A View from PressPoint
Rethinking Rule 40 The Olympics is one of the most effective international marketing platforms in the world, reaching billions of people, but away from the limelight Olympic Charter’s Rule 40 is undermining the value of established UK equestrian sponsorships.
T
he run up to the Olympic Games ought to be filled with national pride, excitement for what’s to come and an opportunity to wish Team GB all the best, but Rule 40 is quite successfully taking the shine off. Between July 27 and August 24, otherwise known as the ‘Games Period’, advertisers have a blanket ban on using any information from Olympic competitors, including travelling reserves. The rule has been developed to protect the official Games sponsors, who are already limited in the amount of branding they can have on show in the stadiums – with only one small identifier for the team’s kit manufacturer allowed. Due to this, the bulk of the value of an Olympic sponsorship is created through association with the Games via advertising. Rule 40 gives official sponsors exclusive associations with the athletes during the Games Period but this is of no use to companies who have already
58 Equestrian August 2016 Business www.ebmonthly.co.uk
spent a lot of money in nonOlympic years supporting specific individuals. The limits imposed by Rule 40 are quite draconian in their nature, with bans on the usage of an athlete’s image, name or performance in any type of advertising including print, online and digital (social media and in mobile apps), broadcast, outdoor, as well as any personal appearances during the Games Period. As Rule 40 applies to the athlete, rather than the advertiser, breaking any of the guidelines can be seriously damaging. While sanctions are flexible, they can have terrible implications, including removal of accreditation for the Games and disqualification! Other than legal recourse against the athlete, the advertising campaign will inevitably need to be withdrawn, causing wasted costs and negative PR – huge risks for any brand. That said, the governing bodies
slackened the rules for London 2012 in recognition of the important role personal sponsors play in an athlete’s career! This relaxed ruling allowed athletes to appear in personal sponsor’s advertising subject to certain conditions. Since 2012, it seems the London legacy has lived on for not just athletes, but also brands, as now non-Olympic partners can use athletes in advertising in two scenarios: deemed consent and Rule 40 waiver. As a general rule, in order to qualify for deemed consent, an advertising campaign (featuring an athlete competing in the Games Period) must have commenced and been continuously marketed at least four months prior to the start of the Games Period. Nevertheless, this still carries an array of qualifying measures, most importantly the ban on creating an association with the Games, Team GB or the Olympic Movement. Understandably, the Olympic trademarks, motto and
rings (as well as the Rio 2016 marks) aren’t allowed to be used, but neither are using official hashtags or re-tweeting any Team GB or athletes posts! Add to this the restriction on referring to any athlete’s performance – including any congratulatory messaging – the whole idea of Rule 40 comes across as ridiculous! The changes that occurred for the London Olympics show that someone in the chain of command feels that Rule 40 is flawed, but how long will it be until the ruling is completely rethought? It’s all well and good acknowledging how beneficial long term sponsors have been throughout an athlete’s career, but what use is this when you can’t celebrate an Olympic medal with them? ‘Boo, hiss’, says PressPoint.
The Fine Print Rule 40 of the Olympic Charter states that: “Except as permitted by the IOC Executive Board, no competitor, team official or other team personnel who participates in the Olympic Games may allow his person, name, picture or sports performances to be used for advertising purposes during the Olympic Games.”