Ambush marketing

Ambush marketing can be defined as a marketing strategy wherein the advertisers associate themselves with, and therefore capitalize on, a particular event without paying any sponsorship fee.^{[1] [2]} The Macmillan English Dictionary defines ambush marketing as a marketing strategy in which a competing brand connects itself with a major sporting event without paying sponsorship fee.^[3] According to McCarthy, ambush marketing is a type of marketing by a company that is not an official sponsor of an event, but which places advertisements using the event, to induce customers to pay attention to the advertisement.^[4] From a theoretical perspective, ambush marketing refers to a company's attempt to capitalize on the goodwill, reputation, and popularity of a particular event by creating an association with it, without the authorization or consent of the necessary parties.^[5]

Contents 1 History 2 Types of ambush marketing 2.1 "Direct" ambush marketing 2.2 "Indirect" ambush marketing 2.3 "Incidental" ambush marketing 3 Impacts of Ambush marketing 4 Notable events 5 Future of ambush marketing 6 Bibliography 7 References

History

The word "ambush" as used in the expression ambush marketing, means "an attack from a hidden position" and is derived from the old French verb embuschier, having the meaning "to place in a wood."^[6] The term "ambush marketing" was coined by the famous marketing strategist Jerry Welsh, while he was working as the manager of global marketing efforts for the American Express Company in the 1980s.^[7]

Types of ambush marketing

"Direct" ambush marketing

• "Predatory" ambushing: Intentional false claims to official sponsorship by a non-sponsor and/or intentional false denial by a non-sponsor concerning a market competitor's official sponsorship, in each case with the intent to confuse consumers and gain market share from the competing official sponsor.

• "Coattail" ambushing: The attempt by a brand to directly associate itself with a property or event by "playing up" a connection to the property/event that is legitimate but does not involve financial sponsorship.

• Ambushing via trademark/likeness infringement: The intentional unauthorized use of protected intellectual property. Such properties can include the logos of teams or events, or making use of unauthorized references to tournaments, teams or athletes, words and symbols.

• Ambushing "by degree": Marketing activities by an official sponsor above and beyond what has been agreed on in the sponsorship contract. For example, an "ambush by degree" of a sports event may involve a sponsor's handing out free promotional T-shirts without the permission of the sports league supervising the event. That sponsor may have already covered the stadium with its signs, or the sports league or participating teams may have made an earlier agreement – perhaps even an exclusive one – to let a different sponsor hand out shirts. In either case, ambush by degree clutters the available marketing space; takes advantage of the participating teams and supervising league to a greater extent than they permitted; and dilutes the brand exposure of official sponsors, including the other promotional efforts of the ambushing company (hence the alternative term "self-ambushing").

"Indirect" ambush marketing

• Ambushing "by association": The use of imagery or terminology not protected by intellectual-property laws to create an illusion that an organization has links to a sporting event or property — This form differs from direct "coattail" ambushing in that there exists no legitimate connection between the event/property and from direct ambush by infringement in that the sponsored event/property has no property rights in the images and/or words that create the illusion.

• Values-based ambushing: Tailoring by a non-sponsor of its marketing practices to appeal to the same values or involve the same themes as do the event and/or its promotion, such that audiences attracted to the event or its marketing will likewise be attracted to the non-sponsor's marketing — Essentially a reversal from "push" to "pull" of the causal processes through which direct "coattail ambushers" create sponsor/event-unapproved mental association with their products, this form of ambushing differs from "ambushing by association" in that the ambushing business begins by observing the event's promotional scheme and drawing inferences as to its existing thematic content, as opposed to observing the event's audience and creating new thematic content in hopes that consumers will associate the event with the thematic content created.

• Ambushing "by distraction": Setting up a promotional presence at or near an event, albeit without making specific reference to the event itself, its imagery, or its themes, in order to take advantage of the general public's attention toward the event and the audience members' awareness of their surroundings — This form of ambush amounts to "free riding" upon the positive externality that the event creates for the surrounding area by "anchoring" public and individual attention there; see also "Saturation ambushing" under "Incidental" ambush marketing.
  • "Insurgent" ambushing: The use of surprise street-style promotions (blitz marketing) at an event or near enough to it that the ambushing business can identify and target audience members — The "active" version of "passive" ambushing by distraction, insurgent ambushing not only takes advantage of positive externalities but creates negative externalities by intruding upon attendees' experiences of the event and detracting from those experiences' quality (cf. the distinction in biology between commensalism and parasitism).
  • "Parallel property" ambushing: The creation or sponsorship of an event or property that bears qualitative similarity to the ambush target and competes with it for the public's attention — An application of "ambushing by distraction" in which the ambusher-marketed product is the event/property itself, parallel-property ambushing does not intrude upon the experience of audience members (who remain free to attend whichever event or patronize whichever property they deem more attractive), but it does divert audience dollars and attendance figures from the preexisting event/property, interfering with the efforts of that event's/property's financial backers to recover their largely fixed production costs.

