Blocking branding on equipment in the Olympics?

[Rover]

"In 1996 in Atlanta the equipment control group, of which I was honored to be a part, started calling ourselves the "logo police". "

Why the hell would you be proud? I think the whole thing is shameful. How much were you paid?

If the athletes are using the stuff, then there it is.

[PaulB]

Paid? Don't I wish. As volunteers we got housing in college dorm rooms and we may have gotten are meals covered, I don't recall. Travel to and from Atlanta for the Olympics was on our own dime. We got to keep the uniform shirts, coat, hat and tie that we were required to wear.

Sponsors in some cases paid many millions to display their ads. It really would not be right for others to get it for free.

[Hemmers]

Everyone knows the rules, or at least they should do if they're in business.

I was questioning Hemmers calling it ludicrous that there was so much tape.

Obviously any sponsor should know the business and realise the limits that will be placed on where there logos will be allowed to be displayed.

They do, and this is why their logos are compliant with all IOC/ISSF rules.

The fact that TeamGB then cut a separate deal with Adidas is by-the-by. It's ludicrous until such a time as Adidas enter the market for shooting jackets and rifles to be taped up. I can understand the effort to cover up gloves, but that attempt to tape over the Grunig logo is tragic considering you can see straight through it.

What's curious is that here's a photo of Laura Trott at the Velodrome. If her bike didn't have to be taped up, why did Jen's rifle?


I also noticed Chris Froome's helmet was Kask branded - because sponsors can't touch helmets. Any request to cover the logo will be instantly dismissed because you can't tape a helmet without changing it's crash characteristics, which makes it a safety issue.

Personally, brands and logos bother me. I have no need to brag about the clothing brand I wear if it's expensive and have no objection to it being anonymous whether it was super expensive or whether it was bargain basement. For cars, the first thing I do is get rid of dealer stickers and plate holders. Did they pay me to advertise for them? Did I get a special rate?

Dealer stickers yes (because they're usually an unsightly bright yellow or something). But do you also yank off the manufacturer badge and model number? Get real, having to tape up a Grunig logo on a firearm because Adidas are sponsoring your teamwear is straight up retarded. Maybe people care enough to self-censor, most just buy a piece of kit and use it as intended. So long as the logo doesn't impede their usage, most people have better things to do than spending time trying to scrape it off!

I know a few people who have specifically self-censored - put one brand of ammo in another brand's box, or just taped up a box white with masking tape because they're being pragmatic and using the ammo that tested best but have fallen out with the manufacturer. But most people just don't care enough - sure, I could pull the Sauer badges off my jacket... and everyone would still know it was a Sauer just by looking at it... or they would know I was using Tenex because it's a distinctive shape and colour. It's not a big sport and we all know broadly what we're looking at.

[Ulrich Eichstädt]

Let me just state, that we as manufacturer weren't happy at all about all the stickers on our WALTHER-guns - but the rules are fixed since 2012 (last edits). The only thing was obviously, that some guns were taped more than others, but where will you complain?



If you are clever you would place your sponsor patches strategically on your clothing, and then the tape additionally stabilizes it...

This "walk on eggshells" is sometimes funny, sometimes you would like to shoot all those "logo police" people to the moon in an unbranded rocket (except participants of this discussion, of course). OMEGA doesn't have any means to score targets, but they place their logo over the SIUS logos. Rumour has it that on the shooting range there was no catering, but a Coke vendoring machine - only to be used with VISA card...

[SlartyBartFast]

Grunig logo on a firearm because Adidas are sponsoring your teamwear is straight up retarded

I think that you are either creating a strawman. Seeing as the bike wasn't taped, I'll assume the taping of the firearm was because of the shooting event rules, not the team GB sponsorship deal.

But what if it was the team sponsorship deal? How is it "retarded" to follow the wishes of the main sponsor?

They're paying good money to be the most visible logo on all team members. If the team thinks it's retarded to block out other logs, they're free to give up the money. And if viewers think it's retarded, then they should be willing to make up for the lost money.

And if I was competitive at any level where sponsorship money was involved you can bet your life I'd be covering up every trace of logo that I could. Why give away what others are getting money for?

