Olympics Can't Hire Enough Actual Security, But Fully Staffed With 'Brand Police'
from the that'll-work dept
We've talked about how the Olympics are so focused on hiding any non-sponsor brand that they had officials in Beijing during the last Olympics tape over bathroom fixtures from non-sponsoring companies. And it was clear that this same sort of activity was set to continue this time around in London, including a specific law against "ambush marketing."You may have heard the reports in London about the terrible security for the London Olympics that has left things in "absolute chaos," due to a failure to hire enough security personnel. In fact, there's talk of soldiers having to be called in to help. Given all that, it's interesting to find out that the Olympics do have a fully-staffed "brand police" force, which is heading around the city to carefully block any non-sponsor brands, and try to track down and kill off any kind of unpaid-for marketing.
Almost 300 enforcement officers will be seen across the country checking firms to ensure they are not staging "ambush marketing" or illegally associating themselves with the Games at the expense of official sponsors such as Adidas, McDonald's, Coca-Cola and BP....So, if a terrorist attack happens to hit London over the next few weeks, at least we'll know that it wasn't sponsored by some non-paying brand.
Wearing purple caps and tops, the experts in trading and advertising working for the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) are heading the biggest brand protection operation staged in the UK. Under legislation specially introduced for the London Games, they have the right to enter shops and offices and bring court action with fines of up to £20,000.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: london, olympics, sponsorship, uk
Companies: adidas, bp, coca-cola, mcdonald's
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Chips
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chips
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Chips
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Chips
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All the King's horses and all the King's men [Re: ]
And with all the King's horses and all the King's men... ...they still can't patrol the LIBOR.
( That's a laughable complaint, you say? The military brutes could not possibly be educated enough to understand high finance! )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All the King's horses and all the King's men [Re: ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just doing my bit... One day I'd like to see being an Olympic sponsor something of a poison chalice linked to lost sales. Perhaps then the Trademark Marximalists will be kicked out.
The Olympics is supposed to be about sporting achievements, not sponsorship achievements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sounds like...
Yes. Well, dinging a small business with up to £20,000 damage is not the type of thing you can stop with a “a high-velocity missile lightweight multiple launcher during a media event”.
( See pic in linked article. )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sounds like...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sounds like...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
=P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who needs foot patrols...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/apr/29/london-rooftops-missiles-olympic-games
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who needs foot patrols...
If they have an entire missile battery at their disposal, are they really "unarmed?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who needs foot patrols...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who needs foot patrols...
Unarmed ... might be guarded ... seriously?
Wow. What could possibly go wrong?
And if indeed the case, why would you publish the fact?
Imagine this in the context of a Monty Python episode - lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who's Responsible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who's Responsible?
This 2007 reference, “Changing Homeland Security: A Strategic Logic of Special Event Security” by Christopher Bellavita, indicates that security responsibility is assigned to the host country.
Although that reference is a little dated, recent articles in the BBC indicates that 2012 London security responsibility is with the UK Home Office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who's Responsible?
Following up, here's something a bit more authoritative from the homeoffice.gov.uk website:
Securing the 2012 London Olympic and Paralympic Games
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who's Responsible?
I think the idea of "brand police" is ridiculous, but it's disingenuous to imply that the Olympic organizers are hiring these people at the expense of regular security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who's Responsible?
It clearly indicates management priorities.
At the top-most level, the government's agenda is revealed by its actions. When the “brand police” component is running smoothly and, in contrast, the G4S fiasco is hitting the news, well, that shows you what the ministers have been actually focused on.
Similarly, but more broadly, the goverment's highly visible efforts to provide brand protection for corporate sponsors of the Olympic circus contrast markedly with their apathy in regulating the banksters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who's Responsible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who's Responsible?
Quoting from The Independent's article:
I don't think that the London Olympic Committee has legislative powers—whether or not the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) is clothed with the full authority of the state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who's Responsible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fun things to do at the Olympics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fun things to do at the Olympics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1) 300 isn't really what they are missing, it's more like thousands, and
2) the "brand police" could be retired people, handicapped people, or what have you, with you physical requirements at all.
