Slashdot Mirror


The IOC's 'Clean Venue' Policy

Dave21212 writes "Yes folks, the International Olympic Committee's 'Brand Protection Team' will be protecting against the threat of Advertising Terrorism at the games. According to an MSNBC article, the IOC's Karen Webb states 'Our role is to protect all of our sponsor categories and actively monitor ambush activity.' Restricted items include, flags, umbrellas, shirts, hats, and bags with trademarks of rival sponsors. Unofficial brands can be confiscated and with only Coke allowed on Olympic grounds, this brings new meaning to The Pepsi Challenge!"

119 of 549 comments (clear)

  1. Bottles without labels? by o0zi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Did anyone besides me notice that all the gymnasts who had their own bottles with them had had the labels taken off? It seems a little overkill for "advertising terrorism"...

    1. Re:Bottles without labels? by MikeXpop · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That happens everywhere, and I mean _everywhere_.

      A few years back I used to watch professional wrestling, and there was a wrestler named Triple H. Anyway, when he came on stage, he would take a swig of water and spray it in the air. The water bottle always had its label taken off. Anyway, one time he came out with a labelled water bottle. It was in New York, and green, so I instantly recognized it as Poland Springs. However when they zoomed in on him, the bottle was blurred. I thought that was kind of funny.

      I guess they didn't want to be accused of supporting one water company over another or something. But this doesn't just happen in the Olympics.

      --
      Etiquette is etiquette. He kills his mother but he can't wear grey trousers.
    2. Re:Bottles without labels? by randyest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Did they do the same to members of that audience? If not, this is worse.

      From TFA: We have to protect official sponsors who have paid millions to make the Olympics happen.

      Silly me. I thought it was the that made the Olympics happen.

      But that's only true if you think the competition is more important than the fancy pre-shows and fireworks. I guess now it's reversed -- the competitions are ancillary, the sponsors and ads are the main event now.

      Which is why I don't watch it. My wife does. But she's not as jaded as I am (yet.)

      --
      everything in moderation
    3. Re:Bottles without labels? by fireweaver · · Score: 5, Funny

      I assume you are talking about such things as censoring cusswords and things like women's breasts? If that is the case, then you have to remember that the United States is a Christian Nation (tm) and as such, is extremely immature when it comes to things like sex in particular. It's not really the fault of christianity (tm) per se, just the peculiar American implementation thereof. Like the old joke goes, "Why did Australia get all the convicts and America get all the religious nuts? Australia got first choice."

    4. Re:Bottles without labels? by torpor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Does your wife pay for the Olympics? Probably not.

      Thus, Coke makes the Olympics happen.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    5. Re:Bottles without labels? by randyest · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Only if what the "Olympics" has become (a big marketing festival of spectacles with expensive fireworks displays and opening shows replete with robotic gods and godesses) is really the Olympics.

      My point is I don't think the current "Olympics" is really the Olympics. I'd be happier with a much cheaper implementation. You know. Like in the old days.

      --
      everything in moderation
    6. Re:Bottles without labels? by jelle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually I'll turn it around by saying that it's not the companies spending a lot of money that are needed to make Olympic games happen, but that what you consider a 'modern Olympic games' is a result of the companies spending all that money.

      Now, if you think Olympic games are about the fireworks and a city getting cash to build a large infrastructure around the games that they can enjoy long after, you should love it the way it is. If you think the Olympic games are about athletic achievements, you must realize that you can run and jump very well without having to create such a show and without having to build all that brand new infrastructure.

      Personally, I think that although it's very nice if the cities organizing such an event can reap such benefits, I still think that for a lack of creativity, the Olympic committee has sold its soul for money.

      There have to be ways to finance the event without having to be anal about which brand of soda people walk around with, and without having to forbid athletes to blog, and without selling all exclusive media rights to a single company per country, etc. Just think how much more fun and informative the event would be for everybody if there would be blogs firectly from the athletes right after they win/lose a competition, and if more of the media except just NBC joined in the coverage.

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
    7. Re:Bottles without labels? by Aardpig · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Silly me. I thought it was the [athelets] that made the Olympics happen.

      No, the atheletes are only there to draw in a large crowd of consumers on behalf of the advertisers.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    8. Re:Bottles without labels? by randyest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yet another reason I prefer it the old way. Just think of the possibilities for new, exciting, events.

      --
      everything in moderation
    9. Re:Bottles without labels? by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Thus, Coke makes the Olympics happen.

      Actually, it's a lot of sources beyond sponsors. The TV networks pay bigtime for it, the host government pays pleanty (and gets big economic returns), and the visitors pay bigtime as well. It's a shame that this still isn't enough and it requires sponsorship and advertisement.

    10. Re:Bottles without labels? by mod_critical · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In high school I swam on the men's swim team. Yeah not really a crowd puller. But we had to black out the SPEEDO on our goggle straps at meets. The officials all enforced it too. If they saw a logo you were DQed right there on the starting blocks. Given that for every meet except for state champs the only people watching were parents and girl-friends, and yet they enforced this, it dosen't surprise me that the olympics manages to take it just as seriously. (But I still find it rediculous)

    11. Re:Bottles without labels? by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I remember just a short time ago (early 90's, I believe) MTV was running a "fight censorship" campaign. I always wondered what the hell they were fighting since they have always been the single biggest purveyor of censorship for music. If a song is too long, shorten it. If anything can offend any minority group (especially gays), cut it. If there's any corporate label or anything resembling profanity, remove it. The only exception is for sex; anything short of full nudity is allowed. Anything promoting homosexuality, no matter how graphic, is allowed. I guess it wasn't really censorship MTV was fighting, but more like they were pushing for a type of censorship that allows them to promote a certain agenda. That being said, I think MTV in the U.S. has become almost irrelevant to the music scene. They almost never even play music or music related shows anymore, and I don't know anyone who watches them.

    12. Re:Bottles without labels? by kyle_b_gorman · · Score: 2

      considering that your screenname is an anagram from "gaye case 6677" (sorry couldn't resist) you sure seem to have something up your butt (excuse the pun) about homosexuals. i haven't ever seen anything graphic promoting homosexuality on mtv, with the exception of the kitschy, girl-on-girl stuff that american straight blokes seem to really get into. and you know nothing promotes homosexuality like encouraging straight guys to wank it to two girls instead of one. if i'm missing something, let me know. just my two cents.

    13. Re:Bottles without labels? by maxpublic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      America isn't a christian nation. There are indeed religious nutbags who desperately wish it were a christian nation, but so we've managed to keep those nutbags from seizing the government.

      If it ever becomes a christian nation, I'll be one of the first to pick up a rifle and join the rebellion against the theocracy.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    14. Re:Bottles without labels? by Danster · · Score: 5, Funny

      America isn't a christian nation. There are indeed religious nutbags who desperately wish it were a christian nation, but so we've managed to keep those nutbags from seizing the government. If it ever becomes a christian nation, I'll be one of the first to pick up a rifle and join the rebellion against the theocracy.

      Time to pick up that rifle then. *Cough* Bush *Cough*.

    15. Re:Bottles without labels? by void* · · Score: 2, Informative

      I thought he was talking about things like editing out or fuzzifying brand names when uttered in lyrics or when on artist clothing. MTV does that sort of thing all the time.

      An example from a long time ago, Digital Underground's song 'The Humpty Dance' has the lyric 'I once got busy in a Burger King bathroom' - when the video ran on MTV, they edited out 'Burger King' - 'I once got busy in a [silent pause] bathroom'.

      You know, cause McDonald's is an MTV advertiser ...

      --


      Code or be coded.
    16. Re:Bottles without labels? by maxpublic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bush is undoubtedly a christian nutbag, but so far he hasn't managed to set up himself up as Uber-Dictator, enforce prayer in schools and the workplace, or disband the Supreme Court and replace it with a band of bishops.

      So while our leader may be a religious nutcase, our country is not.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    17. Re:Bottles without labels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      [...] and a city getting cash to build a large infrastructure around the games that they can enjoy long after [...]

      Huh?? Prove that claim, please! I was under the impression that neither the participating (advertising) companies nor the IOC paid the hosting cities/countries a dime. I.e. that they have to pay for everything. With that country's tax money. All of it! (Of course the city/country can get investors, but which company would willingly sponsor giant stadiums, though for what(?))

      I thought the whole deal with the competition between the cities to get picked for the next olympics, was in showing the IOC how much the city/country WAS WILLING TO INVEST THEMSELVES to get the games to their town!

      Otherwise, why the competition?!

