Plans for London 2012 ad clampdown unveiled
Share
Rules to protect London 2012 venues from being hijacked by ambush marketers have been published.
Department for Culture, Media and Sport proposals cover the temporary “management of advertising and trading in open spaces within a few hundred metres around the Olympic and Paralympic venues and road race routes”.
Outdoor ads, giveaways, projected advertising and aerial advertising will all be covered. Standard shop signage and in store advertising will be exempt.
Traders that want to setup in the covered area will need to apply to the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) for a licence.
Olympic chiefs hope that commercial income will make up more than half of the £2bn needed to stage the Games. Top-level sponsors including Lloyds Banking Group, BA and BT have paid millions to advertise in and near the venues.
London venues affected include Earls Court, the ExCel, Greenwich Park, Horse Guards Parade, Hyde Park, Lord’s Cricket Ground,
Olympics Minister Hugh Robertson, says: “Sponsorship is part of modern international sport providing a vital source of funding.
“Like many other sporting events, the London Olympic and Paralympic Games could not go ahead without its sponsors so it is important that we protect their investment as well as creating a welcoming and unobtrusive atmosphere for people arriving at venues.”
A consultation on the plans will run until 13 May.
Full details can be found here.
Readers' comments (4)
igmorrison.com | Mon, 7 Mar 2011 6:00 pm
It will be brutal. The powers the last administration passed made the Chinese administration look positively benevolent...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Edward Moss | Tue, 8 Mar 2011 1:04 pm
There can be no doubt that sponsors pay handsomely for the privilege of their association with the games, and as such, should be offered some protection from the ambushers. However, the government needs to take similar steps with the parasites (sometimes referred to as touts or onlinicus ticketmasterus bookingfeeicus) who surface with tickets at prices well in excess of their face value.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Tue, 8 Mar 2011 3:57 pm
I used to work for a global technology company that provided major parts of the transport and venue infrastructures for a previous Olympic games, totalling many millions of dollars. The works and systems supplied were critical to the success of the games and one of the carrots to encourage low bids was implicit permission to publicise the company’s involvement (subject to approval of PR texts, of course). The demands made by the organisers meant the company would inevitably made significant losses on the projects, but the company expected to be able to publicise its work on the world stage, leading to many profitable future projects. Press releases intended for the trade/technology/business press were submitted to the organisers for approval, but the goalposts were moved: the organisers replied that they would not approve any such publicity until after the Games had finished. The company which employed me did everything it could before and during the Games to ensure their success. The organisers were delighted with this work at every stage. Then, after the Games, press materials were duly submitted to the organisers for approval, but they never replied. It appears everyone involved had “moved on” and no one was prepared to deal with (or even to acknowledge) the request, let alone give approval. Given this brick wall of non-cooperation, the company eventually gave up trying and they were never able to publicise all they’d done for a Games which was universally judged hugely successful, thanks in no small part to the company’s hard work in ensuring they could reach and move around the site quickly and safely, and in ensuring the venues were safe, secure and comfortable.
That's a lesson for the many companies who are working hard to ensure the 2012 Games are a success and who then hope for the reward of being able to publicise what they’ve done.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Andrew | Mon, 14 Mar 2011 11:39 am
Standard shop signage and in store advertising being exempt will give some brands a really competitive edge if they are really clever!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment