Preface: Why Athens 2004 Online?

While the entire World is solemnly invited to “Celebrate humanity”, in Athens 2004 Olympic Games, more and more skeptical opinions on the Olympics are heard; many scholars diagnose the era of post-Olympism. It’s definitely clear though that Olympic Games still is the biggest international event which carries multiple cultural messages. By organizers Games are praised as the celebration of many all encompassing values: humanity, noble competition, equality… Started in 776 BC, reborn in 1896, in 2004 Olympics are promised to be more exciting than ever; and less commercial the same time. To examine the conflict between the commercial and the public, the profitable and the noble, the loudly expressed and the real in this mega-celebration was my first vaguely defined idea for the final paper for the course “Participatory Culture”. Being interested in some sports, in MediaSport as the phenomena and having small journalistic experience in finding out about international sport competitions online, I planned to discuss the commodification of Athens 2004 Games online.  Later the broadness of the topic appeared to be greater than I expected and I was having “inner conflicts” what narrower angel would be the most relevant today.  Each lecture of the course gave input to think, cyberspace kept me updated and the period of watching Euro 2004 and knowing about it is providing me with new points to think on.  I decided to turn a little bit from the broad definition of topic – commoditization of Athens 2004 –- and  overview not only the institutional use of internet but also main  media  partners web sites. Internet changes all cultural landscape and as Manuel Castells wrote, the power 'is no longer concentrated in institutions, organizations or symbolic controllers; it is diffused in global networks of wealth, power, information and images[i]. It’s the time for new spots of power to appear and for old not lose their positions… When it comes to such big networks as Olympic Games Organizers’ this means the multitude of crucial decisions and entrepreneur flexibility in coping with the changing environment. The word “celebrate” has two meanings: (1) enjoy occasion; (2) praise. In what ways organizers and broadcasting partners of the Games offer to enjoy the Olympics online? Are there any reasons to praise the use of internet affordances in making Games accessible and fulfilling Olympic Ideals? These are the questions to be answered.  

Introduction

In the writing “Olympic Games and the Internet: Athens 2004 Organizing and Broadcasting Culture Online” I will focus on the reflection of the Olympic Games culture in the official Athens 2004 Olympics web site www.athens2004.com  and also appraise the use of internet affordances in two Games broadcasters’ web sites: of National Broadcasting Company  (NBC) www.NBCOlympics.com launched for the Games and of British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) www.bbc.co.uk/sports which plans advanced performance during the games. By examining these web sites and complementing my findings with other relevant sources and examples I will seek to find out how internet is used for spreading the message about Olympic Games in Athens and how the use of the medium flows into the whole process of complementing public and commercial tasks of the Game organizers.  

The Athens 2004 website is chosen as an object of research because it is the official web site of the Game organizers reflecting their marketing objectives and policy regarding internet; the NBC is main broadcasting partner of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and its web site achieved leadership in as main actor in the internet during Sydney 2000. Else, the advanced performance using broadband is prepared for Athens 2004. The case of BBC is used as an example of public webcasting which marks the trends of online broadcasting regulations. As new and lacking scholar research topic is discussed in the writing, I find the IOC Corporate Culture of great contextual importance to the issue, that’s why much attention to the historical overview of the Olympic Games marketing history, and the use of internet among other media is given.

One of the main problems I faced when researching the topic was the lack of objective and scholar writings on the Olympic Games and new media. The sources were either the articles in the media, which are not aspired to be deep analysis of the issue, also texts written by strongly IT oriented sources (such as press releases of companies), also the official texts of Game organizers or the researches made by scholars related to the IOC. For appraising the whole situation I had to overview all sorts of literature, and trying to relate those arguments was one of the main tasks. As I have mentioned before, the historical overview of the Olympics corporate culture and use of internet makes a big part of the writing and later follows the description of web sites. As for this part, I chose to group the findings in all web sites in several categories what makes them easier to compare.

As for the sources, besides the already mentioned ones, I also use literature on the Mediasport and sports commodification as background, also the course “Participatory Culture” material shaped the questions of the research. 

It is important to recognize that Olympic Games is an event carrying multiple cultural messages, though there is not much done in the researching Games within new media and cultural economies domain. Internet is changing the cultural landscape that fast, that during the Athens 2004 even more forms of new media applications in both institutional and business levels could be presented, I find it important and interesting to overview condition when a little more than a month until Athens Olympics is left and we wonder what technological novelties and forms of their regulations expect us in the nearest future.