      And enjoying the infrastructure. Sure, a bicycle velodrom at $10 Million a pop is a bargain! ...for all the country's 200 hundred practitioners (ok, so maybe they killed that discipline a few years back - exactly for that reason). Or the massive, over-kill housing complexes that will stand all but abandoned six months after the games (check a few earlier hosts - how much of their 'infrastructure' is actually needed and benefitial, rather than a nightmare in maintanence costs).

      Basically, I thought the 'only' (they obviously can be substantial) benefits for the hosts were given, was
      a) the honor of hosting the largest athletic competition in the world, which (hopefully) creates
      b) a massive influx of tourists with money to spend on the local economy (such as it is, after Coke & Co. have all set up shop).

      So if/when the number of tourists don't live up to the expectation of the hosts: multi-million (in dollars) losses for the host.

      Someone correct me, am I wrong? Do IOC really pay for the stadiums, housing, roads, etc.? Any pointers?

    18. Re:Bottles without labels? by jc42 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just wait. In the next Olympics, they'll decide that an unlabelled bottle is also a terrorist threat. They'll require that anyone with such a bottle (or article of clothing) affix a logo from an official Olympic sponsor.

      And in the 2012 Olympics, they'll require that you buy the logos.

      --
      7 people have sent me Gmail invites. Ralph won, and will be recieving my soul. Thank you to all who played.


      Hmmm ... I sometimes wonder if I should ask for one of the leftovers. I wonder how many people collect email addresses? I've had a lot of them. The only one that's lasted is the one that I got from a university some 20 years ago. I wonder if gmail will last as long?

      (Yeah, I know it's OT. But I don't read enough comments on sigs here. ;-)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    19. Re:Bottles without labels? by maxpublic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And there's plenty more to come. It's only a matter of time.

      But he hasn't turned the U.S. into a theocracy...yet.

      That may be why I'm voting for that douchebag Kerry. Not because I think he's any better than Bush (I don't), but because the democrats and republicans are so much like immature frat boys that I think the government will deadlock for four years with him in charge.

      That's what I'm hoping for anyway. An ineffectual, deadlocked government. I think it's the best I can get under the current system.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    20. Re:Bottles without labels? by robogun · · Score: 3, Insightful
      ...if you think Olympic games are about the fireworks and a city getting cash to build a large infrastructure around the games that they can enjoy long after, you should love it the way it is


      The idea that the host city gets a lot of cash and a sporting infrastructure is a common misconception. In a few weeks, it will be announced exactly how much the Greek people will lose by hosting the Games. I'm guessing they will lose the most money in history of the Olympics, even exceeding the blow Montreal took in '76.


      It is not entirely their fault. Security costs exceed 1.2 billion US -- an enormous cost for a country of only 11 million to shoulder.


      Salt Lake made a little cash -- but did not build anything that wasn't already planned. Atlanta built nothing that wasn't prepaid, the games were spread from DC to Florida to use existing facilities. Things like Centennial Park were funded privately, not by IOC activity.


      I agree that the IOC has sold itself for money. Some of it has got to be backfiring. For instance, by only accepting Visa (R) credit cards as payment for tickets, they are excluding potential spectators and merchandise buyers who hold cards bearing other brands. If I were running these Games, I would accept any instrument of payment the paying fan had on them, in order to move merchandise and tickets that will be valueless in two weeks. I am guessing that the Athens organisers have lost more than the US$40m the IOC gained from the sponsorship fee.

    21. Re:Bottles without labels? by Edie+O'Teditor · · Score: 2, Funny
      get's it's

      You 'should check your 'sy'stem. I think you have a problem with your keyboard driver - it 'seem's to be in'serting 'spuriou's character's.

      --
      If X is the new Y, and Y is "X is the new Y", solve for X.
    22. Re:Bottles without labels? by Travoltus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're right.

      God knows there was no Olympics before there was capitalism.

      --
      --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    23. Re:Bottles without labels? by CyberKnet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sadly, this is too true. I noticed this especially with the womens athletics. The announcers and commentators are too hung up on what they think these athletes owe their country to notice that these defeats were crushing those girls. The interviewers would purposefully stake out the one girl on a team that messed up worst and ask "So how did it feel to make mistakes XYZ and possibly cost your team a medal?".

      I think the poor girl handled the situation admirably and has done her country more than proud. In one defeat she has contributed more to her country than that damned announcer will ever contribute. By even trying she has contributed more than I ever will.

      The commentators and announcers need to have more respect for the athletes involved. A person does not get sent to the olympics just because they were the only one who tried out... for some it is a once in a life time opportunity, and a lifelong dream. I cannot fathom how it would feel to have a dream so far within reach and then absolutely shattered. Not even nearly.

      --
      Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius
    24. Re:Bottles without labels? by macdaddy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Yes, it is disgusting. I almost long for the days when the Olympic commentator was dry, almost lethargic. Let the retired Olympic pros be the entertaining and lively folks. They are the ones most likely to get excited by a steller performance of an event they used to compete in anyhow. The commentator should stick to the dry facts IMHO.

      I think NBC is trying to attract the American populous that doesn't normally watch the Olympics by using the everyday sports announcers that they're familiar with. I'm surprised they don't have John Madden (a nice guy by all respects) commentating on the Men's 3m Synchronized Springboard competition, pointing out mistakes and predicting plays with his whiteboard like he does football games. It really is sad to see such an event brought to these all-time unprofessional lows.

    25. Re:Bottles without labels? by hesiod · · Score: 2, Funny

      > I'm surprised they don't have John Madden [...] commentating on the Men's 3m Synchronized Springboard

      "Ya see here, there's these two boards, here *circle* and here *circle* these guys will jump off, like this *curved lines*, and BAM! ... into the water. But what they wanna do, ya see, is make sure they do this at the same time, together, at the same time as each other. *scribble, scribble* They have to look the same, they have to be synchronisized the same. *maniacal, undecipherable scrawl* What you don't wanna do is screw up like those krauts just now. You gotta wonder what they were thinking..."

      Sure, I coulda' done better, but I never said I was a comedian.

  2. Frightening by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 4, Interesting
    So, I didn't RTFA of course, but from the story blurb it makes it sound like if you wear something like an Adidas shirt for example, and Nike is a sponsor and Adidas is not, they will confiscate it. Frankly, I would flat out refuse. This is so ridiculous and is a perfect example of where our culture is going.

    Now, fast forward 10 years and imagine that SWAT-like team practicing on the stadium, but instead of looking for actual terrorist threats, they're looking for banned advertising. Think I'm joking? Well, just accellerate current corporate greed and how much power corporations wield, and I think I'm pretty close to the truth.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    1. Re:Frightening by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So I guess that if in 2012 when I'm attending the 'Microsoft Olympics' in New York City, if I wear my Red Hat Baseball cap, I can expect someone from the NYC Police "atlas squad" (antiterrorism special force) to blow my head off.

      Great..

      --
      Huh?
    2. Re:Frightening by kfg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course the problem comes in the fact that many of the athletes rely on personal sponsors to compete at all; and if you're sponsored by Adidas but have to wear a Nike shirt or no shirt at all, well, you go without the Adidas money you need to train and compete because there's nothing in the deal for Adidas.

      The organizers end up with all the loot, the competitors themselves are left out in the cold.

      This a big deal in NASCAR right now, what with Coke sponsoring events and cars sponsored by Pepsi winning races and vice versa.

      It's a fucking mess.

      KFG

    3. Re:Frightening by thedillybar · · Score: 2, Insightful
      >So, I didn't RTFA of course...
      >Well, just accellerate current corporate greed and how much power corporations wield...

      If you RTFA you would know that it has little to do with corporate greed, and lots to do with making the Olympics possible. Without sponsors, the Olympic games simply wouldn't have enough funding to go on. Are you going to donate some cash (or vote to use some tax dollars) to give more to the Olympics? Even if you do, others won't. They're trying to protect their sponsors, just like the free web providers do by not allowing you to show your own banner ads. It sounds like they might be going a bit far, but they have to do something to protect their sponsors or else they'll lose their funding.

    4. Re:Frightening by linuxtelephony · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I lived in Atlanta in 1992, 4 years before the 1996 Olympics there. The IOC was going around nailing anybody with ANYTHING remotely like "Olympic" in their company name or product. One example, Olympian Pools, or something like that.

      That, combined with all of the corruption (remember the fall out from Utah and Japan not too long ago), and the flat-out censorship of participants (athletes are not able to keep blogs, and somewhere I think they were restricted from writing their personal experiences even after the games, if the IOC doesn't get its cut), not to mention the many other layers of crap reported earlier here on /., are all reasons why I don't even bother tuning in.

