ransom.
If you want to know how to host, or not host, a special event, watch as
it is being "advanced (built)." Patriotic and commercial pride
prevents people in Olympic regions from sharing after the fact what "really"
went wrong. Instead they concoct a cluster of platitudes to cover their
sins of greed or incompetence. Have you ever known an executive or politician,
or even your boss, to take responsibility for, or fully explain the mistakes
they made? What makes you think that anyone in their right mind, especially
if they still have a career or legacy to protect, will tell you what "they"
did wrong on an Olympic global stage? Give me a break. If you also think
it will happen in front of television cameras you need a course in psychology.
Liability issues alone are cause enough for them to point fingers and
hide the real reasons their Games went into economic overtime.
All those who are prepared to commit career suicide, please take one step
forward. That's what I thought. One of the main hooks Olympic organizations
use to lure high ranking executives to work for them is the promise that
it will advance their careers and look good on their resumes. They use
the exact same "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity" tactics to attract
volunteers. Do you think VANOC CEO John Furlong is going to travel to
a foreign country after 2010 and admit how he dropped the ball in Vancouver,
especially when his partners already accuse him of being secretive and
inept, or especially if he is embroiled in lawsuits? Why doesn't he explain
his mistakes now before more damage is done and avoid all the "explaining"
later? Some local Olympic organizing committees do a great job for the
Games and for the community, but they do it by challenging the IOC at
every single turn and from the outset, not by pandering to them. Sydney,
Australia for example told the IOC they didn't like the deal negotiated
on their behalf with courier UPS so they rejected it and hired a local
company to service their needs. The IOC went nuts when this happened.
Do you think Australians cared? They were more concerned about protecting
their community than they were about selling out to the IOC.
Here's a short excerpt from my new book
regarding the Aussies and the IOC;
Some members of the Sydney Summer Games in 2000 had the right idea. They
knew exactly where their loyalties lay. Some of them wanted the Games
to be a success for everyone, not just the big box corporate sponsors.
The country in general, much to the consternation of 'official' Olympic
organizations, worked hard to protect the interest of not only the region
surrounding Sydney, but of the entire country. And hurray for them, unfortunately,
or fortunately, it depends on how you look at it - they did it at the
expense of the IOC. Independent Aussie business organizations wrote their
own rules. The Aussies actually licensed a sponsorship to one of their
local courier companies [TNT} and pushed UPS, who had an agreement with
IOC to be an official TOP (The Olympic Program) sponsor, right out of
the picture. In effect the Aussies said to the IOC, run your Games anyway
you want, but if it doesn't benefit our community in the manner we feel
is fair we will make new rules. And they did. In effect, Australia and
their local shipping company TNT worked hand in hand to put the IOC on
notice. The short-term result was that the IOC lost a valuable international
sponsor in UPS and they were unable to find a company to take their place
for 2004. On the upside, the long-term message Australia sent to the world
was 'you don't have to be bullied by the IOC.' If you treat them more
like a friendly adversary you can still produce an extremely successful
Games for the world, your region, and your country
be damned. (dp23) end of excerpt
VANOC should have assigned a small high-ranking executive group to shadow
the Italians 24/7 from the moment the 2010 Bid was won. You will never
convince anyone who has professional event management experience (me included
with almost twenty years of global experience) that anything of "real"
value can be learned directly from the people who screwed it up. To begin
with, as I mentioned above, what the hell is their incentive to sabotage
an already wobbly reputation? You might pick up a few interesting figures,
but they won't tell you why it went wrong, only where it went wrong. Keep
in mind too that "ALL" Olympic organizations like VANOC sign
extremely stringent confidentiality agreements that prevent them from
sharing information deemed detrimental to Olympic spirit.
Post-Game press conferences are primarily thinly veiled charades to appease
public perception. It makes it look like valuable "legacy" information
is being traded, when in fact the only information being shared is already
in the public domain - if you choose to look. If you doubt this for even
a moment, how can you explain that almost three years ago I unearthed
information for my book that describes in great detail what is transpiring
in Vancouver today before it happens? I didn't have to travel to Italy
to know that transportation and construction overrun costs will be a challenge,
or to know exactly "why" they failed in other Olympic regions.