1. Olympic Games culture

“The world of sports in the age of mass media has been transformed from nineteenth century amateur recreational participation to late twentieth century spectator centered technology and business”

(Real, 1998, 18)

By organizers, the Olympic Games are presented as the world's largest stage for athletic skill, competitive spirit and overall “celebration of humanity”. However, today the Games are often criticized as being an international platform exploited by multinational corporations, and the organizers of the Olympics as the structure supporting corporate interests this way making actual athletics and values conveyed by sport secondary to merchandising and the interest of the businesses[ii]. What is more, scholars often approach the commercialization of Olympic Games as a triangular phenomenon and emphasize the role of media in the whole sports commodification process.  In this chapter I will provide with an overview of IOC mission and its marketing policy so that the actual topic of the paper would be put in the context which is crucial when we speak of such a long traditions carrying event as the Olympic Games. Else, I will focus on the definition of the conflict between public and commercial domains which IOC has to deal with when deciding the ways new media should be used in the Olympic Games.

1.1. Olympic Dilemma: the conflict between the public and the commercial

All sports for all people. This is surely a phrase that people will consider foolishly utopian. That prospect troubles me not at all. I have pondered and studied it at length, and know that it is correct and possible".

 Pierre de Coubertin[iii]

First, I want to define what is actually meant by saying “Olympic Games organizers”. According to the IOC shaped Olympic Movement structure[iv] the organization of the Olympic Games is entrusted by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to the National Olympic Committee (NOC) of the country of the host city as well as to the host city itself. The Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games communicates directly with the IOC, from which it receives instructions. In addition, it generally includes representatives of the public authorities. So, the  IOC is the main body in Games organizing structure; as far as the ideology of this organization is the main factor shaping the forms of participation of all related organizations such as sponsors, media, services providers, etc. To use the words of L.Kung – Shankleman, when studying the espoused values of organizational culture, we can not take this officially expressed level of culture  for granted, because it might always reveal underlying assumptions[v]However, they are a contributory factor to organizational performance. 

IOC presents itself as an “international non-governmental non-profit organization and the creator of the Olympic Movement. It owns all rights to the Olympic symbols, flag, motto, anthem and Olympic Games. The 2^nd of fundamental organization principles expressed in IOC Charter is that “Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles”[vi].

To quote some other of IOC marketing objectives, Games’ organizers seek, “to create continuing long-term marketing programmes and to build on and support the successful activities developed by each Organizing Committee, thus ensuring the financial stability of the Olympic Movement” , also  “to curtail uncontrolled commercialization of the Olympic Games”.[vii]

One of the roles of IOC written in the IOC Charter is to collaborate “with the competent public or private organizations and authorities in the endeavour to place sport at the service of humanity” (2). So, IOC the participation of both public and private domains in the organization of Games is a part of IOC policy.

By saying “public domain” I wan to focus on the “for everyone”[viii] meaning of the term and speak of Games’ accessibility.  This domain is also related to the ideal of Olympism to serve  publicly supported principals of humanity, which maybe be not profitable. IOC relates the category of publicity with its broadcasting policy; in broadcasting values’ system the care of Olympics publicity is named as an objective to reach the widest possible audience.

When I use the term “commercial” (“making or intended to make a profit”, “more concerned with profit and being popular than with quality”) I refer to the profitable activities and agreements with private sector, to say in other words,  to the organizers’ dependence on main revenue sources: broadcasting, sponsors and ticketing. “The Games provide a marketing platform that is based on ideals and values. The Games provide unparalleled opportunities for a company’s sales, showcasing, internal rewards, and community outreach programmes” says IOC[ix].

These are the Athens 2004 Olympic Games organizers expressed values:  “To organize technically excellent Olympic Games (…) To display the Olympic ideals in a contemporary setting through their traditional Greek symbols (…) To showcase the achievements of modern Greece and its potential for the future”.[x]

1.      2. Olympic Games marketing traditions

"If approached by media, please remember the following message: "I am honoured to have been given the opportunity by Samsung to be a torchbearer for the Samsung Athens 2004 Olympic Torch Relay."

“Samsung” is distributing these cards to the torchbearers [xi]

One part of scholars criticizes the present Olympics for commoditization and shifting from Olympic Games ideal. They point to Barron de Coubertin’s expressed values. As David Rowe writes, he was much taken with the idea of pure amateurism in sport and non-commercial nature of games[xii]. However, some researchers as J. Milton-Smith notice, the objectives of pure non-commercialism and amateurism are based upon anachronism and distort history, because Greek Games involved professional athletes, and what is relevant to our topic, commercial activity[xiii].  As history shows, already OGOC in 1986 faced financial difficulties and sought for support.[xiv] Later, the collaboration with businesses was increasing. However, despite the close relationship with private sector, also anti-commercial decisions were made. Like since 1928, IOC banned to stick posters to stadium grounds and buildings. Non-advertising in game place policy is what IOC is proud today as well.

