Brands ban at Olympic torch event 'ridiculous' say traders (From Bicester Advertiser)
When It Happens Panel Get involved: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting 'OXFORD NEWS' to 80360 or email
Brands ban at Olympic torch event 'ridiculous' say traders
9:00am Thursday 17th May 2012 in News
By Amanda Williams
Aziz Ur-Rahman at his Cowley Road restaurant
WHEN it was announced the Olympic Torch would pass through Oxford, it was hoped the city would see a huge boost in business.
But traders hoping to make the most of a costly pitch at the official South Park event have accused organisers of squeezing the life out of it. According to stringent rules, anyone with a stall – which cost up to £1,050 – at the event on July 9 will have to cover up any names or branding promoting their product.
The rules, set out by the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Game (LOCOG), state that: “Traders who are food vendors must cover up or have no visible brand names, logos or trademarks on display while trading at the event.
“This includes (but is not limited to) the trader’s stall, vehicle, signage and all related equipment.
“Food products should be sold in non-branded packaging.”
Traders can also only sell soft drinks that are sold exclusively from the Coca-Cola product range, including bottled water, and are banned from ‘promotional or marketing activity’ that claim an association with the Olympic Torch Relay or Games.
Oxford City Council said the restrictions on the Olympic Torch Relay Celebration – which runs from 3.30pm to 10.30pm – would be lifted from 7.30pm when LOCOG had gone.
A spokesman said: “We have to adhere to the LOCOG guidelines, which state the use of the Olympic rings, the London 2012 logo, the Olympic and Paralympic emblems and the word Olympic is restricted.
“We also have to adhere to their guidelines, which prohibits our stallholders from advertising within the LOCOG event.”
The rules were last night labelled ridiculous by traders.
Graham Jones, spokesman for the ROX traders’ association, said LOCOG’s regulations would leave the event ‘colourless’.
He said: “The point of having this kind of event around the country is so that you can get a flavour of the local area – something that says ‘this is Oxford’.
“This is like a cleansing exercise. It will leave the event blank.”
Aziz Ur-Rahman, who runs Aziz restaurant in Cowley Road, said: “It is ridiculous. I was thinking about having a stall but it seems pointless.”
Clinton Pugh, who owns Cafe Coco in St Clements, said: “I don’t know whether I will apply for a stall. The rules are absolutely ridiculous.”
But Max Mason, who founded the Big Bang restaurant in Jericho, said he did not see anything wrong with the rules.
Mr Mason, who was also picked to work as a diplomatic assistant during the Olympics after volunteering, said: “Maybe this is a bit ‘Big Society’ of me but I would just be proud to be involved.
“It wouldn’t be a marketing opportunity for me.”
City council leader Bob Price said: “The degree of detail does seem to be over the top. There’s no way you can police it to that level.
“From the council’s point of view we obviously hope that the event will be a great success and that local businesses will benefit from it “We just hope that the LOCOG people around are somewhat more lenient about what are quite stringent and restrictive rules.”
There are more than 44 sponsors of the Olympics, including Coca Cola, McDonalds, Deloitte and BMW, who have contributed more than £2bn.
A London 2012 spokesman said without sponsors the Games wouldn't happen.
He said: “They provide funding, products, services and expertise to help us stage the Games and with that have purchased exclusivity in their sector.
“We therefore ask suppliers who we pay for their products or services not to market their association with London 2012.”
Comments(57)
zho
says...
9:28am Thu 17 May 12
Pathetic.
icba1957
says...
9:33am Thu 17 May 12
Then we can all but our BMWs in peace.
Dilligaf2010
says...
9:50am Thu 17 May 12
The Olympics are meant to be for everybody, and people shouldn't have to bow to pressure from a huge conglomerate, especially an American one, sponsoring the "British" Olympics.
snert
says...
9:56am Thu 17 May 12
"...WHEN it was announced the Olympic Torch would pass through Oxford, it was hoped the city would see a huge boost in business..." - I found this statement puzzling really. Just how "huge" do they think it will be? I don't know anyone yet that is thinking 'ooh the torch is coming through here. Let's go buy stuff.'