In fact I devote a whole chapter to the trials and tribulations of managing
transportation. I didn't need an Italian or a Greek executive who recently
screwed it up to tell me what went wrong. I, and anyone who has read my
book already know what the problem is. The challenge is changing the system
to prevent it from happening again. The IOC, through the Italians, are
trying to convince us, as are executives at VANOC and our local media,
that the problems they experienced, or the challenges Vancouver is currently
going through, are unique to each respective region. They are not unique.
It is history repeating itself primarily because the business model is
flawed, and it is the only way the IOC can protect its enterprise. Unfortunately,
while the IOC protects itself, local communities suffer. If the Italians
wanted to share anything with us, they should be telling us how they mismanaged
their relationship with the IOC and how they negatively impacted their
community in the process. Tell us something we can use. Unfortunately,
they can't, because they signed a confidentiality agreement preventing
them from doing so. The best they can do is speak in generalities.
It also doesn't help in Vancouver that local mainstream news media are
still not asking the hard questions and demanding straight answers from
VANOC executives, or when journalists do buck the trend and report truthfully,
they are fired. No kidding. It recently happened at a CanWest newspaper,
the Times Colonist, in Victoria (They also own the Vancouver Sun). On
July 5, 2006, columnist Vivian Smith was fired, allegedly due to complaints
from local tourism operators. She wrote a story that honestly painted
a picture of tourist hotspots in Victoria, and according to a story in
TheTyee.ca, she was fired because she complained tourist attractions were
poorly run and overpriced. When she was fired, another columnist, Lynne
van Luven, and a freelance feature writer quit in protest. If independent
internet journalist Sean Holman hadn't interviewed the PR director at
Butchart Gardens, and then reported the story on his website, PublicEyeOnline.com,
this story might have never come to light with the impact it did. Similar
scenarios play out in Vancouver too. Journalists do their job and editors
censor their work if it doesn't fit the needs of their advertisers. Olympic
organizations are basically just another advertiser, a big one mind you,
but the dynamic and transfer of revenue are the same.
Mainstream media cannot continue to let VANOC off the hook. If Vancouver
news media companies cannot provide experienced and aggressive investigative
journalists, ones who can stand up to their editors, then I suggest that
we import journalists from other parts of Canada, like Calgary, Montreal,
or (mock) horror upon horror, Toronto. The challenge here though is that
no journalist in his or her right mind would want to move to a city where
the price of an average home is $600,000, which means that until the market
levels-out relative to wages, or the bubble bursts (which is more likely),
Vancouver journalists are relatively safe -- as long as you don't count
the recent implosion and demise of CityTV's newsroom.
Vancouver/Whistler not only needs investigative journalists with a more
sophisticated world-view and global experience, but also writers with
the ethical fortitude to defend their position. The first step in fixing
a problem is recognizing you have a problem. Unfortunately, in insular
Vancouver, we still have our collective heads buried in the sand on Kits
Beach. The people making the most noise about Vancouver being "the
most livable city" are the politicians who take credit for building
our sheltered little Oz. However, according to well-respected international
news magazine "The Economist," we suck. If you listen to local
media you would never know it. The UK-based magazine, on July 8, 2006,
told the whole world about our homeless, drug, and political problems.
Local media who responded to the article, not surprisingly, failed to
report that "The Economist" has been reporting this information
for many years. All you have to do is go to their website and search "Vancouver."
They claim we've been sucking for a long time. How is it possible our
"professional" local news media missed it for so long? Maybe
they were too busy collecting fat checks from developers who were focused
on buying advertising space in newspaper real estate sections - advertising
space that helped to artificially inflate property values. Some of you
argue that local news media are stupid, but I disagree. For the most part,
they're pretty slick -- at least the editors and owners seem to be.
Here are a couple of questions local investigative journalists have to
ask of, and demand appropriate answers from, VANOC CEO, John Furlong.
"Mr. Furlong, when you were asked by local media if your budget was
sufficient you stated that we are in a different position than Turin,
and that our budget cannot be compared because we already have many Olympic
facilities built, i.e., GM or BC Places. You inferred it was an apples-to-oranges
Fair answer Mr. Furlong, and a nice political-style dodge, however, our
community wants to know if we will be on the hook to upgrade any of the
sport facilities we already have in our community. For example, when the
seats were replaced in 2005 at the Coliseum, was it "entirely"
an Olympic expense, and will further upgrades to the Coliseum be covered
by Olympic or taxpayer money? Or, what will happen to the rag-tag roof
at BC Place? It might hold water, but from the inside it looks like a
country quilt. At the eleventh hour, will VANOC decide that something
has to be done about the patchwork mess they call a ceiling, and in an
effort to present ourselves in shining glory to the world, will the community
have to foot the bill to make it look respectable? After all, if one of
the reasons we are holding the Games is to attract foreign capital investment,
wouldn't it be hard to convince movers and shakers from around the world
that we are capable of world class standards if, during an Olympic medal
presentation spectators happen to look up, maybe as a result of the indoor
fireworks? Every time I go to BC Place I cannot help but look up at the
ceiling and wonder if it is going to cave in. Even though it may be structurally
sound, it looks horrible. Is this any way to introduce the world to the
most livable city on the planet? Perception is nine tenths of the law
in the Olympic promotion business.
