End this brand protection stupidity

Now that the London Olympics are over, isn't it time to review some of the ridiculous and heavy handed tactics relating to advertising and 'brand protection'.

Of course a sponsor who sinks millions of dollars into supporting a major sporting attraction does not want to see its main competitor getting a look-in for free. Of course genuine 'ambush marketing' has to be prevented for the good of the advertiser and the reputation of the organisers of the event who struck the deal in the first place.

But some of the lengths to which organisers go in their enforcement of branding restrictions are just plain stupid and verge on harassment. The latest Olympics have produced the usual crop, but there are instances that date back to the Sydney Olympics and even before.

Take the example of the corner Olympic Cafe. The Greek owner had proudly named his establishment some 25 years previously, but suddenly found that he was in contravention of legally enforceable branding restrictions and was ordered to remove the sign. After negotiations it was finally agreed that he only had to obliterate the 'O' of Olympic for the games period.

A group of ticket-holding football supporters were told they could not enter a stadium because they were wearing shorts that sported a rival brand to the sponsor of the tournament. They were finally allowed to watch the game in their underpants.

Pimms, a long-standing and beloved English liqueur, which is as much a part of the annual Wimbledon tennis championships as strawberries and cream, had to be renamed 'No 1 Cup' for the Olympic tournament because it was not a sponsor. Pimms did not want to put up signs or claim that it was in any way supporting the competition, it simply wanted to be on the drinks menu as it had always been. The organisers were firm in banning the P word.

The Goodyear Blimp became simply the blimp during the Olympics and journalists who turned up at the Games with Dell and Apple computers had to have the logos of these non-Olympic sponsors taped over.

The Australian team - who else - breached the blockade by smuggling in Kangaroo Condoms - for the gland down under - manufactured by Ansell, a rival of the official condom supplier (yes they even have one of those) to the London Olympics.

This last example is a healthy reaction to the over-zealous attitude to brand protection. Event organisers may claim that  advertisers demand exclusivity, but this should not be at the expense of individuals' freedoms to wear what they like (providing this does not contravene other laws relating to obscenity and racism), buy computers that they like, or drink their favourite tipple.

In the end, advertisers need the Olympic Games, the World Cup football finals and a host of other major events around the world. If they didn't they would not support them and the problem would not arise.