March, 2011
ISBA response to DCMS consultation
‘Regulations on Advertising Activity and Trading around London 2012’
ISBA embodies some 400 of the UK’s largest advertiser companies, and also counts LOCOG itself in membership, which gives further good opportunity for continuity and understanding.
We expect a number of interested representative organisations and individual companies to make quite detailed inputs and given our locus, we are confining our response to the specific areas of Sections 2 - Introduction, 3 - Advertising Activity and 5 - Event Zones & Periods.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment further to the inputs we have already made face-to-face on this matter as the representative body for British advertisers. We are pleased to see that a number of the points we have already made have been noted and have shaped this consultation.
First we would reiterate the qualification on ‘ambushing’ which we offered in person. Much marketing activity is by its very nature opportunistic and seeks not only to (re-)position a product or service most advantageously, but also to (re-)position competitors and/or deny them access to certain positions they might choose to take.
This can be achieved through messaging, by way of the media channels used and how they are deployed. Brands therefore routinely seek to ‘ambush’ competitors and since this is done on a level playing field on which skill is the only consistent competitive advantage, it is considered acceptable, standard practice. In this sense marketing is perhaps somewhat akin to a continuous game of chess.
The Olympic Games offer participant partners some opportunity to rise above this, albeit in return for significant outlays.
We fully understand Government’s desire to ensure it meets the obligations required of it by the International Olympic Committee when it made its bids to host the Games in London. The key issue for us in responding to this consultation is whether the proposed regulations are not discriminate and whether they deliver in a sufficiently light-touch and proportionate manner.
Section 1 - Introduction
- We support the proposal to prevent street trading and limit the amount of pamphletting and product sampling activity during the games in order to minimise street congestion and litter. However, we would observe that enforcement must be consistent and indiscriminate for it to be credible and beyond legal challenge, and consider that this will present serious challenges.
- We note the reference to the clearance of 10,000 billboards from the city of Athens during the 2004 Games. We have been told that, whilst it might have been an appropriate measure for the duration of the Games, many of the cleared sites were not reinstated. We understand that led to the unintended - and, for advertisers, unwelcome - consequences of reductions in out-of-home advertising opportunities and increased prices for the remaining billboard inventory. We caution against any measures which might backfire similarly after London 2012, and therefore welcome for all due clarity and certainty confirming the ephemeral nature of the regulations.
- We welcome the clear stated intention for laws to be reasonable and proportionate. The challenge is in the delivery of this admirable goal.
- The variations in legislation in the different nations are unfortunate as they further complicate things for advertisers seeking to advertise during the Games. ISBA will be making strenuous efforts to help and guide its members as best it can over the coming months.
- We will also be recommending that our members seek all appropriate assurances and warranties from their suppliers of marketing communications that all relevant activity during the Games is compliant with the regulations. This is appropriate as most authorisations will be sought by and granted to media-owning organisations which will then market their assets to our members.
Section 3 - Advertising Activity & Section 5 - Event Zones & Event Periods
- We welcome the notion that regulations will only apply for the minimum amount of time with respect to each location/event. In tandem with this, we therefore support the proposal that local authorities are given ‘fast track’ powers to act within shorter time windows than is usual, provided that such powers are temporary and only persist for the duration of the Games and do not overhang in such a way as they might then come to be abused.
- We also believe that Government has succeeded in drawing exclusion zones much more tightly than, yet just as effectively as, previous Games’. In this sense, the overriding objective of proportionality will in our view be met.
- We understand Government’s desire to capture all forms of out-of-home and ambient marketing communications. However, we question the exemption which provides for demonstration of support for, or opposition to, a person’s or body’s views. Whilst the right to express an opinion is a most valuable privilege in a free, civilized and democratic society, we question why that right should only be afforded to individuals.
- We suspect that the authorities will find it very hard reasonably, let alone proportionately, to enforce the provision relating to clothing on which an advertisement (as defined widely in this consultation) is displayed.