As others have pointed out - this is incorrect. Most news outlets refer to the SuperBowl in stories. The place where you might see an issue is when these journalism sites have commercial tie-ins that are a concern to the NFL. But the intimidation that you perceive just doesn’t seem to be there.
Can’t argue, at least in conventional marketing/biz terms. Just color me Softly Bemused (it’s right next to Shocked Silly in the box) at level of greedthink involved.
What newspapers don’t use the word Olympics?
Similar case. If it isn’t 100% news reporting - that is, if it’s in the slightest way promotional, even of their own coverage from authorized sources - they will use a circumlocution to keep the IOC from sending NFL goons to beat them.
I don’t argue trademark protection. But when an entity is so overbearing and threatening that even legitimate users of the term back away, something’s wrong. It’s as if reviewers had to refer to a movie as coming from “Walt’s company.”
And frankly, I’d be afraid to piss off Heisenberg, too.
They get that money by selling exclusive rights to advertise as SuperBowl sponsors. If anyone could do so they wouldn’t make any money on sponsorship. You can’t just protect *some *of the naming rights.
I’ve seen it. Like either the Detroit News or Detroit Free Press ponies up to the USOC, they use the word and the other one doesn’t.
Yes, I know all this. If there’s anything making me question the practice, it’s that they apparently had no problem with general use of “Super Bowl” in associated ways until perhaps 8-10 years ago, then suddenly it was money leaking out of their pockets and they turned feral.
A grocery store or TV seller having a “Super Bowl” sale takes not one dime from the NFL’s pocket, helps promote the hypiness of the whole thing and is in no way equivalent to using the term in a competing way. They were good with it for 25+ years; besides being a bit of a case of burning down the horses it’s indicative of nothing but end-stage greed, gibbering in a boardroom because someone might somehow be making collateral money from their efforts.
It isn’t even the nominally global-community, contribution-supported IOC/Olympics… it’s just a fuckin’ entertainment corporation after every dime they can squeeze into their pockets, and going to insane levels to make sure no dime escapes - even imaginary dimes.
Let’s just call it a Jumbot Ron and be on the safe side, eh?
Are you saying that a legitimate news outlet pays for the right to use the word Olympics when reporting on the games?
I think Jum Botron better captures the majesty of the experience though. That’s what I’m watching my Superb Owl on!
We’ll be doing our typical Superb Owl viewing. Recording it, tuning in about an hour in to be able to fast forward thru the game to the commercials.
Not 100% sure but it sure looked that way to me last time it came around. I’ll be checking the papers again this time and if I find the same story I’ll share it.
This page about the Olympic trademarks is very useful.
It also specifies that there are some ways you can and can’t use the word Olympic “to identify a business or goods or services.” None of this applies to journalism. You can’t make people pay you to report on something.
Yes, just like the use of Super Bowl by news organizations.
Sure it can - there are softdrink, snack food, and TV sponsors for the Superbowl. You don’t want people selling competitors brand items under the Superbowl name or you won’t be able to charge as much for the rights. Why pay big money for the rights to be the “official snack food of the Superbowl” if you can just make a deal with the local Stop and Shop?
The money in Superbowl advertising has gone up dramatically in the past decade; that’s why they are pushing it.
Or perhaps a Superbowel party.
What if a person who owned a paint store had a sale on Olympic stain?
With LOTS of chili.
Thank you for reminding me that was coming up! It’s early enough that I can plan my weekend to avoid the rowdy crowds.