It's a sporting event that is turning into a marketing frenzy. I can't turn the tv on these days without seeing an advert ending with "proud sponsors of London 2012". None of this makes me want to purchase one product over another so what is the benefit of this? Does anyone seriously consider their purchase based on whether the company is a sponsor of the Olympics or not? Maybe I'm missing something here...
I used to look forward to the Olympics as it was quite a spectacle to watch the opening ceremony and then see the world's elite sportsmen and sportswomen competing for the ultimate title. Now that marketing has got its claws stuck into it, it feels like a horse being flogged and from my perspective it is close to the point of being an ex-horse.
By the time the games turns up on the tv I shall be so bored senseless of hearing about it. Saying that as soon as it's over no doubt we shall start seeing Christmas adverts on the tv.
snert
says...
10:00am Thu 17 May 12
Dilligaf2010 wrote:Absolutely! I agree with that. If eeveryone ignored them they wouldn't be able to prosecute everyone.
I would suggest all traders flout the restrictions, if LOCOG don't like it they can route the torch somewhere else.
The Olympics are meant to be for everybody, and people shouldn't have to bow to pressure from a huge conglomerate, especially an American one, sponsoring the "British" Olympics.
Lady Penelopee
says...
12:45pm Thu 17 May 12
It's the BRITISH olympics, so we should be promoting BRITISH products, not American junk!
Andrew:Oxford
says...
1:27pm Thu 17 May 12
sparky123456
says...
1:55pm Thu 17 May 12
LORD PETER MACVEY 0X2 6EG
says...
3:35pm Thu 17 May 12
Lady Penelopee wrote:The problem is the lovely Penny, being that BRITISH companies did not bid enough for the sponsor ship. These exclusive deals now cover all major sporting events, and The olympics are no different. Now if only amateurs were allowed to take part then I may agree with the above posters, but The Olympics are now no different than the World Cup with multi-millionaire athletes taking part. Sad, but it is the world in which we live. P.S. Drinking water will be free from various fountains placed around the Stadium to fill your own (unbranded) container.
I'd encourage all traders to ignore the restrictions.
It's the BRITISH olympics, so we should be promoting BRITISH products, not American junk!
Severian
says...
5:13pm Thu 17 May 12
Dilligaf2010 wrote:I think you will find that flouting the restrictions is actually ILLEGAL - the government passed a law to this effect last year. You will be prosecuted and given a criminal conviction for selling non-Coke products at this event.
I would suggest all traders flout the restrictions, if LOCOG don't like it they can route the torch somewhere else. The Olympics are meant to be for everybody, and people shouldn't have to bow to pressure from a huge conglomerate, especially an American one, sponsoring the "British" Olympics.
I suggest that everyone protest in the most effective way - by boycotting all olympic events.
Dilligaf2010
says...
5:37pm Thu 17 May 12
Severian wrote:So Coke is OK, that'll make the athletes happy ;)
Dilligaf2010 wrote:I think you will find that flouting the restrictions is actually ILLEGAL - the government passed a law to this effect last year. You will be prosecuted and given a criminal conviction for selling non-Coke products at this event.
I would suggest all traders flout the restrictions, if LOCOG don't like it they can route the torch somewhere else. The Olympics are meant to be for everybody, and people shouldn't have to bow to pressure from a huge conglomerate, especially an American one, sponsoring the "British" Olympics.
I suggest that everyone protest in the most effective way - by boycotting all olympic events.
Feelingsmatter
says...
6:02pm Thu 17 May 12
Andrew:Oxford
says...
6:11pm Thu 17 May 12
Severian wrote:It'll be interesting when it rains (which is pretty much undoubted).
Dilligaf2010 wrote:I think you will find that flouting the restrictions is actually ILLEGAL - the government passed a law to this effect last year. You will be prosecuted and given a criminal conviction for selling non-Coke products at this event.
