According to marketing expert Christian Chlupsa, consumers could definitely make a difference by boycotting the products of World Cup sponsors. However, only in the long term, as the professor explains in an interview with ntv.de. Attitude can pay off for companies, but they should concentrate on their brand essence.
ntv.de: Even many football fans do not want to watch the World Cup games in protest against human rights violations in Qatar. Activists are also calling for a boycott of World Cup sponsors. What can consumers actually do with it?
Christian Chlupsa: Companies are measured by quarterly and annual results, which means a boycott doesn’t take four or five weeks to show up. So consumers would have to persevere for a long time to get a result, for example not buying Adidas products for months. If a company actually got worse because of this, it would, among other things, lower its prices. If the desired sneakers suddenly cost 69 instead of 100 euros, many consumers will probably lose their willpower. Or if your own child saw shoes on TV at the World Cup that they want – many will buckle quickly.
But those who persevere could certainly send the company an effective signal?
Only four of the sponsors are actually active in Germany: Adidas, Coca Cola, McDonald’s and Visa. At Adidas, a boycott first hits the wrong people, namely the already battered German retail trade. The dealers have already ordered and paid for the goods with a view to the World Cup. In the case of Adidas, a boycott would have an impact even later. Irrespective of the World Cup, however, I think it is worthwhile to ask yourself which companies are behaving ethically and to adjust their buying behavior accordingly. Companies are noticing this, but it is only possible in the long term.
How damaging is World Cup sponsorship for the image of advertising companies in the western world?
Many sponsors will now switch to crisis mode: emphasize football and keep Qatar small, according to the motto “We sponsor football, FIFA is responsible for the place”. Many will not hang the World Cup as high as originally planned anyway. I think they didn’t expect such a negative image of the World Cup. It probably won’t turn anymore. Similar to the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, which are often only associated with the assassination of the Israeli team, there will always be something negative about the World Cup in Qatar. In my opinion, however, nothing will “stick” to the sponsors. Your marketing professionals will take the World Cup out of communication after the final at the latest.
The World Cup sponsors argue that they can do something positive, improve the human rights situation in Qatar. What do you think of this argument?
At the moment I think that’s a fig leaf and advanced. Projects that help migrant workers, for example, would have to be long-term in order to have an impact beyond the World Cup. There probably are, but not many.
Why are these companies also sponsoring this World Cup – is it just about the millions that the event brings to Qatar or are there other reasons behind it?
Adidas, for example, has almost no choice. For sporting goods manufacturers it is a huge struggle not only at the World Cup and Fifa to even get in as a sponsor. Even in lesser-known sports, they compete to become a sponsor. If they didn’t sponsor the World Cup now, they wouldn’t be there next time either. That’s why they’re probably thinking “close your eyes and through”.
A few brands are still boycotting the World Cup. For which companies is this worthwhile – and is that the real reason for a boycott? Some boycott the World Cup but do business with Qatar in other ways.
It makes a difference if I decide not to do something and if I also openly announce it. Many are now trying to play it publicly – even though it doesn’t mean anything in their case. A boycott would not be worthwhile for Adidas, because this would also affect sponsorship contracts with the football clubs in which the national players play. If Adidas didn’t sponsor this World Cup, it would no longer be perceived as a reliable contractual partner. In doing so, the company would also risk other contracts – so it doesn’t come out badly from the number.
In the end, do companies always choose the attitude that makes them earn the most worldwide, or are more companies actually developing a real attitude? In the meantime, it plays a major role in the public image.
There are many family businesses in Germany, such as the sportswear company Trigema, that actually have values ??such as family, tradition and sustainability. In the meantime, however, there are also large companies like Patagonia who live this. Its 83-year-old founder has transferred his multi-billion dollar outdoor company to a number of foundations, with all profits going to fight the climate crisis.
In the end, is a real stance worthwhile for global companies, also financially?
It’s interesting in the long term when a company positions itself morally in a way that suits the target group. Today, however, people often jump on hypes, at Christopher Street Day everyone is “rainbow”, at the world climate conference everyone is suddenly sustainable. Instead, as a company, you should consider which values ??fit your own brand essence; Adidas, for example, is about sports. It’s good to keep other values ??in mind and to live them. Adidas, for example, should of course position itself diversely. But companies shouldn’t actively communicate values ??that aren’t core to their core, lest they dilute their brand. Those who concentrate on their core are more successful in the long term.
By standing up for “our” values, companies also frighten off some other markets. The situation is similar when the DFB withdraws from the rainbow captain’s armband.
As Manuel Neuer, I would also think twice about playing with an armband. I think some officials overestimated themselves when they thought they could enforce Western values ??in Qatar. Of course, the Qataris also played a bit of a game, in the end the hardliners prevailed, as the alcohol ban around the stadiums shows. However, we also cultivate a double standard when we condemn the World Cup and at the same time conclude an energy partnership with Qatar.
Was the outcry at other sporting events like the Olympics in China or the World Cup in Russia really that big? Why are so many suddenly outraged by exploited workers or persecuted homosexuals? Many people don’t really care about the rights of these people.
A lot has already happened in Qatar: the controversial award, the death of construction workers, homophobia, now also the ban on alcohol and the scandal surrounding the captain’s armband. There has never been such a serial negative communication in this form.
If I no longer pay with a Visa card, don’t drink coke, don’t wear Adidas sneakers, but on the other hand I’m not “allowed” to buy clothes from Bangladesh – how can I as a consumer still consume without violating my own values?
With every consumption decision, I decide who I support. Especially with products like milk or other groceries that I often buy, and large purchases, it’s worth doing a little research on where I’m spending my money, for example locally or regionally. Then such companies can also grow, as the example of the Swedish oat drink manufacturer Oatly shows, which is now listed on the stock exchange.
Christina Lohner spoke to Christian Chlupsa