I would also stress the Olympic Games branding tendencies, with five interlocking rings standing for a logo and Olympic ideals being the psychological meaning to be associated with. In 1972, Munich, rights to use the official Games emblem were sold and there was also the first official mascot presented.

The commoditization of Olympic Games is named as a dominant trend within the whole sports commercialization tendencies of last decades of XX century. For instance, Los Angeles Games in 1984 got the name of “Hamburger Games” as the most commercialized Games in the whole Olympics history. Though IOC describes the Games positively: “The Los Angeles Games marked the beginning of the most successful era of corporate sponsorship”[xv].  In 1985 The Olympic Partners (TOP) programme was started s the worldwide sponsorship programme managed by the IOC. The IOC created the TOP programme to establish long-term corporate partnerships (for Athens 2004 IOC has 11 TOP partners, these are such names as Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Kodak, Xerox, Panasonic, Visa, Swatch, Sports Illustrated, Samsung, Atos Origin and John Hancock). The development of commercial side of Olympics was parallel to the mediatization of sport. 

1. 3. Broadcasting policy

Listen, buddy, we’re ABC Television. We bought the Olympics and we can do what the hell we like

ABC cameraman, 1984[xvi]

Many scholars support the K. M. Kinkema’s claim, that the success of spectator sport is related to the development of broadcast technologies on the whole, and Olympic Games and other huge sport events have become an international “holiday” thanks to development of TV[xvii]. International sport events always would be a stage for novel broadcast technologies to be presented; especially Olympic Games. Speaking of spreading Olympism spirit worldwide, the fundamental IOC principle set forth in the Olympic Charter, ensures the maximum presentation of the Olympic Games by broadcasters around the world to everyone who has access to television. Rights are only sold to broadcasters who can guarantee the broadest coverage throughout their respective countries free of charge”. [xviii] This is also said in marketing objectives: to ensure that the whole world can view and experience the Olympic Games via free-to-air television.  In 1996 the IOC signed a 12-year deal with NBC, making the US TV company the exclusive broadcaster for the games in the USA until 2008. This is considered to be the biggest deal with broadcasters, which as we will see later influenced the internet use policy. 

As for broadcast revenues, The Olympic Games have seen tremendous growth in broadcast coverage over the past 20 years and they averagely make more than a half of all OG[xix].  I also want to emphasize the fact that money from Olympic Broadcasting rights holders in US make more than a half of all broadcasting revenues, what simply means that agreement with NBC today brings approximately a quarter of all money of IOC.

Linking traditions to present reality, scholars agree that TV is considered as the main medium in the IOC policy and it remains to be. The agreements with main broadcast partners NBC and EBU are signed now until 2012. In 2001 M. de Moragas Spa wrote, that new IOC regulations regarding broadcasting could be set after Athens 2004, because the competition for world-wide audiences will probably change forms of management within the new communication spaces which are local and global  at the same time[xx].We’ll discuss this later in the writing, but here I’d like to emphasize that the players remain the same media corporations.

This overview lets us to make several conclusions. First, that the conflict between commercial and public domains is inevitable because of IOC nature, and the combination of them is a part of its culture. Olympic Games are a huge event of complicated structure and the organizers aim to have continuing support of businesses lead to some inflexibility.  IOC marketing history also shows the traditional and inert corporate culture of the Games because it is a traditional classic event and long-lasting traditional relationship with businesses is consolidated. What is more, TV is chosen as the main means of disseminating information the most important partner for IOC, and actually makes US broadcaster NBC is the main co-player with IOC in the field.  How does the Internet era come to these traditional ideological-marketing- broadcasting relationships strongly dependent on several huge players in the market?   

2.      Internet and the Olympic Games message

In this chapter I will turn attention to the relation between Olympics and the internet. Olympic Movement is a global powerful movement, Olympic Games is a huge platform for technological novelties to be introduced for huge audiences. The new conditions of communication of digital era demand new regulations and flexibility of the Games marketing. I would say that the ways Olympic Games organizers adapt the current forms of communication for the humanistic and entrepreneur aims to a large extent marks the trends of internet use on the whole, that’s why they are important to be studied.   