I would suggest all traders flout the restrictions, if LOCOG don't like it they can route the torch somewhere else. The Olympics are meant to be for everybody, and people shouldn't have to bow to pressure from a huge conglomerate, especially an American one, sponsoring the "British" Olympics.
I suggest that everyone protest in the most effective way - by boycotting all olympic events.
Out'll come the hundreds of inappropriately branded umbrellas at these events.
Even the co-ordinators will be baffled.
For example, which of these set pairs could get you a criminal record?
McDonalds or MacDonalds
Lloyds TSB or Lloyds TSB Scotland
Royal Bank of Scotland or Bank of Scotland
ATOC or Atos
2012 or MMXII
DoctorBob
says...
8:59pm Thu 17 May 12
I'm no fan of advertising full stop but if you accept the Capitalist model and even actively take part in it by having your own branding, copyright, marketing and other business practices then you are hardly in the best place to moan when others engaging in the same Capitalist enterprises outflank you.
@BigBangMax
says...
10:56pm Thu 17 May 12
Oxford_Al
says...
11:05pm Thu 17 May 12
Oxford_Al
says...
11:08pm Thu 17 May 12
they say the sponsers payed 2bn and the tax payers i guess they have no say
Porters United
says...
6:37am Fri 18 May 12
Porters United
says...
6:39am Fri 18 May 12
John Lamb
says...
9:41am Fri 18 May 12
These are the the joys of capitalism. You embrace them when it suits you.
OxfordResident
says...
9:43am Fri 18 May 12
DoctorBob wrote:The problem is that its not for free. They have to pay to operate a stall at the event, and for that they are not allowed to have any sort of identity. This means even more expense, even if the stall-holder already has takeaway packaging, they have to invest in new plain packaging (or more bizarrely, packaging with other companies logos on).
I wonder if Aziz would mind other businesses advertising in his restaurant for free?
I'm no fan of advertising full stop but if you accept the Capitalist model and even actively take part in it by having your own branding, copyright, marketing and other business practices then you are hardly in the best place to moan when others engaging in the same Capitalist enterprises outflank you.
andydg52
says...
10:29am Fri 18 May 12
Don't get involved, It's their loss.
LORD PETER MACVEY 0X2 6EG
says...
1:02am Sat 19 May 12
andydg52 wrote:exactly if they didnt think they would make money, then they wouldn't cough up the grand or so
One simple way around it.
Don't get involved, It's their loss.
Oflife
says...
1:08am Sat 19 May 12
cynicality
says...
7:14am Sat 19 May 12
OxfordResident wrote:Exactly, OxfordResident - this is small Oxford businesses being asked to pay a ridiculous amount of money to have a stall, and then not even being able to promote themselves....until after 7.30 pm, when most likely (if it's raining) everyone will have gone home...
DoctorBob wrote:The problem is that its not for free. They have to pay to operate a stall at the event, and for that they are not allowed to have any sort of identity. This means even more expense, even if the stall-holder already has takeaway packaging, they have to invest in new plain packaging (or more bizarrely, packaging with other companies logos on).
I wonder if Aziz would mind other businesses advertising in his restaurant for free?
I'm no fan of advertising full stop but if you accept the Capitalist model and even actively take part in it by having your own branding, copyright, marketing and other business practices then you are hardly in the best place to moan when others engaging in the same Capitalist enterprises outflank you.
steve1955
says...
11:02am Sat 19 May 12
A34North
says...
11:09am Sat 19 May 12
Dilligaf2010 wrote:Hello Dilly 'my friend'. Changed your tune a bit haven't you? Nice to see that you are backing the right for people to enjoy something in the sporting calendar rather than advocating disruption. Just one point though, I like your flag waving ''British'' point however, I think you will find it is the ''Olympics'' being staged in Britain. That is one big difference.
I would suggest all traders flout the restrictions, if LOCOG don't like it they can route the torch somewhere else.
The Olympics are meant to be for everybody, and people shouldn't have to bow to pressure from a huge conglomerate, especially an American one, sponsoring the "British" Olympics.
DoctorBob
says...
