Chapter 4 – The Implementation of the Olympic Advertising and Trading Regulations
4.5 Formal relations – the consultation process
This section of the findings discusses the formal mechanisms that the ODA and DCMS used in their interactions with wider stakeholders (RQ2a). Particular focus is given to the consultation process: a structured, legally circumscribed process, which was published in the public domain (DCMS, 2011c)30. The consultation followed the ODA’s road show for mapping the event zones. It occurred in 2011, lasted 12 weeks, and was headed up by DCMS who were targeting the views of the wider stakeholders affected by the Games, such as local authorities, trade associations and local and large businesses. According to DCMS (2011c), the consultation sought respondents’ views on the following:
The scope of advertising activity and trading which we propose to regulate, the areas within which the regulations will apply (which we called the ‘event zones’) and the time periods during which the regulations will be in force (which we called the ‘event periods’). The consultation process was important because it enabled the organisers to reach a wider sample of respondents as opposed to solely relying on informal co-present communications methods discussed in the previous section. For example, while only 51 responses were received, the consultation was made available to a sample of 600 stakeholders.
The expanded sample of respondents increased the opportunity for organisers to draw on the tacit knowledge of respondents to adapt the inbounded regulations in a way that was less time consuming than the road show approach to mapping the event zones. For instance, the respondents raised issues/queries, further transforming the social structure that was the written regulations31 - indicative of emergence (Bhasker, 1979). As such, the responses to the consultation triggered further considerations at the ODA and led to more specific writing
30Government response to Advertising and trading regulations for London 2012 (DCMS, 2011c)
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78148/GovtResponse_ad vertising_trade_london2012.pdf
of the regulations (e.g. closing loop holes). Interviewee #4 provided some examples as follows:
So we consulted on it and we got some excellent feedback… Things like if you go to a hole in the wall and get some money out, is that outdoor trading? If you go to an outdoor toilet, one of those cubicles, and you put 10 pence in, is that outdoor trading? Smoking: if you go to a bar/pub and you go into the pub and you buy your drink but then you drink it outside because you want a fag, does that constitute outdoor trading? These are the technical horrible questions where you don’t actually think the risk is too high, but you have to consider whether that should be within the regs or not. (Interviewee #4)
Additionally, the consultation process and the production of an ‘official’ written response32 by DCMS (2011c), were solid, reproducible social structures that could be used by the ODA and DCMS to demonstrate that the views of wider stakeholders (e.g. local businesses, communities and trade associations) were taken into account. Thus, the consultation process validated the acceptance of the ODA’s Olympic advertising and trading regulations through the lack of rejection of the regulations from stakeholders despite the low response rate (51 responses from 600 requests), as Interviewee #4 put it:
We only had fifty-one responses to the consultation which potentially links to people’s profits, so you do think, “Well, we’ve probably, actually, we’ve answered their questions and they feel broadly comfortable with this.” (Interviewee #4, ODA)
However, while the validation of the regulations, or at least a lack of resistance, was important for the ODA and DCMS, ultimately what determined the outcome of the regulations was the requirement to protect the IOC and its sponsors from ambush marketing, as such any resistance from these stakeholders could have been ignored by the ODA. The precarious state of consultations for the Olympic Games has been discussed in some prior critical studies of mega events. For example, Faulkner, et al. (2001) likened the process to a
32 The Government’s response to the public consultation on advertising and trading regulations for London
2012' can be found online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-response-to-the- public-consultation-on-the-advertising-and-trading-regulations-london-2012
‘false democracy’ whereby recommendations from local stakeholders, particularly small businesses and local communities, can be disregarded in favour of protecting the priorities of large corporate sponsors. Interviewee #9 (Cabinet Secretariat London 2012/BRDO) admitted that, to some extent, this was no different at London 2012:
Frankly it wouldn’t have mattered if three-quarters of the people responded and opposed the restrictions around wearing t-shirts, bringing certain products in, and setting up stalls to sell products outside. Whether stakeholders agreed with it or not those type of things wouldn’t have made that much difference at all because [there are] certain things as a host country you need to do.
Therefore, the formal consultation process can be theorised as a social structure, derived through emergence, whereby inputs (feedback) from the relevant stakeholders influenced the implementation of the new regulations to the extent the responses correlated to the priorities of the human agents of Olympic bodies (e.g. at the ODA, DCMS and the IOC). Going back to Interviewee #4’s point earlier, while the consultation’s main contribution was to validate the approach taken by ODA, due to the lack of resistance to the new set of regulations, it also highlighted areas for fine-tuning the regulations. Thus, the consultation process further transformed the Olympic advertising and trading regulations, resulting in a more purposeful and detailed set of rules that was an amalgamation of both stakeholder responses and the objectives of the human agents making the final decision.
The completion of the consultation process signified the end of planning for the Olympic advertising and trading regulations. The resulting rules that emerged from the interactions (formal and informal) of the organisations in the Olympic advertising and trading regulatory constellation were ratified as a new document called the ‘Detailed Provisions for Advertising and Trading Regulations at London 2012’– the written rules which dictated how advertising and trading regulations were to be enforced at London 2012.
Overall, this chapter provides an empirical demonstration of the formality-informality span at play within the context of event planning. Here, the balance between formal and informal interactions helped organisers solve the two major challenges of implementing new Olympic advertising and trading regulations. Firstly, the organisers lacked tacit experience in delivering a mega event with such stringent advertising and trading regulations attached. Secondly, the differences between the towns and cities hosting Olympic sporting events had to be incorporated into the creation of the new enforcement maps.
Such balance revolved around simultaneously formalising the interactions between the bodies of the regulatory constellation and mediating personalised relations. Formalisation focussed on bringing the interactions of the bodies in the regulatory constellation more in line with the explicit rationality of bureaucratic rules and conventions (e.g. Games Readiness, Olympic Committee Meetings). Concurrently, staff within the organising bodies (ODA and DCMS) increased the less visible (but equally important) informal interactions (e.g. co-present communication and ‘vouching’ for other bodies’ readiness) bringing fluidity to the implementation process, and reducing delays that often occur in bureaucracies.