      I stopped watching, paying attention, or even caring about the Olympics after I saw what they did in Atlanta.

      Judging by the dismal ticket sales, perhaps this is a growing trend.

      --
      . 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
    5. Re:Frightening by randyest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Without sponsors, the Olympic games simply wouldn't have enough funding to go on.

      Are you serious?

      If this isn't a troll, then you've lost touch a bit. The Olympics are supposed to be about international athletic competetion. Not million-dollar stage shows with fireworks and robotic Greek gods flying around. None of that adds to the real spectacle, IMHO, and none of the games requires expensive equipment or locales.

      The article said Coke spent $60M, VISA another $30M, something like $120M from just the major sponsors.

      You could have a perfectly excellent Olympics for a tenth or less of that. An acceptable Olympics (to most) for under a million.

      The athletes want to compete, not be whores for some commercial concern (at least until after they win.)

      --
      everything in moderation
    6. Re:Frightening by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Then would you care to explain what made the Olympics possible since Ancient Greek times? They didn't have advertising hit-squads back then did they?

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    7. Re:Frightening by bstone · · Score: 3, Informative

      What really frosts me about these sponsorship wars is when the sponsors are allowed to pay to keep me from using competing products. I can see VISA paying to be the Olympic sponsor, and getting the resulting publicity, but when they can pay places to NOT take my credit card, it crosses a line.

      Personally, I have a "token" VISA card which is ONLY used when I end up at one of their "purchased" venues (accidentally), and NEVER used anywhere else.

      The fact that they're proud of making these deals ("be sure to bring your VISA card because you can't use American Express"), knowing that they have paid to force me to carry extra credit cards with me, especially in these times of identity theft and credit card fraud where I'd much rather just carry one card and watch it closely, seems to me like it should be illegal.

    8. Re:Frightening by Short+Circuit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      s'OK. A little googling brings up a good reference.

    9. Re:Frightening by badasscat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      None of that adds to the real spectacle, IMHO, and none of the games requires expensive equipment or locales.

      The article said Coke spent $60M, VISA another $30M, something like $120M from just the major sponsors.

      You could have a perfectly excellent Olympics for a tenth or less of that. An acceptable Olympics (to most) for under a million.


      Are you kidding?

      Contrary to your statement, many Olympic events do require expensive locales. See, there are rules here, and rules are what make sports what they are - without them, a sport is just a couple of guys hitting a ball back and forth. You can't just swim in any swimming pool, you can't play soccer in a baseball stadium, you can't have a rowing competition in the middle of the ocean. These things all have to be regulation size and with regulated conditions, not to mention enough seats to ensure that people who want to can actually watch.

      You couldn't build an Olympic-regulation swimming pool for less than $1 million. Even if you only held the Olympics in cities that had held them before (which sort of defeats the purpose of having them), the cost of refurbishing and modernizing old Olympic facilities alone would easily top $1 million. And that's just the first thing you'd have to do.

      Hell, it cost more than $1 million just to put a track around the football field at my old high school. And that was in the 1980's!

      Billions are being spent this time on security. And don't tell me it's not needed or that it's all paranoia, because you know, it's not like terrorism at the Olympics has never happened before, right? If you can't protect the athletes, then it's not even worth having an Olympics. It's just sports - it's not worth risking your life over. So this is a required expense if you ask me, and it's not really the reason for the high cost of the games anyway - Sydney 2000 cost $5.9 billion.

      So your cost analysis is a little off. The Olympics could be done for less than the Athens games depending on the city, sure, but not much less in this day and age. The logistics, the facilities required, the security, hell the simple cost of salaried staff would be in the multiple millions of dollars at least. I don't see how you could do an Olympics in this day and age for less than several billion dollars.

      Anyway, I don't have any problem at all with Olympic officials forcing athletes to hide corporate logos. How many sports have we seen where athletes have basically turned into walking advertisements? In some sports they seem to be actively hawking their sponsors during games (cough NBA basketball cough). And I have seen some seriously questionable "viral" marketing at these games... for example, just yesterday at the diving competition, the American divers were repeatedly shown listening to music during rest periods, with the NBC analysts commenting on their playlists. So today, I hit the NBC Olympics web site, and sure enough, there's a link asking "What music does Laura Wilkinson train to?" on the right side of the page, which goes to a page of huge Real Rhapsody ads. That kind of sneaky stuff really pisses me off.

    10. Re:Frightening by scotch · · Score: 4, Insightful
      if you wear something like an Adidas shirt for example, and Nike is a sponsor and Adidas is not, they will confiscate it. Frankly, I would flat out refuse. This is so ridiculous and is a perfect example of where our culture is going.

      An even better example of where our culture is going is the fact that you think it's perfectly reasonable to pay money to wear clothing which has the very dominant feature of being an advertising device for the company making that clothing. So you've chosen to be a voluntary addidas billboard rather than a nike billboard, and you're upset that consumerism dominates our society to the extent that events, like clothes, are mere advertising opportunities, and as such are controlled by the advertisers?

      --
      XML causes global warming.
    11. Re:Frightening by Archibald+Buttle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then would you care to explain what made the Olympics possible since Ancient Greek times? They didn't have advertising hit-squads back then did they?

      The Olympics have not been going since Ancient Greek times.

      There were the ancient Olympics, which stopped several thousand years ago.

      Now we have the modern Olympics, started just over 100 years ago. Two different competitions with different organisations and different sets of ideals.

    12. Re:Frightening by bstone · · Score: 2, Interesting

      COSTCO only accepts American Express. Does that make me complain and get an AE card?

      Actually, now that you're bringing up silly things like that, I DO react to those anti-competitive deals too.

      Costco used to be a place where I shopped regularly. I actually got a Discover card when THAT was all they would accept. When they changed to American Express and quit takiing Discover, I cancelled the Discover card and stopped shopping at Costco.

      Same with Shell Oil. I've been a customer since 1967, and had one of their cards. They dropped their credit cards and came out with the "Chase Manhatten Shell Card". I got one of those for the gas discounts, and then a few years later, they went to the "Citibank Shell Card". I no longer have a Shell card, and Chase Manhatten extended their discounts to all gas purchases. I'm now a happy "Rotten Robbie" gas customer with a nice discount whenever I use my Chase Manhatten MasterCard.

    13. Re:Frightening by Flower · · Score: 2, Informative
      How in the hell did you get modded insightful for that stunningly simple-minded quip? There are 28 categories of events ranging from gymnastics to sailing (you know that sport with boats.) There are over 202 nations sending 10,500 athletes to compete. The event is televised world-wide whereas most high-school track meets only make a blurb in the local paper. Your nation's prestige doesn't revolve around whether State Finals come off without a hitch.

      WTF? You never heard of Economies of Scale?

      --
      I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
    14. Re:Frightening by DrEldarion · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's a P&P RPG called Shadowrun (which is an incredible game). In Shadowrun's timeline, in the year 2001, the Shiawase decision came about.

      "Megacorporations had begun to evolve in the 1980s and '90s, when merger fever had everyone from banks to defense contractors glomming together like so much gunk on a bathroom tile. But the first real nails in the coffin of the old world were the Seretech and Shiawase decisions. The first one upheld Seretech Corporation's right to maintain an armed force for the protection of it's personnel and property, effectively legitimizing private corp armies. The second had even worse consequences; it established corporate extraterritoriality, giving multinational corporations the same rights and priviliges as foreign governments."

    15. Re:Frightening by bstone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You do realize that the use of credit to make a purchase is not a right but an option vendors allow you to have. Would you prefer that instead of a credit card they only accepted cash, forcing thousands of people to carry large sums of money on them.

      It's an option vendors allow because they want to attract customers. If they accepted only cash, they would lose customers in droves. It's in the best interests of the vendors to give their customers the most options to buy their products as they can. When they decide to take money from VISA in order to REDUCE the options their customers have to spend money in their establishment, that's their option. It's also my option to decide whether or not to buy there based on how friendly they are to me. Personally, I hope that they end up with a net loss by making this kind of deals, but that's just me. I'm certainly not going to carry huge sums of cash on me in order to buy from stores that want VISA's money more than they want to build their business based on serving their customers.

    16. Re:Frightening by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Interesting
      There are 28 categories of events ranging from gymnastics to sailing (you know that sport with boats.)

      So it's 28 glorified track meets.

      There are over 202 nations sending 10,500 athletes to compete.

      Average of 375 athletes per glorified track meet. No bigger deal than a lot of high school state finals.

      The event is televised world-wide whereas most high-school track meets only make a blurb in the local paper.

