VANOC bearer of the Olympic Holy Grail or Fashion Police?

Posted February 9th, 2010 by Gena Rotstein

What does being the official sponsor of the 2010 Olympic Games mean? Well for one thing it means that rival competition everywhere is going to try and capitalize on the event without paying any sponsorship bucks. Canadian retailer Lululemon is showing that they are not too Zen or too nice to play dirty. Organizers of the 2010 Olympics publicly scolded Lululemon Athletica, after Lulu released their new special edition clothing line called "Cool Sporting Event That Takes Place in British Columbia Between 2009 & 2011 Edition". This new special edition clothing line ruffled many feathers because Lululemon is not an official sponsor of the games. In 2005 Lululemon and long time Canadian athlete supporter Roots lost the bid to be the official outfitter of Canada's Olympic team, to Hudson's BayCo. for the 2006 Games in Italy; subsequently resulting with The Bay having contract rights to outfit the Canadian team from the 2006 Olympics until 2012.

Gena with Barb Higgins and Olympic Torch

Gena Rotstein & Barb Higgins inside the Purple Perk (Torch Relay in Calgary)

The loss of the official bid has not deterred Lululemon with the release of their special edition line celebrating sports with an edgy and slightly sexy twist. However criticism from VANOC towards Lululemon and their special edition “clothing line promoting patriotism” has started many debates and I am beginning to wonder if VANOC is misusing their Olympic power as bearer of the Olympic Holy Grail, and if the Olympics have become more of a place to halt crimes against fashion rather than about sponsoring some of the worlds best athletes and showcasing a world class event. Adrian MacNair a Vancouver-based writer and blogger had an article in The NationalPost where she says, “It wouldn’t be inaccurate to call them (VANOC) the fashion police, as teams of VANOC observers will have the power to censor anything that they believe infringes on the Olympic trademarks.” Around 52,000 Olympic volunteers will be decked out in official uniforms, therefore meaning no volunteer can be found wearing any article clothing not from an official Olympic sponsor. Maurice Cardinal author of the book, Leverage Olympic Momentum, offered some advice in his Vancouver Observer article on how you too can pull off a Lululemon. He says, “It’s a lot easier than you think. The hard part is being creative and following the letterof the law.” Cardinal continues to say, “that when you develop a strategy like this you should go to the edge of the legal line and pull back a bit to ensure the IOC can’t find a lame excuse to harass you. Better safe than sorry, and from what I can see regarding the Lululemon campaign, Chip followed my advice to the letter.” An article in BCBusiness called “Getting a Grip on 2010” quoted a SFU’s marketing prof Lindsay Meredith as saying that, “this marketing through the back door, is a way firms or entrepreneurs can steal a ride on the Olympic band wagon without paying heart breaking sums for sponsorships.” A few weeks ago Brent Barootes’ weekly email on corporate sponsorships stated that VANOC is effectively managing their corporate partnerships by being so stringent on protecting the brand. What do you think, has VANOC let their power go to their head? Or do you think they have every right to protect million dollar sponsorship deals? When does an event organizing committee or a wannabe sponsor go too far?