The Social Media Olympics - A gold medal performance? (1/2)

Being an avid sports fan, the Olympics always manage to capture my attention, but the huge growth in social media platforms has ensured accessing information, video, results and scores is now easier and more convenient than ever before. From a viewer's perspective, the two go hand in hand. I can sit down and watch my favourite event whilst simultaneously engaging and communicating with people all over the world. Yet from an athlete's perspective, the focus on them has never been greater, and whilst that's fantastic if they win a gold medal, it means the ramifications of an erroneous tweet have also never been greater.

Already, two athletes have been sent home from the Games after making disparaging and racist remarks on Twitter. It seems to me that the IOC is treading a fine line, aiming to both encourage Twitter and promote the Games whilst also ensuring it remains scandal free. Is that even possible? IOC spokesperson Mark Adams gave a glimpse as to what the IOC's opinion was:

"To be frank, it would be a little bit [pointless] if we said, 'No, these aren't the social media games,'" He acknowledged. "Because everyone has decided they are, anyway."

 So, he's effectively established the IOC is lacking control in this area, which isn't a surprise. The power of social media, as I eluded to in my previous post, is its lack of formal hierarchy. It is driven by the people, for the people, and the IOC in the coming weeks will probably find itself powerless to stop it again.

If an idiot wants to maliciously target British diver Tom Daley over Twitter, they can, just as they could to his face. Unless the IOC bans Twitter altogether, they have as much chance of stopping it on the streets as they do on the web. It's a sad state of affairs, but we have to start separating the method from the man. And so does the IOC.

This brings me to the issue of sponsorship and marketing - another area of the Olympics the IOC is desperately trying to restrain from 21st century realities. Under Rule 40 of the Olympic charter, athletes can't associate themselves with organisations who aren't official sponsors of the London Games. Our own Libby Trickett has been one of the first to breach the rule, with a relatively harmless re-tweet. You have to ask yourself: is the IOC's hard line stance on an issue such as this really in their best interests? It offsides athletes and reinforces its stereotype of an archaic institution clinging to outdated rules in the face of considerable social and technological change. It's also amusing that Trickett's "promotion" of small Australian company Inner Nutrition demanded action yet Usain Bolt's tweet (see below) did not, despite the fact it featured a picture of Coca-Cola's main rival, Gatorade. Is this preferential treating? In my opinion, the system is an outdated calamity and helping to pit athletes against the IOC on the path to commercial and marketing warfare. Hopefully the situation can be rectified without further embarrassment to athletes and companies alike.

Stay tuned for Part 2 coming shortly and in the meantime join in the discussion with me by commenting below.