It is a marketing strategy through which the competitors cannot guess it first & after implementation this the competitors understand the strategy.

"Incidental" ambush marketing

• Unintentional ambushing: It is possible for media coverage to make passing mention of, e.g., the manufacturer of an athlete's equipment/clothing or the provider of a service used by the event's technical staff or in-person audience. Although in most cases most members of an event's mass-media audience will not infer that the mentioned business is an official sponsor of the event, such that the mention is harmless "free publicity" for the non-sponsoring business, it is possible that some broadcast-audience members will at some point draw some inference of official sponsorship.

• "Saturation" ambushing: "Saturation ambushers" increase their broadcast-media advertising and marketing at the time of an event but make no reference to the event itself and avoid any associative imagery or suggestion — Essentially a form of "ambushing by distraction" attenuated by the absence of advertisers' physical proximity to the event and their resulting lack of contact with in-person audience members, saturation ambushing merely capitalizes on the increased broadcast media attention and television audiences surrounding the event.^[8]

Impacts of Ambush marketing

Increasing cost of sponsorships: The increasing cost of sponsorships has also increased sponsor's emphasis on return-on-investment. If sponsored events do not give exclusivity, the sponsor's interest on sponsorship property will be lost and the damage will extend to the whole sponsorship market. Yet when that exclusivity is lost, the value of sponsorship is also lost. When a company engages in ambush marketing the exclusivity intended to be conferred through sponsorship to a sponsor is lost. Hence, the value of sponsorship is also lost. As it is an undeniable fact that corporate sponsorship is one of the biggest money-spinning sources of revenue for the event organizers, the loss in sponsorship value will affect the financial strength of an event organizer.

Transgression on the intellectual property rights: Even when the ambush marketers are not making any direct references to the protected intellectual property rights, they in effect transgress those intellectual property rights by attempting to capitalize on such hard earned goodwill from an event. Direct and indirect references to the event symbol or the event itself are just different means for achieving illegal transgression on the rights of event organizers. Moreover, sponsors cannot get the return they anticipated.

Notable events

• 1984 Olympics; Kodak sponsors TV broadcasts of the Games as well as the US track team despite Fujifilm being the official sponsor.
• 1988 Summer Olympics; Fujifilm sponsors the Games despite Kodak being the official sponsor.
• 1992 Summer Olympics in Barcelona; Nike sponsors press conferences with the US basketball team despite Reebok being the official sponsor. During ceremonies, the players covered their Reebok logos.
• 1994 Winter Olympics; American Express sponsors the Games despite Visa being the official sponsor.
• 1996 Atlanta Olympics; sprinter Linford Christie wore contact lenses embossed with the Puma logo at the press conference preceding the 100 metres final, despite Reebok being the official sponsor.
• 1996 Atlanta Olympics; Messages On Hold strategically placed a banner within the camera frame as US runner Jon Drummond prepares for the opening leg of 4x100 relay final. The moment is broadcast live across the world.
• 1996 Cricket World Cup; Pepsi ran a series of advertisements titled "nothing official about it" targeting the official sponsor, Coca-Cola.
• 1998 FIFA World Cup; Nike sponsored a number of teams competing in the Cup despite Adidas being the official sponsor.
• 2000 Sydney Olympics; Qantas Airlines’ slogan "The Spirit of Australia" sounds strikingly similar to the Games’ slogan "Share the Spirit." despite Ansett Air being the official sponsor.
• 2003 Cricket World Cup; Indian players threatened to strike over concerns that the anti-ambush marketing rules were too strict. Of particular concern was the length of time before and after the cup that players were not allowed to endorse a rival to one of the official sponsors. Players argued that if they had pre-existing contracts that they would be in breach of them if they were to accept the ICC's rules.
• 2005-06 Australian cricket season; Hardware brand Selleys ran advertisements during the cricket telecast with a fictional cricket called 'Dave'. At the end of the commercial read a caption: "Selleys- Proud sponsor of the cricket", despite not officially sponsoring the Australian cricket team or telecast. The company was forced to change their ads to avoid confusion.
• 2006 FIFA World Cup; fans of the Netherlands were made to remove Bavaria Brewery's leeuwenhosen because Budweiser was the official beer sponsor. See also the 2010 FIFA World Cup for a similar incident involving the same two brands.
• 2008 Beijing Olympics; entire countries were tuned into the Opening Ceremonies, and worldwide, millions more saw former Olympic gymnast Li Ning light the torch and learned that he owns a shoe company with the same name, a direct rival of Adidas and quite famous in China, but not an official Olympic sponsor.^[9]
• 2010 Super Bowl XLIV; Canadian gay dating site ManCrunch was accused of ambush marketing when it submitted a controversial advertisement to CBS for air during the game. The theory is that ManCrunch produced the ad knowing that it would never be accepted and hoped the controversy would drum up the intended attention without having to pay the nearly US$3,000,000 price for an advertisement during the game.^[10] The site's parent company has also drawn controversy for its similar failed attempts to advertise its adultery service, Ashley Madison.
• 2010 Winter Olympics; Team USA ice hockey goaltender Ryan Miller was ordered to remove the catchphrase "Miller Time" from his helmet under the IOC's ambush marketing rules, due to it also being the slogan of Miller Lite beer (though Miller Lite did not pay for the slogan).^[11] Likewise, the U.S. bobsled team was forced to remove the name of its #1 sled, "Night Train," due to it being the name of a low-end fortified wine (again, the usage of the phrase was coincidental).^[12]
• 2010 FIFA World Cup;
  • A South African budget airline Kulula pulled back its ambush ad after a FIFA complaint that it infringed its trademark during the 2010 World Cup. Kulula.com's ad described the firm as the "Unofficial National Carrier of the You-Know-What". It also had pictures of stadiums, vuvuzelas and national flags. But FIFA said the airline could not use the symbols - even the word "South Africa", kulula.com's spokeswoman said. FIFA, however, said the images taken together were "ambush marketing".^[13] However, Kulula followed this up with further advertising more obliquely linking itself with the World Cup, making action by FIFA more difficult.
  • Also during the tournament, in an incident similar to the 2006 World Cup, 2 Dutch women were arrested for ambush advertising and 36 women ejected from the stadium when they were spotted wearing short orange dresses made by the Dutch brewery Bavaria on 14 June 2010. As in the 2006 tournament, Anheuser–Busch InBev's Budweiser was the official beer of the event.^[14] The association between the dresses and the Dutch brewery had been established by Sylvie van der Vaart modelling one of them.^[15] ITV media pundit Robbie Earle was fired from his role when it was claimed by FIFA that he had sold tickets meant for family and friends on to the Dutch beer company.^[16][17]

