Flashback: Gulf Oil Spill and Rise of the Narrative in Politics
The Importance of Tracking Evolving Narratives
.
Gulf Oil Spill Vs. Katrina
.
Obama vs. BP
The Lesson of the Gulf Oil Spill narrative is the importance of controlling the narrative since whoever wins of the narrative, controls the story in terms of political capital for good or ill.
Austin, TX, June 02, 2010 (Updated May 24, 2014) In an exclusive analysis by The Global Language Monitor’s NarrativeTracker™, there are now several differing story lines emerging from the Gulf Oil Spill. The ‘narrative’ refers to the stream of public opinion captured by blogs and other social media outlets on the Internet, as well as the leading print and electronic databases.
Colleen Ross: How Obama Lost Control of the Oil-Spill Narrative (CBC)
The Narratives emerging from this on-going (and slow-moving) disaster include: Obama was Slow to Respond – 95% of the social media conversations characterize President Obama as ‘slow to respond’. Obama vs. BP: who’s in charge? 52% see BP in charge of the spill. This may or may not be a political liability. Democrats need the blame assigned to BP; at the same time, Obama needs to be seen as in overall control of the disaster Worst environmental disaster ever – 42% see the current spill the worst environmental disaster ever. Federal Response 57% see the Federal response using ‘poor’ or related keywords. Not a good month for the Feds; come to think of it, not a good year for the Feds. Katrina vs. Exxon Valdez – 61% make the comparison to the Exxon Valdez; about 39% compare the ongoing spill to the inundation of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
Biblical Prophecies Abound Once More About 61% of all references involve the Bible. (Even Ted Turner has a theory how the oil spill might be a warning from God.) These are markedly different in tone than those used with Katrina where the references focused on apocalyptic imagery, End-of-the-World scenarios and doom. The Obama Style of Leadership – This is a close one 52% see Obama as ‘hand’s on’ leadership, 48% see ‘hand’s off’. Again, this is either positive or negative depending on your political bias.
Clarence Page: How stories, true or not, drive politics
Ronald Reagan was seen as a ‘hand’s off’ president and that was considered good. Jimmy Carter was a ‘hand’s on’ type president and that was considered bad. “The development of the Gulf Oil Spill narrative is important to track since he who wins control of the narrative, controls the story in terms of political capital – for good or ill,” said Paul JJ Payack, president and chief word analyst of GLM. “With the mid-term elections just five months away, and the prospect of the Gulf Oil Spill continuing unabated for months, control of the narrative is more important than ever.” The rise of the narrative can render positions on the issues almost meaningless since positions now matter less than how they fit into a particular narrative.
The NarrativeTracker is more effective in capturing the true opinion of the public because it tracks unfiltered keywords in Social Media and other sources, rather than how that opinion is interpreted by the news media or by pollsters. The term ‘narrative’ in this sense is now appearing thousands of times in the global media on the Internet and blogosphere as well as throughout the world of social media, meaning the main streams of public opinion running in the media that needs to be fed, encouraged, diverted or influenced by any means possible. GLM recently announced The Healthcare NarrativeTracker Index™ (NTI™), in partnership with OpenConnect Systems of Dallas. The Healthcare NTI is the first product specifically designed to use social media-based monitoring to better understand the issues driving healthcare reform, providing a real-time, accurate picture of what the public is saying about any topic related to healthcare, at any point in time. The NarrativeTracker is based on the GLM’s Predictive Quantities Indicator™ (PQI™).
The PQI tracks the frequency of words and phrases in global print and electronic media on the Internet, throughout the Blogosphere and other social media outlets as well as accessing proprietary databases. The PQI is a weighted index that factors in long-term trends, short-term changes, momentum, and velocity. About the Global Language Monitor Austin-Texas-based Global Language Monitor analyzes and catalogs the latest trends in word usage and word choices, and their impact on the various aspects of culture, with a particular emphasis upon Global English.
