backtop


Print 18 comment(s) - last by ven1ger.. on Feb 10 at 2:12 PM

Samsung is an Olympic sponsor

Samsung and Apple may have a bitter rivalry, but the Galaxy device maker denied ever telling Swiss athletes at the Sochi Olympics to hide their Apple products during the opening ceremony.
 
According to The Guardian, Samsung -- an Olympic sponsor -- gave Swiss athletes Galaxy Note 3s as gifts for the Sochi Olympics. But both Samsung and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) reportedly told the athletes that the use of iPhones during the opening ceremony meant covering up Apple logos. 
 
The original report came from a Swiss website called Bluewin, according to The Guardian
 
When Samsung was asked about the iPhone cover-up, it denied having ever told Sochi athletes to hide their iPhones in favor of their new Samsung Galaxy Note 3s. 
 
“Samsung did not request any action of this nature from athletes attending the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics," said a Samsung spokesperson. "All commercial marketing around the games is overseen by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Samsung has not been involved in any decisions relating to branding of products used by athletes at the games.”


Samsung Galaxy Note 3

The IOC denied the rumors as well, saying the Galaxy Note 3s were merely a present to capture the athlete's experiences at the Sochi Olympics; not replace iPhones. 
 
By the way, athletes are told not to post any of their video or audio from the Olympics on blogs, social networks, etc.
 
“It is not true," said the IOC in response to the iPhone cover-up. "Athletes can use any device they wish during the Opening Ceremony. The normal rules apply just as per previous games. The Samsung Note 3 that were distributed are a gift to the athletes, so they can capture and share their experiences at the games, and the phones also contain important competition and logistical information for competing athletes.“
 
It wouldn't seem all that surprising if athletes were told to show off the sponsor's device and hide that of the competitor's. Especially when it concerns Samsung and Apple, since the two have fought extensive patent battles around the world since April 2011 and have repeatedly attempted to ban each other's devices. Apple calls Samsung an "iPhone, iPad copycat" while Samsung makes fun of Apple in commercials about fanboys who wait in line for days for the new iPhone. 

Source: The Guardian



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Tiffany Logic
By Reclaimer77 on 2/7/2014 10:43:16 AM , Rating: 3
Rumors denied by everyone involved = news.




RE: Tiffany Logic
By TheEquatorialSky on 2/7/2014 10:59:03 AM , Rating: 2
Tiffany logic?

I've never come across that term before. The only relevant Google result is a book covering a fuzzy logic approach to image processing. In this case, I guess "tiffany" refers to a python script for bulk editing of tiff files.

1) Tiffany logic = fuzzy logic?
2) Tiffany logic = this is a commonly used expression and I'm an idiot?
3) Tiffany logic = reclaimer fried his brain on drugs and is making up terms?

Will he pick door #1, door #2... or door #3. Tune in later to find out folks!


RE: Tiffany Logic
By TheEquatorialSky on 2/7/2014 11:06:32 AM , Rating: 4
I just got it. WooHoo...

Welcome to door #2. :(


RE: Tiffany Logic
By amanojaku on 2/7/2014 11:47:36 AM , Rating: 3
You did better than most people: you admitted the possibility that you were missing something. You deserve a beer (or favorite beverage of your choice).


RE: Tiffany Logic
By AstroCreep on 2/7/2014 12:05:41 PM , Rating: 3
PSST! (what's the name of the author of this article?)


RE: Tiffany Logic
By TheEquatorialSky on 2/7/2014 12:11:41 PM , Rating: 2
I thought articles just magically appeared...

Wait, are *people* writing these comments as well?!? :D


RE: Tiffany Logic
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/7/2014 1:52:05 PM , Rating: 2
But...Samsung! /s


RE: Tiffany Logic
By amanojaku on 2/7/2014 2:03:00 PM , Rating: 2
You can drop the /s, because that's exactly why. Apple, Google, HTC, Microsoft, Nokia, Samsung... That's pretty much guaranteed to make it up here. Which is why I'm surprised this didn't make it yet.

Steve Wozniak: Apple Should Make an Android Phone
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2014/02/woz-intervi...


RE: Tiffany Logic
By drycrust3 on 2/7/2014 2:12:50 PM , Rating: 2
My understanding of events like Sochi's Winter Olympics is that sponsors paid big money for exclusive naming rights, and part of exclusive naming rights is the expectation of exclusiveness. For example, Visa have been the official credit card at the Summer Olympics for a long time, and their advertising would tell you "We don't accept American Express", who were one of their competitors. One consequence of that sort of advertising is that it does create in the mind of other official sponsors the mindset that their competitors products won't be accepted either. Whether that is right or wrong isn't the point, this is part of the commercial reality of large sporting events. Would there be a fuss if an athlete was seen holding an American Express card at the Opening Ceremony? Of course! Or what if one of the marshalls was seen holding a Pepsi instead of a Coke, would their be questions asked? Of course! Or what if an LG branded TV was seen at a medal presentation? Or a race was timed by TAG Heuer?
Here, lots of companies would have put in bids to be the official supplier of smartphones, and Samsung won the tender to be the official smartphone supplier, so they would be expecting their logo, and not that of Apple, HTC, Motorola, Huawai, Nokia, etc, to be seen at events like the opening ceremony, at medal presentations, at press conferences, etc.
It wouldn't surprise me if every athlete was given a "goodie bag" in which was a Visa card, an endless supply of Coca Cola, an endless supply of P & G products, some Panasonic equipment in their room, an ample supply of McDonald's products, etc, etc, etc. And, amongst all of those things is a high end Samsung phone.
While I doubt an athlete would be sent home if they are seen with their iPhone at the Opening Ceremony, I would imagine there would be repercussions. I don't know what they would be, but the athlete would almost certainly be told to make sure they leave it in their room, and they might find there is someone to check they did every time they want to go to somewhere there will be TV cameras, they might also find their name appears on a black list of athletes who camera people aren't allowed to do close ups on.


RE: Tiffany Logic
By Solandri on 2/8/2014 2:09:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My understanding of events like Sochi's Winter Olympics is that sponsors paid big money for exclusive naming rights, and part of exclusive naming rights is the expectation of exclusiveness.

My understanding is that the sponsors never asked for exclusive rights. The IOC started selling only exclusive marketing rights to make more money, by forcing the companies into a bidding war.


RE: Tiffany Logic
By ven1ger on 2/10/2014 2:12:42 PM , Rating: 2
Sponsors pay for the ability to place their products in connection with any ads they produce. They also get promoted within the venue itself either through product endorsements or ability to place their ad banners in strategic locations so it can be seen. I've been involved with sponsors at events and placement of their banner ads or products.

I've never seen a sponsor ask that any item be banned or hidden, there have times where if a sponsor provided products, that the organization doesn't make it public that the event may be utilizing a competitor's product out of respect for the sponsor.


"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki