The concerns of the Advertising Association (AA) and the
Institute of Practitioners in Advertising (IPA), relate to the
London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill (formerly known as
the London Olympics Bill), which is currently before
Parliament.
Part of this bill seeks to prevent any business making reference
to the 2012 Olympics in its promotions, unless it is an official
sponsor. This is apparently required by the International Olympic
Committee (IOC), and is an attempt to control ambush marketing –
where one brand pays to sponsor an event and a rival brand attempts
to associate itself with the event without being an official
sponsor.
In general terms, the bill restricts the use of the words
“games”, “Two Thousand and Twelve”, “2012”, and “twenty twelve” in
combination with each other or in combination with words including
“gold,” “silver”, “bronze”, “London” and “summer”. These
restrictions will take effect next spring and last for
six-and-a-half years.
The advertisers are also concerned that the Bill reverses the
standard presumption of innocence – by presuming advertisers guilty
unless and until they can demonstrate they are not associating with
the Games.
The letters sent by the AA and IPA question the Government’s
strategy. They say that the Organising Committee for the Turin
Games 2006 has met its marketing revenue target, and the Organising
Committees for both the Beijing and Vancouver Games have exceeded
their marketing revenue targets, without introducing such
legislation.
“This shows that that it is unlikely that potential sponsors
will be put off from sponsoring the London Olympics if the
restrictions do not come into place immediately,” said Hamish
Pringle, Director General of the IPA.
“The Government’s case – which rests solely on the need to have
legislation in place so as to be able to sign up sponsors next year
– lacks proportionality,” he added.
The IPA and AA say that, though they support the need to protect
sponsors through rules to prevent ambush marketing around the
Games, the early introduction of this legislation is flawed and
unwarranted. They argue that sufficient protections already exist
under existing laws.
