Ambush Marketing in the Olympic Games
-
Upload
taylor-oneil -
Category
Marketing
-
view
1.877 -
download
4
Transcript of Ambush Marketing in the Olympic Games
Running head: Ambush Marketing in The Olympic Games
Ambush Marketing In The Olympic Games
Taylor O’Neil, Claire Mirksy, Kaitlyn Turkett, Caroline Elyse
MKTG 38000 Fall 2014
Ithaca College
Ambush Marketing in the Olympic Games 2
Introduction Mega-‐sporting events such as the Olympics and World Cup evoke feelings of
happiness and enjoyment through friendly competition around the world. These feelings
are rare entities and difficult to recreate anywhere else. This leaves marketers in a frenzy,
fighting for sponsorships and advertising spots to gain positive association within these
mega-‐sports. Marketers have taken matters into their own hands and created a new
marketing strategy called ambush marketing. Ambush marketing is often referred to as
‘parasitic’ marketing because companies act as the mega-‐sport sponsors when they are
actually not. Brands such as Nike, for example will ambush market World Cup events if
their competitor, Adidas is an official sponsor just to stay competitive within the market.
Ambush marketing is growing significantly, especially within the sports world. It has
become so common that it is almost mandatory to ambush the official sponsor if that
company is their competitor. This is especially enticing with the incentive of not having to
pay to get the same publicity. Ambush marketing seems to constantly straddle the line of
legality and as a result, the practice has been deemed ethically questionable. The ambush
strategy affects a wide range of people and brings upon a number of complexities legally,
ethically and economically. As ambush marketing grows the dynamic between marketers
and the corporate event planners will change dramatically and cause issues for funding
sporting events in the future.
Types of Ambush Marketing Ambush marketing is when a company associates itself with specific events when
they are not the official sponsors. The ambushers avoid paying sponsorship fees and
disregard any permission or limitations that the event organization has enforced. Official
sponsors have the right to promote their brand throughout the game and gain the positive
association that the Games have to offer. Hence, the corporate sponsor is promoting and
spreading awareness on an international level. There is an important level of reciprocity
within this contract because the corporate sponsor’s money goes towards the current and
Ambush Marketing in the Olympic Games 3
future events success. Advertising is a huge source of income and if event organizations
lose that money due to ambush marketing it could hinder the future success of said events.
There are two main types of ambush marketing; direct and indirect ambush
marketing. Direct ambush marketing is when marketers directly use the sporting events
logos, which legally up for discussion and further legal action. Indirect ambush marketing is
a little more conspicuous and uses loopholes to attain their marketing goals. Examples of
indirect ambush marketing would be to find advertisement placement on transportation
stations or in transit within the event’s city location. This pushes the brand and its positive
association with the Games without paying, which is obviously more appealing. Regardless
of whichever route marketers choose to take when executing their marketing strategy they
still have the same goal; “to attract attention to one’s products or services by taking
advantage of the ‘glow’ of a big event” (Vasallo 2009, 2).
Why use Ambush Marketing? From a brand perspective, many would question why corporations would want to
partake in activities that are unethical. This could potentially hurt the brand image if
consumers knew they were not abiding by the rules. In fact, amongst mega-‐sporting events
it is strongly looked down upon because the ambushing “activities of the company that
does not seek to directly and intentionally ambush a competitor, but instead merely seek to
capitalize on the goodwill, reputation and popularity of a particular sport or sporting
event” (Payne 1998, 324). The positive association that companies strives for by using
ambush marketing could backfire on them because of their poor ethical practices.
Companies desire for a wow factor during these events also takes away from the actual
events. Some consumers could say it adds to the atmosphere but when things are not
planned out correctly and cohesively there could be a greater consequence. There is never
a guarantee that a company’s ambush marketing strategy will be successful so in that split
second, a company/organization can make or break their brand within minutes.
