Jump to content

Royal Opera House shop


Recommended Posts

Recent visitors to the ROH will have noticed that the ROH shop has been closed. It will re-open later on today as an official LOCOG shop for the duration of the Olympics and Paralympics, selling only official Olympics merchandise (http://www.roh.org.uk/visit/shop). I mention this mainly because people will need to think about finding alternative sources for their dance (and opera?) magazines for the next couple of months.

 

Edit: I notice that there doesn't seem to be any online shop facility any more on the ROH website. Is this just for the duration, or is it a permanent (non-)feature?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Alison

 

When I spoke to someone in the shop last week they said that they were redesigning the shop part of the website and that they were hoping that it would all be in place in September. I think it's such a shame that LOCOG have forced ROH just to sell the Olympic merchandise. What about all those tourists who come to London who would liKe to get something from the ROH? There are so many shops that sell LOCOG stock how many sell ROH merchandise?

 

Anyway that's my mini rant over-it does seem a shame though that ROH couldn't get their online shop live in time for the temporary closure of their onsite store.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of the people I know that go to the ROH, and I lnow a fair number, not one of them would be likely to buy a piece of Olympic tat. This is one of those decisions that seem to defy logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of the people I know that go to the ROH, and I lnow a fair number, not one of them would be likely to buy a piece of Olympic tat. This is one of those decisions that seem to defy logic.

 

But there's nothing cultured going on after tomorrow - the place is being turned into an Olympics exhibition!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As there is so much of the Olympic Route Network between home and town - we go down the M11 and right past the Stratford site - we have decided to obey all strictures about keeping away from central London till it's all over. This news about the ROH Shop seems symptomatic of the whole and is another small reason not to bother. It'll be TV for the major events up here, I fear - but that's good.

 

PS: If I was still in the RAF, I might be on the door!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Olympic tat going to be worse than ROH tat?

 

on a par I should imagine

Though I was hoping to get a Dancing Times over the summer, as there is an interview in there I was hoping to read (think its the August issue - or the one that comes out in August, not sure which). Anywhere recommended to find a copy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there's nothing cultured going on after tomorrow - the place is being turned into an Olympics exhibition!

 

I thought they were still doing tours of the building, if they are the shop would be a nice earner. Do the profits from all this go to ROH or LOCOG do you know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John- not sure who was responsible for the plethora of baby pink infantilised cards but they were not your nightmare I'm afraid, unless we are suffering from some dystopian group hallucinations!

I've also pointedly asked several times why all the ballet merchandised and smaller children's clothes have to be pink and 'girlified'. Firstly I know many girls who don't like pink and secondly boys do ballet too! Or they would do perhaps if ROH encouraged the idea that ballet was for boys and girls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOCOG may well have been in the right, but I'd dearly like to know how it obtained said rights over three English language adverbs, set in a certain order. Is there a Bye-law or any statute conferring this right? Could I copyright "Dafter, Funnier, Louder," for example - and if so, on what grounds? And will "Faster etc" still be off-limits to the English-speaking community from September? Or is it simply a matter of nobody caring once these shenanigans are all over?

 

And with the entire designated route network coming into force tomorrow, from 6am - Midnight each day till 14 August, I wait to see to what extent the patience of the public at large in London will be tested.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOCOG may well have been in the right, but I'd dearly like to know how it obtained said rights over three English language adverbs, set in a certain order. Is there a Bye-law or any statute conferring this right?

 

I mentioned it at the time: the "Olympic Symbol etc (Protection) Act 1995". Brilliant, isn't it? Wonder if it was done in relation to a prior Olympic bid, given the date. And I'm pretty certain you can pretty much trademark any words you like, even a list of three comparative adjectives (I think they're adjectives rather than adverbs, aren't they?) provided you issue sufficient disclaimers keeping the use of them individually available to all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The list of banned words is total insanity... http://www.independe...rs-7945436.html

 

Not really, when you take into account the magic words "depending on the context" - provided that that "context" is not unreasonable. The words can still be used. They're just trying to stop people jumping on the bandwagon and implying a link between their business or whatever and the Olympics when there isn't one. One of my local takeaways, last year, decided to put the Olympic logo on its flyers, and got its wrists roundly slapped. (I know this, because rather than lose all the money destroying the flyers, they inked out all the logos so that they were barely detectable).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On looking at the Indy's list, I wondered how the BBC was not pursued over use of "Twenty Twelve" as the title of its satirical TV series. The answer appears to lie in para 4(3) of the Act:

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/32/crossheading/the-olympics-association-right

 

Does anyone here recall what led to this legislation - which will presumably sit on the statute book till another government decides to repeal it - and why it was felt to be worthy of parliamentary time? What was the Major administration thinking of back in 1995?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...