Exclusivity: Finding the Balance

Visa recently unveiled their new tagline, "Life Takes Visa," during the 2008 Summer Olympics. The timing demonstrated a well-coordinated marketing effort in which the advertising campaign and Visa's sponsorship of the Olympics augmented each other and enhanced the overall effectiveness. The sponsorship agreement involves an exclusivity arrangement which establishes Visa as "the only card accepted at all Olympic Games venues for any official Olympic Games-related transactions." (http://www.corporate.visa.com/md/fs/olympics/olympic_facts.jsp) There were 6.52 million tourist arrivals in Beijing during the Olympics and they soon found that, for the next 16 days and 17 nights, life only took Visa.

Let's consider how this played out for Visa. The benefits that Visa sought from the sponsorship agreement most likely include heightened brand visibility, increased sales, and enhanced brand image.

• Brand visibility: Pre-Olympic promotional programs were implemented in conjunction with partnering financial institutions in 46 different countries. Visa definitely gained exposure during the actual two and a half week period, and the new Visa card accounts that were opened during this timeframe further extended the visibility factor post-Olympics.
• Increased sales: Visa not only increased its sales volume during the Games, it also had an opportunity to more effectively showcase products other than its credit cards. During the Torino Winter Olympics Visa issued 650,000 prepaid cards in direct relation to Olympic transactions, and similar results can be expected of the recent Summer Games.
• Enhanced brand image: This is where the value of exclusivity becomes ambiguous. Consumers tend to use credit cards for the convenience factor. Ironically, Visa created an inconvenient situation for anyone who did not already use a Visa credit card or would have preferred to use another card for whatever reason (corporate card, reward points, etc.). Furthermore, consumers have generally come to expect the freedom of paying for their purchases with their major credit card of choice so the Visa-only policy has resulted in many an unpleasant purchasing experience and has generated a certain degree of backlash. On the other hand, their exclusivity on such a prestigious event may have caused some purchasers to wish they had a Visa!

Brand visibility is fundamentally valuable when it translates into increased business, so the value of heightened brand visibility for Visa is diminished if negative consumer perceptions develop. Also, it is unclear whether higher sales figures resulted from an actual increase in consumer preference for Visa or if the increase in sales was primarily a one-time deal rather than a sustainable improvement.

Clearly, brand visibility, sales, and brand image are inextricably interdependent. While there are measurable short-term improvements, it remains uncertain whether the derived benefits are sustainable and worth the costs of implementing Visa's Olympic marketing strategies. So the question Visa needs to ask itself is: Is the Halo effect from the Olympics worth the risk of turning off customers with the lack of alternative payment options?