Hotmao

The worst thing about living in this new 1930’s has to be hearing various suggestions that we are now in an age of austerity and that sackcloth and ashes is the new black. This is hardly true, sackcloth and ashes has been bon mode since about the time Bernie Ecclestone had to start giving Tony Blair bungs to keep smoking and F1 together and we’ve been on an exponential helter-skelter of Puritanism ever since.  In fact so Puritanical have we become that Bernie might have to pay another visit to number 10 if he fancies dipping Formula 1’s toes in the chocolate industry as pressure groups are beginning to kick up a fuss.

In this case the National Obesity Forum has deplored Cadburys’ sponsorship of the 2012 Olympic games saying it goes against the government’s avowed policy to battle obesity while the BBC labelled Cadburys “the most controversial Olympic sponsor so far.”

Which essentially draws two conclusions; either chocolate can now be viewed as on a par with alcohol, tobacco and gambling, as ruinous to health, families and social cohesion or that lobbyists are looking to the government to extend its paternalistic intervention in advertising to progressively minor cases which suit their particular gripe.

It is all the more indicative of this creeping Puritanism that Cadburys quite happily sponsored Sydney 2000, and the Commonwealth Games of 2002 and 2006 without a peep and yet within two years they can suddenly be regarded as a controversial sponsor.

The activists campaigning against Cadburys sponsorship however are using a much more subtle argument then “Chocolate is bad” to get their views heard. Tam Fry of the National Obesity Forum told Spiked, “I have nothing against chocolate per se, I just think that chocolate and sports don’t mix.” 

Fair enough Fry does mention that chocolate is a good source of energy but he states that “athletes are aware how to take it in moderation,” and this draws us to the distinction the National Obesity Forum is making. Their argument would suggest that sport sponsorship should be linked to the sport itself and be about the athletes partaking in it, despite the fact that this has never been the case in the history of sports advertising. 

Obviously footballers like the odd drink and a gamble and a fair few Formula 1 drivers smoke, however what brands have historically tried to do is associate their product with the feel-good factor of sport and not the athletic prowess of its participants.

This is why you had the Premier League sponsored by Carling beer or the rugby Premiership sponsored by Guinness. The campaigns focused on the social aspect of watching sport and not the self-discipline many of the athletes need to maintain their abilities in competitive leagues.  Hence Cadburys has paid close on £30 million to have the 2012 logo on their chocolate bars and the exclusive rights to sell their confectionary at the Games itself, not to pretend they are part of some healthy lifestyle but to take advantage of the massive amount of interest worldwide the Games are going to generate.

Also by implication in the NOF’s point that athletes are aware how to use chocolate is the suggestion that consumers are not, and being a bit like goldfish are incapable of stopping themselves from devouring any food in sight.  Hence Fry is happy with Coca-Cola as a sponsor thanks to its Diet brand while McDonalds is fine as athletes such as Michael Phelps use it for fuel but would consumers know where to stop?

It is this latter point, which however subtly put, reverts back to the government view of people as being the hapless victims of advertisers with no will or common sense of their own.  The NOF is particularly concerned for children stating they are especially prone to advertising and that schoolchildren are now spending around £485 million a year on fizzy drinks and chocolate. It does sound quite a lot until you work out that is essentially the 10 million children under 11 spending their one pound a week pocket money on sweets.

What all this debate ignores is that Cadburys is the perfect brand to be an Olympic sponsor, it’s as quintessentially English as the Routemaster and Jimmy Page and considering London is supposed to be the yoof innit Olympics what better product to captivate their interest then something thy spend 100% of their income on.

There are plenty of people talking up the 2012 Games as the “austerity Olympics” with suggestions including spending less on fireworks and hoping the credit crunch will just make the whole circus go away. Cadburys have had to sign up to this way of hosting what could represent the world’s biggest party and they have promised not to give out free sweets to the children attending the games. Taking candy from a baby used to be a bad thing.