When this ’branding’ thing can drive you -- the customer -- mad? When one thousand pounds corporate gorillas wrinkle their nose at you -- if and when you want to take a sip of your preferred soda or grab a bite of your favorite burger -- in the name of their brands.

Brand apartheid? God, I sound like Naomi now! Sports Business News SBN in their No Pepsi and only the Golden Arches at the Olympics, an article by The Sunday Times’ Mark Franchetti:

« In a far cry from the high-minded ideals of humanity and tolerance embodied by the Olympics, the organizers of the Athens games have warned spectators that they could be barred for taking a surreptitious sip of Pepsi or an illicit bite from a Burger King Whopper. [...]

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. »

Bad, bad, bad. But the war was started by the marketers themselves, it seems. Talk about industries incapable of regulating themselves! So the tactic this nazi regulations are trying to kill is the “ambush marketing.”

« 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.

Known as the “clean venue policy,” the rules were drawn up by the Greeks and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to shield sponsors from so-called “ambush marketing” - an attempt to advertise items during the games without paying sponsorship fees. »

So this is only a battle for free share-of-voice? But why build pressure on the customer instead of making the ambush marketers pay for their visual noise at rate-card fees plus a hefty fine for the dirty tactics after the show? Whatever.

« An official familiar with the restrictions said: “We have to protect official sponsors who have paid millions to make the Olympics happen. There will be cases of individual spectators being allowed in wearing a T-shirt bearing the logo of a rival sports brand but anyone who tries to practice ambush marketing will be removed.” [...]

The main sponsors of the games have paid more than $1 billion in total for exclusive advertising rights and privileges, including the use of the Olympic logo under their brand names. It is not even possible to buy a ticket to the Olympics using a credit card other than Visa, which paid more than $30 million for its exclusive rights. [...]

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.” »

Well, it’s and ugly hack thrown at the ’freedon of choice’ thing and this sucks, but bottom line Coke, McDo and Visa will manage to keep their customers happy. Who cares about alienating the legions of Pepsi, Burger King or Amex followers? They’re much more expensive to pursue and acquire as customers in such places anyway. And the organizers keep their collective ass covered. If I were in their shoes, under that kind of pressure, I probably would’ve taken a similar decision -- but if you look at all this from the outside world it seems like a cascade of bad decisions and a hell of a freak show. Real-world marketing wars. Not exactly the zen from the manuals.