If more local media professionals had researched properly they would know
which questions to ask. If you read this blog regularly you will know
that my argument with some local news media is that they shouldn't be
learning as they go. They should already know more than you do if they
expect to ask pertinent questions and demand proper answers.
Considering that local news media companies are going to make a fortune
off the Games on the back of the community, they should at least invest
in their future. Media should come to the table fully prepared, but unfortunately,
as you can see they only have a superficial understanding. (Either that
or they know exactly what they are doing and are only going through the
paces to make it look like they are fairly challenging the issues or representing
the community. If the latter is the case, it smacks of "checkbook
journalism," which means media are being bought. Noam Chomsky coined
the term "necessary illusion" to describe what happens when
news media only pretend to fairly represent both sides of the story.)
The following excerpt from my book is based on occurrences in recent previous
Olympic regions. However, our local media make it sound like the problem
I relate (below) is unique to Vancouver/Whistler. It is not. It happens
everywhere and it appalls me that local news media do not seem to know
Here's the excerpt from my new book,
"Leverage Olympic Momentum."
Every Olympic region goes through
it. SMBs (small and midsize business owners) will find themselves at city
hall meetings in increasing frequency as the Games approach. It starts
slowly a few years out and then peaks the year before the big event. The
more mismanaged the local Olympic organizing committee, the higher the
incidence of protesting. Even in well-managed regions there will be many
issues that will be argued in court or on the streets. Olympic organizations
will push as hard as possible with little regard for how they impact the
community. They become focused on their mandate and have a hard time seeing
the community's perspective. It's not uncommon for Olympic organizations
to low-ball plans to get local residents online and then over the course
of time increase the cost of building Olympic related facilities. There
are literally hundreds of examples, but one that is exceptional is the
Ryde Aquatic Leisure Center in Sydney (Australia). The swimming pool complex
started out with an estimate of $7 million (to retrofit it) and by the
time it was finished costs had escalated to $24 million in less than two
years. Not only did the cost more than triple, residents did not have
access to pool facilities for the entire two years while the old facility
was being rebuilt. The Richmond Oval will present very similar cost controversies.
Building on (virtual) quicksand beside the river will drive costs through
the roof, and if the complex can only be used as a speed skating oval
for ten years before the ice pad starts to shift, where is the legacy?
Last minute changes can be devastating for a community. It is examples
like this that draw out thousands of local protestors. Unfortunately,
most of the time it is too late. Protesting is an after-the-fact response
that rarely works. [Eagleridge is a perfect example] (vs12;hjl93)
Vancouver/Whistler already announced
$110 million in overrun costs in early 2006. The challenge for SMBs and
residents is to carefully screen what Olympic organizations claim as being
either an Olympic or a community expense. They often convince taxpayers
to pick up the tab directly for something that is solely an Olympic cost.
Sponsor shareholders (like Visa or HBC) have tremendous influence in this
regard, not directly, but indirectly through the company's board of directors.
There is great incentive to pass the bill on to the community. Even though
taxes pay for it the accolades go to the sponsor when the world sees what
an incredible job has been done with 'sponsor' money. No one around the
world has a clue that local taxpayers subsidized it. Sometimes even taxpayers
don't know. "Double-dipping" is a common strategy used to find
more funds. A frequent ploy is to agree to use an old structure for an
Olympic venue. Olympic organizations agree to rebuild and fix it up, but
what they don't say is that they expect the municipality to pick up costs
for things the community will benefit from in the future. In other words
Olympic organizations will upgrade the building in only areas they want
to use for sport competition, or as a backdrop for television, or that
provide an operational value like freight elevators, parking, etc, but
when it comes to spiffing the place up in public washrooms or concession
areas, that has to be paid for by taxpayers. Every time this happens out
come the protest signs. Each time taxpayers protest, renovations and construction
slow down and sometimes stop. Each time it does the whole schedule gets
pushed back. When schedules get pushed back costs increase because third
party suppliers get held up. When they get held up their costs increase.
