Mindful Marketing
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Mindful Meter & Matrix
    • Leadership
  • Mindful Matters Blog
  • Engage Your Mind
    • Mindful Ads? Vote Your Mind!
  • Expand Your Mind
  • Contact

Advertising Rules Help the Olympics Win

8/19/2016

4 Comments

 
Picture
by David Hagenbuch, founder of Mindful Marketing & author of Honorable Influence
Watching the Rio Games, we’ve not only seen some of the world’s best athletes run, jump, and swim, we’ve also seen some of the world’s biggest companies advertise, sponsor, and promote.  That commercial content helps make the Olympics possible, but has the International Olympic Committee (IOC) made such exposure at the Games too exclusive?
 
This question raced to the front of many minds recently when Olympic steeplechaser Emma Coburn made U.S. track history, winning a bronze medal.  Before Rio, no American woman had ever medaled in the event, but what Coburn did after the race was also remarkable—she took off her spikes, tied them together, and slung them over her shoulder as she strode along the track.
 
Although most runners don’t remove their shoes right after a race, what made Coburn’s action significant was not her bare feet but the New Balance logos on her spikes, which were suddenly in clear sight of spectators, the media, and their cameras.  Coburn is an outspoken supporter of her sponsor, New Balance, so it seemed this atypical act was aimed at elevating her underwriter on athletics’ highest stage.  Coburn also mentioned New Balance in a post-race press conference.
 
While it’s refreshing, in an age of entitlement and self-centeredness, to see true expressions of gratitude, Coburn’s post-race behavior likely ran afoul of the intent of Olympic promotional policy, specifically By-law 3 to Rule 40 of the Olympic Charter, which states:  “Except as permitted by the IOC Executive Board, no competitor, coach, trainer or official who participates in the Olympic Games may allow his person, name, picture or sports performances to be used for advertising purposes during the Olympic Games.”
  
The reasons for this “blackout” rule are multifold.  For one thing, the mandate aims to maintain the Game’s focus on the athletes and to keep the Olympics from becoming over-commercialized.  There’s also a very practical purpose:  The IOC needs to preserve the Game’s revenue stream, 90% of which “goes to the development of athletes and sports organisations at all levels around the world.”  The promotional podium of the Olympic has limited space.   If non-authorized advertisers try to stand atop it, the platform becomes overcrowded and sanctioned Olympic sponsors lose out.
 
A historic case of such party-crashing occurred twenty years ago at the 1996 Atlanta Games.  Although Reebok put down a reported $50 million to become an official Olympic sponsor, non-sponsor Nike stole the spotlight with several unconventional marketing tactics:  It outfitted legendary U.S. sprinter Michael Johnson with his now-famous golden Nike spikes, which were later featured on the cover of Sports Illustrated; it opened a grandiose “Nike Centre” right next to the athletes’ village; and it distributed flags to fans.
 
According to Adweek, it was Nike’s actions in Atlanta, more than anything else, that led the IOC and the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) to enact the very strict regulations that are in place today.  Now companies that aren’t official sponsors are prohibited from saying “anything even vaguely evocative of the Olympics,” e.g., Rio or gold medal.  Athletes, however, may be included in generic ads during the blackout time, provided that they don’t explicitly reference any of the Olympics’ intellectual property.
 
Nike became an authorized sponsor for the 2000 Sydney Games and since has had a long-standing official Olympic relationship, including in Rio where Nike has been a Team USA Domestic Sponsor, along with the likes of Citi, Kellogg’s, and Hershey.  Ironically, it’s now Nike, which outfits many American Olympic athletes, that stands to lose from unauthorized marketing tactics, like those of Coburn for New Balance.
 
Olympic athletes are allowed to wear whatever brand they personally prefer when it comes to sunglasses, watches, and shoes, so Coburn was well within her rights to wear New Balance on her feet.  By hanging her spikes over her shoulder, however, she transformed her footwear into advertising signage, which is out-of-step with IOC rules.
 
Maybe, though, Olympic promotional policy is unjust.  After all, what would the Games be without elite athletes like Coburn, and how can athletes, particularly those hailing from non-paying sports, ever get that good unless someone supports them?  Of course, the most likely supporters are companies, which need to receive advertising exposure in return.  So, shouldn’t the IOC be more accepting of Coburn and other athletes who want to thank the firms that fund them?   
 
