Marketing myths of the London Olympics bill

[Fiona]

The Department of Culture, Media and Sport has published a fact sheet countering some of the myths that have emerged over the UK Government’s plans to protect against ambush marketing in connection with the 2012 Olympics.

The Government published its London Olympics bill in July, seeking to prevent any business making reference to the 2012 Olympics in its promotions, unless it is an official sponsor. This is apparently required by the International Olympic Committee, an attempt to control ambush marketing.

Ambush marketing generally occurs when one brand pays to sponsor an event and a rival brand attempts to associate itself with the event without being an official sponsor. For example, at the 1992 Barcelona Olympics, Reebok was among companies that paid $700 million to be "official sponsors"; but when the US basketball team won gold, Nike sponsored the press conference and when Michael Jordan accepted his gold, he covered up the Reebok logo on his kit.

To protect official sponsors, the 2000 Sydney Olympics saw the first example of legislation restricting the use of certain words in Olympics advertising.

Following suit, the UK bill restricts the use of the words “games”, “Two Thousand and Twelve”, “2012”, and “twenty twelve” in combination with each other or in combination with words including “gold,” “silver”, “bronze”, “London” and “summer”. And this, marketing firms have complained, goes too far.

According to the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising (IPA):

“As it stands at the moment the proposed Bill seeks to greatly extend UK law over and above the protection provided for general copyright, passing off, trade marks and the Olympic Symbols Protection Act. The IPA is firmly of the belief that official sponsors do not require any additional protection and that IOC requirements are more than adequately complied with within existing UK law.”

Media reports picked up the story, hyping the issues to warn that small businesses could be fined up to £20,000 for adverts such as “Come to London in 2012”.

But this is nonsense, according to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). It explains:

“the Bill does not prevent the mere use of words like ‘games’ and ‘gold’.

Instead it creates the London Olympics association right, which means the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (LOCOG) can authorise certain persons – most likely official sponsors and commercial partners – to associate themselves with the Games.”

Simply using words like “games” and “gold” will not attract fines. The DCMS is concerned rather with the use of the listed words in certain combinations in order to create an unauthorised association with the Games.

Factual references to London and the Olympics will be legal and phrases such as “Come to London in 2012” are not subject to a blanket ban, according to the DCMS.

It explains: "While such expressions may be used to create an association with the Olympics, there will be many cases in which there is clearly no link to the Games. It will have to be decided on a case by case basis whether infringement has occurred, but the intention of the bill is to adopt a common sense approach."

Any infringement action taken by the LOCOG would be brought before a court. It would be the court, not the LOCOG, that would determine what level of fine was appropriate in each case.

out-law.com

[richard]

Excellent post Fiona, many a business will be breathing a sigh of relief after reading this - Though I wonder what will happen closer to the date?

[Fiona]

An interesting and professional response to the issue.....

MediaWeek: Letter of the Week - Right step to protect Games from overkill

Bob Heussner Managing director Octagon Games Marketing

Your article regarding the Olympics Bill (IPA steps up pressure to amend 2012 Olympics Bill, page 12, 23 August) showed a negative side to what is actually a positive and necessary step to protecting the Games and the City of London from guerrilla marketing and over-commercialisation.

The IOC and London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (LOCOG) only has intellectual property to sell. If this exclusive right disappears, then this means the end of the Games as we know them.

Dramatic but certainly true.

We saw what one small loophole in Atlanta's Olympic protection plan resulted in and I’m not referring to Nike outdoor boards.

The Atlanta Games saw one private businessman lease vacant blocks in the heart of the "Olympic Ring" to allow entrepreneurs to set up shop and add colour to the Games, while at the same time giving revenue to the city of Atlanta.

What was a seemingly innocent enough proposal resulted in disaster for both the city, ACOG and the IOC.

Hundreds of small shops and huts were set up, hawking everything from cotton candy to tattoos, turning the city into a 20th century bazaar in the worst possible taste and finally into a financial loss for everyone involved – except the businessman.

Is this the legacy London desires for the 2012 Games?

With such an experience etched in the minds of the IOC, I would expect even further restrictions on use of space in proximity to Games venues and any Games structures, whether or not those restrictions become public.

Legislation like that proposed may cause small business owners to feel that they are being denied the opportunity to "cash in". But at the end of the day, that's all they are really interested in – cashing in. Not supporting, nor enriching anyone but themselves.

Rajar on road to a better system

Phil Riley, Chief executive Chrysalis Radio

In relation to Kelvin MacKenzie's letter (London radio stats add fuel to Rajar debate, page 18, 23 August), I have to be honest and say that the fact that MacKenzie has actually spent time thinking about me clenching my buttocks is slightly unnerving.

He is, of course, being economical with the truth when he claims that I said there was something wrong with Rajar.

In fact, all I said, after the fluctuations in Chrysalis Radio's figures in the last quarter, was that the diary system as it currently stands is showing increasing volatility – in my opinion because of the sheer number of analogue and digital stations we're asking it to cope with, especially in London.