It sets off a chain of events that trickles all the way down the line.
Suppliers, possibly you, who are at the end of the line, end up having
any small profit they thought they might generate disappear. Once SMBs
sign Olympic contracts they are locked in. Contracts are almost exclusively
based on a fixed delivery price with no contingencies to renegotiate.
Don't even think of bailing either because if you do, Olympic organizations
can easily turn it around to make the public think you unfairly backed
out and left them high and dry. And remember, sponsors often supply 'value
in kind' products and services in house, but they often only provide the
products and services they know they can deliver at a reasonable cost.
When they sub-contract to an outside company, possibly yours, watch for
signs that they are only looking for a third party to provide a product
or service that will be extremely hard if not impossible to deliver profitably.
If you doubt this happens try to negotiate a contract with an escalation
clause to cover circumstances beyond your control. If you're successful,
you'll be one of the few to do so. I'd like to hear from you if it happens,
but unfortunately you'll be prevented from telling us about it due to
the stringent confidentiality agreement you were forced to sign when you
bid for the project. (hjl95;tw48)
(end of excerpt)
It's bad enough that in July of 2006 local mainstream media are still
not asking hard questions and "demanding" clear answers. Keep
in mind that "some" local news media already sold the region
out over the last couple of years by working closely with developers and
realtors to convince the foolhardy that obscenely escalating property
values were beyond anyone's control. Some local news media played a direct
hand in convincing the public to gobble up properties at hugely inflated
Olympic frenzy prices. It's a little late for them to step forward now
and pretend that their mandate is to "improve the quality of our
lives." What a load of crap. As you read in past posts here, an influential
senior local media member admitted in confidence to me that journalists
have no mandate to protect the community, which bolstered my contention
that their mandate is primarily to make a profit. No big deal. I get it.
We all do. It would be a noble argument by them except that all local
mainstream news media make a fortune off the Games. They can't have it
both ways, at least not in this era of blogs and electronic newsletters.
Basically, you are either with the community, or against us. Which is
it? Don't tell us. Prove it through your actions.
Every time media let VANOC off the hook, issues get swept under the rug.
On July 15, 2006, in a Vancouver Sun front-page story, investigative journalist
Jeff Lee wrote that VANOC was "stunned" when Cesare Vaciago,
CEO TOROC (Turin) claimed that VANOC's budget was "risky" and
"too small." Overall, Lee's coverage was pretty good, but when
I read the responses from Furlong and Dave Cobb all I could do was shake
me head. Lee wrote that Dave Cobb, VANOC VP of Marketing, said, "VANOC
had no intention of asking for more money." Well Hell's Bells. Even
an idiot knows that "having no intention" means, "we don't
'intend' to ask the community for more money down the road, but if we
have to, we will." I was expecting Lee to reveal it for the political
sidestep it was, but he didn't.
Jeff Lee is expecting too much of Sun readers. I think he might be mistaking
his rag for the Globe and Mail. He forgets most people are dummies when
it comes to Olympic shenanigans. It sounds to me like he's expecting everyone
to read between the lines. Sorry Jeff, but you're going to have to either
explain it to us in a manner we all understand, or push VANOC harder for
clarity. Personally, I prefer a more aggressive "Vivian Smith-style"
approach. Or something along the lines of Rosa Marchitelli from the CBC
when she cornered Furlong a couple of years ago and didn't let him squirm
away so easily when she asked if Vancouver/Whistler would suffer under
the same overrun issues that Athens recently experienced. She was polite,
but forceful, and because Furlong did not answer in a forthright manner,
she kept him backed into the ropes and pounded him until every viewer
knew without a doubt that Furlong was being evasive. It was so well executed
I was embarrassed for Furlong.
Our community took a big hit recently when CityTV lost its 6 & 11pm
newsroom in Vancouver. I'd pay good money to watch ex-CityTV watchdog
Leigh Morrow (now with Global), kick VANOC ass around the room like she
did to errant landlords preying on the welfare poor. We don't need powder
puffs. We need heavyweights like Leigh, Smith and Global's Ted Chernecki
to keep newspapers honest.