Mandela Tops All Media Funerals, except John Paul IIs, Since 1997
No. 3 Ronald Reagan, No. 4 Princess Diana, No. 5 Michael Jackson, No. 6 Mother Teresa
Lady Thatcher Does Not Make the Cut
Ranked by TrendTopper Internet MediaBuzz
Austin, TX January 2014 – In an exclusive analysis performed by the Global Language Monitor, the death of Nelson Mandela has topped those of all global influencers since 1997 with the exception of Pope John II, back in 2005.
The emergence of Nelson Mandela into the No. 2 position is a testimony to the universal appeal of the man and his ideals, said Paul JJ Payack, president and the Chief Word Analyst of GLM, especially in a time when superficialities such as twerking and the taking of so-called selfies, seem to monopolize the airways in all their many forms.
The re-emergence of John Paul II into the top spot also is seen by some as a worthy tribute to a man who helped end Communisms grip over Eastern Europe and beyond. The legacy of Ronald Reagan presidency is viewed as transformational by both US political parties which can account for his continued high regard.
.
Nelson Mandela took the No. 2 spot, ahead of Ronald Reagan (2004), Princess Diana (1997), the mother of the future line of British Monarchy, including Prince William, his wife Kate and their new son, George, Michael Jackson (2009) the entertainment icon, Mother Teresa (1997).
Lady Thatcher, the long-serving British Prime Minister who died last April just missed the survey cutoff.Read more
Obama and the null set narrative
Reprinted from The Hill, May 31, 2009
Obama and the null set narrative
We have been analyzing the narrative of Barack Obama for some years now. In fact, we’ve tracked three differing narratives in the course of his campaign and the first term of his presidency. We’ve tracked the president’s highs (the Yes we can! Grant Park Speech, and others of soaring rhetoric), and his lows (the much more pedestrian Gulf Oil Spill effort).
We’ve been praised for our astute analysis, and condemned for announcing his premature political death. At the time, the Global Language Monitor’s analysis of the BP Oil Spill speech was actually pulled off CNN and replaced by a far milder critique. In retrospect, that speech was a harbinger of what was to come — Barack Obama bereft of Hope and Change.
Not that we didn’t have hints about of what was about to transpire. Consider the disposition of these hope-and-change type promises: (1) the immediate shutdown of Guantanamo, (2) the end of the K Street revolving door and (3) holding the bankers accountable for their part in the financial meltdown. How exactly do you make sense of these countervailing (or even contradictory) positions?
Obama and the null set narrative.
Now consider the president’s recent speech on U.S. defense policy: after ramping up the use of drones against enemy combatants, with hundreds of civilians deaths by the administration’s own estimate, he stands firmly against gratuitous drone strikes. After keeping Gitmo open for going on five years now, he will now do everything in his power to close it. How to make sense of these seemingly oppositional positions?
The null set narrative.
In the run-up to the 2010 midterms, we began to formally track the president’s narrative. We were curious to better understand how the word ‘narrative’ rose to be the No. 1 political buzzword at that time and what it meant to this presidency. Other terms frequently used to describe Obama at the time, included: detached, aloof, hands-off or professorial. Some took these words to be demeaning and/or insulting.
Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune wrote, “The danger comes when politicians and their operatives essentially use narrative … the version of the truth that they want us to believe even when they dont believe it.”
Since his reelection last November, we have remained silent on the subject — awaiting the second term narrative to emerge. With the recent series of crises, scandals and/or events, we now are, indeed, witnessing this new narrative: the null set narrative.
Consider, if you will, the current plight of one Jay Carney.
It is always interesting how one’s attributes can be used to praise or condemn depending on the narrative in which they are described.
However, this is a narrative that can fit around any news, story or scandal; more to the point, it is completely irrelevant to the words ensconced within it. Any words, anytime, anywhere. This is the narrative of choice for the administration at this point in time.
And now detached, aloof, and hands-off are the favored phrases in this administration’s null set narrative.
2013 Major Golf Championships Ranked by Internet Media Buzz
British Open No. 1 by the wide margin, Masters No. 2
In Analysis The Players Ranks higher than the PGA
Biggest Problem: Nicklaus adds three Majors (to 21), Woods adds only one (to 15).
Austin, Texas. May 11, 2013. (Updated) Open Championship has been declared the Top Golf Major by Internet Media Buzz, according to an analysis using Global Language Monitors Sports Brand Affiliation Index (S-BAI).