The preceding point is a good one.  Dependency does exist among the Olympics, the athletes, and their personal sponsors.  However, that relationship does not provide enough reason to allow the Games to descend into advertising anarchy.  As suggested in the Olympic charter, a primary appeal of the Games is that athletic accomplishment outshines commercialism—something that’s not always true in professional sports where venues are saturated with signage and some players’ jerseys even contain ads.  In marketing terms, limited promotion for the Olympics is a powerful positioning tool.
 
Despite their wide embrace of advertising, even professional sports leagues like the NFL, NBA, and MLB know that official sponsors need to be protected, partly to preserve those lucrative revenue streams, but also to prevent competitions from becoming commercial mêlées in which every athlete advertises his/her  personal sponsors on the same stage, at the same time.  A classic example of the NFL’s restrictions came in 1986 when Commissioner Peter Rozelle fined Chicago Bears quarterback Jim MacMahon $5,000 for wearing an unauthorized Adidas headband.
 
Yes, Rule 40 of the Olympic Charter likely costs athletes and their personal sponsors some income in the short-run, but the promotional policy is certainly in the best long-term interest of the Games and all its stakeholders, including consumers.  Good, enforced rules are a key component of any successful sport.  They’re also an important part of profitable and positive promotion, which ultimately makes them “Mindful Marketing.”


Picture
Picture
Subscribe to Mindful Matters blog.
Learn more about the Mindful Matrix and Mindful Meter.
Check out Mindful Marketing Ads
 and Vote your Mind!
4 Comments
Jose Lopez
9/21/2016 07:58:23 pm

I believe that the IOC does a good job in trying to enforce these rules with companies and athletes. There are many companies that pay a lot of money to be official sponsors of the Olympics so that they can receive full exposure to the entire world, as they should for the crazy amount that they have to spend. Emma Coburn went over board with her attempt to endorse New Balance when she mentioned them in the post-race press conference. I am okay with her putting the spikes over her shoulder but not with clearly stating them while speaking. I understand that she gets paid from them and that’s how she makes her living but if New Balance wanted exposure really badly they could have paid the IOC to be a sponsor. What Nike did at the 1996 Olympic games in Atlanta was very disrespectful in my eye to Reebok. At the time Reebok was still relevant and very much so a competitor to Nike, so for Nike to undercut them was smart but very immature.

Reply
Madison Corbin
10/18/2016 02:18:20 pm

Honestly, I don’t watch the Olympics because of all the advertisements they have. It seems the Olympics nowadays is less concerned with showcasing the abilities of our U.S. athletes and more concern with advertising a logo or brand. For this reason, I believe that the “blackout rule” must be enforced. There are already commercials every five minutes when watching the Olympics; it would be much worse if the athletes were allowed to promote an outside brand. As you said, this “keeps the Olympics from becoming over commercialized”. IOC only allows sponsored brands to be advertised, so when Coburn intentionally took off her shoes, she did it to promote New Balance. In conclusion, I believe that the official sponsors of the Olympics must be protected. I think the “blackout rule” is just.

Reply
Yejin Kim
10/24/2016 02:28:39 pm

It is interesting that there is a "blackout rule" to protect an official sponsor brand of Olympic. I think it is reasonable to prevent excessive advertising competition between sports clothing brands. However, I also worry that since Olympic has great impact in many ways including advertising, other brands lose their chances to better off their business because of exclusive advertising of one brand. But, I still agree with the rule and think that it is a mindful marketing which will benefit the brand.

Reply
Samantha Sloan
10/24/2016 08:59:56 pm

I never knew about the sponsor brand rule in the Olympics. After reading this article it makes sense why they have the rule but it still seems very extreme. I like the fact that the Olympics is not over commercialized but what Coburn did was not that observed.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Subscribe to receive this blog by email

    Editor

    David Hagenbuch,
    founder of
    Mindful Marketing    & author of Honorable Influence

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014

    Categories

    All
    + Decency
    + Fairness
    Honesty7883a9b09e
    * Mindful
    Mindless33703c5669
    > Place
    Price5d70aa2269
    > Product
    Promotion37eb4ea826
    Respect170bbeec51
    Simple Minded
    Single Minded2c3169a786
    + Stewardship

    RSS Feed

    Share this blog:

    Subscribe to
    Mindful Matters
    blog by email


    Illuminating
    ​Marketing Ethics ​

    Encouraging
    ​Ethical Marketing  ​


    Copyright 2020
    David Hagenbuch

Proudly powered by Weebly