Commentary

IOC Shocks With No In-Stadium Corporate Logos

by David Goetzl , August 7, 2012

The Olympics are one of the world’s great commercial feasts. The likes of Coke, General Electric, Procter & Gamble and McDonald’s pay the International Olympic Committee (IOC) a fortune to serve as official global partners and affiliate themselves with the rings.

In London, marketers have set up pavilions inside the Olympic Park. There’s also a huge McDonald’s and a BP “Fueling the Future” station. And, of course, many sponsors have tried to leverage their deals by running ads all over NBC.

The Olympics are one big corporate-fest from the Coke torch relay to the Adidas and Nike logos on the athletes' uniforms.

Of course, the Olympics don’t stand alone. The World Cup, Major League Baseball and just about every other sports entity has put plenty of high-priced real estate up for sale and sponsors can’t get enough of it.

The World Cup and MLB are two that offer prominent in-game marketing opportunities ripe for the cameras. The soccer tournament has large signs around the field, while MLB allows those unavoidable signs behind the batter -- even in the World Series.

Yet, here’s a shocker: the Olympic venues have no logos visible during the action. Yes, it may be the only instance where the IOC is leaving money on the table.

For some reason, the organization has opted to avoid a McDonald’s display at half-court during a basketball game; to prevent Coke from placing an “Open Happiness” tagline behind gymnasts; and to stop GE from doing something with a buoy during rowing.

Only “London 2012” appears in and around the action.

It’s disorienting. It seems surreal. There’s an argument with product placement that it’s better to have a Pepsi-branded can in a comedy than an unbranded one because it adds realism. Olympic viewers might be questioning reality at times.

For NBC, the IOC’s blockade might have a downside. Baseball broadcasters such as Turner and Fox are allowed to sell the signs behind home plate. NBC (and Olympic broadcasters in other countries) might be able to work with the IOC to gain some inventory that's visible to their cameras during the running and swimming.

If the IOC really wanted to make some cash, it could put together a virtual ad insertion program, which could bring it even more rights fees. There, it would allow the broadcasters around the globe to sell marketers signage that is virtually inserted in places that are unavoidable before the cameras.

More likely, it could simply allow official IOC sponsors rights to signage during games or events. It’s hard to believe it hasn’t gone that route already, selling the chance to reach billions of people worldwide with a sign behind the starting blocks when Usain Bolt gets ready to run.

Of course, that’s not to say Olympic in-stadium the signage would have much of an impact since during 17 days and so many events, it can become wallpaper.

Still, if the IOC is preventing logos during events out of concern for the viewer experience, maybe it would accept a trade. How about plant a stick with a Coke sign in the long-jump pit in exchange for preventing Ralph Lauren from placing that iPad-sized Polo insignia on Opening Ceremony uniforms?

television

5 comments about "IOC Shocks With No In-Stadium Corporate Logos".

Check to receive email when comments are posted.

Jonathan Hutter from Northern Light Health, August 7, 2012 at 4:35 p.m.
The IOC may also have decided that the brand of the games has value and should be promoted. Protecting the value of the asset long term may create more return than short-term sponsorship dollars. I, for one, applaud the decision and the clarity. Not every venue needs to look like a minor league hockey game. The clearest parallel I have seen is what the NCAA does during March Madness. Any arena hosting a game undergoes a makeover. While the arena name remains, it is put into the same color scheme and type as the NCAA's scheme for all arenas. That is more disconcerting in some ways because I'm used to what the arena is supposed to look like, and then it's changed for the tourney.
Reply

Chuck Lantz from 2007ac.com, 2017ac.com network, August 7, 2012 at 5:06 p.m.

I don't really care why the IOC decided to ban sponsor signage in the venues, ... but I'm happy as hell that they did. Anything that detracts from the event and the Olympians is bad, no matter how many income opportunities are being missed. But I do have a question for the IOC; ... why decided on the masking-tape-like font used throughout the venues?

Nicholas Schiavone from Nicholas P. Schiavone, LLC, August 7, 2012 at 6:37 p.m.

The only "Shock" is that you are shocked.

Official Olympic Sponsorship is good, but too much of a good thing is still too much.

I respect your reporting, David, but your proposal or endorsement of a seemingly "nothing is sacred" Olympics philosophy is profoundly disappointing and distasteful. (And if it was meant as a joke, then the joke is on you.)

The absence of brand marks in the arena or stadium (other than Olympic Rings) makes the presence of corporate brand marks in the right places and at the right times more valued and more valuable.

Your proposal would turn respected corporate brands and brands marks into resented commodities -- and the Olympic arena into a signage sewer.

The only thing "disorienting" and seemingly "surreal" in not an absence of corporate logos in an Olympic stadium, but the appearance of such a jingoistic and misguided blog in a respectable MediaPost Publication.

May your commercial dream never become our Olympic nightmare.

Paula Lynn from Who Else Unlimited, August 7, 2012 at 7:05 p.m.

Nicholas, you have this right. What business (or as the Supreme Court has designated who) has the right to buy the athletes and that is what it comes down to just like the pros and their $ponsorships.

Darrin Stephens from McMann & Tate, August 14, 2012 at 5 p.m.

The IOC shocked you by banning logos? Even though they've been banned in every Olympics ever?

My, you are easily shockable.