18th April 2005
Hi all,
It starts with the opening bars to M People's "Proud" and shows the sun slowly coming up over the London skyline. It's the advert which proudly states that London is a candidate city for the 2012 Olympics.
If only it carried on as well as it begins. Just a matter of seconds in the advert begins to go badly off course, as we hear the words, "Steve Backley... beautiful throw!" Yes, seemingly we think that medals in the Javelin event are won with style points.
It's all downhill from there really. Footage of Paula Radcliffe running... in the London Marathon. Can't show her failing to win Olympic Gold now, can we? And how is footage of Paula Radcliffe running going to sell anything to anyone? She always looks like she is tightening up and in pain when she runs.
Before the end of the advert there is time to get even more British Olympic heroes into the advert. Yes, it's the England Rugby Team showing off the World Cup. Small problem, Rugby isn't an Olympic sport.
All-in-all it is a pretty bad advert. At least more recent advertisements for the London 2012 campaign have got slightly better, actually featuring winners like Kelly Holmes and Matthew Pinsent in them.
I think it might have been worth sticking with Radcliffe and co. In fact I would have gone further and shown these as well:
1) "Scotland's" Tom McKean barging past runners and getting disqualified from the 800m in 1988.
2) Daley Thompson's pole snapping during the Decathlon at the same games.
3) Linford Christie sulking off after being disqualified from the 1996 100m final.
What have you done for me to make me feel proud? Good question. I think there might be more money than sense involved in this campaign.
Here's another thought that might give us an idea just how much money they have to spend. They're always showing this advert on NASN, a channel whose subscriber base must be 99.9% American and Canadian ex-pats (with yours truly being the 0.1%). Is influencing those viewers really so important? I can hardly see Americans oversees thinking, "Well I did want the Olympics to go to New York in 2012, but this advert might change my mind." Puh-lease.
According to reports on londontown.com the cost of the bidding alone is ?17M. The overall budget for hosting the games is ?2.375Bn! And given how notable projects in the UK have gone way over budget (e.g. The Millennium Dome, the Scottish Parliament, the new Wembley Stadium) can you trust that figure to be correct? And where on earth do you get that kind of money from?
You can go via the completely public route and end up paying off a total $2Bn debt over thirty years (a la Montreal in 1976) or subsidise the whole thing with sponsorship and be criticised for making the games too commercial (e.g. Atlanta in 1996). Getting money only from TV companies, corporate sponsors and ticket sales - bad. Throwing your cities into colossal debt - fine!
Maybe I'm biased because I still love Atlanta. I've just always felt they got a bad rap. You're not likely to get anyone from the UK defending them because for us Brits 1996 was the black sheep of Olympic Games because we only got one gold medal. And for the IOC to criticise anyone when they get over a billion US dollars for American TV rights alone is beyond hypocritical, and frankly typical of the organisation.
And don't even think of quoting the example of Sydney as a glowing sign of Olympic success built with a public purse. As recently as last July the Sydney Morning Herald reported that it was still costing New South Wales taxpayers 46 million Australian dollars a year to maintain Olympic venues in the wake of the games. Nice.
So as surprising as it may seem when July 6th rolls around I won't be too bothered if the games do go to the favoured Parisian bid. Let them worry about financing, planning and handling all the scrutiny, security arrangements and the aftermath. They're welcome to it.
Have a good week!
Tony
Main Archives
