Why rules protecting the rights of Olympic sponsors matter so much…
Marc Sidwell, managing editor, City A.M., says the image of London 2012 as a ruthlessly-policed, heavily-branded, speech-controlled zone is unfair…
With the 2012 Games only days away, content providers are understandably nervous over the minefield that writing about the Olympics seems to present, given the rules intended to protect the rights of sponsors.
After the chair of the London organising committee (Locog) Lord Coe suggested that a spectator in a Pepsi T-shirt might be denied entry to the venues, it would be only natural for the thought of inadvertently offending in print or online to have a chilling effect on media.
Yet the president of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) Jacques Rogge has also made a statement intended to reassure, saying that common sense will prevail in the attempt to prevent so-called ambush marketing. While it makes sense to tread carefully, we shouldn’t let paranoia over the restrictions spoil the great celebration that the Games presents.
Having interviewed around two dozen of this summer’s Olympic sponsors in the run-up to the Games, I gained a deeper appreciation of why these rules, which can seem petty from the outside, matter so much.
The companies involved in supporting the Games, whether on a national level or as worldwide sponsors, have made large commitments over many years, providing a vital stream of revenue and expertise that helps keep the Olympics alive. It’s important that the investment they have made now buys them the exclusivity and high profile that was promised in return.
There is also a crucial pecking order to the sponsors that the outside world doesn’t necessarily appreciate. While national Olympic committees like London’s Locog can give a supporter like BT, for example, the right to use the 2012 logo in its publicity, only the IOC can grant permission to use the Olympic rings symbol, an honour generally restricted for the worldwide sponsors, giants like Visa and Omega.
Unfortunately, this most powerful and most carefully-protected logo is also the most familiar, so it is the one that people tend to use informally – leading to a misunderstanding between brand police who see an attempt being made to nab the crown jewels, and an ordinary user who just wanted to join in the fun.
In these misunderstandings the law is not your friend. The London Olympic Games And Paralympic Games Act 2006 was passed in order for the Games to come to London, and gives a great deal of discretionary power to the Secretary of State in setting out advertising regulations and to the brand police tasked with enforcing them.
Fines of up to £20,000 can be imposed and enforcement officers can get a warrant to enter private property where an offence is occurring and remove or destroy the infringing article.
Given the power they have, it’s best to err on the side of caution. But in the end, such rules are not designed to prevent the Olympics being talked about or enjoyed, only to prevent those with no official association to the Games wrapping themselves in its flag. If you’re not in that category, you shouldn’t really have to worry. There’s a difference between writing an article about the Olympics and starting The Olympic Daily.
If riding close to the wind is best avoided, that’s not to say that there aren’t some helpful Olympic loopholes. For instance, the brand exclusion zones that operate around the various venues are not so absolute as they are portrayed.
Tube stations falling within the zones were granted an amnesty on entertainment ads – books, plays, films – partly because it was felt that they contributed so much to the usual texture of those spaces. The Westfield shopping centre in Stratford, right next to the main Olympic venue, is also not part of its exclusion zone.
And finally, extra advertising space was opened up (to firms considered not to be in direct competition with official sponsors) within some of the exclusion zones earlier this year when it failed to be sold out exclusively to sponsors.
The image of London 2012 as a ruthlessly-policed, heavily-branded, speech-controlled zone is unfair. There are restrictions, intended to secure the funding of the Olympic movement for the future, and it’s true the enforcement powers that have been granted do leave latitude for some stupid decisions. Yet they aren’t as totalitarian as they have been painted either. And in the end, one of the unique benefits of the Olympics’ approach to sponsorship is that once inside the venues themselves there is no advertising at all, leaving us all free to focus on the sport.