In the case of the bikes you gave the picture for, the answer as to why the logo is still on the bike is simple. Team GB has a deal/partnership with Cervélo.

OMEGA doesn't have any means to score targets, but they place their logo over the SIUS logos.

As a manufacturer, do you think that other manufacturers should get a free ride with logo visibility just because no immediate competitor signed a deal and the manufacturer has gone and put their logo in a hugely conspicuous place?

[Hemmers]

I think that you are either creating a strawman. Seeing as the bike wasn't taped, I'll assume the taping of the firearm was because of the shooting event rules, not the team GB sponsorship deal.

No, it's the team deal. there are photos of other athletes with manufacturer logos clearly visible. For instance, Nico Campriani's rifle was untaped with the Bleiker logo clearly visible, whilst Sergey Kaminski's rifle was taped up similar to Jen's.

But what if it was the team sponsorship deal? How is it "retarded" to follow the wishes of the main sponsor?

...

As a manufacturer, do you think that other manufacturers should get a free ride with logo visibility just because no immediate competitor signed a deal

Well, yes and no. That's basically how trademark law works (which is related, though this is not a trademark issue) . You can share a name with another company provided you operate in different markets and no confusion is likely.

And this is the crux of my point. Adidas want people to see TeamGB in Adidas gear in order to promote the idea that if it's good enough for TeamGB it's good enough for you.

Adidas paid good money because Nike and Underarmour would also dearly love to have their logo on the podium. Something like teamwear has massive value.

By contrast if I signed a deal to be firearm supplier to GB Shooting, I would not expect to pay a whole lot for the privilege - lower profile, firearms don't appear on the podium, etc.

By contrast, not only is the use of a Grunig rifle unlikely to conflict with Adidas (because Adidas don't make rifles.... or jackets), but we're not even talking podium-wear. It's in-competition, and any and every shooter knows exactly what they're looking at even if you do tape over the Grunig and R2 logos (or put an Omega sticker over the Sius logo).

My point is... it's pointless. It's a meaningless, nonsensical effort. You're not protecting your own brand. If an athlete was dead set on wearing a pair of Nike trainers because that's the model they perform best with, then yes, absolutely tape those suckers up. But Adidas's sponsorship status would not be infringed, nor their advertising efforts impeded by someone having Grunig written on the side of their rifle.

This is my point. No, we don't want athletes becoming billboards. Equally, once you start worrying about small manufacturer logos on specialist kit, you've passed the point from sponsor protection to farce - because anyone who cares knows exactly what they're looking at and you're well out the realms of actually doing something useful into pointless pedantry.

Of course yes, you have to do it because the contract says so. It's still stupid though. You're literally wasting people's heartbeats that they could be doing something useful with.

[David Levene]

No, it's the team deal. there are photos of other athletes with manufacturer logos clearly visible. For instance, Nico Campriani's rifle was untaped with the Bleiker logo clearly visible, whilst Sergey Kaminski's rifle was taped up similar to Jen's.

Are you sure it's not just a case of each rifle only being allowed 1 maker's name (which is clearly visible on Jen's G&E).

[SlartyBartFast]

No, it's the team deal.
...
Adidas paid good money because Nike and Underarmour would also dearly love to have their logo on the podium. Something like teamwear has massive value.

Can I assume you accept the reason behind why your example of the bicycle brand being visible is not applicable to the rifle issue?

All-in-all I find it funny how you say so much to come to a simple conclusion that completely agrees with my position.

The people who pay good money to have their logos be the focus of coverage have every right to make sure that other logos (that don't also pay for the privilege) don't distract from theirs.

Simple as that.

And I'll repeat my position: IMO, any Olympic level athlete that leaves any logo visible, if there isn't a sponsorship deal that benefits the athlete, is the one being "ludicrous" giving away free advertising.

The contribution from Ulrich about the Walther guns just highlights my point. Manufacturers put those big logos on to try and grab as much free publicity and advertising as possible. All they need to do is either support the athletes with sponsorship deals, or pay for advertising that highlights the use of their equipment. No free ride.

[Limator]

So...
Big Brother is watching YOU!!!
[]'s

[robf]

What is ludicrous is paying more attention to the logo rules than the competition rules.