Sorry!! The article you are trying to read is not available now.
Thank you very much;
you're only a step away from
downloading your reports.

London Olympics Goes to Extreme Ends to Protect Brands [UPDATE]


In exchange for hundreds of millions in sponsorship dough, Olympic organizers are going all out to make sure corporate partners retain brand promotion exclusivity.

MINYANVILLE ORIGINAL Worse than the Communist regime in Beijing – that's how Ad Age describes the branding restrictions that are in place in London, host city of the upcoming 2012 Olympic Games.

There is little over a month to go until the opening of the world's biggest sports spectacle. Sebastian Coe, Olympic gold medalist and head of the organizing committee, called the games "the biggest thing this nation will have delivered in the living memory of the vast majority of the population." Fittingly, the price tag of London 2012 is an eye-popping $14.5 billion (and counting), which far exceeds the original estimate of $3.9 billion made when London won the bid.

While the building of Olympic venues and infrastructure is funded by British public money, the cost of running the Games themselves is partly subsidized by corporate sponsorship. Major players like GE (GE), McDonald's (MCD), and BP (BP) have coughed up nearly $1 billion to have their companies associated with the Olympic brand.

Because of the amount sponsors have spent to support the Olympics, the London Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games, or Locog, has gone all out to protect the brand exclusivity official Olympic partners enjoy.

Upholding a promise made during its bid for the Games to install strong legal protections for brands and copyright holders, the British parliament passed the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act in 2006, which gives Olympic sponsors a level of protection beyond those provided by copyright and contract laws.

Brand Exclusion Zones

What kind of branding restrictions are we talking about? To start with, there are the brand exclusion zones, which extend to 1 kilometer around all the Games venues, chief of which is the Olympic Park in East London. For 35 days, no brand that is deemed a competitor of official sponsors will be allowed to advertise their wares. Even cycling and marathon routes are protected: For such road events, the exclusion zone covers two meters on both sides of the track.

If you're planning to attend the London Games, be sure to have either plenty of cash or a Visa (V) card on hand. Besides being allowed to buy Olympic tickets with Visa cards, customers will find only Visa ATMs at Olympic sites, with the company having banned rival cards and replaced 27 off-brand cash points with eight of its own.

And for those looking to spend money on some food, chances are that they'll be spending it at the world's largest McDonald's at the Olympic Park. The fast food chain has banned all other brand name food at the venue. Roadside hotdog stands around Games venues will have to place stickers on any unofficial products to hide their brand names. Fellow event sponsors Coca-Cola (KO), Cadbury (KFT), Nature Valley (GIS), and Heineken are the only other brands providing food and beverage at Olympic venues.

No unauthorized logo or brand has been left untouched. In Newcastle, the Sports Direct Arena will be temporarily renamed St. James Park, while in Coventry, road signs will be amended to remove any mention of the Ricoh Arena, where soccer matches will be held. Logos on bathroom hand dryers? Those will get covered up, too.

Businesses will also be barred from trying to take advantage of the Olympic brand name. The Olympic legislation passed in 2006 outlaws any unofficial "association" with the Games. This means non-sponsors cannot use images or words that might intimate a relationship with the Games. The Guardian notes that "Expressions likely to be considered a breach of the rules would include any two of the following list: 'Games, Two Thousand and Twelve, 2012, Twenty-Twelve.'"

This means that if pubs in London put up banners that say something like, "Have a pint while you watch the Olympics on our flat screens," the Locog brand police will have the authority to compel said pubs to remove them.

Social Media Straitjacketing

Besides on-site brand policing, Locog is also closely watching the digital space, and social media in particular, to make sure sponsors' exclusivity is protected. Athletes, for instance, cannot upload any event videos or audio to protect the rights of broadcasters. Pepsi (PEP)-sponsored athletes like Usain Bolt will not be able to tweet or post Facebook (FB) endorsements of the sports brand between July 18 and August 15, the official Games period, since it isn't a sponsor.

For its part, Twitter has also promised to block non-sponsor brands from buying promoted ads using Games hashtags like #London2012. Twitter also suspended the account of @spacehijackers, a group that terms itself the "official protesters of the London 2012 Olympic Games," after organizers complained that the group was using the London 2012 logo as its Twitter picture.

A group spokesperson said the suspension was unfair, because Space Hijackers was merely involved in "purely social commentary."

"These trademark laws are set up so that Pepsi don't infringe on Coca Cola's branding. It is not set up so Locog can stamp down on a school fete because they've got some Olympic rings on their iced buns," he told the The Guardian.

This unprecedented level of brand protection comes after multiple instances at previous major sporting events where non-sponsors managed to upstage event supporters through clever "ambush" marketing. A famous example of this came during the 2010 soccer World Cup, when Bavaria beer hired 36 good-looking Dutch female fans to show up at a match in attention-grabbing orange dresses, stealing the spotlight away from official World Cup beer, Budweiser (BUD).

< Previous
No positions in stocks mentioned.
The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.

Copyright 2011 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Featured Videos