#rule40

These Games are highlighting a major shift in modern life. Brands, not athletes, rule. So much so that it’s hard to distinguish between the dissenting and consenting voices on this issue. The US team has been [unsurprisingly] vocal on this brand issue. For example, runner Leo Manzano posted about how he “had to take down my picture of my shoes and comments about their performance.” on Facebook. Should we pity him or the shoe company he really wants us to 'Like' on Facebook?

The terms of Rule 40 read: “Ambush marketers have, in the past, used their association with athletes to suggest or imply that they have an association with the Olympic Games. This undermines the exclusivity that Organising Committees can offer official Games and Team sponsors, without whose investment the Games could not happen.”

Seems somewhat reasonable if you’ve spent US $50M on official sponsor status. But tell that to an athlete that wants to accept a gift from a non-official sponsor. Just yesterday, US headphone maker Beats by Dr Dre pulled off a bit of an ambush marketing stunt when it delivered sets of its [now famous] product to British athletes. Many were seen wearing them, on camera. Others, meanwhile, took to the Twittersphere to thank the brand publicly–brand police be damned.

When the IOC claimed to have “no regrets” about dubbing this the social media Olympics, it was probably not telling the truth. Between the virtual ban on free speech as a way to get at ambush marketers, and at least two cases of expulsion/ exclusion related to comments on Twitter, this event couldn’t end soon enough for at least some members of the organising committee. Watch this space?!

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/non-sponsors-on-alert-as-olympic-branding-police-assemble/4002741.article