黑洞社区

Back in early January, prime minister David Cameron held the first Cabinet meeting of 2012 in the Olympic handball arena. In a speech to mark the event, Cameron pledged that he and his colleagues were doing their utmost 鈥渢o make the most of this unique opportunity to showcase all the great things the UK has to offer to the rest of the world鈥�.

鈥淚 want the message to go out loud and clear, from tourism to business, sport to investment, we are determined to maximise the benefits of 2012 for the whole country,鈥� he said.

The prime minister鈥檚 impassioned words sounded rather ironic to the firm behind the design of the multicoloured venue in which he was sitting - Make Architects.

A well-known practice with a particular flair for publicity, Make - like many other firms involved in the Olympic construction effort - has found it almost impossible to publicise its 2012 achievements because of strict rules governing such promotion: the 鈥淣o Marketing Rights Protocol鈥�, enforced by the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG).

鈥淎t the time of the Cabinet meeting, a lot of journalists went there and they christened it the 鈥楽marties building鈥�,鈥� says Make founder Ken Shuttleworth. 鈥淏ut we鈥檝e not been able to do anything to promote it. We have played by the rules and tried not to upset the apple cart. The rules have completely stopped us from saying anything. It would be great if
we could take the shackles off 鈥� it鈥檚 not as if it鈥檚 a secret project.鈥�

It emerged last week that such complaints are finally being heeded, following months of lobbying by both the industry and 黑洞社区, through the magazine鈥檚 2012 campaign. The campaign was last week raised in parliament by shadow Olympics minister Tessa Jowell, and the coalition - keen to use the Olympics to boost business - is looking at how the protocol can be relaxed, albeit after the Games have ended.

But how far do the marketing rules go, and why has the issue suddenly become a political hot potato?

鈥楶retty draconian鈥�

Much of the funding for the Games was sourced through official sponsorship. Large firms including McDonalds, BT, EDF, Atkins and architect Populous agreed to pay nearly 拢2bn in fees and work-in-kind in return for full 2012 marketing privileges.

The 32-page No Marketing Rights Protocol - which all 2012 suppliers and contractors were required to sign - was designed to protect the rights of these sponsors by placing strict limits on what non-sponsors could say about their Olympic work.

It is, of course, true that firms could have refused to sign, missing out on the chance to work on the Olympics in the process. But many who did still complain that the rules have robbed them of the right to take a small part of the credit for the Olympics success story.

鈥淚t鈥檚 such a shame that this opportunity to promote the construction industry in the UK is being smothered,鈥� says Clare Lowe, an associate director at environmental consultancy Southfacing, which acted as the BREEAM assessor on four Olympic venues. 鈥淭he protocol is pretty draconian and makes it difficult to talk about what you鈥檝e done.鈥�

Just like Make, Lowe and her colleagues have chosen not to test the rules for fear of the consequences, which can involve being pursued by lawyers seeking to enforce LOCOG鈥檚 regulations.

鈥淚t鈥檚 a big risk for us,鈥� she says. 鈥淲e know that when we鈥檙e talking to potential clients we can mention that we were involved [in the Olympic park], but we have to be very careful. Because we鈥檙e much smaller than most of the companies involved, we cannot afford to put ourselves in a position where people could come after us.鈥�

Meanwhile, firms that have been bolder have quickly found out that they do not get far. Architect Hawkins\Brown designed the 拢110m redevelopment of Stratford station - the first project that the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) granted planning permission.

Director and co-founder Roger Hawkins complains that despite the fact that the 鈥渃omplicated鈥� project was delivered on time and on budget, client the ODA has forbidden his firm from entering it for any awards, most recently the RIBA awards.

鈥淲e were told in no uncertain terms by the client that we couldn鈥檛 put it in,鈥� Hawkins says. 鈥淭he excuse they gave was that it wasn鈥檛 a sporting project and that it didn鈥檛 fit their profile. It鈥檚 very frustrating that we can鈥檛 be seen to be promoting our own work. There seems to be a whole culture in the ODA and LOCOG of control. They have gone too far.鈥�

But the ODA pointed to a different reason for refusing the architect鈥檚 request: 鈥淲e have been inundated with requests for award applications so we had to put a limit on what we could realistically manage - this was the reason for rejecting the applications.鈥�

A policy with few defenders

Hard as it is to understand the logic of such decisions, it became even harder to defend after government plans emerged earlier this year for an Olympic-themed business summit to be held at Lancaster House in central London this summer. Olympic bosses themselves then refused to defend the protocol at this month鈥檚 Mipim property fair.

The scale of the government鈥檚 rethink became clear last week when 黑洞社区 revealed that, amid high-level discussions between ministers, lawyers and LOCOG, ODA chairman Sir John Armitt was recommending a relaxation of the protocol.

鈥淲e鈥檙e getting the picture that a lot of sensible people within the Olympic organisations think the whole set-up is ridiculous,鈥� says New London Architecture boss Peter Murray, who first raised the issue in 黑洞社区 in January.

Several weeks ago, David Cameron himself agreed to investigate after being lobbied by telecoms firm STL Communications, which is working on the opening and closing ceremonies and is based in the prime minister鈥檚 Oxfordshire constituency of Witney. STL complained to him that it had been chased by lawyers working on behalf of LOCOG after a tradepublication reported on STL鈥檚 Olympic involvement, incurring the wrath of telecoms giant and 2012 sponsor BT.

鈥淲e won our contract in direct competition with BT, which is of course a main sponsor, and one that is quick to complain at the merest mention of STL鈥檚 involvement with the Games,鈥� wrote Brendon Cross, STL鈥檚 managing director, in an email to Cameron鈥檚 constituency staff, seen by 黑洞社区.

鈥淚 understand the need to protect the sponsors鈥� investment, but this is bordering on censorship.鈥�

Despite the ground shifting beneath its feet, LOCOG appears to be the one party involved in the row continuing to stick closely to the script. 鈥淎 large proportion of the funding for the staging of the Games comes through sponsorship 鈥� and these sponsors purchase exclusive rights to promote their association with the Games,鈥� says a LOCOG spokesperson.

鈥淲ithout these sponsors, the Games simply wouldn鈥檛 happen, which is why we require suppliers not to advertise their involvement in order to protect our sponsors鈥� associations with London 2012.鈥�

LOCOG - a privately funded company that will cease to exist after the Olympics - may be calculating that it can maintain this line until the protocol is no longer its problem.
Given that the prime minister himself is now part of the great Olympic marketing row, one wonders whether it will succeed.