Aro
08-09-2004, 08:13 AM
From here ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1187120/posts) :
Strict regulations published by Athens 2004 last week dictate that spectators may be refused admission to events if they are carrying food or drinks made by companies that did not see fit to sponsor the games.
Sweltering sports fans who seek refuge from the soaring temperatures with a soft drink other than one made by Coca-Cola will be told to leave the banned refreshment at the gates or be shut out. High on the list of blacklisted beverages is Pepsi, but even the wrong bottle of water could land spectators in trouble.
Fans will be allowed into the Olympic complex if they are drinking Avra, a Greek mineral water owned by Coca-Cola, which paid $60m (about £32.6m) for the privilege of being one of the main sponsors. Officials are under orders not to let in rival brands’ bottles unless the labels are removed.
Staff will also be on the lookout for T-shirts, hats and bags displaying the unwelcome logos of non-sponsors. Stewards have been trained to detect people who may be wearing merchandise from the sponsors’ rivals in the hope of catching the eyes of television audiences. Those arousing suspicion will be required to wear their T-shirts inside out.
Is this behaviour in any way justified or even enforceable, in light of the number of people likely to be attending events? Will it be extended to cover clothing labels (say GAP, ADIDAS or NIKE) which could have prominent logos on display on many t-shirts or sweatshirts? How can they insist paying visitors only consume food and drinks from valid sponsors? IMHO, advertising rights afford the company a right to advertise, not to enforce effective monopolies which infringe on peoples right to choose.
Final quote, which I strongly agree with:
Kostas Giannis, a Greek sports fan, said: “I don’t see why, after all the money that Greek taxpayers will end up paying to host the games, McDonald’s should dictate what I can eat in my own city.”
Can anyone defend this policy, or at least explain it? Is this setting dangerous precedents, or is it old news in certain circles and events? I find it rather contemptible on first reading but would like to know if others find this type of agreement forged between host and sponsor acceptable or normal. Thanks for any comments.
Strict regulations published by Athens 2004 last week dictate that spectators may be refused admission to events if they are carrying food or drinks made by companies that did not see fit to sponsor the games.
Sweltering sports fans who seek refuge from the soaring temperatures with a soft drink other than one made by Coca-Cola will be told to leave the banned refreshment at the gates or be shut out. High on the list of blacklisted beverages is Pepsi, but even the wrong bottle of water could land spectators in trouble.
Fans will be allowed into the Olympic complex if they are drinking Avra, a Greek mineral water owned by Coca-Cola, which paid $60m (about £32.6m) for the privilege of being one of the main sponsors. Officials are under orders not to let in rival brands’ bottles unless the labels are removed.
Staff will also be on the lookout for T-shirts, hats and bags displaying the unwelcome logos of non-sponsors. Stewards have been trained to detect people who may be wearing merchandise from the sponsors’ rivals in the hope of catching the eyes of television audiences. Those arousing suspicion will be required to wear their T-shirts inside out.
Is this behaviour in any way justified or even enforceable, in light of the number of people likely to be attending events? Will it be extended to cover clothing labels (say GAP, ADIDAS or NIKE) which could have prominent logos on display on many t-shirts or sweatshirts? How can they insist paying visitors only consume food and drinks from valid sponsors? IMHO, advertising rights afford the company a right to advertise, not to enforce effective monopolies which infringe on peoples right to choose.
Final quote, which I strongly agree with:
Kostas Giannis, a Greek sports fan, said: “I don’t see why, after all the money that Greek taxpayers will end up paying to host the games, McDonald’s should dictate what I can eat in my own city.”
Can anyone defend this policy, or at least explain it? Is this setting dangerous precedents, or is it old news in certain circles and events? I find it rather contemptible on first reading but would like to know if others find this type of agreement forged between host and sponsor acceptable or normal. Thanks for any comments.