Fleishman Hillard: The Political View

As we embark this week on the XXI Winter Olympic Games in Vancouver, anticipation of this celebration of sport, culture and international cooperation abounds in Canada and around the world.  Many of us, including myself, will be glued to our television sets and a few of us will even be lucky enough to be there in person.

There will no doubt be some controversy, as Aboriginal rights protesters, environmental activists and anti-poverty advocates appeal to the international media, making their case to the world.   In recent weeks and months, however, there have been a number of stories in the news concerning how far Vancouver’s Olympic Committee (VANOC), in partnership with the City of Vancouver, are willing to go to protect their trademark, image and reputation along with the rights of their corporate sponsors.

Most people in the public relations and sponsorship business will agree that the task has been a difficult one.  Corporations have paid millions of dollars to be an official sponsor and VANOC must be vigilant in ensuring the value of these relationships is not diminished by loose enforcement.  Moreover, VANOC’s efforts have not been made easier by having to operate in an age of digital creativity where sponsorship infringements are no longer limited to billboards and television ads, but have been exponentially increased by the likes of Youtube, Twitter, guerilla marketing and citizenship journalism – the last of which can make a small business’s Olympic spirit seem like a direct challenge to Coca-Cola.

Nevertheless, the past few month’s reports of potential legal battles over whether Vancouverites could erect  signs that did “not celebrate the Olympics” and memos suggesting public libraries cover-up non-Olympic branded A/V equipment have suggested that VANOC (as an extension of the International Olympic Committee), the City of Vancouver, and the people who work for them, may be going a little too far in exercising their rights as organizer and host.  Some have suggested that instead of protecting the Olympic symbol and what it represents, the Committee and City have turned into litigious bullies who are losing sight of the spirit of the Games and, moreover, Canada’s reputation for balancing the might of the law with the rights of its citizens. 

In fact, some have even argued this unhindered attachment to the rules has even spilled over onto the very athletes that the Olympics are all about.  For example, just this past week, athletes from Australia were asked to submit to some pretty strict house rules or face the consequences.  Recognizing the message it was sending, a resolution between the IOC/VANOC and the Australian team was quickly arrived at.

What is interesting from a business perspective is that it is not entirely clear how much sponsors have been a contributor to this overzealousness.  What is certain, however, is that a corporation must always be cautious in how it attaches its brand to an event where organizers could be perceived to be speaking on their behalf.  Whether it be challenges against Vancouver’s own Lululemon or VANOC’s explanation of the need to protect the Olympic brand from “ambush marketing”, when warnings are issued or legal suits filed, an event organizer’s actions can directly reflect on a sponsor’s brand as well, no matter how much a corporation chooses to keep its head down.  While some sponsors have been able to generate their own good news stories and steps have been made to correct mistakes by the likes of both VANOC and the City, one need not look further than VANOC’s online “brand infringement reporting forms” to get a sense of the extent the Olympic Committee is willing to go (i.e., enrolling members of the public to inform on any potential infringements) in order to protect the Olympic brand.

In a world where being right is perhaps no longer enough, VANOC, the City of Vancouver and the companies who sponsor the Olympics are likely to be in for a few more reminders in the coming weeks that what is being written and perceived by the public won’t just depend on whether a strong case can be made in a court of law.  Rather, in the court of public opinion – one which will inevitably take into account controversy over disrupted lives of local residents and small business operators whose livelihoods have been affected in the name of the Games – the eyes of the world will not only be watching a world class event, in a world class city, with world class brands attached to the Games.  This international audience will also have world class expectations of an organizing committee, city and sponsors that live up to the original spirit that has made the Olympics one of the greatest events on Earth.  For the sake of all the hard work that has gone into these Games and the good that comes from the sponsorship it attracts, let’s hope this point won’t be forgotten.