      The networks make their own money selling ads. It doesn't cost the Olympics anything to do the broadcasting.

      Your nation's prestige doesn't revolve around whether State Finals come off without a hitch.

      So what? The vast majority of state finals go off without either a hitch or hundreds of $millions of corporate funding.

      Bottom line: It's just some games. The majority of the events use equipment you could find in many high schools. It doesn't need to be so bloated. The only reason it is so bloated is because people expect it to be bloated. It's a self-perpetuating hype machine.

    17. Re:Frightening by parksie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Funny? Insightful :/

      *shakes head sadly*

  3. Anyone else switching off in the UK? by FyRE666 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is anyone else deliberately NOT watcing the Olympics in light of this corporate assholery? I'm in the UK, where we're not being censored, but I'm not going to encourage the corporate ad campaign that's masquerading as a sports event by tuning in.

    The funny thing is, that previous stories posted here about China's restrictions, firewalling off any sites promoting freedom of speech etc have evoked harsh criticism of the regime. This is no different though, except the control isn't in the hands of a political party, but a few greedy corporations.

    I can't believe that after charging people to come and watch the games, they're now telling them what to eat, drink, wear and think while there. I'd ask for my money back; no actually I'd ask for payment for them employing me as some fucking walking advert.

    No wonder attendance is only just hovering above 50% this year, even though it's in Athens. Seems like people don't like "controlled fun"... Funny that...

    1. Re:Anyone else switching off in the UK? by christurkel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The corporations the the big networks have sucked all the joy of the Olympics. I can't watch them. Its like an informercial with breaks for sporting invites; its insane and out of control.

      The costs of putting on the Olympics have increased so much that only the largest cities can afford to host them then only with massive corporate sponsorship. Disgusting and sad.

      --

      CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
    2. Re:Anyone else switching off in the UK? by thedillybar · · Score: 2, Insightful
      >Is anyone else deliberately NOT watcing the Olympics in light of this corporate assholery?

      If this is enough reason to convince you not to watch the Olympics, you clearly had little desire to watch in the first place. These are the best athletes of today, and being an athlete myself, I don't see how you could not watch them compete.

      >No wonder attendance is only just hovering above 50% this year, even though it's in Athens. Seems like people don't like "controlled fun"... Funny that...

      You're out of your mind. You really think people say to themselves "well, I would go to the Olympics, but I can't wear my Adidas shirt...maybe in 4 years..."? Come on.

  4. But what about the spectators? by keiferb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What I didn't get from the article is whether or not this applies only to employees/volunteers or if it extends to the spectators, as well. If I show up with a vintage 1986 Spuds MacKenzie t-shirt and the official beer of the games is Rolling Rock, do I get tossed? Subjected to "additional security measures"? Or do they just not care?

    If the latter, could someone loosen my tin foil a bit?

    1. Re:But what about the spectators? by Nos. · · Score: 2, Informative

      From what I understand, this applies to EVERYONE. They were talking about it on the radio here yesterday. If you're heading to the games, make sure you don't have a Pepsi logo (or pick other competitor to official sponsor) on your clothes, bags, and make sure you don't have one of their products. Hmmm, since VISA is an official sponsor, I wonder if you can pay for anything with your Master Card/Discover/Amex/etc.

    2. Re:But what about the spectators? by tonywong · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If I was pepsi, I'd hire people in plain coloured shirts of the pepsi corporate colours (red white and blue) and get them to sit in the bleachers to form the pepsi symbol. Given that ticket sales have been abysmal, this could be done fairly impromptu.

  5. So the alternative to "advertising terrorism" is by Mr.+Neutron · · Score: 3, Interesting

    advertising fascism?

    To their credit, they are hardly the first governing body to respond to the spectre of terrorism with a crackdown on civil liberties ;-).

    --
    dinner: it's what's for beer
  6. Rats by tirefire · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now I can't wear my Al-Qaeda baseball cap.

  7. Ok, its way out of hand now.. by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This insanity needs to be stopped.

    First they spend 1.5 Billion to invasively spy on EVERYONE there...

    Then athletes cant talk about the games, or take pictures.. For fear of not getting their take of the revenue..

    Now fans cant even choose what food they eat, unless its a 'sponsored' product?

    The entire Olympic games have become a commercialized farce, and needs to be disbanded.

    Its a mockery of what it should be about: athletes competing for the title of 'best'. Nothing more, nothing less.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Ok, its way out of hand now.. by randyest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I neither watch nor participate, but my "problem" isn't solved.

      I can no longer watch the Olympics like I used to.

      I want the old, pre-sell-out Olyompics back, thanks.

      --
      everything in moderation
    2. Re:Ok, its way out of hand now.. by randyest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, it is. Isn't it?

      But I suppose as long as people like you who are happy with the current state of affairs are in the majority, then to heck with anyone who disagrees.

      You know -- the tyranny of the majority. Or in this case, the Tyranny of Marketing, is so nice. Dontcha think?

      --
      everything in moderation
  8. Athletes boycot the olympics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Some major atheletes (like Kim Clijsters) don't go to the olympics because their contract with other sponsors (Fila in her case) doesn't allow so.

  9. Not that big of a deal... by Doches · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Olympics have always been heavily commercialized; Making that a little (well ok, a lot) more exclusive doesn't really change much. Would a sponsor-free Olympics really be any better? Could it even happen?

    1. Re:Not that big of a deal... by Texas+Rose+on+Lava+L · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It could happen in 2008 in Beijing, if China feels like doing things that way. A few years ago there was talk about the IOC not wanting the USA to host the Olympics as much because they relied too much on corporate sponsorship whenever they were held in the US. They wanted the host nation government to pay more of the expenses rather than have advertising on every available surface. Since China doesn't care about making money nearly as much as they care about showing off to the world, they could put on the Games with little or no sponsorship if they thought is was to their advantage to do so (i.e. if they thought it would impress the IOC). As it is, there's a global concrete shortage which is being caused, in part, by the construction of Olympic venues in China.

      In the USA? Forget it. Rightly or wrongly, everything here is about making money, and we tend to judge success/failure of the Olympics based on whether they made money. In fact, Peter Ueberroth ran for governor of California last year based on his record of having made the 1984 Olympics profitable.

      Personally, I'd like to see the TV contracts handled differently. The IOC should impose limits on how many commercials the networks can show. Maybe even sell the rights for a fixed amount of money, and have the networks bid based on how few commercials they're willing to air -- lowest bidder wins.

  10. this is stupid by Ravenrage · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am so sick of people using the "terrorism" tag to do what ever they want....are we sure that gwbIII isn't involved with the Olympics???...
    plz i mean "Advertising Terrorism"???....total horseshit...

  11. The Olympic Charter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From the IOC website:
    MISSIONS
    What is the goal of the Olympic Movement?

    According to the Olympic Charter, established by Pierre de Coubertin, the goal of the Olympic Movement is to contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport practised without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.
    I think it's long overdue for a rewrite.
    1. Re:The Olympic Charter by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What is the goal of the Olympic Movement?

      According to the Olympic Charter, established by Pierre de Coubertin, the goal of the Olympic Movement is to contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport practised without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.


      According to the Olympic Charter (rev 1), established by Major Sponsors, the goal of the Olympic Movement is to contribute to corporate profits peaceful and better brand recognition by advertising to youth through sport practised without competitors images of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires major contributions with a spirit of exclusivity, frequent advertisments and no fair use.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    2. Re:The Olympic Charter by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 3, Funny
      without discrimination of any kind

      Yeah, unless you're wearing a Pepsi shirt...

      I, for one, welcome our new corporate overlords. No, wait... no i don't.

      --

      They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
  12. Going to Olympics is like riding with Hitler! by John+Jorsett · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is it me or are the Olympics taking on the tone of a totalitarian regime? If the restrictions on the athletes (no blogs, no 'unapproved' products, etc.) were being imposed by a government, there'd be an outcry. Because a non-governmental entity is doing it, it's ok?

    1. Re:Going to Olympics is like riding with Hitler! by perrin · · Score: 5, Informative

      That is not so surprising when you consider who runs the show. the previous and long-time IOC president, Samaranch, was a fascist. I don't just mean that as en call-name. He was a member of fascist organizations for 40 years, was an ardent supporter of Franco and was appointed government secretary for sports under Franco's fascist dictatorship.

      The IOC is not democratic nor accountable to anyone, and have always operated in a totally autocratic manner.

      (An a less important but symbolic aside: The torch-carrying tradition was invented by Nazi Germany, who used the games held in Germany 1936 as a huge propaganda event.)