The system is operating at full capacity and, in an increasingly sophisticated market, we need to ensure that our measurement system is as sophisticated as it can be – which is why I am fully behind Rajar's roadmap for change and support its extensive electronic meter-testing schedule.

We all want to get the transition to a new contract right – and we will, if we don't get sidetracked by hyperbole and ranting from the sidelines, whether through clenched teeth or clenched buttocks!

We know how to catch Alphas

David Walsh MCIM Marketing director In Situ Media

Recently, two articles had me reaching for the blood pressure pills. The causes of my consternation were Alpha Man (Media targets the Alpha Man, page 15, 16 August) and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (Media Strategy, page 30).

"How many times do we have to tell them?", describes the essence of my rant, with expletives deleted. Alpha males and young families happen to epitomise both ends of the In Situ demographic spectrum and we have them in abundance.

Thankfully, for the past six years, the Royal Marines have known very well that the place to find the most number of Alpha males collected together in the UK is in the free weights rooms of In Situ gyms. (These guys are more like Alpha + in actuality).

Basically, the ad copy of the mirror stickers placed right beside the workout areas and in the showers, challenges these tough guys to "Now try it again... in boots, wet kit, carrying a 70lb pack, at -17C, at 5am, with no sleep". Then adding insult to injury, the ad signs off with "99.99% need not apply".

The In Situ spectrum then catches a big percentage of all other Alpha males in the UK (and some not so Alpha) playing football, squash, basketball and martial arts among the entire array of sporting activity.

Maiden's Daniel Solomon suggesting "greater dwell time and relevance" to the outdoor planners of CATCF is clearly right.

What he is not aware of, but the media planners should be very aware of, is that during August (half-term, weekends and all school holidays) families with children made more than 10,000,000 visits to our 500 swimming pools.

A poolside six-sheet is getting a dwell time of more than two hours in a three-hour visit also involving additional impacts in the foyers and cafeterias.

It is incomprehensible to me, as a former outdoor planner myself, that a medium offering such precision coverage of a target audience, should be left off the schedule. In term-time too, the kids from 9,000 schools are bussed into our centres for school swimming and sport, every week.

Our mag fits the high-end profile

Christopher Sparrow Editor Profile Magazine

On your website you quote Tim Slees of Square Mile magazine enthusing: "We are the only high-end lifestyle [magazine] for men in the City and there is more than enough room for us."

As the editor of Profile Magazine, I thought I should point out that Profile was launched before SM (admittedly only just) and makes a much better claim to being a "high-end" lifestyle men's magazine.

We aim to cover a very broad range of content interesting to city men, in a very slick and attractive way. We believe there's a market there to be reached, but in order to do so, it's necessary to sustain very high production values.

Profile is essentially of the quality of a shelf magazine – to ensure busy professional men will find us appealing.

[overrising]

I think really that there is nothing to fear from this part of the Olympic Bill. We all know hwo this is meant to be aimed at, not the guy with an ice-cream van in stratford, but the brand who will buy up outdoor media space in the venues vicinity. It's certainly given the media something to talk about anyway.

[chesapeake]

You're right, there isn't really anything for most people to worry about -- except most people aren't aware of their rights and might feel threatened by this....and choose not to do something, as opposed to do something knowing they're safe. I'm all for "protecting" the good guys and "persectuing" the bad ones, but I wonder if this Bill, if passed, will be taking things a bit too far.

[hotrod]

Actually, you are not entirely correct, the little man on the street has much to fear, the bill has been designed to further tighten the rules and regulations in favour of coincidental larger business and their "buddies."

Watch out for those pesky £30 on-the-spot fines issued by Olympic wardens in and around all major cities nearer to 2012.

[Tuscany]

Are you being serious or is that ajoke? who can they fine £30 and what for?

[hotrod]

Currently a £10 on-the-spot fine can and are being issued by wardens for dropping cigarettes and litter in the town centre & fair play I hear you say.

OK a filthy habit

B U T in seven years time if the laws are allowed to be changed, the wardens will probably [my words] be able to issue on-the-spot fines to small buisnesses and street vendors over the displaying of the olympic rings or any associated olympic logos.

I would argue that the Olympics and the rings cannot be owned by any one govenment, institution or business because the first Olympic games were held in and agreed upon by the officials in Olympia, in Greece many years ago.

As such, the Olympics existed well before all the current the legal crap.

The olympic games have been public property for a great many years, and very live for a great many years.

[overrising]

Originally Posted by hotrod

I would argue that the Olympics and the rings cannot be owned by any one govenment, institution or business because the first Olympic games were held in and agreed upon by the officials in Olympia, in Greece many years ago.

I would agree in a lot of respects but seeing as the sponsors and TV companies pay so much money then they can expect to receive something back in support don't you think?

[richard]

Perhaps some support - But not the re-writing of UK law for the sake of some large corporations and their political friends to profit from, is that not politically incorrect?