After forty years, the Players Championship has earned its place among the Major Golf Championships, said Paul JJ Payack, President and Chief Word Analyst of GLM. Forty years is certainly an excellent vantage point to judge its worthiness. And the data has spoken.Payack added, Since 1860 The Open is the championship against which all future Majors would be judged. Now over one hundred and fifty-years later, we see that it towers above all others in the world of golf.
Obama: du candidat super star au président mal aimé
.
La couverture de l’élection de Barack Obama a été sans commune mesure avec les élections présidentielles de 2000 et 2004. Jacques Portes explique pourquoi le président des Etats-Unis na pas réussi à transformer ce succès planétaire en atout au cours de son mandat. Extraits de Obama, vers un deuxième mandat ? (1/2).
Not the Thrilla in Manila, but Certainly Nasty in Nassau
Austin, TEXAS. October 17, 2012. The President Obama of yore (2008, that is) showed up at the debate last night and so was hailed the victor. In fact, the numbers show that it was not that Romney faltered. He did not. Rather it was the President who recovered from his first debate debacle (as viewed by his strongest supporters).
The numbers reveal the story. First, keep this number in mind: 7.4. This is the grade level of Obamas most widely hailed speech, the Yes, We Can! Grant Park victory speech. Yes, We Can! is widely perceived as a classic to be enshrined in the American Oratory Hall of Fame along side Martin Luther King, Jr.s I have a dream, Lincolns Gettysburg Address, and Ronald Reagans City on a Hill speeches.
In the first Presidential debate, Obamas grade level came in at 9.2. For a debate, with all its give-and-take, interruptions, pauses and the like, that was a rather high number. A Town Hall meeting is definitely not the place for the grandiloquent turn of phrase, especially when you are trying to woo the undecided citizens of the land with plain speakin no matter how uncomfortable that might be.
We all told in sixth grade that a newspaper should be written at the sixth-grade level, which from the sixth-grade perspective can be quite a challenge. What this really translates to is short sentences, concise paragraphs, fewer polysyllabic words, and all written in active voice.
As an example, Joe Biden spoke at a sixth grade level (6.1) in the vice presidential debate and there were few who claimed the inability to understand Ol Joe. (Unfortunately, these tests do not evaluate facial expressions.) In last nights debate , Obama scored 7.2 in the grade-level score, about 28% lower (and in this case better) than his first debate and nearly identical to his Grant Park discourse.
Both Romney and Obama cut their used of passive voice nearly in half from 6% to 4% and 3%, respectively. Active voice, where the subject is the doer of the action, is always preferred over passive voice in political discourse since it can be used to avoid responsibility. (Taxes were raised rather than I raise raised the taxes.)
Finally, Obamas reading ease score improved over 8% from 63.1 to 70.1; Romneys remained a bit higher at 71.0.
In champion fights, the unwritten rule is that you never take the current champs crown away on points unless the victory is overwhelming. Last night the President showed up to fight, and thus is awarded the victory on points. So the Presidential Debate series now stands even at 0ne all, with the rubber (and deciding) match to take place next week.
The Final Narrative of Barack Obama
Austin, Texas. October 9, 2012 The controversy swirling around Obamas debate performance completely misses the point. For better or worse, this is it. Stripped of all pretension. Devoid of the catch phrases and the swoons. Minus the Hollywood glam. This is he. Barack Obama. The man, unadorned. No longer do we see Obama through a glass dimly. Now we see him for who he is. This is neither to embellish nor dis-embellish the man. This is to see things for what they are and not what they ought or ought not to be.
At the Global Language Monitor we understand that life is not an exit poll; we cannot shape the reality of how we just voted. It is a zero-sum thing, a binary action, a one or a zero, a yes or a no. In the same manner we have tracked the narrative of Barack Obama the preceding five years, stripped of all adornment, searching for the reality that was all too frequently, standing right before us, actually in our midst, if only we had the will to open our eyes to see.
