19 June 2012 - 3:09pm | posted by | 7 comments

Coke's chief marketer defends Olympic 2012 sponsors' crack down on marketing restrictions around Games

Coke's chief marketer defends Olympic 2012 sponsors' crack down on marketing restrictions around GamesCoke's chief marketer defends Olympic 2012 sponsors' crack down on

Coca-Cola’s chief marketer Joe Tripodi has defended the regulations being implemented by LOCOG around its marketing rights for the London 2012 Olympic Games.

Speaking at press session at the Cannes Festival of Creativity, Tripodi, executive vice president and chief marketing and commercial officer for Coca-Cola responded to The Drum’s question about criticism over his thoughts on the clampdown that LOCOG has begun on local retailers trying to cash in on the Olympics.

He highlighted the commitment by LOCOG to protect the rights of sponsors, who have paid ‘a ton of money’ for the rights, but also recognised that such infringements did happen.

“We certainly don’t want to see any of our large competitors ambush us in any way, but I don’t lose any sleep over small merchants doing those things. A lot of that is just driven by a lack of knowledge of what the rules are. But fundamentally we have a massive investment in that programme and the organising committee is dedicated to protecting the investment of the sponsors because without the sponsors, there’s no Olympic Games.”

He continued: “They feel that they really need to protect our rights and they’ve done a nice job. I know the press in GB can be a little harsh and cynical at times, but fundamentally it’s something that has to be done and it’s down to the way you do it, and I don’t think we’ve seen LOCOG giving me pause to say ‘we’ve got to talk to them in the spirit of the Olympics. Their enforcement is appropriate given the amount of money that the sponsors are putting in.”

Meanwhile, he also revealed that the company could roll out its Project Rebrief ‘Hilltop’ campaign across new markets next year and said that should another campaign be chosen for a similar revamp, then he would choose Coca-Cola’s ‘Mean Joe Green’ ad for such treatment, as that of Google’s current work.

Comments

19 Jun 2012 - 15:36
testl56348's picture

yeah, because there's nothing wrong with passing a new law that says compromising your marketing messages is a criminal offence punishable with jail time. Really, that's proportionate and not a massively authoritarian over-reaction at all.

0
0
19 Jun 2012 - 15:55
testl56348's picture

"without the sponsors, there’s no Olympic Games.”

Really? Just really? Funny, I don't remember seeing too many sponsorship logos in ancient Greek depictions of the games.

There might not be the overbearing corporate droolfest that we currently have though. That would obviously be terrible.

Imagine if a few people couldn't run in a circle, splash about in water and jump over sticks without a massive marketing hype machine supporting a criminally corrupt Olympic committee.

That would be terrible. Really really bad.

0
0
20 Jun 2012 - 23:28
mekom13069's picture

Oh yes, we can't throw convicted terrorists out of country for bombing us, as it's a breach of their human rights and we won't attempt change the rules. However we can suspend article 6.2 for the charter of human rights (the right to be presumed innocent until guilty) to allow the onus of proof to shift as in civil law. Christ, we are temporarily changing the core fundamentals of our judicial system for the likes of Macdonalds but...Shame on the brands, the games the mother of all commercial machines and the Government for selling our principles for cash.

0
0
20 Jun 2012 - 11:23
Diane.young@carnyx.com's picture
0
0
21 Jun 2012 - 13:14
Spottswoode's picture

If a local retailer can usurp your mega-bucks marketing spend with a wacky waving inflatable tube man then you really need to have a chat with your agency about how good your marketing is.

0
0
26 Jun 2012 - 12:04
Patrick C. Kavanagh's picture

Exactly Spottswoode! The fact they fear small local business shows how they are insecure with their own ability to compete.

It's similar to the case where Budweiser is looking to strip the name of Budweiser Budvar Brewery of České Budějovice or Budweis - the city name! They compete through litigation as they know 1,000's of middle mangers can't compete against someone with a little creativity and impetus. They are that scared and incompetent.

0
0
28 Jun 2012 - 12:18
stephen_lepitak's picture

Joe did say that he had no problem with small retailers jumping on board - his main cocern was rival brands attemping some abmush techniques. LOCOG has clamped down on pretty much anything and everything that could be seen as an infringement it would seem though.

0
0

Please sign in or register to comment on this article.

Latest Projects from the Profile Hub

Cobalt Place

27/11/2014
Digital strategy and fully integrated campaign for...

Arran Aromatics - 25th birthday in-store campaign

27/11/2014
On the strength of a successful eCommerce web build with...

Launch + Sponsorship + Rooster = Social Media Success!

26/11/2014
September 2014 saw Garuda Indonesia launch their new London...