UK Olympic athletes banned from wearing Beats headphones

[Marvin the Martian]

Great Britain's Olympic team has been given a friendly reminder to clamp down on athletes wearing the wrong brand headphones, after medal-chasing Olympians were spied sporting non-sponsor Beats by Dr. Dre cans.

The bass-heavy Dr. Dre brand shipped batches of its bombastic headphones to hotels where British athletes were staying, the Associated Press reports.

The Beats brand is not an official sponsor of the London 2012 Olympics, and as such officials were none too pleased about the company's cunning publicity ploy. British Olympic Association spokesperson Darryl Seibel said that team leaders have been reminded of "the importance of protecting our corporate partners".

British footballer Jack Butland tweeted, "Loving my new GB Beats by Dre," along with the hashtags #TeamGB and #Beats, Reuters says. The sponsor-swerving tweet apparently prompted a warning to Brit athletes.

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/accessories/...ones-50008803/

[CrowdAds]

[WalkGood]

I’m not surprised that beats uses gorilla marketing to get free TV coverage while not kicking in a penny to be a legitimate sponsor. If people only knew how cheap those headphones really are I doubt they’re be buying them.

Both the first comment and the fifth are on target

I wish they'd apply this ruling to the rest of Central London... or the world. Beats are single handedly the most infuriating headphones to ever be placed over someones skull. I rid them from this planet with great glory and glee.

I think beat's move is very cheap

[Satellite_6]

As much as I dislike beats, I support the right of athletes to ware wtf ever headphones they want.

[The DarkSide]

I'd use skullcandys before I'd use those shitty beats!!!

[Jack4L]

Originally Posted by Satellite_6

As much as I dislike beats, I support the right of athletes to ware wtf ever headphones they want.

Well in this case its most likely not personal preference. Even Olympic athletes probably will think twice about spending 400$ on a set of headphones :P Let alone take said fragile expensive things then on a trip.

[WalkGood]

Originally Posted by Satellite_6

As much as I dislike beats, I support the right of athletes to ware wtf ever headphones they want.

That makes no sense, then by your support an athlete could wear a burger king hat, patch or other wearable products. When in reality mcdonalds is the official sponsor and if you've noticed the official sponsors are not involved in this cheap tactic. While other athletes sell their support to the highest bidders to market others products would really cheapen the event. Sorry but in this type of event what you suggest would not work fairly.

[kp-j3]

Took me long enough to find out that Panasonic was the official headphone sponsor.

I think a patch or a hat is different, although Beats' tactics were crappy, headphones should be a personal choice.

I had no idea they had such a big share of the market.

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/report-...service=mobile

[skip252]

Originally Posted by WalkGood

That makes no sense, then by your support an athlete could wear a burger king hat, patch or other wearable products. When in reality mcdonalds is the official sponsor and if you've noticed the official sponsors are not involved in this cheap tactic. While other athletes sell their support to the highest bidders to market others products would really cheapen the event. Sorry but in this type of event what you suggest would not work fairly.

Agreed. If I'm the company that helped pay for the training and facilities by being an official sponsor I would expect to see my product be the one they wore on TV. What they use in their personal life should be their choice but when they're in their capacity as a sponsored athlete I'd expect to see my product in use or nothing.

[WalkGood]

Originally Posted by kp-j3

Took me long enough to find out that Panasonic was the official headphone sponsor.

This is because they’re not cheap street whores like beats, doesn't surprise me hearing and seeing all the bull shit they put out. Panasonic by being an official sponsor reserves the right to use or not use the Olympic rings and/or logos in their advertising for the next several years. Or use them on packaging and what ever else they are allowed to use them on. They may or may not have to pay additional royalties, I don’t know the details of the contracts. But if you were a paying sponsor I think you would feel different.

Originally Posted by kp-j3

I think a patch or a hat is different, although Beats' tactics were crappy, headphones should be a personal choice.

I use the example of hat/patch, for that matter they could be burger king headphones if you wish or even UE customs. While I agree that headphones and other items you use/wear are a personal choice, they are not during a global competition like this, you have to follow the rules or you could be sanctioned or booted out. You’re not their on your dime, you are their on your Countries and corporate sponsors funding. So if I was, no let me put it this way, if you were the marketing manager for Panasonic (the official sponsor), I’m sure you’d look the other way and you’d try to tell your bosses that it’s a personal choice …. Happy job hunting …

What beats has done here is nothing new, in my previous life I did international marketing for a globally recognized brand and the competition always tried gorilla marketing tactics on us. The only difference between was that we anticipated cheap bastards like beats move and were ready to remove any and all free promotional activities by the competition. Sure they occasionally one upped us but never on global television coverage, now if you are currently working for dr. dre & his thugs, congrats on your brilliant move to get free global advertising for the low cost they pay for those cheap phones. BTW I do not work for Panasonic

[Jeven]

An athlete couldn't wear a Burger King hat in this Olympics and get away with it.

Perhaps outside of the Olympic village and off-camera, but not anywhere near the events. It's really a corporate lock-down.

[WalkGood]

Originally Posted by Jeven

An athlete couldn't wear a Burger King hat in this Olympics and get away with it.

Perhaps outside of the Olympic village and off-camera, but not anywhere near the events. It's really a corporate lock-down.

And so it should be with headphones as well when millions of dollars of support contracts are in place for certain rights from the Olympic Committee. This is no different than the sponsoring contracts with FIFA World Cup™ which get global coverage. If you were a sponsor of the Olympic games I don't think you'd like to see your competitors product being proudly displayed by the athletes, you would probably call them thieves! On the other hand if you were working for the competition (beats in this case) you'd be happy as a pig in mud for the almost free global advertising you get. I think many would be surprised how well subtle advertising works.

Headphones are more likely to be used by an athlete when they're received for free over a hat because of use & perceived value. Why didn't dre send hats as they would certainly have saved him a few bucks, because of what you said and the fact that the athletes wouldn't use them. I only used the hat example because most people recognize this form of marketing, free hats. BTW the prominently displayed b-logo on the side of a headphone isn't much different when it comes to promoting a product on a globally covered event.

Edit: I was able to find the "legal" sponsors in a mater of seconds and immediately saw Panasonic listed as one. While I'm not a fan of their products either, they do have the legal right there and unfortunately for them they didn't provide the athletes free headphones to wear around the games.

[JSV]

When you think about it, all Beats did was giving their products to athletes. There's nothing illegal or inherently wrong or bad about that.

And from a marketing viewpoint, this makes perfect sense in a capitalist society. Crushing the competition by any means possible at the lowest cost possible is what capitalism is all about.

And, not to forget: the athletes were the ones who made the final decision of wearing the headphones or not.

[JSV]

Also, there's obviously double standards here. Beats by Dre are despised by most people here, so anything they do will be "wrong"... I bet that if a more respected headphone manufacturer had used the same tactic instead of Beats, the reaction would be completely different.

I don't like Beats myself, but what I don't like even more is hypocrisy and double standards.

[WalkGood]

Originally Posted by JSV

When you think about it, all Beats did was giving their products to athletes. There's nothing illegal or inherently wrong or bad about that.

And from a marketing viewpoint, this makes perfect sense in a capitalist society. Crushing the competition by any means possible at the lowest cost possible is what capitalism is all about.

I agree with your point and shame on Panasonic for not providing the athletes with free samples of their best headphones to get the publicity they paid for. This is why I wrote:

Originally Posted by WalkGood

… now if you are currently working for dr. dre ..., congrats on your brilliant move to get free global advertising for the low cost they pay for those cheap phones. …

Although IMO Panasonic has every right to request the Olympic committee to ban the use of competing products by athletes at this event without being seen as the bad guy (company).

Originally Posted by JSV

And, not to forget: the athletes were the ones who made the final decision of wearing the headphones or not.

I do not blame the athletes in any way, heck they may not know better. If a free $300 pair of headphones showed up at your hotel room door and all you had were those cheap white earbuds the decision is a no brainier. This is why the Olympic committee (or powers that be) posed the request to the team leaders according to the article that Marvin posted. "British Olympic Association spokesperson Darryl Seibel said that team leaders have been reminded of the importance of protecting our corporate partners."

On another note, I did let my huge dislike for the product show in what should have been objective criticism on my part ... well there go my chances of landing a job with beats audio

Edit:

Originally Posted by JSV

Also, there's obviously double standards here. Beats by Dre are despised by most people here, so anything they do will be "wrong"...

In my book what they did is wrong but as you say all is fair in love & war and on their part it was a good tactic to employ but it’s nothing new. This practice has been going on for years with many other products/companies.

Originally Posted by JSV

I bet that if a more respected headphone manufacturer had used the same tactic instead of Beats, the reaction would be completely different.

