Drop that Pimms! Brand patrol on guard in London

Drop that Pimms! Brand patrol on guard in London

Perhaps we should have seen this coming.
Back in 2007, a butcher at the Fantastic Sausage Factory in the quaint Englishcounty of Dorset was told to remove a window sign depicting sausage meattwisted into the shape of the the five Olympic rings.
And last year, competitors in a baking contest in bucolic Shropshire werewarned by games organizers to drop plans to place Olympic-themed marzipanfigurines atop their cakes.
But those were merely preliminary skirmishes in a multibillion-dollarsponsorship battle that has drawn charges that London organizers have beenheavy-handed, and just plain stupid, in their zealous enforcement of brandingrestrictions.
"The rules where intended to stop the big brands from getting a free rideon the Olympic good will," said Michael Payne, a former IOC marketing directorwho now works as a consultant.
"They were never designed nor intended to suffocate the genuine localcommunity spirit — the florist putting up a bouquet of flowers, or the butcherdoing a sign with olympic rings."
He blamed London organizers for creating outrage that will only boomerang onthe very sponsors they seek to protect.
"You want to be balanced and intelligent ... but the agenda got hjijackedby the lawyers who were painting everything as black and white, when it neededto be applied in shades of gray."
Private Eye, Britain's spoof political magazine, captured the organizers'somewhat maniacal focus on brand protection best with its cover this week,which depicted two machine-gun wielding policemen outside Olympic Stadiumwarning a fan to "put down the Pepsi can and no one will get hurt."
As you can probably guess, Coke is the official soft drink of the games.
Just a sampling of the more bizarre examples from Olympic venues this week:
Pimms, that quintessentially English liqueur, cannot be listed on any menusduring the games, even at Wimbledon, where tennis is taking place and wherePimms is as traditional as strawberries and cream. The gin-based drink, whichis not an Olympic sponsor, is instead being referred to as "No. 1 Cup."
And the Goodyear Blimp, ubiquitous at sporting events around the globe, hasbeen stripped of any corporate reference, prompting more than a fewdouble-takes from sky-gazing fans.
Some journalists have been surprised to see Olympic workers taping over thelogos on their Dell and Apple computers, since neither company is bankrollingthe games, and the U.S. women's soccer team has been told not to hand out itsmedia guide because it has 12 small logos of its sponsors — which are notofficial Olympics 2012 backers.
Even brand names of non-sponsors at Olympic Park bathrooms have been covered,though after a few days of competition some fans answering nature's call havestarted taking a mischievous pleasure in peeling the toilet tape back.
Back in 2006, the British government passed a law that not only beefed upcopyright protection for the word "Olympics" and related symbols andslogans, but also blocked non-sponsoring companies from suggesting any hint ofconnection to the games. Several big companies have come up with clever waysaround the ban that put them right up against the edge of the law.
Nike, which is not an Olympic sponsor, has begun an ad campaign in whichathletes compete in cities called London — only not ones that happen to be theBritish capital. Locations include London, Ohio, and Little London, Jamiaca,and the ads carry slogans that subtly allude to the Olympics without actuallynaming them. London organizers considered legal action before deciding againstit, but the ad must rile Olympic sponsor Adidas.
And it's not just corporate giants pushing back.
Dozens of Olympians have taken to Twitter since the games began to urge an endto the International Olympic Committee's Rule 40, which gives Olympicorganizers the right to punish and even disqualify competitors if they try topitch their own sponsors, whether on the field of play — where all advertisingis barred — or online.
U.S. sprinter Manteo Mitchell summed up the view of many Olympians when hetweeted: "I am PROUD to represent my country ... But at the end of the day... THIS IS MY JOB!!!!"
The London organizing committee defended its policy in a statement to TheAssociated Press, saying it had to raise more than $1 billion from sponsors,many of whom demanded exclusivity. The committee denied having a hand in thewarning to the Dorset butcher, which it said came from a local governmentofficial, and said it was not official policy to require brand names on journalists'computers to be hidden by tape.
The committee noted it had never taken anyone to court, preferring to explainthe rules rather than litigate, and added that allowing local businesses to getaway with copyright violations would create a precedent that biggercorporations could follow.
"There are times when actions we have taken don't look so good, but wehave tried and for the most part succeeded in having a measured and pragmaticapproach," the committee said.
IOC spokesman Mark Jones was blunt in countering the criticism from some of theathletes: "We're trying to protect the money that comes into the Olympicsmovement. ... That is why we are doing it."
Payne, the former IOC marketing director, said some brand protection isabsolutely necessary, despite his criticism of the shortsighted way the rulesare sometimes applied.
All told, sponsors have ponied up more than $4 billion toward the cost oforganizing the games and the expenses of the 204 national teams, he said, andwithout exclusivity, many would walk away.
"It's not just a glib marketing statement to say no sponsors, nogames," Payne said. "It's the fact."

Related Stories

No stories found.
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com