11:27am Sat 19 May 12
cynicality wrote:Are they forcing traders to be there? No. Then the answer is simple isn't it?
OxfordResident wrote:Exactly, OxfordResident - this is small Oxford businesses being asked to pay a ridiculous amount of money to have a stall, and then not even being able to promote themselves....until after 7.30 pm, when most likely (if it's raining) everyone will have gone home...
DoctorBob wrote:The problem is that its not for free. They have to pay to operate a stall at the event, and for that they are not allowed to have any sort of identity. This means even more expense, even if the stall-holder already has takeaway packaging, they have to invest in new plain packaging (or more bizarrely, packaging with other companies logos on).
I wonder if Aziz would mind other businesses advertising in his restaurant for free?
I'm no fan of advertising full stop but if you accept the Capitalist model and even actively take part in it by having your own branding, copyright, marketing and other business practices then you are hardly in the best place to moan when others engaging in the same Capitalist enterprises outflank you.
harwellian
says...
12:52pm Sat 19 May 12
DoctorBob
says...
1:17pm Sat 19 May 12
harwellian wrote:That's the wonderful world of Capitalism for you.
Doctor Bob, no traders are being forced to be there as you say, however the fact remains that it was seen as an opportunity to not only promote the Olympics, but also recognised as an event to boost local trade & business. The stalls are not cheap, and it is hardly helping the local economy if our local businesses can't even let their customers know who they are or where they normally trade from. Over £1000 is a lot to recover along with set up costs etc. before any possible gains in a one off situation, with no advantage of at least possible future revenue by promoting your products or services.
If these traders were allowed to advertise their brand on the back of another's major investment then no one would come forward with the major investment in the first place and these traders would be back exactly where they started as there would be no Olympic Games.
I don't find that difficult to understand and I'm a Socialist.
Interesting views from our arch Capitalists on here.
Vernon Spools
says...
2:43pm Sat 19 May 12
Dilligaf2010
says...
4:58pm Sat 19 May 12
A34North wrote:Notice I put British in inverted commas, there was a reason for that.
Dilligaf2010 wrote:Hello Dilly 'my friend'. Changed your tune a bit haven't you? Nice to see that you are backing the right for people to enjoy something in the sporting calendar rather than advocating disruption. Just one point though, I like your flag waving ''British'' point however, I think you will find it is the ''Olympics'' being staged in Britain. That is one big difference.
I would suggest all traders flout the restrictions, if LOCOG don't like it they can route the torch somewhere else.
The Olympics are meant to be for everybody, and people shouldn't have to bow to pressure from a huge conglomerate, especially an American one, sponsoring the "British" Olympics.
I'm not encouraging the enjoyment of anything in the sporting calendar, just suggesting that people stick their fingers up to the organisers, there's a difference.
A34North
says...
6:16pm Sat 19 May 12
Dilligaf2010 wrote:You're not fooling me or the readers Dilly 'my friend'. You have turned a new leaf and I am sure that I am not the only one who is pleased for you. Why I bet you will be stood clapping as the torch bearer passes by and no doubt you will be encouraging our athletes no matter what background they come from. Good on you Dilly.
A34North wrote:Notice I put British in inverted commas, there was a reason for that.
Dilligaf2010 wrote:Hello Dilly 'my friend'. Changed your tune a bit haven't you? Nice to see that you are backing the right for people to enjoy something in the sporting calendar rather than advocating disruption. Just one point though, I like your flag waving ''British'' point however, I think you will find it is the ''Olympics'' being staged in Britain. That is one big difference.
I would suggest all traders flout the restrictions, if LOCOG don't like it they can route the torch somewhere else.
The Olympics are meant to be for everybody, and people shouldn't have to bow to pressure from a huge conglomerate, especially an American one, sponsoring the "British" Olympics.
I'm not encouraging the enjoyment of anything in the sporting calendar, just suggesting that people stick their fingers up to the organisers, there's a difference.
DoctorBob
says...
6:33pm Sat 19 May 12
Vernon Spools wrote:There is a distinction between 'local communities' and for profit local businesses.