If life was only so simple, unfortunately, many people don't realize that
the Vancouver Sun, and the Global News Network (Morrow's and Chernecki's
employer) are both owned by CanWest, which creates a bit of a delicate
situation. Can they really effectively challenge and argue with each other
- or will they pull punches if the Sun becomes an official Olympic puppet,
err, I mean sponsor? It was a sad day when we lost CityTV news. Thankfully
we still have the CBC, and also people like Vivian Smith back on the job.
A person of her ethical fortitude should be assigned to cover the ramp
up to 2010 for The Sun, but don't hold your breathe.
Considering that Bell GlobeMedia just bought CHUM(CityTV), and that Bell
GlobeMedia owns the CTV Network (the official 2010 television broadcaster),
and they also own the Globe and Mail newspaper, I'm rethinking that the
Vancouver Sun might no longer be my absolute favorite pick to become VANOC's
official newspaper sponsor for 2010.
I originally dismissed the Globe and Mail as a potential sponsor because
I found it hard to believe, and for the most part still do, that they
would lower their standards to meet Olympic obligations. It was improbable
that they would jeopardize their sterling reputation, but now that they
are second cousins to the official television broadcaster (CTV), maybe
it could happen (but I doubt it). Maybe the Sun now has new and more serious
competition. It could get interesting, but if I were VANOC, I would still
lean towards the Sun because it will create backroom infighting across
the local news industry and goad them all to continuously one-up each
other in their race to cover the Games. Can you imagine what will happen
if the Sun (or their sister publication the Province) becomes the official
newspaper sponsor and they get access to Olympic information before other
news companies like the Globe and Mail? It will provoke an all out news
war and keep the Olympic agenda on the front page of every newspaper in
Canada. How do I know? It happened a few years ago in another Olympic
region (Sydney). (Read my book for the gory details.)
Regardless of who becomes the official 2010 newspaper sponsor (in Salt
Lake City 2002 it was the SLC Tribune), it's an outdated practice that
often causes irreparable harm to the community. In this era of newspapers
struggling to survive, I can't imagine why any news companies would want
to be placed in this precarious position, except maybe out of economic
desperation. When you consider they will have to deal with alternative
news and information sources like the PublicEyeOnline.com and Tyee.ca
or OlyBLOG.com, and many others that will slowly pop up in the next year
or so, why take the chance? "Never let your short-term greed get
in the way of your long-term greed." (Apparently this phrase was
coined by Dick le Van, a Toronto Bay Street investor, but no one seems
to know for sure - if you do please let me know.)
Olympic regions need a better mousetrap, which I describe plans for in
great detail in my book. Maybe the time is right for VANOC to rely more
heavily on the internet in their effort to conscript and manage the volunteer
network. It would remove local newspapers from the conflict-of-interest
quagmire and let them go back to becoming more of an unbiased news source,
and not an underground mouthpiece for the IOC.
One can only dream - or blog.
As I always say, if you're going to dream, dream big. Therefore, in conjunction
with our thousands of regular readers, our newsletter will also now be
going out to news media professionals and business associations around
the world in countries that are interested in bidding for future Olympic
Games in their respective regions. We think it is important that they
know what they are getting in to. By watching us, they will be better
able to avoid our mistakes and actually make the Games a more positive
event for everyone in their community. It will also save Furlong the embarrassment
of having to travel the world in 2011 telling everyone how VANOC dropped
the ball here.
* We invested three years and a six-figure budget researching
Olympic organization relationships with sponsors, contractors, suppliers,
partners, etc. The results surprised us too -- mouseover below
Have a comment?
Interested in booking
a speaking engagement?
Want to advertise on OlyBLOG?
Want to learn more about the challenges
that small and midsize businesses face? Click Leverage
Olympic organizations are
BIG BUSINESS MACHINES that attract corporations like CocaCola,
McDonald's, Wal*Mart, etc. Consequently, VANOC (Vancouver Organizing
Committee) will be stretched thin trying to also develop ways to assist
small and midsize businesses leverage Olympic momentum. Surprisingly,
many people don't realize the event can also be lucrative for smaller
businesses including agriculture, manufacturers, entertainment, technology,
retail & obviously tourism, even when they don't have products
or services that appeal to Olympic fans or serve a direct Olympic need.
The information we share here is invaluable in helping
small and midsize businesses leverage Olympic momentum.
Interested in booking a speaking engagement? Advertise on OlyBLOG?