Future of ambush marketing

For the 2011 Rugby World Cup and the 2015 Cricket World Cup, New Zealand is planning to enact laws to combat ambush marketing, according to former Sports Minister Trevor Mallard.^[18]

The London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 contains provisions to attempt to restrict ambush advertising at the 2012 Summer Olympics and the London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) announced that it would attempt to crack down on the relatively new form of online keyword ambush marketing. ^[19]

Bibliography

• Pelanda, Brian. Ambush Marketing: Dissecting the Discourse (2011).
• Skildum-Reid, Kim. The Ambush Marketing Toolkit, McGraw-Hill, September 2007. ISBN 0-07-013808-7.

References

1. ^ Jacqueline A. Leimer, 'Ambush Marketing: Not Just an Olympic-Sized Proglem', 2(4) Intell. Prop. Strategist 1, 3(1996).
2. ^ See also Pelanda, Brian, Ambush Marketing: Dissecting the Discourse (2011).
3. ^ http://www.macmillandictionary.com/New-Words/050815-ambush-marketing.htm
4. ^ J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, Forth Edition
5. ^ Lori L. Bean, 'Ambush Marketing: Sports Sponsorship Confusion and the Lanham Act', 75 BUL Rev. 1099, 1100(1995).
6. ^ http://www.macmillandictionary.com/New-Words/050815-ambush-marketing.htm
7. ^ http://www.poolonline.com/bios/biojwelsh.html
8. ^ Simon Chadwick and Nicholas Burton, "New Definitions for Ambush Marketing", The Wall Street Journal (WSJ.com) - Business News & Financial News, 2010 October 20, available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574391102699362862.html.
9. ^ The Greatest Free Ad Ever
10. ^ http://www.fancast.com/blogs/2010/tv-news/cbs-rejects-gay-themed-super-bowl-ad/
11. ^ Benigni, Adam (2010-02-16).Ryan Miller's Mask Causes Olympic Controversy. WGRZ.
12. ^ http://www.wgrz.com/sports/story.aspx?storyid=74554&catid=4
13. ^ "Fifa orders SA airline to pull ad". BBC News. 19 March 2010. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8576220.stm. 
14. ^ Gibson, Owen (16 June 2010). "World Cup 2010: Women arrested over 'ambush marketing' freed on bail". The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jun/16/fifa-world-cup-ambush-marketing. 
15. ^ Kelly, Jon (17 June 2010). "How ambush marketing ambushed sport". BBC News Magazine (BBC). http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8743881.stm. Retrieved 2010-06-21. 
16. ^ http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/World-Cup-2010-Robbie-Earle-Sacked-By-ITV-Over-Holland-v-Denmark-Ticket-Claims/Article/201006315649566?lpos=UK_News_First_Buisness_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15649566_World_Cup_2010%3A_Robbie_Earle_Sacked_By_ITV_Over_Holland_v_Denmark_Ticket_Claims
17. ^ "Robbie Earle sacked over World Cup tickets". BBC News. 16 June 2010. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment_and_arts/10322048.stm. Retrieved 16 June 2010. 
18. ^ http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/06/sports/AS_SPT_New_Zealand_Ambush_Marketing.php
19. ^ http://www.hgf.com/uploads/Online%20Ambush%20Marketing%20and%20London%202012.pdf