7 ms·

Companies are extremely sensitive to their public image and want the sports they sponsor to match that. Formula 1's image used to be exclusive/glamour/rich and

Companies are extremely sensitive to their public image and want the sports they sponsor to match that. Formula 1's image used to be exclusive/glamour/rich and so had Rolex type sponsors. Then when tobacco adverts were banned it went after young/adventure/excitement types. But do RedBull really want their cool/hip/trendy young customers in Seattle to picture RedBull with police shooting democracy protesters at the Bahrain GP? For example, IBM sponsor golf - Apple don't. IBM's customers don't care that the golf tournament is being held at a course that doesn't let women in - Apple's certainly would! BP - frankly they could put baby seals into a wood chipper on national television without damaging their public image! But CISCO are the most vulnerable to image. Up to now they sold to big business who just bought on a salesman's word. But now they are trying to be the face of the internet to regular buyers. Having their name plastered across news reports about visitors to the olympics being banned from posting twitter/youtube/facebook doesn't look so good.

smsm42 14y ago
Nobody was banned from posting to twitter. What was banned is the use of specific image - similar to registered trademark. And somebody like Cisco has nothing to do with it, so you are trying to build a chain starting with event that did not happen and going to the people that had no connection.
- nodata 14y ago
  You're playing with words. An account definitely was banned/blocked/suspended/whatever due to "the use of a specific image". But it's the account that was blocked, not the image as you imply.
  - smsm42 14y ago
    No I am not. "Banned from twitter" means that person/organisation was prohibited from using Twitter. That is not what happened - account was temporarily suspended because of the usage of trademarked image (not because of its ownership or content) and if they stop using the trademarked image they could post to twitter as much as they wish. Nobody censors them because they offended the mighty 1% (these constant knee-jerk allegations really are getting tiresome). Their account is suspended for using trademark that doesn't belong to them - that would happen with any trademark in any situation. Try using Coca-Cola logo in your twitter account and if Coca-Cola learns about it your account most probably will be suspended. Not because Coca-Cola hates you but because you're using their trademark.

smsm42 14y ago

Nobody was banned from posting to twitter. What was banned is the use of specific image - similar to registered trademark. And somebody like Cisco has nothing to do with it, so you are trying to build a chain starting with event that did not happen and going to the people that had no connection.

nodata 14y ago
You're playing with words. An account definitely was banned/blocked/suspended/whatever due to "the use of a specific image". But it's the account that was blocked, not the image as you imply.
- smsm42 14y ago
  No I am not. "Banned from twitter" means that person/organisation was prohibited from using Twitter. That is not what happened - account was temporarily suspended because of the usage of trademarked image (not because of its ownership or content) and if they stop using the trademarked image they could post to twitter as much as they wish. Nobody censors them because they offended the mighty 1% (these constant knee-jerk allegations really are getting tiresome). Their account is suspended for using trademark that doesn't belong to them - that would happen with any trademark in any situation. Try using Coca-Cola logo in your twitter account and if Coca-Cola learns about it your account most probably will be suspended. Not because Coca-Cola hates you but because you're using their trademark.