      The games have also been connected to commercial interest since the start. For example, the games in 1900 and 1904 were both side-by-side with large trade fairs.

    2. Re:Going to Olympics is like riding with Hitler! by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Informative

      Most athletes are used to it. They've always had to obey rules given down to them by their leagues about what they're allowed to wear during competition, and they're also used to having clauses in personal endorcement deals that say they can't be seen in public consuming/using a competitor's product. If an athlete doesn't like those rules, they can just sit out. We're already seeing several noteworthy NBA players refuse to take part in the Olympic basketball competition, and NBA team owner Mark Cuban is suggesting that players on his team stay out because of the risk that an injury that happens in those games that they'd have to play for free might impact their ability to play in the games they're being paid for.

    3. Re:Going to Olympics is like riding with Hitler! by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is not so surprising when you consider who runs the show.

      It's not just Samaranch that's the problem. A lot of the members of the IOC are from countries where totalitarian decision making is the norm, so it's not surprising that the Olympics takes on a totalitarian flavor.

      Add that in with corporate interests who think that fascist laws that enforce their monopolies are a good thing, and IOC members who think about graft first, sports last, and you get a pretty scary/accurate portrait of the world we live in now.

  13. My Rights Online by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hope this doesn't infringe my rights online somehow.

  14. Judgement, anyone!?!? by Al+Dimond · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Can these people not tell the difference between someone just wearing a shirt and a corporate-sponsored ambush? Telling people that they can't eat "restricted" sandwiches or drink a frappe sounds more like the spirit of Stalin than that of the Olympics.

  15. Illegal usage of Olympic trademark by davidfromoz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dear Slashdot,

    I draw your attention to the inappropriate use of the words "Olympic" and "Pepsi" in the same article. Please remove this document immediately or you will be hearing from our lawyers.

    Jacques

  16. My Fear by Bruha · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is that this may spread to other venues, cant wear a metallica tshirt to ozzfest.

    Cant attend a sporting event with the same rules even going as far as saying you cant wear a hockey jersey to football game.

    How long will it be until a corporation begins to fund roads or parks and have security banning other advertisers.

    It's bad enough I cant watch the superior coverage of the olympics legaly here in the USA due to similar contracts. Though I wonder how the advertisers would feel if people began to boycot them becuase one tv station banned them from consumer choice of BBC's olympics vs MicroSoft NBC Olympics.

    1. Re:My Fear by FFFish · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You think this isn't happening already?

      There are two types of border in this world: political and corporate. The two are becoming ever closer to one.

      Within our generation I anticipate that your legal rights and responsibilities will be defined by the Venn intersection of the corporate influences in your physical location.

      Coca-Cola will own the territory of Vancouver, for instance. City council will be paid to pass law that makes possession of Pepsi illegal. You will not be able to purchase nor import Pepsi products in that city. Ho-Chi brand marijuana, on the other hand, will be readily available, due to the political influence weilded by that ex-gang (now legit) grower.

      Across the border in Seattle, it will be quite the reverse: Pepsi will have landed the municipal softdrink contract, and the DEA will have successfully established themselves as the drug industry top dog. Supplies of Columbian cocaine will be readily available, but BC pot will be banned.

      Political borders will continue to exist as a public deception, but the corporate borders will be what really affects one on a day-to-day basis.

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
  17. Athens 2004 Restricted Items and Actions by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Informative
    More information:

    "Advertisers try vaulting over the official games marketers"
    http://www.nypost.com/business/18669.htm In 1996, Nike was the Cinderella of the Atlanta Olympics. Not invited to the ball, it made sure the shoe fit anyway.

    The sneaker maker handed out swoosh-branded "Just Do It" signs, erected billboards and even built a makeshift sports complex -- leaving the patriotic impression that it was an official Olympic sponsor.

    It wasn't. Archrival Reebok shelled out millions for bona fide sponsorship status. Nike glommed onto Olympic glory in a money-saving ploy known as ambush marketing.

    "For pennies on the dollar, relative to the top sponsors, ambush marketing can be cost effective," said sports marketing expert David Carter. "Many consumers end up rather confused as to who the official Olympic sponsors are."


    For what it's worth, from http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?Art Num=61113:

    Known as the "clean venue policy", the rules were drawn up by the Greeks and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to shield sponsors from so-called "ambush marketing" -- an attempt to advertise items during the games without paying sponsorship fees.

    The restrictions on food and drink are intended to ensure that only items made by official sponsors such as McDonald's and two Greek dairy firms are consumed at Olympic venues.

    An official familiar with the restrictions said: "We have to protect official sponsors who have paid millions to make the Olympics happen. There will be cases of individual spectators being allowed in wearing a T-shirt bearing the logo of a rival sports brand but anyone who tries to practise ambush marketing will be removed."


    And the actual list:
    http://www.athens2004.com/en/specAdviceRestricted

    The following items and actions are restricted at Olympic Venues:

    Mopeds, bicycles, skates, skateboards

    Electronic equipment of Non-Rights holding Broadcasting Organisations

    Flags of non-participating countries. Flags of participating countries larger than 2x1 meters, banners (larger than 1x1 meters approximately). No banner may be hung in metallic, wooden or plastic poles or frames

    Horns, laser devices and other devices that cause disturbance

    Flag poles, logos, open umbrellas in seating areas, items (T-shirts, hats, bags, etc.) with distinctive trademarks of companies that are competitive to those of the sponsors

    Pirate "Athens 2004" products

    Leaflets, pamphlets, non-approved publications, unauthorised signs and labels, printed material for publishing purposes with religious, political, provocative or obscene content

    Balls, rackets, Frisbees, and similar items, a large number of coins, lighters

    Musical instruments, glass bottles, flasks, iceboxes, ice-bags, thermos, water, beverages, alcoholic drinks and material, in general, of any shape or content, or any other items that ATHOC in cooperation with the Security Authorities in charge, consider to be dangerous or inappropriate

    Food (except for proven medical reasons)

    Animals (except service animals)

    Large items, large bags, suitcases, folding seats, small stools etc. (except in certain events)

    Strollers in seating areas

    Smoking or gambling

    Collection of money for unauthorised purposes

    Use or distribution of clothing and/or any type of material with the intent of advertising, promotion, raising money or making profit through unauthorised means

    Ambush marketing

    Demonstrations of a political or religious nature

    Unauthorised ticket sales

    Unauthorised sale of food

    Unauthorised entry of TV presenters and unauthorised transmission and/or videotaping through transmi

    1. Re:Athens 2004 Restricted Items and Actions by kooshvt · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Many consumers end up rather confused as to who the official Olympic sponsors are."

      You know all this time I thought I was enjoying watching the atheletes compete. Now I realize that it was all just disillusionment from not being aware of who the official sponsors were.

      Who won gold in X event in Y year?
      I'm not sure, who was the official sponsor that year?

    2. Re:Athens 2004 Restricted Items and Actions by Fortyseven · · Score: 4, Funny

      Prohibited items: Guns, explosive materials, chemical or incendiary mechanisms, tear gas, smoke bombs, knives, narcotic or other illegal substances, fireworks, firecrackers, poles, bats and in general items that may cause physical damage, even if they are legally possessed.

      Well there you go. And they spent like, what, a billion dollars on security? And for what? There was a rule against bringing in things terrorists would use all along. Sounds like conspiracy!

    3. Re:Athens 2004 Restricted Items and Actions by payndz · · Score: 2, Insightful
      From the 'banned' list

      iceboxes, ice-bags, thermos, water, beverages
      a large number of coins

      1: Make visitors sit in 30-degree-plus temperatures for hours on end.
      2: Force them to buy overpriced official Olympic-brand bottled water or equally overpriced Coke.
      3: Confiscate their change.
      4: Profit!!!

      --
      You must think in Russian.
    4. Re:Athens 2004 Restricted Items and Actions by horza · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The restrictions on food and drink are intended to ensure that only items made by official sponsors such as McDonald's and two Greek dairy firms are consumed at Olympic venues.

      ROTFL. So whilst the worlds top atheletes in the peak of human fitness compete, the audience is forced to eat McDonalds? Oh the irony...

      Phillip.

  18. Understated Point Missing by randyest · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "These tactics cut to the heart of the commercial viability of the Games, and represents one of their single biggest threats. Without guaranteeing exclusivity, it is harder to play competitive sponsors off against each other."

    While worrying about "brand impurity" cutting to the "heart" of "commercial viability," they seem to have forgotten about the soul of the games.

