PoliticsHome | Only the latest five entries on the PhiWire are visible to non-subscribers
- Sign up to see last 24 hours
Dont have an account?Sign up here
Friday 3rd August 2012 | 16:12
When it comes to enforcing its strict rules on branding and sponsorship, the Olympic juggernaut tends to crush all opposition.
Stories have abounded of small businesses being banned from using the famous rings and of crackdowns on unathorised advertising in and around the London games.
Well, here's a strange twist.
The pop-up Starbucks is certainly keeping NBC* staff happy. But - the last time I looked - Starbucks isn't an official sponsor of the 2012 Olympics. (Unlike, say, McDonald's, which sells, er, coffee).
So how does NBC get away with it? Have Locog just not noticed? Or is there some special exemption?
Surely it can't be because NBC has paid big, big bucks to cover the Games exclusively for the US audience - and has a close relationship with Starbucks back home?
I've put in calls with both Locog and Starbucks. So far no answer...
*FOOTNOTE: Although NBC has been criticised (see the #NBCFail hashtag) for its decision not to cover the games live, it seems to be attracting big audiences and even claims to be making a profit.
But many here are just grateful for the BBC - as this Salon piece underlines.
Be briefed for £1.50 a week...PoliticsHome PRO Find out more