So, why participate in a risky and questionably ethical situation on an international
platform? Consumers love sassy and risky brands that push the envelope. There is a sense
of thrill, innovation and creativity that comes along with questionable ethical actions and
Ambush Marketing in the Olympic Games 4
people like to be apart of that. On the other end of the spectrum, consumers often cannot
even tell that these marketers are doing anything wrong. They could believe that they are
rightfully so a sponsor and reap all the benefits of the actual sponsor. This is honestly the
ultimate opportunity for companies that do not have a lot of money or are a well known
brand. They can increase their awareness in seconds and compete with top competitors
within their market, it is a truly powerful strategy. “If large-‐scale corporate sponsorship is
striking in terms of it persuasiveness and recency, the related phenomenon of ambush
marketing is even more so” (O’Sullivan 1998, 351). There is great incentive in using the
alternative strategy of ambush marketing, because the risk in fact, may be worth the gain.
Consumers’ Perspectives and Attitudes toward Ambush Marketing At the end of the day, the main concern is how the consumer perceives ambush
marketing and its actions associated with the actual event. The organization has no control
over the ambushers so they can act in a way that will not compliment their brand or
properly represent what they stand for. Ambushing is a “marketing tactic [that] is meant to
create confusion in the consumer’s mind and hence gain the benefits of being an Olympic
sponsor while weakening the competition’s position” (MacIntosh 2012, 1). The confusion is
easy to create unless the consumer understand the inside deals of the event on a deeper
level, which plays to ambushers benefit. It has been proven that “sponsorship has
positively influenced consumption; particularly if the association between sponsor and
sponsee is a good fit” (1). Marketers that understand their brand and can creatively
incorporate themselves into cohesive events can be a great opportunity to increase their
sales significantly.
The most important factor in this equation is indeed the consumer, so it is crucial to
understand their behavior. Another major factor to take into consideration when
establishing a marketing mix is the interest level of the consumer pertaining to the event
that the marketers plan on ambushing. As mentioned previously, the Olympics is one of the
biggest and positively associated events around the world. Wars have actually stopped to
peacefully participate in these Games, so that goes to show how much power that the
Olympic brand has over consumers. It has been “reported that 66% of respondent
Ambush Marketing in the Olympic Games 5
indicated that Olympic sponsorship favourably affected their purchase habits” (2).
Consumer’s attitudes are clearly not changing knowing that the ambushers are going
around the regular laws. Therefore, there seems to be no clear disadvantage, right away at
least to the fact that they are continuing to practice ambush marketing in the eyes of
consumers.
Athletes and Participants’ Attitudes Towards Ambush Marketing Athletes are often targeted specifically in mega sports, especially if they are a highly
recognizable figure. For instance, Michael Johnson promoted Nike shoes and their products
in the 1996 Olympic to combat the official corporate sponsor, Reebok. This action derailed
the power of Reebok’s sponsorship and associated Nike closely with a personal
sponsorship of an Olympic athlete. Iconic figures that personally endorse brands regardless
of the event sponsorships are their own entity and extremely powerful. Unless the athlete
has entered into a specific contract they have the ability to take whatever promotional or
advertising offers they get. Therefore, ambush marketing plays to their advantage.
Participants in events that are not recognizable have a completely different attitude
towards ambush marketing. In such events as the ING New York City Marathon, the
runners are exposed to multiple organizations and corporation that are the official
sponsors. The participants that are returners have shown to have higher involvement with
the corporate sponsors especially if the sponsors are returners as well. (McKevey 2012, 9)
They feel a stronger connection and loyalty to these brands that are officially sponsoring
the marathon, so they look down upon the ambushers. The corporations that officially
sponsor the marathon seem to show a common interest and actually care about what the
event actually stands for, rather than the ambushers that are just feeding off the events
good will. Hence, participants have a negative outlook towards ambush marketing.
Organizations’ Attitudes Towards Ambush Marketing
The organization event coordinators actively try to stop ambush marketing from
taking place for a multitude of reasons. First, as previously mentioned, ambushers take
Ambush Marketing in the Olympic Games 6
away from their paying sponsors that help them fund the event. Secondly, they do not have
control over the ambush marketing so it could potentially derail the plans they have in
store for the event. Organizations, especially the International Olympic Committee have
been working very hard to come up with contingency plans to prevent ambush marketing
from occurring. The crisis management strategies that event coordinators use “block the
various loopholes of the traditional ambush routes to build a fortress around their
marketing programs” (Payne 1998, 328). There are numerous tactics that can be used to
accomplish this. Most of the contingency plans are backed by legal values. For example,
they have multiple contracts that prohibit third party uses of logos, clearly defined
exclusivity rules and a greater control over the media programing being run around that
time. The legacy and importance of keeping legal sponsors are very important to these
events and coordinators will do whatever it takes to ensure their future success by
squashing as much ambush marketing as they can.