Of course we have unabashedly published our findings along the way but at that time our findings seemed a bit out-of-step, as indeed they were. Out-of-step with the perceived reality, but in step with reality as it was. Unlike most of life, a new president is graced with a honeymoon period, when missteps are overlooked, forgotten, or forgiven. This is not the suspension of disbelief that allows us to enjoy a fantastical story in the cinema but rather a suspension of self-interest, where we put aside our partisan differences and wait. We wait for the cues and signals, both small and large, that will reveal the intentions, proclivities, and (dare I say it?) the character of the incumbent.
For some presidents this grace period is over nearly before it starts (Gerald Ford and George W. Bush come to mind). For others, it lasts a bit longer (George H.W. Bush), and for others longer still (Ronald Reagan). In the case of Barack Obama, the situation was markedly different. Being a black man, most Americans wanted him to succeed precisely because he was a black man. As a relative outsider, he was a welcome break from the recent past (and impending future) Bush 41, Clinton 42, Bush 43, Clinton 44?
Being a newcomer, he was the classic tabula rasa, a blank slate upon which we could pour upon all our hopes and dreams. And change? Who on this planet did not want change from the preceding eight years: a divisive and disputed election, global terrorism and 9/11, two wars in the Middle East, a devastating tsunami, the inundation of one of Americas great cities, and to top it off, the global financial meltdown. All this being so, Barack Obama began his presidency with an extraordinarily large reservoir of good will. Lets call this reservoir the Hope and Change Quotient (HCQ).
During Obamas first days in office, the nation was engulfed in anger and rage? GLM analyzed the situation back in February 2009 and found that what was being reported as anger was actually frustration, while what was being reported as rage was actually despair, a sense of foreboding or impending doom. GLM followed this rather odd undercurrent during the earliest, most hopeful, days of the Obama administration. The results were striking, especially, in contrast to the immense outpouring of global goodwill in response to the inauguration of Barack Obama, since the survey included the ten days immediately following Obama’s swearing in. Some of the keywords showing heightened awareness were Abandoned, Despair, Desperation, and Fear all appearing in the media with double digit increases over the pre-election period. This was perhaps an abberation we thought, but as we moved forward, the pattern continued unabated.
We saw a turning point with the Gulf Oil Spill speech. This was the opportunity to show the world how a US President would properly respond to a major crisis threatening the Gulf Coast, the ecosystem, and the forces of nature and the evil of Man (an arrogant CEO from Central casting, BP, Halliburton, and a 247 Spill Cam spewing forth colorful filth, worthy of a Dreamworks 3-D treatment. And what did we get? We got what we had been measuring for the preceding two years: Obama 2.0, with an academic-sounding speech detailing a broad plan for an alternative-energy future and few specifics, and little of the hell-and-brimstone his followers had hope for.
By now it was becoming apparent for all to see. This was a changed and changing man, at least how he revealed himself publicly through speech. By time the 2010 Mid-Terms delivered their shellacking the transformation was nearly complete. With a few noteworthy exceptions, such as his Tuscon eulogy,which ranked among his best, the President has appeared less-and-less engaged, more-and-more distant.
In July we noted that the top political buzzwords were telling a far different story than either campaign was presenting to the American people. Our analysis found that Bush was clearly assigned responsibility for the so-called Great Recession, while Obama was responsibility for the economys current condition, just as concern over Bain Capital and the war against women were of less and little concern respectively. In other words, the American people saw the issues as if the virulent political ads of both parties did not exist. In contrast Still believe the American Dream was No. 5 and Disappointment in Obama Administration was No. 6.
At the same time, the Hope and Change Quotient has nearly been depleted, this being the normal course near the end of every presidents first term in recent memory. The President has finally been vetted. We now know the man, his strengths, weaknesses, and his proclivities. This is not to say that he will not win in his bid for re-election. But this is to say, that for better or worse, this is it.
This is the final narrative of Barack Obama.
***
GLM used NarrativeTracker Technology in this study. NarrativeTracker is based on the global discourse, providing a real-time, accurate picture of what any audience is saying about any topic, at any point in time. NarrativeTracker analyzes the Internet, the top global print and electronic media, as well as new media sources as they emerge.
Paul JJ Payack is the president and Chief Word Analysts of Austin-based Global Language Monitor.