So yeah, except for reality, your story is good. Too bad about reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Like your uncited claims backed with random assumptions that you then pretend are "reality" for no other reason than you say so?
If you have information that's backed by evidence, cite it, else your claims are really no better. Try it, for once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I do think the OP misses the mark a bit in that the olympics committee isn't in charge of security. If you are looking for something to nitpick about the article, that would be a better approach.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make the sponsors pay for it is one way.. Stop buying their shit even if it's just for a day. If enough people did that the cost would add up very fast making them change their ways or lose money.
Another obvious way is to not watch the Olympics. Myself I love the Olympics but I refuse to watch them. Same goes with movies and music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's that "Olympics" thing?
I'd like to think if enough people actively forget that it exists, and will avoid anything to do with it, that could make them reconsider their stupidity.
I'm not gonna hold my breath, though, stupidity is a pretty resilient and contagious virus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plus, brand protection is worth a lot of money to big companies (or so they believe), normal security is just about saving lives and protecting ordinary citizens from crime. It makes far more sense for a government to priorities the way it has; companies donate to Parties and politicians, people just get in the way by doing that pesky voting thing, and sometimes they have the nerve to vote for the other side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They could draft those 300 into security, that's 8% or so of the shortfall filled instantly!
But no, they'd rather go and turn this into even more of a publicity nightmare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So.
Utterly.
Embarrassed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
From what I read about the security detail down here, it's pretty bad too - some days have had a staff shortage of 60% and on the best days, they can only manage 85% of total. I haven't seen any security people around, but I'm told they're here. I suppose they'll be more obvious during the actual games, but I'm buggered if I'm going out then.. everywhere's going to be heaving. The only time I'll go out is to work and even then, my commute's blocked, so we've had had to do a complete shuffle round of routes and stuff.. Nightmare, I tell you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Plus, living near the venue myself (Hampden) I'm not looking forward to the disruption either. I really pity the poor buggers in London.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Last year when I was there, we were just pissed off at all the works that meant that standing outside the cinema and nearby pub between screenings became almost impossible. Now, I'm just hoping it'll all be a distant memory before I go back there this year...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about a quiet protest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will attendance become mandatory?
How do they make people look like they are enjoying the event?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ahem. I wonder how much money they could save without this over aggressive strategy. I also wonder why recent Olympics hosts are facing some serious financial crisis now (Greece, Spain etc).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Olympics
The chaos of the Olympics is a perfect opportunity for terrorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That said, the whole brand police thing once again makes me glad I don't watch the Olympics :)
Also, whose friggin idea is it to place a missile battery there? And NOT have it guarded by ARMED soldiers? That's just asking for someone to move in, take it, and shoot down a news helicopter or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The implication you saw in the article isn't the one I got from it, so YMMV, I guess.
In my reading, the point is that the branding police (i.e., defending against the public) is a well-run machine while the security police (defending the public) is travesty -- thus revealing what is more important to the powers that be. I don't really agree with the comparison (even though I find the olympics abhorrent), but that's what I took from the OP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
> London Games, they have the right to enter shops
> and offices and bring court action with fines of
> up to £20,000.
If this is the kind nonsense the IOC now requires of countries who want to host, it'll be interesting to see what happens the next time the US wants to host an Olympics.
We have a pesky and inconvenient Constitution and no matter how much the Congress may want to drop trou and bend over for the IOC, they can't just pass laws creating special 'Olympics exceptions' to the 1st Amendment and the 4th Amendment.
If I own a home or a building which can be seen from an Olympic venue in the US, I have every right to allow Pepsi to put a sign in my window even if Coke is the 'official' sponsor, and they certainly can't legally give the cops the right to break into my private property and confiscate the sign or fine me for exercising my 1st Amendment rights.
If this is what the IOC requires, then the US will never again be able to meet their requirements and can no longer be considered as a host for the games.
And thank god for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]