Why the Olympic Virtual Series is unlikely to mobilise esports and gaming enthusiasts and help the Olympics reach a new audience.

Online competition ≠ reaching and engaging a young audience.

The International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) newly announced Olympic Virtual Series (OVS), an event for physical and non-physical virtual sports aimed at reaching a younger audience, has fallen into the classic trap of thinking it does.

5+ years ago the term ‘esports’ was applied to a select view video game titles that when played competitively and streamed online, drew a healthy audience.  People’s understanding of the term thus became ‘esports = a young, large and growing audience that is hard to reach via other mediums.’

As esports interest and investment grew, games with a small/unproven audience jumped onto the bandwagon launching ‘esports’ (which until this time had been a term reserved only for the most popular games, not any that was played competitively) hoping to benefit from the halo of interest. A few were successful, most were not. Those that were successful were because of the game and product they produced, not because it was called esports and happened online.

Next to sit up and take notice were emerging sports simulator/exercise tech like Zwift, fantastic platforms but ones that more deeply engaged existing cyclists and spin enthusiasts rather than specifically appealing to a new Gen Z audience.

Their interpretation was to deconstruct ‘esports’ so that ‘e’ = online and ‘sports’ = traditional sport. Thus Zwift (and platforms like them in cycling and other sports), and partner sports rights holders, launched an array of ‘esports’ propositions. But being online, competitive and labelled as esports is largely where the similarities to traditional esports ends. The broadcast product, for instance, is very similar to what any live standard pro cycling programme looks like, rather than an esports broadcast.

These factors have resulted in a dilution/evolution/distortion of what esports now means to a lot of people. People’s understanding of what esports is has not kept pace with its change and its very definition is different depending on who you speak to. Indeed, for some, they assume the data shared in freely available esports research reports from the likes of Newzoo, Nielsen Sports etc applies to entities like Zwift too.

It is long overdue for us all to stop talking about esports and instead talk about individual game titles that make up the industry. YouGov Sport has taken this step. Just like in sports, individual entities are not equal from a participation nor viewership perspective. To analogise in sport, right now what we’re effectively seeing in esports is ‘sports is huge and appeals to an audience we aren’t reaching, let’s start a bowls team/tournament etc’.

The IOC has the right objectives, and initially through their open consultation took the right approach to better understand esports, but along the way they have lost the sense of what it is and seemingly have been distracted by what individual federations are doing rather than what will deliver results.

What we are left with are three virtual sports that are far more likely to engage a current hardcore sports audience than appeal to a new younger audience (beyond initial curiosity) and two video game titles that comparably are more likely to reach a newer younger audience, but are unlikely to at any scale given their appeal as an ‘esports’ title and pale in comparison to the titles that have brought esports to the fore.

As an aside, but relevant to how well this fits broader objectives, the Olympic's has a policy of no advertising of any sort permitted within the competition venues. Also no athlete can wear any clothes or use any equipment with any commercial identification whatsoever, other than small indications as to the manufacturer of the clothing or equipment. This is all to limit any commerciality of the Games. Yet here they seem happy to provide a marketing platform for Zwift, Virtual Regatta, Konami and Sony Interactive Entertainment to leverage ...

The IOC need to really consider whether they should be employing an esports strategy (given the parameters they have given themselves to work within) rather than what they could be doing. Waiting and seeing how things progress is acceptable too.