Threatening Behaviour

Published: Aug 03 , 2012
Author: Sam Macbeth

I've enjoyed watching the Olympics this week. I have also found the debate that has raged about the number of empty seats to be interesting as well. Disgruntled members of the public had tried and failed on several occasions to buy tickets - only to see that there have been numerous empty seats in the stadia during the first week of the Games. Several commentators have complained that LOCOG (the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games) have had "seven years to avoid this situation".

Obviously, there needs to be a degree of sympathy for Olympic protocol. It is a condition of the bid that a certain percentage of seats are kept aside for the "Olympic Family". Although their share of tickets was marginally reduced for London 2012, the change was insignificant and Olympic Family members could see no reason to make any major shift - they were happily awash with free tickets, with no compulsion to use them. Perhaps LOCOG might have foreseen this problem earlier though and weighed up the cost of doing nothing (the inevitable negative publicity that followed the revelations of the empty seats) against the costs of trying to influence or even coerce the various country delegations to be more flexible with their seat allocations.

This is a dilemma that negotiators regularly face. On the one hand there is the option of maintaining the status quo (doing nothing); on the other hand there is the cost of change. The costs need to be weighed and decisions taken on the basis of the evidence.

Elsewhere in the world, Kofi Annan resigned as the UN's peace envoy in the Syrian conflict. He has been threatening to do this for some time, as his plans for peace were being routinely ignored, and the super powers had consistently refused to budge despite the tragic loss of life we see on our TVs day by day. His threats were designed to force the protagonists to change their positions; they refused, so he had to follow through.

Using a threat is a well-worn technique to get reluctant parties to negotiate, and as Kofi Annan demonstrates, they need to be valid and real. If the threats are empty, it indicates weakness. There is another downside of threatening people; they tend to have long memories and may respond in kind!

Alternatively, negotiators can incentivise the other side to move things forward. I do not know how LOCOG dealt with the "Olympic Family" but I imagine that incentives were offered to get the flexibility they needed to sell on the empty seats. Perhaps sharing event research, additional cultural support, extra logistical assistance, more promotional activity, as well as financial incentives - all of these might have been of interest to Olympic family members and may have encouraged them to be more flexible with LOCOG.

For LOCOG, their priority has always been clear - to leave a sporting legacy for the youth of today. The sight of empty seats in a stadium does not present sport well and does not portray the right message to a generation, some of whom were involved in somewhat different activities in London only a year ago. It was important to for LOCOG to be seen to be dealing with the problem and the good news is that more and more tickets are being made available so that the gaps are filled.

Sam Macbeth
Senior Consultant
Scotwork UK LLP


SHARE

blogAuthor

About the author:

Sam Macbeth
No bio is currently avaliable

Latest Blog:

Muck Shift

Just when is a deal not a deal…? I heard this story from a friend of mine the other week; there are some lessons to be learned! So, my pal is a developer and is building some houses on what is essentially a square site. Two sides of the square can be accessed from the road in a neighboring housing estate and the other two are beside a field owned by another developer. There is a huge pile of muck to shift before the actual building project; this phase is known in the trade – and not unreasonably - as a "muck-shift"! As there will be 80 -100 lorries coming in and out each day for 6 weeks, it was considered more convenient to access the site over the field, so an approach was made to the developer to discuss the terms under which he would allow access. This is a standard arrangement and the deal typically is that the field would be returned to the owner in its original condition. Developer makes a bit of money, where otherwise he wouldn’t; homeowners in the adjoining estate are less inconvenienced; builder does not need to spend money cleaning the streets and getting them back to a usable state at the end of the project. Win-win.

Latest Tweet:





United States
973.428.1991
usa@scotwork.com
Follow us
cpd.png
voty2016_sign_gold.png