« ma.r.s. | Main | Red Mars 3 »


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Olympics Brand Exclusion Zone:



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.


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.


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!


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.


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.


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...



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.


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.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment