McDonald's Olympics

[Rob McCow]

What better way to celebrate the arrival of thousands of athletes in the UK than by having a cheery meal of meat patty, starchy, salty fries with extra salt and a sugar-filled milkshake?

The great London 2012 Olympic chip embargo has cracked. No longer will hungry workers at the games be denied pie and chips, chicken and chips or even just chips because of a monopoly enforced by McDonald's, a major sponsor.

On Wednesday, the London Organising Committee responded to plaintive cries of caterers who had grown tired of receiving "grief" from chip-hungry staff working on the opening and closing ceremonies and allowed chips to be served outside branches of the fast food chain McDonald's.

It all results from one of the stranger twists of Olympic planning. McDonald's sponsorship deal included the exclusive right to sell chips in and around Olympic venues. Other caterers had negotiated special rights to serve chips with fish – but not chips on their own, or with anything else.

Cue frustrated scenes at the lunch counter in the ceremonies catering area where staff were toiling over the staging for Danny Boyle's 27 July opening extravaganza. "Please understand this is not the decision of the staff who are serving up your meals who, given the choice, would gladly give it to you, however they are not allowed to," read a notice pinned up by staff. "Please do not give the staff grief, this will only lead to us removing fish and chips completely."

"It's sorted," said a spokesman for Locog. "We have spoken to McDonald's about it."

But the embargo will hold in other areas. That means no chips with anything other than fish anywhere else in the park unless spectators dine at McDonald's.

On Wednesday catering staff in the media centre were taking no risks. There were hash browns and dauphinoise, but no chips. A server explained why: "Because McDonald's own the rights, so we're not allowed to".

So that's the Olympics sewn up!

Also, the UK is set to become a tax haven during the Olympics for companies such as McDonalds, Adidas and Coca-Cola. http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/comme...axswindle.aspx

Is this fair? Maybe UK Taxes are far to punitive and the only way that McDonalds can afford to run it's modest restaurant business in the UK is if it recieves tax breaks. The tax benefits were apparently a key part of London winning the bid to host the Olympics in 2012. So whoever had won the Olympics would have needed to offer a similar deal.

Still, I'm sure the shareholders will be happy.

[SiHart]

I notice the Prime Minister hasn't been saying he's disappointed by these companies for not paying their full taxes...
But seriously, McDonalds sponsering the Olympics... is the world now officially mad?

[Stuart Wallis]

Yes. You mean you hadn't noticed?

[SiHart]

I hadn't. I'm obviously oblivious to far too much that goes on around me!

[Rob McCow]

More fun! Far from being Olympics 2012 it turns out that Britain is staging The Olympics Nineteen Eighty-Four style - from the Independent:

Hundreds of uniformed Olympics officers will begin touring the country today enforcing sponsors' multimillion-pound marketing deals, in a highly organised mission that contrasts with the scramble to find enough staff to secure Olympic sites.

Almost 300 enforcement officers will be seen across the country checking firms to ensure they are not staging "ambush marketing" or illegally associating themselves with the Games at the expense of official sponsors such as Adidas, McDonald's, Coca-Cola and BP. The clampdown goes on while 3,500 soldiers on leave are brought in to bail out the security firm G4S which admitted it could not supply the numbers of security staff it had promised.

Yesterday, the Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, refused to rule out that even more soldiers may be called upon to help with security, but dismissed the issue as merely a "hitch". However, as well as the regular Army, the Olympic "brand army" will start its work with a vengeance today.

Wearing purple caps and tops, the experts in trading and advertising working for the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) are heading the biggest brand protection operation staged in the UK. Under legislation specially introduced for the London Games, they have the right to enter shops and offices and bring court action with fines of up to £20,000.

Olympics organisers have warned businesses that during London 2012 their advertising should not include a list of banned words, including "gold", "silver" and "bronze", "summer", "sponsors" and "London".

Publicans have been advised that blackboards advertising live TV coverage must not refer to beer brands or brewers without an Olympics deal, while caterers and restaurateurs have been told not to advertise dishes that could be construed as having an association with the event.

At the 40 Olympics venues, 800 retailers have been banned from serving chips to avoid infringing fast-food rights secured by McDonald's.

Marina Palomba, for the McCann Worldgroup agency in London, described the rules as "the most draconian law in advance of an Olympic Games ever". The ODA and Locog (London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games) say the rules are necessary to protect brands.

"These rights are acquired by companies who invest millions of pounds to help support the staging of the Games," Locog said. "People who seek the same benefits for free – by engaging in ambush marketing or producing counterfeit goods – are effectively depriving the Games of revenue."

Some £1.4bn of the Games' £11.4bn budget comes from private sector sponsors. The International Olympic Committee's 11 global partners, including Coca-Cola, Visa and Proctor & Gamble, are contributing £700m while £700m comes from London 2012 partners, including Adidas, BT, EDF, and Lloyds TSB.

The scale of the brand enforcement squad is nonetheless likely to intensify criticism that the Olympics has become too corporate. Paul Jordan, an expert in brand protection at Bristows solicitors who advises firms on the rules, said they were almost certainly tougher than at previous Olympics. "No other brands would have people walking the streets being their eyes and ears, protecting their interests," he said.

A spokesman for the Olympic Delivery Authority, whose team of 286 enforcement officers have been seconded from 30 local councils, said it had a duty to ensure businesses were meeting the rules.

"We are using experienced local authority staff who currently enforce street trading and advertising legislation. They have all been fully trained," the spokesman said.

"Deliberate ambush offences will be dealt with using the full enforcement powers conferred on officers."

OK - fair enough if someone claims to be an 'Official Olympic Sponsor' when they're clearly not. But for me this goes way too far. In fact, I'm really put off by this branding. Isn't it enough that billions of people around the world will see 'Coca Cola' and 'McDonalds' advertised during the official Olympic games?

[Si Hunt]

"summer"? SUMMER?

Small businesses cannot promote themselves by using the word "summer" thanks to multi-million pound corporate junk food giants.

This is the country we live in, so if you bought any of that shit then well done, pat yourself on the back.

Si.

[SiHart]

We're not allowed to run Olympic themed events this summer because it might interfere with the corporate branding. They're sending Trading Standards round to investigate people who do with the potential there to prosecute. It's ****ing madness and just puts me off the whole thing even more than i already am.

[Philipnet]

Well, we all know what the British summer is like



- It's over in a week - much like our Olympic changes!

[Si Hunt]

Just tried to book a hotel in Sawbridgeworth so my sister can come and visit, and been told the prices are £30 higher "because of the Olympics".

I think this is appalling. Talk about opportunism! They are our local and I feel totally let down. F**g Olympics. All they are is a byword for greed and opportunism.

Si.

[Jason Thompson]

I think the way the marketing and branding has been done so heavy-handedly here is appalling. One of my colleagues is a local Guide leader and she's not allowed to do any themed events with the Guides that use the word 'Olympics'. For heaven's sake, these corporate sponsors make f*****g billions already. But what the hell, let's tread on all the little people and stop them getting any kind of benefit from the games.

We have the eyes of the world on us here, and what a bunch of arses we are looking right now! We have security shortfalls, but a huge army of people actually going around checking the branding. Ridiculous. I'll be glad when the whole damn thing is over.

[Anthony Williams]

The one thing that's amusing me the most is seeing my London-based friends work themselves up with "ZOMG! HOW THE CRAP IS THE TRANSPORT GOING TO COPE!? WE'RE DOOOOOOOOOOMED!"

I live in Atlanta. We had the Olympics in 1996. We have very, very poor public transportation - our Metro doesn't even go to the main stadium (which is now the home of the Braves baseball team). It barely covers a fifth of the City. We coped. So will London.

[Rob McCow]

I agree with Ant in some respects. The amount of work they've put in to making people aware of the games and putting in provisions is incredible.

However London is more densely populated than Atlanta, even though both are vast, working cities. And I should imagine that in Atlanta, most people drove to the Olympic events. Here, they're being encouraged to use public transport. I think the concern is that citizens of London will be pushed aside and significantly inconvenienced by the games.

Anyway, we'll see in a few weeks. It might make no difference - or it might be chaos!

[Si Hunt]

Surely you're missing the point, Ant. If you don't have any public transport to start with, you're certainly not going to find your journey to work affected. I'm glad it's giving you a chuckle, but it's quite easy for you, being thousands of miles away, to look on the people that brave an already overstretched transport system to work every day, preparing for an influx of thousands more visitors, and to predict that we'll "cope". Won't make my days any easier when I can't squeeze on a train to get in in the morning.

Si.

