Olympics Brand Exclusion Zone

In graphic design, an 'exclusion zone' is an area around a logo which must be left clear. Corporate brand and logo usage guidelines demonstrate the proportion of vertical and horizontal space around a logo into which no other element can intrude.

In urban design, exclusion zones are becoming commonplace in relation to sponsorship of sporting events. The Brand Exclusion Zone is the newest form of urban demarcation, and can be used not only to affect signage and advertising, but also restrict personal freedom of choice. Within this context, the London 2012 Olympics represents one of the most radical restructuring of the rights of the city in London. The 'canvas' of London will belong exclusively to the Olympic marquee brands.

In essence, London has abdicated all rights and responsibilities to the International Olympic Committee, and implemented legislation which creates radical new spatial demarcations not only within the Olympic Park, but because of the distributed nature of the Olympic venues, across the whole of central London. London has surrendered the traditional rights to the city to the demands of the Olympic 'family' and their corporate paymasters. What the IOC want, London will give. London will be on brand lockdown.

The most carefully policed Brand Exclusion Zone will be around the Olympic Park, and extend up to 1km beyond its perimeter, for up to 35 days. Within this area, officially called an Advertising and Street Trade Restrictions venue restriction zone, no advertising for brands designated as competing with those of the official Olympic sponsors will be allowed. (Originally, as detailed here, only official sponsors were allowed to advertise, but leftover sites are now available). This will be supported by preventing spectators from wearing clothing prominently displaying competing brands, or from entering the exclusion zone with unofficial snack and beverage choices. Within the Zone, the world's biggest McDonald's will be the only branded food outlet, and Visa will be the only payment card accepted.

This brand apartheid is designed to prevent "ambush marketing", the gaining exposure of an brand through unofficial means. One of the best known examples of this was in the World Cup in 2010, where a bevy of 36 Dutch beauties in orange dresses provided by Bavaria beer gained considerable media attention, to the chagrin of the official World Cup beer, Budweiser. At London 2012, branding 'police' will be on hand to ensure that nothing like this happens, with potential criminal prosecutions against those responsible. Organising committee LOCOG will also take steps to ensure that no unofficial business tries to associate itself with the Olympics by using phrases like 'London 2012', even on such innocuous things such as a cafe menu offering an 'Olympic breakfast'. The Olympics authorities are looking to control both language and space.

And it's not just London. All the venues for the 2012 Olympics will be on brand lockdown. In Coventry, even the roadsigns will be changed so that there is no reference to the Ricoh Arena, which is hosting matches in the football tournament. Even logos on hand dryers in the toilets are being covered up. The Sports Direct Arena in Newcastle will have to revert back to St. James Park for the duration of the Olympics.

Traditionally, the most epic guerrilla marketing war has taken place between sportswear rivals Nike and Adidas. Whereas Adidas has long been an official sponsor of major sporting events such as the World Cup and the Olympics, Nike has cast itself as the hip, streetwise alternative, and taken considerable steps to trump Adidas in gaining exposure at major sporting events.

1996 was ambush marketing's breakout year, with Nike making a concerted effort to upset the official sporting sponsors of both the Euro 96 football tournament in England and the Olympic games in Atlanta:

"The 1996 edition of the European Championships, Uefa’s premier international quadrennial soccer tournament, provided an example of ambush marketing that changed the face of sports sponsorship. English sportswear company Umbro had paid for the rights to be the official sportswear supplier of the championships, only to find that Nike had purchased all the poster space and advertising sites in and around Wembley Park underground station, the main travel hub for England’s national stadium, Wembley. Nike’s move completely negated the power of Umbro’s official partnership. The same thing happened for the World Cup in 1998 when Nike hijacked Adidas’ official association in much the same way. As a consequence Uefa, European soccer’s governing body, has spearheaded the use and enforcement of marketing exclusion zones surrounding stadia, forcing the official sponsorship agencies of the competition in question to buy all the advertising space within a 1.3 mile radius of the stadia. The IOC too was quick to adopt this counter-ambushing strategy. The ability to implement such exclusion zones is now a key element in the process to decide future Olympic host cities."

In World Cup 2010 in South Africa, Nike circumvented the billboard advertising ban by projecting onto the side of a building in Johannesburg. As the authorities get wiser, Nike get smarter.

