NO - Fiona McAnena, Brand director, group marketing, Bupa
It depends on what sort of reputation LOCOG wants. There are more important issues than whether it's a bit rough with non-sponsors, like running a great Games and leaving a legacy for the UK. LOCOG has to protect its reputation as a rights-owner that sponsors can rely on to defend their investment. Remember the Commonwealth Games in Delhi last year, where sponsors did not have confidence in the organisers' willingness or ability to deliver on contractual rights? LOCOG's reputation would be more damaged by incompetence in protecting rights than being aggressive.
Ideally, this would be achieved by a consultative approach that defuses potentially litigious situations quickly, thus earning respect and building positive relationships. If LOCOG tried other avenues before going legal as a last resort, it could enhance its reputation as a tough but reasonable organisation by making that clear. But it won't be around to reap the rewards, so why bother? The legacy of London 2012 is where it can gain a lasting reputation, but so far there's little sign of that.
YES - Peter Duffy, Marketing director, easyJet
This approach could lead to the suppression of benefits that the Olympics should bring to the broader economy. In 2012, easyJet will fly more people into London than British Airways, the official Olympic airline sponsor. We will also fly to and from Southend Airport, just over 40 minutes from the heart of the Games. Yet we may be so tied up in rules and restrictions that we can barely tell people about this.
It also seems that there is a style issue with LOCOG. In April, easyJet signed a ground-breaking £18m deal with VisitBritain to bring millions of new visitors to the UK over the next four years. Then press reports stated that easyJet has been officially warned by LOCOG about trying to exploit the Olympics by mentioning 2012 without being an official sponsor. Interestingly, LOCOG didn't contact us in any way.
Every UK taxpayer is paying for the Olympics, so LOCOG should have an eye on the benefits to the broader economy and balance the legitimate interests of the sponsors with the wider interests of the public and the Games.
NO - Simon Massey, Managing director, The Gild
Its reputation won't be tarnished by being heavy-handed with non-sponsors, principally because I don't think the public is aware of the issue. Besides, it is doing a great job of tarnishing its reputation through the ticketing debacle.
The crux of the issue for us marketers is, should it be so heavy-handed with non-sponsors? No. I understand the need to protect sponsors' rights in and around the Games. I understand the need to leverage the revenue from these sources, without which cost would prohibit these major events. I do not think that non-sponsors should be allowed to ambush the site, although I do welcome the creativity of subversive marketing that these rules encourage.
However, a heavy-handed approach assumes the Games is owned lock-stock by Locog. It isn't. The 2012 Olympic Games is owned by us all. As a Londoner, I have paid more tax to fund the Games, as have many businesses and brands against a promise of gain to the economy. Let us all benefit, within reason - but, first and foremost, give me some tickets.
NO - Richard Exon, Chief executive, RKCR/Y&R
Not yet, anyway. It's easy to cast LOCOG as the big, bad control freak, but as anyone who's ever owned any kind of copyright, IP or patent will know, it's perfectly reasonable to protect your assets. The forthcoming campaign to make all brands aware of the issue is to be applauded and is a sure sign of how seriously LOCOG takes its responsibilities to the sponsors.
The challenge for LOCOG will be to use its judgement carefully in the coming months to avoid looking stupid on this topic, and in doing so have a negative impact on the Games' image overall. The press will rightly come down hard on any claim from LOCOG that looks unnecessarily vexatious and, in fact, the public generally have a very good nose for what is fair and unfair. Provided LOCOG focuses its attention on big business and avoids any David/Goliath spats with small local businesses - Stratford Set Menu for £20.12, anyone? - it should be fine.
The Marketing Society is the most influential network of senior marketers dedicated to inspiring bolder marketing leadership.