Protected: Final Olympic Brand Affiliation Rankings of the London Games Announced
Olympic (Ambush) Competition Officially Under Way
Ambushers Leading Sponsors 33-17
.
Billions of Dollars in Brand Equity at Stake
AUSTIN, Texas. July 18, 2012 Of the Top Fifty Brands affiliated with the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games only seventeen are official sponsors. This according to the latest Brand Affiliation Index (BAI) analysis by the Global Language Monitor, the Internet media trend tracking company. The longitudinal study began in July 2011 and tracks the top three tiers of official Olympic sponsorship, as designated by the LOGOC and the IOC.
.
.
.
Fortunately in the Olympics there is no mercy rule, where a winner is declared in a contest to reach twenty-one, when one side scores the first 11 points, said Paul JJ Payack, President and Chief Word Analyst of GLM. Of the top official and non-affiliated marketers in the current study, the first twelve fall into the non-affiliated category.
.
Some seventy-five brands are studied including the twenty-five premier official sponsors divided into three tiers: The TOP partners, which pay approximately one hundred million pounds for the privilege, the Official Olympic Partners, and the Official Olympic Sponsors. Together these sponsors pay an estimated 30% of the cost of staging the games.
There are a number of other levels and forms of sponsorship including national sponsorships such as the USOC. The real cost of being a TOP partner ranges from a $500 billion to over a trillion dollar investment to companies that sign on for sponsorships spanning several Olympiads.
For these rankings GLM measured the strength of the brand affiliation for each official Olympic sponsor against those of their primary non-affiliated competitors. Though ‘ambush marketing’ is well understood to mean an organization knowingly exploiting a brand affiliation with the Games without the benefit of official sponsorship, all perceived Olympic affiliations according to their presence in the global media, and statistically linked to the London Games, qualify for GLM’s Ambush Marketing rankings.
Ambushing by Non-affiliated Marketers is more than Michael Phelps pitching sandwiches; it is a years-long effort to create a pseudo-sponsorship to leverage the good-well generated by having the Olympics with ones brand.
The GLM Brand Affiliation Index for this analysis,ranged from a high of 797.90 (Royal Philips} to a low of 1.50 for VisaCard. The higher the score, the closer the brand affiliation with the event.
.
The Top Twelve (all Ambushers), along with their tiers, are Listed below:
| 1 | Royal Philips | TOP-A |
| 2 | CVC Capital | OOP-A |
| 3 | ExxonMobil | OOP-A |
| 4 | Manpower | OOS-A |
| 5 | Schroders | OOP-A |
| 6 | IBM Global | TOP-A |
| 7 | E ON Energy | OOP-A |
| 8 | KPMG | OOS-A |
| 9 | Deutsche Telekom | OOP-A |
| 10 | BASF | TOP-A |
| 11 | EI DuPont | TOP-A |
| 12 | Cable & Wireless | OOP-A |
.
As you can see for the above rankings, Business-to-Business brands are being subjected to the sames ambush marketing forces as B2C marketers.
Royal Philips is crushing GE by over 20:1 margin; ExxonMobil bests BP by a similar margin; and BASF and DuPont are both striding past Dow.
The Top Ten Official Sponsors ranked from No. 13 to No. 39 overall. They are listed below, along with their tiers.
,
| 1 | BT Group | OOP |
| 2 | Cadbury | OOS |
| 3 | BMW | OOP |
| 4 | Adidas | OOP |
| 5 | Panasonic | TOP |
| 6 | McDonald;s | TOP |
| 7 | Coca-Cola | TOP |
| 8 | UPS | OOS |
| 9 | P&G | TOP |
| 10 | EDF energy | OOP |
| 11 | Arcelor Mittal | OOS |
| 12 | Samsung | TOP |
.
Though listed at the top official sponsor, the BT group actually ranks behind both Deutsche Telekom and Cable&Wireless.
Cadbury, McDonalds and Coca-Cola are doing quite well for their investments in spite of the efforts to derail their sponsorships on the grounds of their contributing to a so-called obesogenic environment. Adidas is currently doubling Nikes number. P&G continues to excel with their Moms campaign. Arcelor Mittal is a surprise standout for a company previously little known to the public.