Whereas the Beijing Olympics represented an embracing of China into the coven of Westernism, the London Olympics will show us just how venal unfettered capitalism can be, how its default modus operandi is paranoia, and rather than a celebration of human endeavour and athleticism, it demonstrates more that the power of branding requires such strict parameters of control that nothing can be left to chance. Brand Exclusion Zones are just one manifestation of the privatisation of public space that London is fast-tracking. For a more thorough analysis of the much hyped legacy of London 2012, I urge you to read Anna Minton's Ground Control, recently updated to include a new chapter on the Olympics.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the marketeers are way ahead of the urbanists in understanding how the city works. The spatial politics of brand paranoia will be part of the true legacy of the London Olympics.

Previously:
Learning from Niketown

Comments

[Account Deleted]

...

[Lwsdm]

Great post I have just ordered Anna Minton's book. Amazing how some fundamental personal freedoms are being totally circumvented by a new set of spatial laws, and a little scared to see how this innovation will be used in the future.

[kosmograd]

Thanks Lewis. Who was it that said that civil liberties, once given up are impossible to win back again? I think that a very real 'legacy' of the games will be the extent to which brands (and thus their owning corporations) will be able to determine spatial freedom in the city, often at very short notice.

In the same way that the threat of terrorism and guerrilla warfare have completely refigured military strategy, so the spectre of ambush marketing has redefined brand strategy and corporate sponsorship. And the approach is identical: restriction of movement, screening, paranoia.

[Ben_frost]

It does look increasingly like these aggressive rules are part of what you sign up to when you bid for the Olympics or World Cup for example.

The stories from the 2010 World Cup are shocking - that FIFA basically took over bits of South Africa for 6 weeks and applied their own laws/rules there; then left the country with huge profits that they had decreed they would not be paying any tax on.

Sounds also like Governments know what they are signing up for when they bid for these events, and they are happy to just sign up on our behalf. Maybe we should be annoyed at the Government for agreeing to it all, instead of the IOC?

Also interesting that the 2018 and 2022 World Cups are in Russia and Qatar - places where the Government can pretty much guarantee compliance with all this - because they can roll out the security forces to enforce it all. Maybe North Korea should bid for the 2024 Olympics - the IOC would love them!

[Interacter]

I've found this within the regulations:

"The Regulations do not apply to individuals wearing an advertising costume or clothing bearing an advertisement or carrying personal property bearing an advertisement unless they are knowingly participating in an ambush marketing campaign. Likewise, the Regulations do not apply to individuals displaying an advertisement on their body unless they are knowingly participating in an ambush marketing campaign."

So it's not quite as terrible for the tracksuit-devoted spectator. I.e I don't think you'll be turned away for rocking up branded from head to toe in your favourite designer.

But still. I do generally agree that this level of brand control is totally unacceptable.

[kosmograd]

Thank you for the comments. Interacter, I have never said that such brand control is unacceptable. Rather it is inevitable, given the money that companies pay to be official sponsors of events such as the Olympics and the World Cup.

To what extent will the 'brand police' be able to distinguish between an ambush marketeer and someone who just happens to rock-up blinged to the max in Nike? What will they do if group of spectators shows up all wearing identical 'meme-of-the-day' slogan T-shirts? If I was a producer of an 'edgy' current affairs TV show it'd be an experiment I would set up.

[Interacter]

Kosmagrad - Apologies if my post was misread - I meant it to be helpful in respect of the spectators issue.

I do understand the need for brand control. However, I do think that LOCOG have gone way, way over the line here.

I don't know if you saw the story, but Sally Gunnell was recently prevented from raising a Union Jack flag above her head on a photoshoot because it looked like her winning pose from an Olympics a few years ago.
Looked like.
Not replicating. Not trying to steal brand equity.
Just looked like.

That's madness, in my book...

Neil

[kosmograd]

Yes, I was aware of the Sally Gunnel advert for EasyJet falling foul of Locog's policies (more info here: http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/locog-polices-easyjets-sally-gunnell-photo-shoot/3028755.article)

Paranoia is the default position of the IOC, LOGOC seem to cranking it up to a higher level.

[Interacter]

That's the one - couldn't remember that it was EasyJet for the life of me!
Will be really interesting to see how all of this unravels and untangles. I'm just concerned that it will lead to an Olympic London, not a London that's hosting the Olympics.