    Which is understandable, since to the promoters and "marketing protection squads," the games ceased long ago to be anything other than a way to make lots of profits.

    When it becomes so bad that the majority of participants and spectators don't want to play a role in these little marketing games, it'll be too late. And that day is getting closer.

    --
    everything in moderation
  19. Fully justified by Aphelion · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From the article:

    Nike's ambush of the 1996 Atlanta Olympics is still seen as the ambush of all ambushes. Saving the US$ 50 million that an official sponsorship would have cost, Nike plastered the city in billboards, handed out swoosh banners to wave at the competitions and erected an enormous Nike center overlooking the stadium. The tactics devastated the International Olympic Committee's credibility and spooked other organizations such as FIFA into adopting more assertive anti-ambushing strategies.

    The article goes on to mention how Nike has never sponsored an entire event, and admits to "coming from a different angle" by sponsoring teams, press conferences even individual players. It's too bad that it has nothing specific to say about the Pepsi/Coca-Cola relationship.

  20. It isn't corporation's fault by John+Jorsett · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't blame corporations for doing what they're programmed in their very DNA to do: turn a profit. Blame the Olympics for whoring themselves out for the corporate dollars. If you recall, the IOC had two members who took over $1 million to bring the 2002 games to Salt Lake City. Would it be a surprise if that's just the tip of the iceberg, and that there's major bribery of IOC members taking place on a continual basis? Corporations may be the johns, but it's the Olympics who's the streetwalker.

    1. Re:It isn't corporation's fault by gilroy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Blockquoth the poster:

      Don't blame corporations for doing what they're programmed in their very DNA to do: turn a profit.

      Last I checked, corporations were run by human beings. (Isn't that always the trope rolled out to counter attacks on "corporatism"?). And humans have this amazing thing called "a mind" that allows them to -- believe it or not -- choose. Specifically, they can choose not to follow the siren call of their "prgrammed DNA"; they actually be ethical.

      I certainly do blame corporations for bastardizing the Olympics. I also blame the IOC for allowing, nay, encouraging it to happen. Guess what? There's more than enough blame to cover them both.
  21. correction to article by mqx · · Score: 5, Interesting

    2000: Qantas Airlines' slogan "Spirit of Australia" coincidentally sounds like games slogan "Share the spirit" to chagrin of official sponsor Ansett Air

    Anyone who has lived in Australia can tell you that Qantas has used "Spirit of Australia" as an advertising slogan for at least 20 years or more. Not only that, but Qantas is one of those "grand old lady" organisations who don't stoop to any type of advertising/marketing "tricks". The reporter has actually made a mistake with this choice of example, because if anything, it would be Ansett with the wrongdoing here.

  22. Re:So the alternative to "advertising terrorism" i by Eudial · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ein OS, Ein Schtadium, ein uh, advertising? =P

    --
    GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
  23. Like an amusement park... by LostCluster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is just like an amusement park that can control what they're going to let through their gates, even while charging $25 a person going through. The IOC is renting every olympic venue, so they get to set the rules as to what goes on there. If you don't like the rules, don't buy a ticket and don't go in the venues...

    What it boils down to is the fact that the Olympics have lost their glow as a world gathering and now are just plain one big international TV game show production...

    1. Re:Like an amusement park... by t_allardyce · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The point is the Olympic games are supposed to be some great tradition, the IOC is always going on about the "purity" of the Olympic name being lost when magazines with topless athletes come out but really they are screwing with the Olympics themselves. No-one asked for the games to be commercialised and the grounds to suddenly become the most lavish expensive fireworks show ever, sure it costs money to do but it could have been cheaper - what it amounts to is would you rather have the super-tastic Olympics with no expense spared but with fascist security guards enforcing dress code or would you rather have a simpler less expensive games where it really is about the games and not coke? Its not their property to sell off. The people wernt given any say, and i really cant help thinking that someone is making a hell of a lot of money off this.

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  24. What about some google-bombing ... by foobsr · · Score: 4, Funny

    ..., e.g. Olympics ???

    Not that I drink a lot of any CSD, but ...+

    CC.

    --
    TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    1. Re:What about some google-bombing ... by foobsr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They did not say a word about using the plural.

      1. What are the Olympic trademarks?

      The Olympic trademarks protected by statute (36 U.S.C. 220506(c)) include: the name "UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE"; the symbol of the International Olympic Committee, consisting of five interlocking rings; the words "Olympic, " "Olympiad" and "Citius Altius Fortius," and also the words "Paralympic," "Paralympiad," "Pan-American" and "America Espirito Sport Fraternite," or any combination of these words; the emblem of the United States Olympic Committee, consisting of an escutcheon having a blue chief and vertically extending red and white bars on the base with five interlocking rings displayed on the chief; and the symbols of the International Paralympic Committee and the Pan-American Sports Organization, consisting of a torch surrounded by concentric rings.

      loc. cit.

      And later on, they even grant permission ...

      4. Are there exceptions to these rights?
      The word Olympic may be used, without sanction, to identify a business or goods or services if:
      1. such use is not combined with any of the Olympic trademarks

      Pepsi obviously is not an Olympic trademark :)

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
  25. Remember the boycotted Games? by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So, it being a private enterprise, the IOC could deny you for any reason, even taboo ones (race, nationality.)

    And face boycotts like those of the early 1980s.

  26. Olympics "mon deriere" by irf · · Score: 3, Interesting

    maybe it's high time that the Olympics should be dumped. it has lost all it's meaning, it's all about blood sucking these days. the athletes and the public are the ones whose blood is been sucked. over the years my interest in this event is dwindling, to the point where i do not have the stomach to watch any of the events in the current one. is there an Olympic? well i couldn't care less. sorry if any one was offended.

  27. The Good Old Days by U96 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm not totally sure I get all the bitching and whining about the "spirit" of the games. The olympic games are thought to have evolved from greek funeral games, which were athletic competitions put on by the wealthy to honour the passing of a (rich) relative. The more money thrown at the games and the athletes, the more athletes were attracted, and the better the fame and glory attributed to the athletes and to the beloved (rich) dead. In other words, if you were rich, and you wanted a memorial for your loved one, you bought some advertising. As far as I can tell, it's always been about money, fame, and advertising from the start. How is this really that different from today?

    --

    "I thought they were the dominant species..."
  28. Restriction madness - from the POV of a Greek by avel599 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is nothing new to us Greeks who watch the whole thing closely here in Athens.

    Friends of mine who work at Olympic-related services are not allowed to bring to work a bag of food that has the name of a rival company of McDonalds. They are instructed by security officers to use simple white bags without these logos!

    People who go at the games are not allowed to bring cell phones or coins with them, for the sake of "safety". Also they are not allowed to wear something that bears a trademark of a company that is a competitor to the official sponsors.

    All the non-olympic-sponsors ads at the Metro have been taken off. Similarly for ads on important roads and avenues, especially the ones where there are venues such as the Marathon and the street cycling.

    Yes, it's crazy alright, together with the whole story about the linking policy to the Athens 2004 Web site which was mentioned in a previous story, which reminded me of something that happened sometime a year ago. Some kids in an hi-school made a web site about the Olympics. Their mistake? They used the official "Athens 2004(TM)" logo, which the Organizing Committee had said that they will "defend" it at all costs. Well, they took those kids' web site down, because of unauthorized trademark use.

    "Olympic Spirit...

    However, let me add that the atmosphere here in Athens is FWIW pretty damn good. Even though most of the people are on vacation, as it happens in every August in this city, (and because of that the traffic is very light and it takes me 15' - 20' to get to work instead of the ususal 30'-45'), the happenings in every corner of the city, the visitors of every nation and culture, and the games themselves give the city a very nice atmosphere. Together with all the road works and all that have finally finished, it feels like a much better and humane city... even though we are going to pay for it for a lot of years to come... :-|

  29. Protest by going naked! by Chemisor · · Score: 2, Funny

    > if you wear something like an Adidas shirt for
    > example, and Nike is a sponsor and Adidas is not,
    > they will confiscate it. Frankly, I would flat out refuse.

    Don't! Just give them the rest of your clothes too. If you are not allowed to wear clothes made by Adidas, why should you be allowed to wear clothes you got at the Old Navy, or Target, or Salvation Army? Those companies probably did not contribute to the Olympics either. The only safe way is going in your birthday suit, which is the only thing truly your own (for now).

    1. Re:Protest by going naked! by sadler121 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Slighty OT, but with the first Oylampics in ancient greece that is exactly how the athletes would compete, in the nude.

      I can just imagine the Christian Fundumentalists in America getting in an uproar if that tradition was continued on today.