[Anthony Williams]

Surely you're missing the point, Ant. If you don't have any public transport to start with, you're certainly not going to find your journey to work affected. I'm glad it's giving you a chuckle, but it's quite easy for you, being thousands of miles away, to look on the people that brave an already overstretched transport system to work every day, preparing for an influx of thousands more visitors, and to predict that we'll "cope". Won't make my days any easier when I can't squeeze on a train to get in in the morning.

Fair enough, Si - I take your point. Of course, 16 years ago in Atlanta, it would have made everyone's commute hell as the roads would've been significantly more congested. Same outcome, different systems.

At the end of the day, it's only for two weeks. Two weeks that will see lots of people coming into the UK to see the games, spending more money and thus pouring capital into Britain's economy. Ultimately, I think it'll be good for London, even if it does mean two weeks of inconvenience for those who live and work in London.

[Rob McCow]

spending more money and thus pouring capital into Britain's economy

...apparently at the behest of non-tax paying corporations. There'll still be a lot of money coming in though.

[Stuart Wallis]

Olympics organisers have warned businesses that during London 2012 their advertising should not include *a list of banned words, including "gold", "silver" and "bronze", "summer", "sponsors" and "London".*

So a London-based firm, working for Londoners, cannot use the word "London". Jewellers cannot use "gold" and "silver". Firms with a sponsorship deal which has nothing to do with the Games can't actually mention their sponsorship.

Which Olympics are these again - 2012 or 1936?

[Si Hunt]

The Olympics will be McShit!

Si.

[Stuart Wallis]

No change there then...

[Perry Vale]

F**g Olympics. All they are is a byword for greed and opportunism.

Sums it up for me.

As for the Transport issue, my commute home on Saturday evening from Tottenham Ct. Rd. to Stratford took an hour and a half. It seems in an age where we can send people to the moon, and remote controlled robots to Mars, no-one seems capable of buidling a signal system that doesn't fall down every week or so...

[Stuart Wallis]

Believe me, ladies and gents, this is the Central line on a reasonable day!

[Zbigniev Hamson]

"summer"? SUMMER?

Small businesses cannot promote themselves by using the word "summer" thanks to multi-million pound corporate junk food giants.

This is the country we live in, so if you bought any of that shit then well done, pat yourself on the back.

Si.

I'd really like to see them try and enforce this sort of thing in court. I'm assuming that they're just relying on scaring people into removing words like "summer" and "London" from their businesses. I can't quite imagine any court in the land would rule against any small business for using such common and probably un-trademarkable words, no matter how big the rival corporation is.

But anyway, is this really all a new level of madness for this Olympics, or is it only because it's in our country this time that all this sort of thing is being reported in the press? I still can't get over the fact that it's not even possible to attempt to obtain tickets for something you might want to see, rather than just entering a lottery. Is that how it always is for the Olympics? That's just crazy. I'm sure at Wimbledon or anything else like that you can book tickets for specific matches or sessions on a first come first served basis. It seems ridiculous that the Olympics is supposed to be the pinacle of sport, they want people to get involved and come and see it, but then the whole ticketing system works completely against people who actually have any interest or passion for any particular sport, and only caters for people who just want to turn up to ANYTHING just because it's a special event.

[duncan]

Sums it up for me.

As for the Transport issue, my commute home on Saturday evening from Tottenham Ct. Rd. to Stratford took an hour and a half. It seems in an age where we can send people to the moon, and remote controlled robots to Mars, no-one seems capable of buidling a signal system that doesn't fall down every week or so...

How many traffic signals on London's roads are out of action at any one time? They don't make headlines as drivers just take things into their own hands and cross the junctions anyway. Tube trains can't do that.

[duncan]

Believe me, ladies and gents, this is the Central line on a reasonable day!

That's a bit unfair to say that. When it goes wrong it certainly causes a lot of problems. But, funnily enough, I never see a headline in the Evening Standard saying "Central Line runs well today".

[Si Hunt]

Last night I wanted to get from Green Park to Hyde Park Corner (one stop) at around 6pm and it was absolutely horrendous. Two trains came by, and each were completely packed. I mean, it's almost inhumane, there is no health and safety concern at all! The doors were slicing closed on people who were jammed in so tightly they couldn't squeeze beyond the doors. Eventually I squeezed my way onto a train.

And this is before the olympics!

Si.

[duncan]

Yes, overcrowding on trains is a problem and it is set to get worse over the games period. This is why TFL have been asking for months for people to re-time their journey and maybe even take a different route where possible to avoid the busier section of lines & stations.

It's a terrible inconvenience and why should you have to make such a change? After all, you are the regular paying passenger.