The London 2012 Olympics - The Politics Discussion

[Martin]

Re: Re: The London 2012 Olympics - The Events

Yes is does. It's a cynical attempt by the marketers to sell more crap by creating a false idea of togetherness and patriotism, as I've said over and over. It's marketing put before sport and the athletes and does absolutely nothing but make us look bad. We're major competitors in the Olympics, Team GB sounds like the name of a youth group sports day team.

 

[Scott]

Re: Re: The London 2012 Olympics - The Events

Team GB is not a sporting team. It's the marketing brand name. It's pathetic. Marketing coming before sport and integrity.

If the tracksuits said GB that would be fine, as that's what the country is actually called. Everyone else manages fine. Just like everyone else managed to walk on properly during the opening ceremony, and then we had to shout brap brap at the cameras as we walked past. Pathetic.

The marketing brand name that creates a sense of unity between all the athletes on the team and allows the public to become part of the 'team' too? I think it works. Fantastically in fact. It's just a name, and one that doesn't come before sport or integrity at all - it simply sits alongside it.

We behaved in a similar way in the opening ceremony to many other teams. I'm sure had the camera filmed them all the way around the stadium too, other countries athletes would have done silly things. It's just that, as the hosts, we were on camera for the whole lap of the stadium.

One final point about 'Team GB' is that is has existed as an entity since 1999. It ain't going anywhere.

 

[Simon]

Re: Re: The London 2012 Olympics - The Events

Just a thought:

Does this discussion not belong in the "Politics" topic, not the events topic?

i.e Push off if you're going to have a row (in the nicest possible way)

 

[Martin]

Re: Re: The London 2012 Olympics - The Events

Actually everyone else apart from America at the end of their bit (USA USA USA USA) acted dignified. We run on going brap brap and messing about. No need, it makes us look stupid.

It's a stupid name. And it does come before integrity. It's letting marketing come first by dictating the name. Guess what? The public aren't part of any team, that's why they're watching it and not competing or coaching. And if all it takes to make you feel part of something is the word 'team', you're pretty easily led.

He's only a comedian, but Mitchell has a point about it being capitalism's final victory, reducing our athletes into a money spinning venture.

Just a thought:

Does this discussion not belong in the "Politics" topic, not the events topic?

i.e Push off if you're going to have a row (in the nicest possible way)

Sort of, but not really as it's about the games and competitors themselves.

 

[Scott]

Re: Re: The London 2012 Olympics - The Events

@Blaze: I don't have to feel part of something just because it says 'team' but it allows the general public to feel as though they are involved and doing something to help the team. I mean, that is what they are after all: a team of superb athletes... So why can't we call them Team GB? Just because it's a marketing name?

I'm fairly sure that were they called 'Team Great Britain', 'The Great Britain Team' or simply 'Great Britain' then merchandise would sell just as well, as the words would just be changed. So why should it matter that there is a clear brand for our athletes to join under? It creates unity and passion and is great in my opinion. And if the brand has increased sales of marketing then fantastic - as it means more funding for Olympic participants that are currently scrambling for lottery funding.

As for your first point about all the other teams - it's impossible to know that all the teams acted perfectly as we did not see their entire lap around the stadium. The only team to get more airtime than 30 seconds was our team. Yes... team.

---

Just a thought:

Does this discussion not belong in the "Politics" topic, not the events topic?

i.e Push off if you're going to have a row (in the nicest possible way)

You're very right... and I forgot that topic existed!

Now this is a lovely sight...

 

[CoasterCrazyChris]

Re: Re: The London 2012 Olympics - The Events

This whole 'team' business is a bit like 'resort' - it just cheapens things.

 

[Tom]

Re: Re: The London 2012 Olympics - The Events

It's more of a convenience branding than a huge money-spinning marketing term. It's simply a term created for ease of use when referring to the British athletes.

teamgb.com > greatbritainattheolympics.com

BBC narrators during the opening ceremony: "Here come Team GB" > "here come the athletes representing Great Britain".

If the Team GB brand was making huge amounts of money from sales etc then I could understand your contempt but it isn't that at all - even if it was their intention to create something like that, they failed.

 

[Simon]

Re: Re: The London 2012 Olympics - The Events

Just a thought:

Does this discussion not belong in the "Politics" topic, not the events topic?

i.e Push off if you're going to have a row (in the nicest possible way)

Sort of, but not really as it's about the games and competitors themselves.

I respectfully disagree: this topic was specifically set up to be free of debate, so that people could simply post their hyperbolic outpourings about how amazing things were, and perhaps a bit of discussion about the performance of athletes.

Anything surrounding organisation, governance, marketing that could involve contention really belongs in the other topic, and I might flag my post to the mods to see if they agree.

You'd still get to talk about it there, so what could be the harm?

 

[Martin]

Re: Re: The London 2012 Olympics - The Events

@Blaze: I don't have to feel part of something just because it says 'team' but it allows the general public to feel as though they are involved and doing something to help the team. I mean, that is what they are after all: a team of superb athletes... So why can't we call them Team GB? Just because it's a marketing name?

I'm fairly sure that were they called 'Team Great Britain', 'The Great Britain Team' or simply 'Great Britain' then merchandise would sell just as well, as the words would just be changed. So why should it matter that there is a clear brand for our athletes to join under? It creates unity and passion and is great in my opinion. And if the brand has increased sales of marketing then fantastic - as it means more funding for Olympic participants that are currently scrambling for lottery funding.

As for your first point about all the other teams - it's impossible to know that all the teams acted perfectly as we did not see their entire lap around the stadium. The only team to get more airtime than 30 seconds was our team. Yes... team.

So what's the need for this stupid name if it would sell just as well?

Because it's cringey and about marketing. It's not about the athletes, it's about money.

It hasn't and to say it has is to devalue and insult the hard work of everyone involved in making our athletes some of the best in the world.

This whole 'team' business is a bit like 'resort' - it just cheapens things.

This.

"Here come Team GB" > "here come the athletes representing Great Britain".

Disagreed. What's better, representing your nation or being in some vague 'team'?

If the Team GB brand was making huge amounts of money from sales etc then I could understand your contempt but it isn't that at all - even if it was their intention to create something like that, they failed.

Good.

Just a thought:

Does this discussion not belong in the "Politics" topic, not the events topic?

i.e Push off if you're going to have a row (in the nicest possible way)

Sort of, but not really as it's about the games and competitors themselves.

I respectfully disagree: this topic was specifically set up to be free of debate, so that people could simply post their hyperbolic outpourings about how amazing things were, and perhaps a bit of discussion about the performance of athletes.

Anything surrounding organisation, governance, marketing that could involve contention really belongs in the other topic, and I might flag my post to the mods to see if they agree.

You'd still get to talk about it there, so what could be the harm?

I suppose, but as it's connected to the actual games and specifically the GB athletes and what they represent, it's relevant.

 

[Scott]

Re: The London 2012 Olympics - The Events

@Blaze: I don't have to feel part of something just because it says 'team' but it allows the general public to feel as though they are involved and doing something to help the team. I mean, that is what they are after all: a team of superb athletes... So why can't we call them Team GB? Just because it's a marketing name?

I'm fairly sure that were they called 'Team Great Britain', 'The Great Britain Team' or simply 'Great Britain' then merchandise would sell just as well, as the words would just be changed. So why should it matter that there is a clear brand for our athletes to join under? It creates unity and passion and is great in my opinion. And if the brand has increased sales of marketing then fantastic - as it means more funding for Olympic participants that are currently scrambling for lottery funding.

As for your first point about all the other teams - it's impossible to know that all the teams acted perfectly as we did not see their entire lap around the stadium. The only team to get more airtime than 30 seconds was our team. Yes... team.

So what's the need for this stupid name if it would sell just as well?

Because it's cringey and about marketing. It's not about the athletes, it's about money.

It hasn't and to say it has is to devalue and insult the hard work of everyone involved in making our athletes some of the best in the world.

The need for the name is for the simplicity of saying it, the unity it provides the athletes and the sense of spirit it can give the supporters. The name was created both for marketing reasons and also to provide the athletes a clear umbrella name to perform under in unison.

I could argue your point in reverse: So what is the need to drop the name if it sells well now and just as well as any other name would?

Why is it devaluing our athletes to say that extra cash made from the brand has gone to fund their training? A lot of our athletes struggle for funding - in fact, 9 out of 10 of Team GB are lottery funded. I hardly think it is an insult to those who have worked so hard with our athletes, as well as the athletes themselves, to say that the Team GB idea has provided revenue in which to invest within the system...

I also highly doubt that anywhere in the world there is someone from another country saying 'Wow, Jess Ennis achieved something amazing tonight, but I can't help but feel that her win has been devalued because she competes under Team GB.'