Olympic Tracker: Is adidas Ice advertising ambush activity?

INTERESTING TO see the adidas Ice advertising campaign this week using London 2012 hopeful Tom Daley. I wondered why adidas hadn’t badged it with the official London 2012 logos? Good use of personal endorsement in the creative and a good synergy with the product and brand (shower gels etc) so why no London 2012 badging? 

 

And there lies the answer, it’s a licenced adidas product by cosmetics company eCoty, so therefore not an official sponsor. Nothing fundamentally wrong here and why not, Tom Daley is even an adidas ambassador so some thought has gone into his selection.

 

But I wonder what hair and skin care company and IOC sponsor P&G think about it?

 

Category dilution/creep is not uncommon in the financial services sector (where banking, insurance and pensions are often offered by one business) and with technology convergence (televisions,  computers, mobile phones). I would be interested to know LOCOG’s and the IOC's perspective on the adverts as unless adidas, eCoty or P&G have negotiated a ‘body care’ exclusivity carve out, it sets a dangerous precedent.

 

For example, Worldwide Olympic (audio/visual) partner Panasonic leads this morning with an advert for its televisions – what would happen if Samsung featured an Olympic themed advert (but with no reference to the Olympics or London 2012) for televisions?

 

So is the adidas campaign an official unofficial ambush? At this stage there are more questions than answers. It could just be the fine line between the ‘body care’ and ‘hair and skin care’ sponsorship categories or the definition of a contract. Interestingly adidas is an official London 2012 and therefore LOCOG partner, but will this encourage similar marketing campaigns?

 

Time will tell, but following on from last week’s article yet another brand has entered into the official and unofficial Olympic and London 2012 sponsorship clutter.

 

 

By Rupert Pratt

Follow Rupert on Twitter: @RupertPratt