Miracles cannot reasonably be expected from the Olympic Games either. Such wishful thinking is obviously due to the intoxication of the party night: “The success of the Paris Olympics cannot have no tomorrow” (editorial in Le Monde, 12.8.2024). On a more sober note, this sounds completely different: “No sporting event has ever solved a social malaise or a political crisis”. This can confidently be regarded as truism. The hymn of praise in the New York Times (on 11.8.2024, written by Pulitzer Prize winner Roger Cohen) also contains the sobering statement (it tends to disappear in the text): “The Olympics have been a vacation from that [political] deadlock, but the idyll will not be lasting, and fundamental questions – such as who will run the government – will move front and center soon after the Games end”. The commentator for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung (Michaela Wiegel, 11.8.2024) reluctantly accepts that political miracles rarely occur, but concludes her hymn of praise with the conviction that Paris, a previously “deeply wounded city”, has made a “brilliant comeback” thanks to the Olympics.
From a brand perspective, these effusive songs of praise contain two assertions: (i) the Olympic Games are the all-purpose and miracle weapon of city marketing and (ii) the Paris city brand is rising like a phoenix from the ashes these days thanks to the Olympic Games. A universal positive effect mechanism is assumed between the flagship project ‘Olympic Games’ (or more generally: major sporting events) and the strength of the city brand: the latter gains international appeal and becomes more attractive for current and potential residents, visitors and investors.
In the present case, this must be contradicted. This is a well-known case in which the ‘therapy’ (image building through lighthouse projects) overdetermines the ‘diagnosis’ (too little awareness and a deficient image). The Olympic Games (supposedly) ‘solve’ problems for Paris that do not exist (international recognition, attractiveness for relevant, not least external, target groups, profile as a city brand). Fundamental problems of the urban community (segregation, environmental pollution, traffic congestion), on the other hand, are not even being addressed, let alone sustainably solved.
Criticism of the Paris 2024 Olympic project is conceptually based on the following diagnosis (see Häusler, Eric and Häusler, Jürgen: Wie Städte zu Marken werden. Springer Gabler, 2023, p. 142ff.): (i) There is a problem that cannot be mitigated or remedied with the development of a city brand. (ii) The city brand does not require any explicit process of further development.
As a city brand, Paris has a sufficiently positive image among the relevant target groups (on Paris’ position in the global city competition: https://placebrandobserver.com/paris-sustainability-city-brand-strength-reputation/). The city’s image is largely intact. It is probably better than the ‘actual’ situation. The city brand is constantly supported actively and free of charge by numerous ‘brand makers’ without corresponding intentions (from filmmakers to novelists to journalists).
The modest proposal therefore: the effort required to explicitly work on the city brand (from revising the city logo to lighthouse projects such as the Olympic Games) cannot ultimately be justified. Priority should be given to making appropriate efforts to improve the situation on the ground before elaborate brand projects appear opportune.