GLM has been measuring the effects of Ambush marketing on the Olympic Movement for the last three Olympiads, in the process accumulating perhaps the most extensive database of its kind. For London 2012, GLM began tracking the three tiers of official sponsors since the third quarter of 2011. GLM also tracks the brand equity of the athletes before and during the Games. For more information, call +1.512.801.6823, email info@LanguageMonitor.com, or click on www.LanguageMonitor.com
Ambush Marketers Continue to Dominate
Olympic Ambush Marketers Continue to Dominate London 2012
Kate Middleton ‘Brand’ Tops Coke, Adidas, and BA
Austin, Texas. Weekend May 4-6, 2012. Ambush Marketers continue to dominate the run-up to the London Summer Games. In fact ‘non-affiliated marketers’ took 27 of the top 50 spots measuring effective brand activation by the Global Language Monitor’s Brand Affiliation Index (BAI).
This despite the recent tightening of the rules by the IOC, The GLM BAI rankings are not simply a matter of pride or bragging rights but rather a battle for brand equity and the consumer’s mind and the billions of dollars committed to the IOC, which are primarily used to fund the Games.
.
“The Olympic movement it is not immune to the historic shifts in communications affecting all institutions worldwide,” said Paul JJ Payack, founding president of the Global Language Monitor. “The seemingly all-pervasive media ensure that the flow of information can be stopped neither by national boundaries nor institutional gatekeepers. There is no reason to think that marketing activities are immune from such forces. In fact, marketing has been one of the foremost purveyors of new media technology.”
For these rankings GLM measured the strength of the brand affiliation for each official Olympic sponsor against those of their primary non-affiliated competitors. Though ‘ambush marketing’ is well understood to mean an organization knowingly exploiting a brand affiliation with the Games without the benefit of official sponsorship.
All perceived Olympic affiliations according to their presence in the global media, and statistically linked to the London Games, qualify for GLM’s Ambush Marketing rankings.
The GLM Brand Affiliation Index for this analysis, ranged from a high of 524.45 to a low of 1.49. The higher the score, the closer the brand affiliation with an event.
GLM has been tracking ambush marketing at the Olympics since the Beijing Games in 2008. For London 2012, GLM began the three tiers of official sponsors since the third quarter of 2011. These results are based on a study concluded on May 1, 2012.
With its Branded Individual Index (BII) GLM also tracks the brand equity of the athletes before and during the Games.
The official Olympic sponsors are divided into three tiers: Worldwide Partners, Official Partners, and Official Supporters. GLM tracks over fifty non-affiliated companies that are direct competitors with the Official Olympic sponsors.
To schedule a confidential consultation, call +1.512.801.6823.
For these rankings, encompassing the first quarter of 2012, GLM measured the strength of the brand affiliation for each official Olympic sponsor against those of their primary non-affiliated competitors. Though ‘ambush marketing’ is well understood to mean an organization knowingly exploiting a brand affiliation with the Games without the benefit of official sponsorship.
All perceived Olympic affiliations according to their presence in the global media, and statistically linked to the London Games, qualify for GLM’s Ambush Marketing rankings.
The top findings include:
- McDonald’s is in a tough fight, ranking behind Subway and Pizza Hut, but beating KFC.
- Ambusher Nike leads Partner Adidas by a wide margin.
- British Airways trails ambushers Lufthansa, United and Air France in the rankings.
- Royal Philip outpaced ever-strong GE.
- P&G continues to crush ambush competitors as it did in Vancouver.
- Ambusher Ericsson Over Supporter Cisco by a 3:1 margin.
The Duchess Effect Meets the Summer Games
One interesting side note is that even the Summer Games are encountering the Duchess Effect. The GLM BAI analysis showed that when linked with London 2012, Kate Middleton had a closer brand affiliation than a number of top sponsors including Coke, Adidas, BA and Panasonic, among others.
This again demonstrates the power of the ‘Kate Middleton Brand’. A Tier 1 Olympic sponsor pays about $160 million for the privilege, plus the attendant advertising fees promoting the relationship that can cost upwards of $500 million over the four-year arrangement. This would suggest that the Kate Middleton Brand could be valued at nearly a billion dollars or more, just in relationship to Summer Games.