I think this is very sad, and a shame local communities aren't allowed to be brought together by the Olympics due to heavy handed restrictions. Although I can see that certain individuals could try to take over without the restrictions. It wouldn't be unthinkable of Cafe Coco placing banners everywhere and tables and chairs down the middle of London Road. I guess what we need is a sensible balance.
Dilligaf2010
says...
7:10pm Sat 19 May 12
A34North wrote:If the torch was coming past me I'd have a hosepipe at the ready, and I won't be watching the Olympics, or any sport, I gave my TV away 2 years ago, so you're wrong on all counts.
Dilligaf2010 wrote:You're not fooling me or the readers Dilly 'my friend'. You have turned a new leaf and I am sure that I am not the only one who is pleased for you. Why I bet you will be stood clapping as the torch bearer passes by and no doubt you will be encouraging our athletes no matter what background they come from. Good on you Dilly.
A34North wrote:Notice I put British in inverted commas, there was a reason for that.
Dilligaf2010 wrote:Hello Dilly 'my friend'. Changed your tune a bit haven't you? Nice to see that you are backing the right for people to enjoy something in the sporting calendar rather than advocating disruption. Just one point though, I like your flag waving ''British'' point however, I think you will find it is the ''Olympics'' being staged in Britain. That is one big difference.
I would suggest all traders flout the restrictions, if LOCOG don't like it they can route the torch somewhere else.
The Olympics are meant to be for everybody, and people shouldn't have to bow to pressure from a huge conglomerate, especially an American one, sponsoring the "British" Olympics.
I'm not encouraging the enjoyment of anything in the sporting calendar, just suggesting that people stick their fingers up to the organisers, there's a difference.
the wizard
says...
8:37pm Sat 19 May 12
Perhaps it should read,
London 2012 Rip Off,
in association with Rip Off Britain.
What a total farce and debacle for the average citizen of this once proud land.
First the ticket price fiasco, the then abomination of ticket allocation, the sponsorship should have been made compulsory UK home based firms etc only, instead we have the yanks and Uncle Tom Cobley and all muscling in on what should have been a UK event. Total fiasco, and as for the fast food, well, I'm shoving it.
I just do not see the point in the Torch doing its bit if local traders are not also going to be able to have freedom as they normally would. All we will be allowed to eat and drink is Yank rubbish. Total disgrace of epic proportions. Hang your head in shame Coe !!!!!! and will Double Dip Dave step in, well perhaps he should dictate to the Olympic committee like he does the rest, but then again, perhaps not, because even the Europeans don't listen to him either.
steve1955
says...
8:38pm Sat 19 May 12
Vernon Spools
says...
8:44pm Sat 19 May 12
DoctorBob
says...
8:47pm Sat 19 May 12
Traders have a choice to attend the event or not.
This is not a free event and as in all events those stumping up the money to put it on get to set the rules of attendance.
steve1955
says...
9:24pm Sat 19 May 12
the wizard
says...
9:43pm Sat 19 May 12
DoctorBob
says...
10:07pm Sat 19 May 12
steve1955 wrote:Read the report my dear friend, read the report and focus on the specifics of this story and this particular EVENT in South Park.
Not a free event ? i read it cost the country over 9 billion for this event that we were told was good for britain unless you know different DR BOB
I'm no economist but I'm prepared to hazard a guess that the potential financial benefit to this country from the Olympics may just outweigh the expenditure.
DoctorBob
says...
10:09pm Sat 19 May 12
How will I be able to look my children in the eye?
steve1955
says...
10:39pm Sat 19 May 12
This event is only happening because we the people are paying over 9 billion out if we didnot pay no event then?
Im sure you will agree 9 billion could have been better spent ,then all the arguments about THE event or events would not happen
DoctorBob
says...
11:08pm Sat 19 May 12
Vernon Spools
says...
7:21am Sun 20 May 12
Ignore the Olympics, 9 billion and the rest, this is just business. Don't take it personally.
A34North
says...