2.1. New media and Olympic philosophy

Before questioning IOC policy on new media it is important to evaluate the social and technological difficulties and in implantation internet. Miquel de Moragas Spa in his research “The Olympic Movement and the Information Society. New Internet challenges and opportunities” names several dilemmas posed by internet. These could be called the reasons why the IOC should be critical of new media.

First is the nature of internet itself, is this a new mass media or individual medium. The inequalities in internet and technologies access levels are also to be bared in mind. One thing is to speak of the U.S. or Scandinavia audience possibilities to experience technical advances of 3^rd world nations. Extremely rapid growth and changes in the sector which forces to make many decisions on never occurred problems also adds tension. The search for informational functions of internet and “mediators” on the internet is also being experiences. And overall, cultural and social obstacles influence the policies on content access and institutional ability to adapt to the conditions. All these and other conditions don’t allow using the too generalized arguments when discussing IOC policy on new media.

J. Milton-Smith as other scholars criticizes the Games in general because they are tainted with many values associated with globalization, like other global organizations seem to be serving first world interests. However I will not focus on the imbalanced access to new media technologies later in the paper for several reasons. First, the inequality of technological development is not just communication technologies nature; it is a part of all socioeconomic environments, what is not the topic of our paper. Games organizers themselves aim to technological excellence which is not directly related to the publicity policies of the organization.  I also think that estimation of the situation has much to do with future development scenarios, however, the history, present and future perspectives should be appraised now. And finally, even this small part of the world with high rate of internet (and much smaller with broadband connection) penetration constitute an important market for commercial Game initiatives, and for Game organizers it’s the main target audience.  

2. 2.The beginning of Internet era

The first official web site IOC launched in 1995, but actual internet era for the Olympic movement started in 1996 with Atlanta Olympic Games Organizing Committee being the first organizers launching official web site of the particular Games. The web site www.atlanta.olympic.org, it was mainly devoted for announcing results; 185.800.000 hits during 16 days were noted[xxi]. However, the first experiences with new media demonstrated not only the scope of possibilities but cast a light on new problems such as deficiencies in network capacity, lack of management know-how at the presence of new medium and above all lack of experience by users and IBM which was a company responsible for computer programming at the Games.  In 1998 IBM broke the agreement with IOC and Sema Group was announced to collaborate with IOC till 2008 and be responsible for internet management (by the way, this term was just to be defined then). This moment of Olympic Games management history can be estimated as the crucial turn in terms of the internet recognition as a much promising medium: IBM wanted to have Internet rights included as part of agreement and IOC didn’t. IOC claimed that their strategic objective was to try to share sponsorship among several companies by separating hardware, software, results management and internet as distinct fields. What else, IOC saw Internet as a new medium which trends of development were difficult predict and it might have been simply underestimated.

The official web site of Nagano Olympic Games www.nagano.olympic.org provided audience with 50,000 pages of information and offered also pictures of Olympics, participatory experience such as interactive games, guestbook, and also presentation of video on computer, which was still considered as experimental. It was visited 634,000,000 times in total.

As for commercial media, Olympic coverage isn’t treated as different from other news disseminating; at least it didn’t attract scholars’ attention as a new trend in media etc. 

Then scholars started to discuss when Olympic Games can become a possible place for broadcasting all the games online. Sydney 2000 and Salt Lake 2002 were supposed to be the first turns into real online Olympics[xxii]. Were they? 

2. 3. XXI century Olympics

2. 3.1. The internet shut out: Sydney 2000

Two main that reached the greatest audience during Sydney 2000 Olympic Games were an official web site  www.olympics.com[xxiii] and www.nbcolympics.com (its content is being updated; more overview of this site will be provided later in the writing).  The plurality of contents in official site and scope of its audience increased, web site www.olympics.com   was hit 11,300,000,000 times. NBC which is IOC broadcast partner in the U.S.offered multimedia form of the Games coverage: statistics, sound, photos and hypertext and aimed to convert itself to even more the coverage extended by video images. NBC registered 66 million hits of the page; it was mostly accessed by U.S. audience.The media company launched site was more popular than the official one. However, and it was strongly related to the TV broadcasting and especially concentrating on U.S. athletes and their performance; it was indirect support for the television transmissions over NBC channel

In addition to NBC's broadcast rights agreement, the IOC has prohibited internet sites from offering live webcasting or streaming video of the Games. To enforce this rule, the IOC refused to grant media credentials to online journalists, including those from ESPN.com and SportsLine, two of the largest internet sites dedicated to covering sports. The IOC even employed French firm “Datops” to police sports websites to ensure they were not breaking the rules and didn’t stream audio or video of the Games online. IOC policy during Sydney Olympics was called scandalously strict and rouse indignation by media community and especially new media community. “Banned from the Olympics”, “IOC shut the net out”, “Olympics Shaft the Internet” – these were the outlines announcing about the IOC policy to limit the expansive potential of the Internet as a broadcast medium for the Sydney 2000.

The organization cites two main reasons behind its decision. The first was the poor quality of internet broadcasts. As the IOC spokesman Stephan Kanah put it: "You simply cannot transmit the emotion of the Games through a window 2 inches by 3 inches."[xxiv]

Another important factor behind the decision is an attempt to protect the investment made by national TV rights holders. "Until the technology that allows us to restrict access to the feed by nation, there won't be any live feed of the Games," said S. Kanah.

What most likely also added to such NBC wish, is the fact that over the Games, NBC was  be recording thousands of hours of Olympic events and then broadcasting condensed, tape-delayed segments in the evening due to the time difference between Australia and the U.S. because of intention to attract the largest number of TV viewers during the prime-time market.

Media analysts and users were discussing whether IOC and NBC behave fairly. Considering that the IOC finances a significant portion of Olympic competitions through revenue generated through selling lucrative broadcast rights, they are obligated to ensure those contracts to their fullest ability, including barring internet coverage, audience also called these IOC moves even “fascist” [xxv] and penalizing sports fans around the globe in search of more timely coverage of events; ignoring a massive and ever-expanding media outlet that could increase public interest and accessibility to live Olympic events; preventing competition; denying the internet the chance to compete for lucrative advertising revenue that would help further develop the web etc.[xxvi]

2. 3.2. Further steps to “digitalization”: Salt Lake 2002

As for organizers’ internet use during Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City (official web site www.saltlake2002.com), these Games mark advanced multimedia use to fulfill the same tasks of Organizers. As far as broadcasts are concerned, fast developments, especially the fast rollout of cheap broadband access to the home, helped to improve the quality of online information forms. Service providers and programmers have begun to experiment with ways to limit access to a certain web site or broadcast to users on certain networks or in particular areas.

Internet users in Switzerland were able to switch on to the internet for live coverage. The IOC-backed trial is took place in Switzerland and was open to subscribers to the DSL (digital subscriber line) service of Swisscom AG's Bluewin in Zurich, Basel and Geneva. The service provider has teamed up with Swiss national television and Schlumberger Ltd., the IOC's IT partner.

One of the reasons why the IOC approved tests for online video broadcasting of the games, which may open the door to a richer Web experience in future contests was considered to be a friendlier time schedule for U.S. audience. Also, internet Olympics press corps promised to bring some useful information to Web surfers who can't make it to the TV set[xxvii].

Despite the IOC's ban on “more spread” online broadcasting of the Games, that more web sites were is doing it. The problem is not so much of pirate relays of the Games but of TV stations putting highlights online, either as special packages or as part of online news.

Also during Salt Lake Games, internet sites, such as Yahoo! and Sports.com fielded reporting teams to Olympics. Yahoo! signed a deal with the U.S. Olympic Committee to be the official host of its e-commerce store and to produce coverage of events involving the U.S. teams on its Web site, a first for the U.S. committee[xxviii].

2. 3. 3. Political interference

As one can see, the IOC policy on internet usage was highly criticized by many new media supporters and IT businesses’ representatives. Later, it got attention from politics.  E.g. in February 2003, European Union turned to the IOC warning it may be breaking European competition laws in the way it sells media rights to the event

European Union competition watchdog Mario Monti asked IOC whether the organization supplies live image or sound rights to internet service suppliers and mobile operators. "Events such as the Olympic Games are extremely prized by content providers and can be a driving force behind the roll-out of new communications services via internet and mobile telephony networks," he said.[xxix] Media specialists were referring to a  similar situation occurred at the World Cup in Japan and South Korea, when Kirch - the now bankrupt German media giant that held the rights - refused to sell any broadcast rights to websites or 3G operators. Just two weeks before the tournament began, Kirch eventually agreed to provide tournament sponsor Yahoo! with short highlights of the games, although it was still not allowed to broadcast them live.

Internet site in the Games turned to be more a driver to TV than the other way around [xxx], spoke media people and claimed that despite the growing size of the intrenet, it will not replace TV as the most popular medium in the near future were right. Thus, IOC integrated the internet into Games coverage instead of outright forbidding it or overestimat