  30. That's what you get for being a walking billboard by wired_parrot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, if you're stupid enough to pay to be a walking billboard for a corporation I say let 'em confiscate your expensive $150 corporate logo shirt. The confiscated shirts, hats, shoes and other floating billboard paraphernalia could be donated to the underpaid sweatshop workers who made them for a few cents an hour.

    But I think they should apply the policy equally: confiscate walking-billboard clothing from official sponsors as well. I'm sure if they keep up this policy for future olympics, spectators will be abandoning branded clothing very quickly

  31. Advertising Terrorism? Not found in articles! by lorcha · · Score: 4, Informative
    I think paragon_au was just trying to get a little attention with that Advertising Terrorism bit. I grepped for "terror" in all the linked articles and did not find it. So where did you come up with that?

    Methinks paragon_au just put that in there to get a rise out of knee-jerk, I didn't RTFA slashdotters. No one "official" ever used the term Advertising Terrorism.

    --
    "Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
  32. Re:Er, who'd want to wear that crap anyways by green1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    what I always find amazing is that people PAY to wear advertising for companies... you pay good money to wear a nike ballcap or adidas shirt or whatever... if it's plastered in advertising, why aren't they paying you to wear it?

    The only advertising I wear is for non-profit groups I volunteer with, or in some cases a list of sponsors on the back of a shirt from an event I worked, where the shirt was free. I never have seen why I should pay someone to advertise for them.

  33. Re:Name game by whovian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder how Olympic Paints gets away with it.

    --
    To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
  34. when at the Olympics, don't forget your stupidity by wardk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Cause it's the official operating policy of the Olympic games

    When Seattle was looking into the Olympics it became know that many business would be "forced" to give up their name due to the use of Olympic. We've got a fucking Olympic Mountain Range these are named after. But no less, they would be forced to change, by local and state gov't edict.

    We never got far enough along to determine if the mountain range would have to be renamed, perhaps they would just blot it out when doing panarama's of Seattle, sounds like it would be considered a terrorist mountainrange.

    I supect a few well placed bribes could have mitigated the situation, perhaps a few IOC kids could get free rides to the UW.

    perhaps it's time for the olympics to die again for a thousand or so years.

  35. Oh, the irony... by stubear · · Score: 2, Funny

    Typical day on /.:

    "Hey, keep your damn ads off the web."
    "Damn corporations are everywhere. Get the hell out of here, kill them all."
    "What right do corporations have to commercial speech?"

    ---------------------
    For one day only on /.:

    "Hey, what right does the IOC have infringing the rights of coroprations to freely advertise?"

    Am I the only one who sees the irony here?

    1. Re:Oh, the irony... by agurkan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I assume this is a joke, but in case some people take it seriously, I'll reply seriously. The point is, most of the actions like bringing your favourite beverage, or wearing a shirt you already own is not advertisement by the beverage company or the shirts manufacturer. The homogonization attempts are scary and sets a dangerous precedent.
      BTW, I don't buy "if you don't like the rules don't go to venues" response. This is an event that happens once every four years, in a single place in the world. What should I do if I want to see the best athletes, other than giving in?
      The consistency of /. response is also supported by that the choices athletes have against IOC is comparable to choices artists have against RIAA.

      --
      ato
  36. the truly rebellious among us by WormholeFiend · · Score: 2, Interesting

    will want to attend these types of events with t-shirts bearing only one letter, and arrange themselves linearly according to whatever they want to say.

  37. Large crowds? by PatHMV · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe all the stadiums are empty because all the spectators were turned away for wearing Polo(TM) shirts?

    I mean, really. As a more-or-less private entity, the IOC cand do whatever it wants in terms of allowing people into venues, etc. But they have turned the whole spectacle into little more than a giant advertising venue, and that has made me lose interest in the whole deal. I saw it really start to go wrong back with the flap over whether some of the original US Dream Team could wear Reebok clothes (who sponsored those athletes) or would be forced to wear Nike jumpsuits (who sponsored the Olympics). The more the IOC does this, the fewer people will be willing to turn out and attend.

  38. The modern Olympics are corporate bullshit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ....covered with a a thin veneer of flag-waving, bless-my-country-and-fuck-yours nationalism.

    To me, there was no way they could ever get worse-- until they decided to split up the summer and winter games. Now, I get angry about practically everything else on the planet taking a backseat to this charade every other year, instead of every four years-- and each time, the Olympics as a whole become even more of a farce than the previous time. I honestly don't know how they manage to outdo themselves, but they do.

    The one thing that has made me smile this year, though, is the stellar performance of USA Basketball-- multimillion-dollar crybabies getting their asses handed to them by teams from countries where "stuff scratched out of the dirt" is considered a food group. I don't watch the games, but I can't miss the headlines about it as I scan the paper for Legitimate News.

  39. Ah... by alexandre · · Score: 2, Funny

    the olympics, that great world symbol of peace and ... capitalism! :)

  40. Re:Is Apple a sponsor? by Frankie70 · · Score: 2, Funny

    After reading the Subject of your post, I thought maybe Oranges or Bananas are in list of
    forbidden items & hence the question.

  41. Hear hear! by snarkasaurus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Finally, a realistic response! Whose event is it? The IOC's! Who gets to decide which advertising contract to sign? They do!

    Did they -have- to offer the current Gestapo-esque logo placement to Coke? No! They could have said "Piss off, its a free country and the athletes can have Pepsi on the field if they want."

    That they did not do that should tell you a great deal about the IOC and the people who run it. In fact they probably suggested it to Coke, not the other way around.

    Coke is an American company. Does Coke really want to be associated with police state tactics, particularly at the Olympics? I think not.

    As far as the IOC is concerned the athletes have no rights. They exist for the sole purpose of enriching the IOC and its contituent gratuity seeking, slime mold apparatchiks. These people don't walk, they glide on an extruded layer of mucous.

    What political system is that kind of thing most closely identified with? Give you a hint, it starts with an "S", ends with "ocialism".

    I bet the North Korean and Chinese teams feel right at home.

  42. Politico-Corporate Lapdogs by Kaiwen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The IOC doesn't restrict its censorship to corporate interests -- it also meddles in the political sphere. Amidst all the flag-waving you see going on -- US flags, Russian flags, Greek flags, Chinese flags, flags from every country with representatives in the games -- there is one flag you WON'T see -- Taiwan's. Why? Because it makes Beijing unhappy. At the Atlanta games -- smack in the middle of the "Land of the Free" -- three friends of mine were removed for displaying a Taiwanese flag at an event in which Taiwanese athletes were competing. This year, while watching, for example, the archery competition (the only event in which Taiwan medaled), Taiwanese spectators were waving IOC-issued flags to replace the Taiwanese flags they had brought. The IOC is not merely a corporate puppet -- it's a political lackey as well. Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan

  43. Some "advertising terrorism" still gets through by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Informative

    As some of you already know, recently an online casino, GoldenPalace.com, put up money to fund the da Vinci project's X-Prize attempt. The project is now known as "The Golden Palace.Com Space Program". It seems that a couple days ago, GoldenPalace.com had some more publicity, with a man in a tutu, with "Golden Palace.com" written across his chest, jumping into the pool during an Olympic diving final.

    BBC article link.

  44. The IOC is a dinosaur. by Samurai+Cat! · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is just the latest moronic move made by the IOC and/or the individual city Olympic committees.

    I remember, in the roll-up to the '96 games in Atlanta (where I used to live), the local OC started going after companies that had the word "olympic" in the name. The best one was a car garage that had been around for decades - I forget the entire name but the main word in the garage's name was "Olympic". Absolutely nothing to do with sports - it was a repair shop! - but they were jacked over and (IIRC) forced to change the name they'd done business under for years - about as long as the head of the local OC had been *alive*.

    Yaaaaaaaayyyy, CAPITALISM! :/

    --

    "People" using "unnecessary" quotes should be "shot".
  45. You need to work on your Googleskills, grasshopper by Eevee · · Score: 2, Informative

    Using "Coke day" "Pepsi shirt" school gives you a page full of relevant results.

  46. Re:would have been funny if.... by the_weasel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We did something similar. This was about 15 years ago in Northern Ontario. During a heat wave, myself and several of the other male students came to school wearing shorts. This was strictly against dress code - but the temperature was 32 celsuis at 9:00 am and the school had no A/C. I was damned if I was going to wear long pants to class in that weather.

    The bunch of use got sent home on a 1 day suspension 30 minutes after we arrived in homeroom. We were told not to even bother trying to come back in shorts.

    The group of us got together that evening to discuss our options. We had requested hard copy of the dress code, and examined it closely. That's when we realized. The exact line was "Skirts and dresses are permitted provided they do not rise higher than 1" above the knee, and that they are not revealing in an unsatisfactory manner.

    There was nothing in the dress code that said we couldn't wear a dress. It didn't even specify women.

    So we came back in dresses, and skirts. On day 1 there were 7 of us, and every single last one of us were sent home again, this time with a 3 day suspension.

    We showed up the next day anyway, to protest from the sidewalk, and it turned out that we were not alone. Another 15 students wore dresses or skirts. Maybe another 5 wore kilts.

    Over the next week it grew from there - we were not allowed on school property - but as the police informed the principal, since we already suspended, we were not truant, and therefore there was no law that could prevent us from protesting from the sidewalk if our parents didn't object.

    They most certainly didn't.

    The media didn't take long to get thier hands on the story of 100+ male students in dresses protesting outside a major downtown highschool. The third day was a circus - CBC, MCTV and all the local papers had shown up to cover the protest.

    It still took the principal and school board almost a week and half to capitulate. At this point students from other schools had taken to wearing dresses as a sign of support, parents were writing letters by the dozens (for and against) to the school board, and our numbers had swollen to more than 200 men, plus a few girls who wore shorts to get themselves expelled as well.

    It was one of the most effective forms of protest I have ever been involved in. It worked because we used a spectacle to obtain attention (men in dresses) - because we were non-violent and polite, and because we were able to highlight a particularily absurd aspect of the dress code.

    Just a story I thought I would share.

    --
    - sarcasm is just one more service we offer -
  47. Re:Your homeland is not recognized as a country. by Ensign+Nemo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What if I wanted to wave a flag with a big yellow smiley face on it? I bet you it would be allowed. Why the hell then restrict the Taiwanese flag?

    Last I knew the flag didn't have to be a national flag.

  48. Who the fuck are they targeting? by syberanarchy · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's a problem that the IOC is actually ejecting ticketholders for simply "partnering" with the wrong company.

    However, it's a bigger problem that monoliths can actually look at dropping millions for product placement as a good investment.

    Stories like this make me feel like I'm living in a fucking loony box, and the inmates have taken over - who the fuck really eats at MCD's because of this "I'm lovin it" shit? Who the hell really felt a little tingle up their spine when they saw the "our best is serving the world's best" ads? If you raised your hand, please, shoot yourself.

    The most amazing thing about advertising is that it actually works. I didn't buy an ipod because 50 Cent had one in one of his shitty videos. I bought an ipod because of the word of mouth endorsements from *gasp* private individuals.

    Likewise, I'd like to know how many people are really going to buy Nike, now that they are the "official" sponsors. It's not like the horde of 10 year olds that wanted Air Jordans because MJ had em. I, for one, couldn't give a flying fuck what Michelle Kwan wears. It's not that "consumers are confused" as to who the Olympic bribe...er..."sponsors" are, it's that they simply don't give a shit.

    In the end, the joke is on the corporations - at least, on the apparel side of things. I couldn't care less about athletes, but I can at least name the more prominent ones. I know who Kobe Bryant is, I know who A-Rod is, I know who Michael Vick is. I would suggest that the average person, the type of mindless fuck who would buy something based on what he/she saw on TV, can't name 10 Olympians. I can name Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding for all the wrong reasons. I can name Michelle Kwan because she was the Asian eye candy of choice elevated by the powers-that-be. I can name Kurt Angle because of his WWE deal.

    Now, here's an even bigger challenge for the average person - name 10 Olympians involved with THIS Olympiad. The average person can't. That kind of hurts MJ-style endorsement deals, based upon the will to emulate the athlete, when you don't even know who the fuck the athlete is!

    Still, it's disgusting to know that even one person has changed their preference from Burger King to MCD's, based upon the Olympic marketing. It's sad that someone, somewhere, will go out of their way to buy Coke instead of Pepsi, because "that's what the Olympic people drink!"

    It's all around us - the Nvidia/ATI scams. The Coke "real" commercials that imply you'll get teased by a hot beachcomber chick if you only drink their carbonated voodoo potions. The entirety of the fucking Superbowl. It's getting to a point where there is no more "product," only advertising. It's already gotten to a point where they are actually advertising for advertising! Don't buy it? Think of this - MTV's business model is based upon advertising both products and new "stars," who then advertise new "products" to make the majority of their livelyhood. MTV advertises Britney Spears, Britney advertises Pepsi, Pepsi advertises their tie-in deal-of-the-week; it's a never ending cycle of madness, and it's baffling how anyone ever makes any money!

  49. Re:Your homeland is not recognized as a country. by slash.dt · · Score: 4, Insightful
    but Taiwan is not a country recognized internationally.

    It's recognised enough to be allowed to compete as a separate country.

    Consistency is important. If you let Taiwan compete, it shoudl be able to use its flag. If you don't recognise it as a country, don't let it compete as one.

  50. Re:Your homeland is not recognized as a country. by kilrogg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Your argument is extremely weak. In Canada we have provinces and sometimes you'll see some of our provincial flags being waved around a Olympic events. I would be quite offended if the IOC forcibly removed someone for displaying one of our provincial flags. Why should it be any different for someone from a pseudo-country like Taiwan? If Kaiwen is right about this policy, then this is indeed quite disturbing behaviour by the IOC.

  51. Re:Your homeland is not recognized as a country. by cammoblammo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Kathy Freeman carried an Australian Aboriginal flag when she won the 400 m sprint at the Commonwealth Games in 1998. She was threatened with all sorts of things if she did it again, but she told all the powers that be to get stuffed. She impressed the said powers so much that she was chosen to light the cauldron at the Olympics.

    And then she won the 400 in Sydney, and did it again. Most Australians regard her as a hero. Telling the powers that be to get stuffed is a great Australian tradition.

    --

    Cogito, ergo sig.

  52. Re:Your homeland is not recognized as a country. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Telling the powers that be to get stuffed is a great Australian tradition.

    Disagreeing with the powers that be was what got a lot of them there in the first place. :P

  53. I am sick of this.... by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We have idly sat by watching our teams venues get renamed for companies. We have 3Com Park, Nationwide Arena, PNC Park, Heinz Field, USAir Arena...anyone remember when our teams played in the Igloo, Thre Rivers Stadium, Riverfront Stadium, Candlestick Park....names that had meaning. Now if the team doesn't like the renewal deal, then they will rename the park after the next company willing to lay the bucks down to name the stadium. It's sick and I am getting tired of it...

    In NASCAR, the drivers hare knocking down and blocking bottles set on top of the car that belong to the race sponser because one of their associate sponsers is Coke. Knocking down Tropicana bottles and etc. Their car's are emblazoned with logos and sometimes they get special paint schemes for one race deals and the like. NASCAR itself has a official hotel, a official drink, a official fuel and I am sure a official water. When does it stop?

    Clean venues should be against the law as they restrict freedom. Freedom to wear whatever logo you'd like. To bring in a pepsi if you don't like coke. To let the athelete's drink whatever drink they want. The Olympics used to be one of the few events we have now where the athlete's did not care about what water they were drinking or whatever. I think one thing I would like right now is a list of these sponsers so I know who's stuff not to drink for this infraction on anyone's freedoms. Maybe this policy may be why the olympic venue's are not selling out.

    Itg is even bad at the local levels now....where I work, when I started 10 years ago, they had pepsi AND coke in the cafeteria. Now, their's only pepsi on campus. Pepsi is our official drink. Well piss on that...I bring in what I want...water or tea.

    --

    Gorkman

  54. Advertising Terrorism! by prezkennedy.org · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I guess this logo I made is even more fitting after reading this story.

    --
    It started back in Team Fortress Classic
  55. Re:Your homeland is not recognized as a country. by Kaiwen · · Score: 2, Informative
    If Kaiwen is right about this policy, then this is indeed quite disturbing behaviour by the IOC.

    http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/archives/2002/02/1 5/0000124045

    The above link is to an article describing incidents of Beijing officials pestering US citizens during the SLC Winter Games two years ago over display of the Taiwanese flag on private property, as well as the incident I mentioned earlier involving some friends who were detained in Atlanta for attempting to wear T-shirts bearing the Taiwanese flag at an Olympic event. From the article:

    "This business goes back to the Atlanta Summer Games [in 1986] when a few Taiwanese students went to the Games sporting shirts that bore the national flag. They were stopped and were told to remove or reverse the shirts. They refused and I believe they were arrested," [Team Taiwan spokesman Sam] Huang said.

    Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan