Some emergent themes from a pilot study of the London 2012 bid
In partnership with Leaside Regeneration and as part of LERI’s commitment to monitor and evaluate the impact of the London 2012 Olympics on the communities of East London we have organized a series of focus groups exploring what people living within 2 miles of Stratford thought about the bid and its immediate outcome. The first sessions were held one week before the IOC decision and follow up sessions were organized one week afterwards with the same groups. All sessions were held at the Bromley by Bow Health Centre and each lasted about an hour.
The first group comprised young people between the ages of 14 and 19, all of whom had been born and grown up within the study catchment area. Members of this group had active sporting interests, mostly football and cricket, but also swimming, boxing, basketball and tennis. The second group was aged between 25 and 70, and included a number of very long standing residents; it included retired people, and unemployed, as well as manual workers and young professionals. None of this group was actively involved in sport, but some followed sport, football and tennis being the two main interests.
The aim of the pilot was to explore the impact of the London 2012 campaign on people’s perceptions of the bid, and the subsequent impact of the IOC decision.
The 2012 campaign was delivered in all main media in the eighteen months prior to the Singapore announcement. London’s streets and tube stations, roundabouts, skylines and telephone boxes served as an almost permanent reminder to “back the bid”. With equal insistence the main media echoed and reinforced this message with a variety of carefully pitched appeals, in press and in print; on television and on the radio. All the while a PR churn has flavored news and views across sports, politics and the celebrity magazines. Local institutions and civic centres are crammed with leaflets and fliers outlining benefits—urging people to back the bid in the form of “promissory notes” to be banked against the bid’s success.
In this context it was necessary to start by reminding the participants that the study was being carried out by an independent University research centre and was not funded by or in any way connected with London 2012. We then presented the group with some cues in order to get a sense of their engagement with this massive promotional effort. For this purpose the participants were shown a photo of the large 2012 display on the Canary Wharf jubilee station concourse. Their attention was drawn to the extent of the outdoor element of the 2012 bid campaign and they were asked to comment on the impact thy felt it had had on the “look” of East London—with 2012 logo emerging as a kind of temporary “flag” for the region. Press and poster ads were also discussed, including some examples from the campaign showing “giant” athletes leaping over London landmarks, for instance one, the most East London focused ad, presenting swimmers diving from the Thames barrier.
The groups then heard two radio ads; one a hip hop style spot clearly aimed at the youth market and broadcast on Kiss FM., and a second longer ad designed to work for talk based radio spots. This ad featured a kind of “pitch” to Londoners from athletics star Jonathan Edwards in which a detailed account of regeneration benefits alongside a reminder of sporting hopes.
Finally the groups saw the extended promotional film “Imagine”- London 2012's main promotional film, featuring the voice of Heather Small singing “Proud” and presenting a carefully orchestrated montage of powerful images. Celebrity athletes (past and present), and images of sporting triumph (anticipated and remembered) play out against an interspersed series of signifiers running global and, particularly, “red white and blue” national imagery—from VE day on. The groups were again asked to comment on its effectiveness as a piece of propaganda as well as to respond to the values, implicit and explicit, being promoted. The groups were also able to look at some artists impressions of the main Olympic site and to see the images of extensive redevelopments planned for the games.
In the follow up session the groups were asked to think about the recent news and to report on their immediate responses to the IOC decision as well as subsequent events. This led into a more general themed discussion about the anxieties and aspirations aroused by the now successful bid and its implementation. As part of this the groups was also asked to look at a leaflet ‘Leap for East London’ which offered a detailed “reasons why” account of future local benefits. The leaflet outlined the legacies and developments in the areas such as sports attainment; sport infrastructure; transport; health; environment; jobs; homes and regeneration. The leaflet served as a useful prompt for a more general discussion around hopes and fears for the future.
In what follows we have merely summarized some of the main themes which emerged from these discussions and selected some indicative statements. We have not attributed the quotations, either by session, age group or personal marker, nor have we attempted to interpret them. In the full report of the study to be published in September we will present a detailed analysis of this material and contextualize it in terms of a model of the ‘Olympics effect’ which we are currently developing. For the present we hope readers will find this statement to be of intrinsic interest. You may like to respond to these viewpoints by sending your own comments which we will include in our new Olympics Watch feature. Email your responses to: risingeasteditorial@uel.ac.uk.
Imagine seeing all those famous people! When I watched the film I got goose pimples.
The film puts together all the best things but it doesn’t really think about what’s really going to happen.
It’s pretty impressive - it’s how it would be in a perfect world
The Olympic vision is marvelous, but all the squabbling to get it, and all the big business interests behind it, is against the ideal.
It's very patriotic—all those Union Jacks, but I also found it very patronizing—like its saying ‘what have you done today to make your country proud of you?’ People in the East End are proud, proud of the area, proud of what its struggles have achieved, we don’t need people from SW1 coming in telling us to what to be proud about! We’ve got a lot to be proud of as it is without the Olympics.
I don’t agree with all the hype- even if it is very skillfully done, it is very dishonest. Now you see it now you don’t. It dodges all the difficulties. Children take it all verbatim and of course .they are excited by the potential of the Olympics. And rightly so. You must never stop young people dreaming, but it is irresponsible to encourage and trade off these dreams without being 100 per cent certain that they can be realized.
If we don’t get the Games people in the East End will just carry one as usual. And if we do get it then they may be a bit pleased but it won’t make a whole lot of difference to them. This is an area which is very down to earth; we’re not going to have the wool pulled over our eyes or our heads turned by all the hype.
Regeneration—it’s about making everything new…
They need to do something with this area it’s really run down.
I’m 100% for regeneration if it’s for East Enders, but we have to make sure that it’s not just another name for giving big business carte blanche to make a killing out of the Olympics.
Regeneration can mean spending billions, but it can be a flash in the pan, a short term bonanza with little long term lasting effect. They all talk about Barcelona - it was great at first, but now the city has slipped back again by all accounts. The benefits just don’t match the costs in my opinion
Regeneration was going on anyway. The Olympics could interfere with it .There could be a lot of infighting—people have different ideas about things, there are different interests and camps.
We should not need the Olympics to get regeneration going in East London, to get decent jobs and housing—there is something very wrong if that is the case.
People don’t feel they own the decisions that have been made around the Olympics. Local consultation has been very poor. And the whole thing is a mega event beyond the scale of what local people consider important.
I was happy and surprised when I heard the result.
I didn’t jump for joy but I thought - we have beaten Paris.
I was gobsmacked—I thought Paris would do it, they had all the stuff.
I was fairly indifferent at first …I was in the middle of working and I just went ‘Oh yeah so we got it’. But then later I felt a bit pleased.
I was not surprised but I was not pleased either, I just wish I had had a bet!
We got it because we backed the bid—we had more people behind it than Paris.
No, it was down to Seb Coe, David Beckham, celebrities, posh people like that.
No it was down to us!
I was at a Kebab. My mum rang my mobile and said we had got it. She was well excited. I was just watching it on the Kebab TV. It was all in Turkish. The guy there just ignored it—he was too busy making the kebab to take much notice. I was glad, though I wasn’t over the moon, if you know what I mean.
London seemed to have a lot of enthusiasm for it, but was it false enthusiasm pumped up by the media? I don’t know.
There were groups of school children with posh uniforms waving flags; they certainly weren’t from round here by their accents. It looks as if it was all arranged, stage managed …how did people get off work—were the crowd paid to be there? I thought the jeering of the French was unseemly.
It was a strange week, with all the stuff about Africa and poverty and the G8, then the Olympics result and then the bombing, it was hard to fit it all together, it all felt a bit unreal, to be honest.
Most people I know round here are very indifferent—it’s as if it hasn’t got anything to do with them.
Some people were happy—shares went up!
The kids were very happy—and why shouldn’t they be?
They don’t know the politics or the wider implications!!
It will make people look at Stratford in a different way. There’s more to the area than just shopping now.
Its quite dodgy round there, you get a lot of mugging, fights, and drugs stuff.
It’s just an area which a lot of people pass through going somewhere else. But that might change- people will say Stratford -that’s where the Olympics are gonna be, isn’t it?
They decided to build it there cos it's where the waste land is—all the space.
It’s not about the East End—they big up London, but they really think we are living in a dump. They should stress the area more - we are East Enders - but some say: no, we are Londoners.
It’s fantastic news for young people in terms of getting them involved and interested in sport and positive activity.
Sports will liven things up—it’s boring round here.
Some people will win and some will lose, like in the Olympics
It makes us proud because it’s happening right here.
Are they going to knock down a lot of buildings?
They will be building housing, they say affordable, but affordable for who?
We’ve already got problems with overcrowding here. Can East London cope?
Being there—being part of it - will be the biggest thrill.
It will help young people round here get into sport. You’ll get healthier.
Schools are going to do more athletics. It’s going to be good for people who are already into sports but I don’t think it will make much different for those who aren’t.
A few new athletes will come from round here. It’s too late for me but I hope the little kids round here will all get into sport and get the benefit.
Everything will change for the better. There will be better transport—it will help put us on the map.
It’s going to be good for the community, provided all the facilities are open to the public afterwards and people round here can afford to use them.
It will be a definite plus for employment. As a community artist working with young people- we’ve already done a mural about the Olympics with a local school—I can see the benefits both to the community and to myself.
It will be good to have the Olympics. Young people will be the main beneficiaries—it will help promote healthier life styles and a sense of well being.
There are going to be lots of jobs - security guards, builders, graphic designers—the Olympics will make a big difference to you, if you are having one of those jobs.
I could see myself helping out—I wouldn’t want to get paid for it.
We want to have fun. The Youth Culture Festival sounds like making for a good atmosphere—everyone partying and having a good time.
We could have concerts and shows like in Hyde Park.
I am worried the police are going to get heavier, there’s going to be more stop and search and it will be worse for Blacks and Asians—they really going to have a hard time, especially the youth. It’s going to mean more trouble. Some people might just go to cause trouble.
We might get hacked off with so many people coming into area –all the cars. My mum says it will not be good for the area—there will be too many tourists.
Can East London cope with all these new people coming it—it will be a lot of pressure on us, it will be getting very overcrowded.
It’s going to change the whole area—and I don’t like change. I like the area the way it is.
There will be a huge impact on the environment, with the draining of Hackney Marshes. Whatever they say the Olympic Park will change the habitat of wildlife beyond recognition—and it may not be for the better.
The park looks plastic to me—it’s an artificial environment rather like Mile End Park and unless it is owned and used by local people it will be unsustainable.
There will be more overcrowding—the roads will be more crowded. I just can’t see the transport being good enough. The system is jammed at rush hour as it is, how are we going to cope with additional traffic?
The quality of life will be affected once the construction gets under way—it will affect local householders and children.
I am worried that we won’t really be able to deliver it properly. The games will create a lot of stress on both the natural and social environment, and I am concerned that it will all be a flash in the pan, with little long term benefit.
I am worried about the local businesses that are going to be displaced, and also the travelers and homeless people—some of them are people who have lived and worked in East London all their lives and now they are going to lose their livelihoods when they are relocated. Even if they get proper compensation, it won’t make up for the disruption.
House price are going to go up—poor people will have to leave the area.
A good Olympics would be where nothing bad happened, where there wasn’t any terrorist attacks or bombs, where there were no muggings and people didn’t run onto the track to disrupt the races.
A good Olympics will be a trouble-free Olympics with no security incidents.
An event that takes place with the least possible danger to athletes and spectators.
And with the least damage to the environment.
We hope it goes off well, gets a good enough crowd, doesn’t have any bombs and doesn’t cost the taxpayers of London an arm and a leg.
We’d like to see an Olympics that wasn’t too expensive. There should be discounts or free passes for local people, because they have had to put up with the disruption.
During the Olympics we won’t see much benefit—because there will be so many people using the transport and other services, but afterwards, if they keep up the service, we will see the benefit.
But taxpayers will have to pay for it!
No, it should be the people who make the money out of the Games—the businesses, the sponsors, the Olympics Lottery to pay.
Once the Olympics is over they won’t need so many security guards and the shops will close. It will bring money into the area, but it won’t last.
I hope it’s not going to be a plastic place, all buzzy-buzzy while the Games are on and then everything goes quiet and there is no community left.
I hope it is not going to be like a circus, you know- they pitch a great tent, put on a great show, then everyone packs up and leaves, the show moves on and we are left with the mess to clear up.
It must not end up like the Dome—where we end up paying for something that no-one wants .The facilities must be properly maintained afterwards.
I’d like to see local people consulted about the legacy, so people feel they have some sense of ownership and control over what is going on—so that all decisions are not made by remote figures in boardrooms and government offices, by people who have no idea about the area.
The authors would like to thank Gregory J.H. Deacon for facilitating the focus groups at Bromley-by-Bow Health Centre and all those who took part.
© 2004·05
“It’s fantastic news for young people in terms of getting them involved and interested in sport and positive activity…
I’m 100% for regeneration if it’s for East Enders, but we have to make sure that it’s not just another name for giving big business carte blanche to make a killing out of the Olympics…
I am worried the police are going to get heavier, there’s going to be more stop and search and it will be worse for Blacks and Asians—they really going to have a hard time, especially the youth. It’s going to mean more trouble. Some people might just go to cause trouble. ”
Play the game >> ‘Random Regenerator’
Welcome to this issue
Contents of this issue
Editorial
Features 
Plan Views
Interviews
Photofeature
Captain Nemesis Calling
Feedback
Hopeful or worried but not yet jumping for joy…
The spatial logic of European Cultural Policy
A new orientalism? The Anglo-Gothic imagination in East London
Rich Mix in Brick Lane
About a pair of shoes and other stories along the river
This page has been archived.
For a general description of these pages and an explanation of how they should work with screenreading equipment please follow this link: Link to general description
For further information on this web site's accessibility features please follow this link: Link to accessibility information
The following message does not apply to screenreader users:
You will still be able to access all the essential content of this web site, but it will not look, or function, exactly as intended.
