Thu. Aug 26, 2004
Political Games
The calendar confluence of the Olympics and the 2004 Election has created yet another forum for polarization, another vacuum to be abhorred, another void to be filled as quickly as crack-heads take over an abandoned house.
Olympic officials are seething at a campaign ad for President George W. Bush which, they say, hijacks the Olympic brand. “We are following what is happening and hope this campaign will stop,” said Gerhard Heiberg, head of the International Olympic Committee’s Marketing Commission.
But while Heiberg was diplomatic, other IOC members were blunt.
“This is quite amazing,” one member said on condition of anonymity. “The arrogance is unbelievable. To use the Olympic name like this, without permission… it’s just incredible.”
Another said: “That anyone should do this is just astonishing.”
MSNBC: “Games chiefs want Bush campaign to back off”
Simply astonishing! Four years may pass, but some things never change, like the IOC’s assertive protectionism. It’s so easy to poke at their pomposity, when they have a history of tactics like threatening litigation against a Greek restaurant owner here in Atlanta. He’d dared to use the word “Olympia” in his business name. It hadn’t been a problem for decades … until the IOC came to town.
I understand the problems of ambush marketing, having seen Nike plaster Atlanta with billboards and events during the Games they didn’t sponsor. I understand that the Olympic rings are a trademark just as surely as the Apple logo, and you can’t just toss those rings around without some repercussions. But it has always been hard for me to see how the Olympic brand is damaged when others simply use the word “Olympics” ... unless they’re specifically trying to profit from it via using it in advertising.
Which seems to be exactly what is happening here.
Bush campaign aides contend that the law in question gives the committee exclusive rights only to use the Olympics name to sell goods or services or to promote athletic competition. The campaign avoided using the symbol of five rings in the ad, the aides said.
The brand and concept of the Olympics belong to the International Olympic Committee in general and to the USOC in the United States.
An act of Congress, last revised in 1999, grants the USOC exclusive rights to such terms as “Olympic,” derivatives such as “Olympiad” and the five interlocking rings. It also specifically says the organization “shall be nonpolitical and may not promote the candidacy of an individual seeking public office.”
ESPN: “USOC decries Bush ad using Olympic name”
Like it or not, an Act of Congress gives the USOC exclusive rights to the term “Olympics.” Not just some silly IOC declaration, a Congressional Law. The IOC is “seething,” and there are Iraqi soccer players upset about Bush campaign ads, too. All have stated the ads should stop.
And still …”[Bush campaign spokesman Scott] Stanzel said the ad will continue to run for the last two weeks of August.”
I can’t tell you how it pains me to side with the pompous clowns at the IOC. It’s very counter-intuitive for me, as you can almost reflexively take the opposing position, and be right over 95% of the time. So let me put it another way.
When the IOC can make you look bad, you’ve got some real image problems.
Forget about the law. Forget about trademarks and exclusive rights. When you put people and things (the Iraqi soccer team and the “Olympics”) into a political ad without their permission (and in potential violation of Congressional law), you deserve every harsh word they publicly lambaste you with in response.
When you go even further and state you will continue running the ads despite their heated opposition, you make it clear you weren’t really trying to celebrate their accomplishments. You’re just trying to use others to hype your own. And even if they object, you’ll continue.
One of Bush’s “positive attributes” they try to emphasize is his “consistency,” or what some would call his stubbornness.
But sometimes, you have to show some grace, when the alternative is to look defiantly petty over such a miniscule matter.
Published 07:38AM, Thu, Aug 26 2004
Category: Olympics Politics
Previous: «« Color of the Games ««
Next: »» Subjective Sports »»
Peanut Gallery
The IOC? Being petty? Um, that’s their job, and has been since Bush was in diapers. Nothing new there. Thus my consternation at agreeing with them on the technical issue.
And “factually accurate” isn’t the point either. Pepsi could run an ad with the words “Coca-Cola eats acid off battery terminals,” and it would indeed be factually accurate.
But they would still be sued for advertising using “Coca-Cola” without permission of the company that holds exclusive rights to that word. And Congress has said that the USOC has “exclusive rights” to that word in the US, and the USOC has said they don’t approve of the usage.
While I’ll agree the whole thing is petty (and further argue that 75% of this race has been so far), it leaves them open to the charge the President’s campaign thinks it is above the law, and uncaring about clearly expressed disapproval by the parties protected by that law. However petty anyone might think it is … it’s the law.
I personally don’t care, as I am not “offended” by the ad. But their hard-headedness is notable, and potentially costly in incidents like this.
I agree that stuff like this can make a candidate look bad. And so far this campaign seems to be about each side trying to claim the high ground. What bothers me is that Kerry’s use of McCain’s debate (at least that’s what I think it was) is being pulled. It is accurate and relevant. So is the Bush camp’s ad in question. They are both doing the right things and are almost (you are going to have to give me a little here) getting to a debate on issues (Bush’s tendency to smear or a free Iraq).
McCain is, by choice, a part of history. And because of that gives up some control over his image. I don’t know the law but perhaps the argument would be that the IOC is in the same boat.
They (both McCain and the IOC)can complain and say they disagree, as is their right. And then we get to decide if the ads represent something important or are just bad taste.
By the way, are we doin’ lunch Sunday? Al Kitty (fresh from her recent run in with THE LAW) says we should.
This article at Yahoo (meaning that link won’t work in two weeks, but I can’t find it elsewhere right now) suggests this is just a bunch of political quid pro quo: “President Bush and Sen. John Kerry bowed to the wishes of popular maverick John McCain on Thursday, as the president embraced the Republican senator’s legal fight against big-money special interest groups airing negative ads and the Democratic nominee scrapped a commercial that featured McCain.”
“The only obvious winner is McCain, a former Vietnam War hero who emerged from his 2000 defeat as one of the nation’s most popular politicians, beloved by independent voters and courted by both presidential candidates. He has welcomed the attention, often instigating it, with an eye toward a possible run for the presidency in 2008.”
So when you say “McCain is, by choice, a part of history” that may be a bit premature.
There’s a lot of conflicting directives on this one. Unlike most of the time when it’s brought up, there are some very real First Amendment issues here, when you have the President now saying all these groups should be stopped (something that can’t legally happen in time for election day, making it an emtpy statement, but that’s another rant). Silenced. As a Constitutional purist, that is troubling.
Then you’ve got the directive of campaign reform, which is a case of good intentions and horrid execution. It’s a sea of loopholes that merely sets loose boundaries and workarounds, not real reform. And some of those boundaries can potentially impinge on free speech.
Finally, there’s the directive you seem to be working from, the common sense directive, with the bottom line being that the ads in question are “accurate and relevant,” and beyond that let the people decide.
Unfortunately, common sense left the building some time ago. With Elvis, I think. Regardless, nevermind the right-left axis, there’s a wide array of conflicting viewpoints and philosophies that intersect here.
And there’s no stop light.
As for Sunday, that sounds good to us. Do you need some help with bail money?
Mark my words: this talk of capping the 527s is the political class closing ranks, and they’re pulling the big-M Media into the walls with them. I’m so mad I could chew nails.
And eff the IOC (just to stay on topic, kinda, sorta).
I do not want congress to regulate political speech. Yes, we all tire of spin, charges and counter charges, HOWEVER, I believe that the American people are not stupid and therefore we do not need the government to weed this stuff out on our behalf.
I’ll let you know about the Al Kitty Legal Defense Fund. We are on for Sunday!
Recent Comments
- Reid (Republican Postmortem)
- elburro (Republican Postmortem)
- Jim (The Math Says No Lines In Georgia, And A Long Wait For Results)
- Reid (The Math Says No Lines In Georgia, And A Long Wait For Results)
- Jim (The Math Says No Lines In Georgia, And A Long Wait For Results)
- Jim (The Math Says No Lines In Georgia, And A Long Wait For Results)
ReidStott.com
Photography
by Reid Stott
A decade of web design experience. Two decades of photography experience. All available to you, and your project. View my portfolio online, then let's talk about your needs.ReidStott.com
But who is being petty? The ads are factually acurate. I bet that the IOC has a definate preference for president. If Kerry ran similar ads the IOC would be proud.
The point is they are ALL tainted. Republicans, Democrats, the whole lot. I am more bothered by the complaints than the ads. For me the defending the ads is not petty, it’s the whining on both sides that is driving me to distraction. Distraction? Could that be the point? It’s not ads that keep issues out of the picture, it’s the tit-for-tat elementary school sniping that follows the ads.