The 2006 London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act details the legal and governmental framework surrounding the upcoming London Games. More specifically, concerning the CIM, the act outlines the measures in place to protect against and prevent ambush marketing (the International Olympic Committee have sought protective legislation against ambushing from hosts since the 2000 Sydney Games, the first to formally introduce such measures).
Ambush marketing, defined as "a form of associative marketing, utilized by an organization to capitalize upon the awareness, attention, goodwill, and other benefits generated by having an association with an event or property, without that organization having an official or direct connection to that event or property", has become one of the biggest stories surrounding major sporting events over the past twenty-five years (Check out the CIBS working paper series here for more information on ambush marketing, and the work we've been doing at CIBS).
What's frustrating about the legislation being enacted, and the controversy surrounding anti-ambush legislation, is not necessarily the confusion surrounding the rights of non-sponsors, or the powers given to LOCOG and the government in 'protecting' sponsors. What frustrates most is the lack of accountability on the part of most Olympic sponsors that has driven this need for legal protection. In most countries where anti-ambush marketing legislation has been enacted, it has served as a reinforcement of existing intellectual property rights laws, and in cases, with specific reference to protecting the Olympic marks. However, a look at past incidents of ambushing reveals that the vast majority of cases of high-profile ambush marketing in sport avoid the use of protected marks and symbols, and thus should by and large be safe from anti-ambush legislation. Instead, most ambushers use innovative imagery and association, suggesting a connection to the event, without expressly linking their brand to the event.
For the London Games, the legislation put in place is aimed to protect against the use of trademarked and copyrighted words and symbols, such as the words 'gold', 'silver', and 'bronze', as well as the more obvious 'London 2012', 'London Games', 'London Olympics', the Olympic Rings logo, and so on. Given the amount of money committed by sponsors, and the importance of sponsorship money to fund events such as the Olympics, protecting sponsorship investment is obviously important. It is my contention, though, that sponsors must first protect themselves, before concerning themselves with the legal measures in place to protect them.
Take, for example, these two ads from the past year - the first, a television ad from official London Olympic sponsor Lloyds TSB bank; the second, from non-sponsor (and famed ambush marketer) Nike.
Lloyds, in order to become an Olympic sponsor, pledged a reported £80 million in 2007, and yet throughout their subsequent marketing activities, have struggled to leverage their association adequately, and seldom make reference to the Games or their connection to the event beyond including the London Games logo at the end. Nike, by contrast, despite having no official link to the Games and having made no financial investment to date, make indirect yet implicit reference to Olympics in London throughout their 'I'll Be Ready' campaign, leaving little doubt of their interest in the upcoming Olympics.
Ambush marketing legislation has been enacted to combat ambushers and protect sponsors, and yet in these two cases, such legislative action does little to benefit either the organizers or the sponsors. Tanning salons in London, advertising for customers to "Get bronzed in 2012", can expect cease and desist notices, but major players such as Nike, brands who may legitimately and logically be confused for sponsors, are unlikely to fall foul of such regulations. Rather, such legislation has in fact tarnished the image of organizations in the past, and threatens to undermine the values of events such as the Olympic Games. Early in ambush marketing's history, questions were raised over the ethics of ambush marketing, and the morality of embarking on an ambushing campaign. However, in recent years, and in light of counter-ambush strategies being employed (including legislation, marketing clean zones around stadia, and on-site policing of fans), this ethical focus has shifted. The question today is - how far will the restrictions on non-sponsors, local businesses, ambitious marketers, and spectators, go? Expect and interesting public relations battle over ambushing before the Games are all said and done...
No comments:
Post a Comment