8:08am Sun 20 May 12
Dilligaf2010 wrote:One confused fellow Dilly. Your short term memory is very suspect. Enjoy the summer Dilly.
A34North wrote:If the torch was coming past me I'd have a hosepipe at the ready, and I won't be watching the Olympics, or any sport, I gave my TV away 2 years ago, so you're wrong on all counts.
Dilligaf2010 wrote:You're not fooling me or the readers Dilly 'my friend'. You have turned a new leaf and I am sure that I am not the only one who is pleased for you. Why I bet you will be stood clapping as the torch bearer passes by and no doubt you will be encouraging our athletes no matter what background they come from. Good on you Dilly.
A34North wrote:Notice I put British in inverted commas, there was a reason for that.
Dilligaf2010 wrote:Hello Dilly 'my friend'. Changed your tune a bit haven't you? Nice to see that you are backing the right for people to enjoy something in the sporting calendar rather than advocating disruption. Just one point though, I like your flag waving ''British'' point however, I think you will find it is the ''Olympics'' being staged in Britain. That is one big difference.
I would suggest all traders flout the restrictions, if LOCOG don't like it they can route the torch somewhere else.
The Olympics are meant to be for everybody, and people shouldn't have to bow to pressure from a huge conglomerate, especially an American one, sponsoring the "British" Olympics.
I'm not encouraging the enjoyment of anything in the sporting calendar, just suggesting that people stick their fingers up to the organisers, there's a difference.
Mick Heavey
says...
12:42pm Sun 20 May 12
Mick Heavey
says...
12:45pm Sun 20 May 12
virgotae73
says...
7:42pm Sun 20 May 12
LORD PETER MACVEY 0X2 6EG
says...
11:49am Mon 21 May 12
sparky123456
says...
3:56pm Mon 21 May 12
Dilligaf2010
says...
4:18pm Mon 21 May 12
LORD PETER MACVEY 0X2 6EG wrote:Oh Peter, you've just taken a step down in my book ;(
I don't get all the fuss, when I pay to go to the footy I can't take my (plastic, yuk) glass of wine to my seat, and when I pay to go to the Opera, I can't smoke in my seat, and if Aziz wants to pay to go to South Park then he can't take his branding to his stall. If you don't like the rules, don't go. Simples.
You pay to go to the Opera, if you want to hear people screaming unintelligible things at eat other, pop round for a coffee and listen to my, hopefully soon to be evicted, neighbours.
Unless of course the Opera concerned was a re-screening of Tommy.
LORD PETER MACVEY 0X2 6EG
says...
7:11pm Mon 21 May 12
sparky123456 wrote:Can't do it cola et-al didn't pay billions to be associated with some second rate business on Cowley Rd, but agree about the fags. P.S. Dilly it ain't me it's the missus she took to it after missing her Thai (goddam awful) classical music. It would be cheaper to take her to the Thai Orchid to listen, but she says it is Thai food for Falangs.
I think a couple of points are being missed here... firstly South Park is a council owned/operated park paid for by local residents taxes. Are the olympic commitee/sponsors paying to use the land? if not then I think it's wholey unreasonable for them to demand payments for pitches without sponsorship - pitches should be FREE if unbranded in order to attract custom. The sponsors can then peddle their rubbish and do business. If they must charge surely they can license their branding to the local businesses eg "Aziz in partnership with XXX" is that so unreasonable? The other fact I'm surprised nobody has picked up on is the nature of the sponsors - in one breath the government talk of a fat tax, increased taxes and bans on fatty, high cholestral foods. Yet Coca Cola, Mars, McDonalds are all major sponsors. Bit hypocritical isn't it? They kicked cigarette companies from sponsoring motorsport but it's fine to link Big Macs to athletics?!
Mick Heavey
says...
11:17pm Mon 21 May 12
Amio
says...
5:42pm Tue 12 Jun 12
Feelingsmatter says...
9:09am Thu 17 May 12
What a shame the Olympics has become a massive commercial con rather than the iconic, noble competition it used to be.