..
The Top Ten Official Olympic Sponsors by BAI are listed below.
| 1 | Arcelor Mittal | Supporter |
| 2 | EDF energy | Partner |
| 3 | BT Group | Partner |
| 4 | Thomas Cook | Supporter |
| 5 | UPS | Supporter |
| 6 | Lloyds TSB | Partner |
| 7 | Cadbury | Supporter |
| 8 | BP | Partner |
| 9 | P&G | IOC |
| 10 | ATOS | IOC |
..
The Top Ten non-Olympic Affiliated Marketers by BAI are listed below.
| 1 | Centrica | AMB OP |
| 2 | Eon Energy UK | AMB OP |
| 3 | Barclaycard | AMB IOC |
| 4 | Schroders | AMB OP |
| 5 | Royal Philips | AMB IOC |
| 6 | EI DuPont | AMB IOC |
| 7 | Kraft | AMB SUP |
| 8 | Ericsson Comm | AMB SUP |
| 9 | Subway | AMB IOC |
| 10 | Lufthansa | AMB OP |
.
The Top Twenty Combined Olympic Sponsors and Non-Affiliated Marketers Ranked by BAI.
| 1 | Arcelor Mittal | Supporter |
| 2 | EDF energy | Partner |
| 3 | BT Group | Partner |
| 4 | Centrica | AMB OP |
| 5 | Eon Energy UK | AMB OP |
| 6 | Thomas Cook | Supporter |
| 7 | Barclaycard | AMB IOC |
| 8 | UPS | Supporter |
| 9 | Schroders | AMB OP |
| 10 | Lloyds TSB | Partner |
| 11 | Cadbury | Supporter |
| 12 | BP | Partner |
| 13 | Royal Philips | AMB IOC |
| 14 | P&G | IOC |
| 15 | ATOS | IOC |
| 16 | EI DuPont | AMB IOC |
| 17 | Kraft | AMB SUP |
| 18 | Ericsson Comm | AMB SUP |
| 19 | Subway | AMB IOC |
| 20 | Lufthansa | AMB OP |
.
The GLM Brand Affiliation Index for this analysis, ranged from a high of 524.45 to a low of 1.49. The higher the score, the closer the brand affiliation with an event.
GLM has been tracking ambush marketing at the Olympics since the Beijing Games in 2008. For London 2012, GLM began the three tiers of official sponsors since the third quarter of 2011. These results are based on a study concluded on March 31, 2012.
With its Branded Individual Index (BII) GLM also tracks the brand equity of the athletes before and during the Games.
The official Olympic sponsors are divided into three tiers: Worldwide Partners, Official Partners, and Official Supporters. GLM tracks over fifty non-affiliated companies that are direct competitors with the Official Olympic sponsors.
Customized GLM Ambush Marketing Rankings are released monthly up to and following London 2012. The Ambush Marketing London 2012 report features dozens of charts representing the interrelationship of each company to the Olympic Brand, their competitors and their partners. In addition, the reports contain exclusive and individualized Narrative Tracker analyses, the most advanced trend tracking analytics available. For more information, individualized reports, or a monthly subscription, call +1.512.801.6823 or email info@LanguageMonitor.com
About Global Language Monitor: ”We Tell You What the Web is Thinking”
Founded in Silicon Valley, Austin, Texas-based GLM collectively documents, analyzes and tracks trends worldwide, with a particular emphasis upon the English language.
GLM employs proprietary ‘algorithmic methodologies’ such as the NarrativeTracker for global Internet and social media analysis. NarrativeTracker is based on global discourse, providing a real-time, accurate picture of what the public is saying about any topic, at any point in time.
NarrativeTracker analyzes the Internet, blogosphere, the top 175,000 print and electronic global media, as well as new media sources, as they emerge. For more information, individualized reports, or a monthly subscription, call
var sc_project=1434069;
var sc_invisible=0;
var sc_security="3c42bc4e";
var sc_https=1;
var scJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ?
"https://secure." : "http://www.");
document.write("