I’m not sure about that, while I like some Sennheiser headphones, I don’t like all of their stuff and when one of their products isn’t up to snuff in my book, I don’t have a problem making the facts known. In this case it’s about beats and their actions are wrong in my book, regardless if I like their products or not. On the other hand if I worked for beats or Senn marketing, I may have been involved in similar tactics that beats did, although I wouldn’t be proud of my actions. BTW I had similar chances to do gorilla marketing for the international firm that I worked for and their attitude in this respect was not to do it because it was wrong, lucky for me I wasn’t put in the position that I felt my actions were wrong.

Originally Posted by JSV

I don't like Beats myself, but what I don't like even more is hypocrisy and double standards.

I try to follow the rule to look in the mirror before I call you or others hypocrites or accuse you of having double standards …

[Marvin the Martian]

I find that the Beats' maneuver here is a bit on the shady side, morally, but I suppose it does fit into a capitalist system. Of course, there are flaws in the capitalist system.

I don't doubt that the athletes were overjoyed to see Beats given to them....they are a perceived status symbol. Look how many professional athletes are always seen wearing them as they walk in and out of the stadiums and airports.

Michael Phelps of the USA team wears SOL headphones until right before he jumps in the water....I don't know if they sound good or not, and interestingly enough, I haven't heard of any complaints from any of the sponsors or sanctioning bodies about him wearing them either.

As far as the Beats themselves, I got to try the Beats Studios, and I can truthfully say I've heard several sub-$100 headphones that sound better than them....and they cost $300!

[Satellite_6]

Originally Posted by WalkGood

That makes no sense, then by your support an athlete could wear a burger king hat, patch or other wearable products. When in reality mcdonalds is the official sponsor and if you've noticed the official sponsors are not involved in this cheap tactic. While other athletes sell their support to the highest bidders to market others products would really cheapen the event. Sorry but in this type of event what you suggest would not work fairly.

Capitalism isn't supposed to be fair. Buying your way into sponsorship isn't fair. I mean really, McDonalds at the Olympic games?

[musichound]

Originally Posted by Satellite_6

As much as I dislike beats, I support the right of athletes to ware wtf ever headphones they want.

Agreed to this, but I still applaud the UK for dumping the Beats.

[WalkGood]

Originally Posted by Satellite_6

Capitalism isn't supposed to be fair.

I haven't debated that point, so I would agree too.

Originally Posted by Satellite_6

Buying your way into sponsorship isn't fair.

In what way is that any different from capitalism, your event and I'm sure you'd have sponsors to help fund your event.

Originally Posted by Satellite_6

I mean really, McDonalds at the Olympic games?

While I'm no fan of mcdonalds, I don't see why a company that wants to sponsor the games be dis-allowed to sponsor just because they have crappy products or unhealthy IMO. I only say IMO because I'm sure there's others that view their products as good or tasty As well as it doesn't jib with your "capitalism isn't supposed to be fair" statement.

Edit: @ Marvin, I'm guessing all the other pro athletes that use beats headphones got them for free as well, this is one of the reasons this brand has grown in popularity.

[Mikerman]

And so, does this all mean that an athlete who wants to use headphones before a competition to help to mentally zone-out and prepare has to go out and purchase a sponsor's headphones (or only use his/her headphones in the athlete's private bedroom, lest others see the athlete doing so)? I guess the issue with the Beats is that their logo/advertising is so conspicuous on the phones, and Beats gets free advertising when the television newscasts show the athlete prepping before a competition--would wearing a pair of in-ear Shure phones cause a ruckus? Presumably, this also is the Olympics Committee's being ticked-off at Beats and its commando (non-paid) marketing.

Perhaps there should be a provision, an athlete must not wear/use non-sponsor products in public, at the Olympics site, where the non-sponsor's logo is readily viewable, AND the competing sponsor has made its products readily available to the athlete at no cost . . . .

[kp-j3]

Originally Posted by Mikerman

And so, does this all mean that an athlete who wants to use headphones before a competition to help to mentally zone-out and prepare has to go out and purchase a sponsor's headphones (or only use his/her headphones in the athlete's private bedroom, lest others see the athlete doing so)?

That was my point. It's equipment for the event, like skis, skates, table tennis paddles etc. that have to fall into technical, not corporate guidelines, for the mental side of things.

If someone handed me an officially IOC approved music solution, and said this is what you're using or nothing, for corporate conformity's sake, I'd either be so pissed I'd kick everyone's ass, or fail miserably.