Positioning Ambush Marketing as a Legal Issue Ambush marketing most commonly takes place during Global Sporting Events with
participation from various countries or during events viewed by multiple countries.
Determining the legality of various ambushing marketing techniques practiced at such
events can be difficult because of the varying laws across countries. International
governing committees such as the International Olympic Committee can make this
difficulty easier. Ambush marketing is also handled by the legislation of the host countries
of major sporting events. In fact, many countries have passed specific legislation to protect
their venues from ambush marketing such as Great Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa,
and the US. In addition to the specified legislation passed by various countries, there is
existing legislation that is effective in the fight against ambush marketing.
Limits of Intellectual Property Law
It is conveyed that lawsuits suggesting infringement are only effective against
“primitive ambushers” (Marmayou 2013, 43). This is because ambush marketers hardly
ever use a registered trademark; “instead they refer to an even creatively and use their
Ambush Marketing in the Olympic Games 7
own marks and trade name to associate themselves with it” (Vassallo, 1341). Marmayou
further illustrates that an ambush marketing case can only be effective if it establishes
confusion in a consumers mind, which in most cases is avoided by the accompaniment of a
statement that the ambusher is not an official sponsor (Marmayou, 14).
An example of such a case would be National Football League v. Coors Brewing Co.
In this case, Coors said they were the “Official Beer of the NFL Players” in an advertising
campaign that was showed during football season. Coors had entered into a sponsorship
agreement with Players Inc, which was a marketing company associated with the NFL
Players Association. However, Coors never obtained an official license to use the NFL
trademark. As a result the NFL successfully proved that Coors infringed the NFL’s
trademark by successfully because there was consumer confusion as to whether Coors was
the official NFL sponsor (Nafziger 2011, 478). However, as previously mentioned, such
cases are rare, as most ambushers don’t blatantly use the trademarks of others.
Consumer Law-‐ Lanham Act
Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act states that consumers have the right to be
protected from any “false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading
representation of fact which”
(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or (B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities, (Trademarks)
The case of Mastercard International v. Sprint Communications demonstrates the
use of the Lanham Act in a case against ambush marketing. During the 1994 World Cup,
Mastercard was the official sponsor and had a license to use the World Cup Trademark on
all “card-‐based payment and account access devices. Although Sprint was a telephone
company, they began using the World Cup trademark on all of their calling cards.
Mastercard sued sprint for false advertising (Vassallo 1342). In this case the consumer law
Ambush Marketing in the Olympic Games 8
was effective in protecting the sponsorship rights of Mastercard and Sprint was prohibited
from using the World Cup marks on their calling cards. This case set the precendent to,
“prevent sponsors from exceeding the bounds of sponsorship packages” (Nafziger , 479).
Prevention of Unfair Competition
Another method of trying an ambush marketer in court is to claim that the
ambusher has implied an official association therefore, “giving rise to an unfair competition
claim through the misappropriation of goodwill” (Nafziger, 479). In countries that follow
Common Law there is no specific legislation that prohibits unfair competition. However,
there are similar concepts that are prohibited such as “passing off”, “injurious falsehood”,
“inducement to breach a contract” and “breach of confidence” (Marmayou , 48). An example
of a case including “passing off” would be the case of ICC Development v. Arvee Enterprises
& Phillips. In this case Phillips claimed that if you bought a Phillips audio system you could
win a ticket to the World Cup. The International Cricket Council had entered into contracts
with sponsors that year, but Phillips was not one of them. The ICC claimed that the Phillips
ads constituted passing off, unfair competition and ambush marketing and therefore
sought an injunction. The court ruled that the slogan issued by Phillips only implied that
purchasers may win a prize, but did not claim that Phillips was a sponsor (Vassallo 1346).
This demonstrates such a case in which a company creatively associates itself with another
event while circumventing any legislation that may imply illicit activity.
First Amendment
In many cases, the ambush marketer may claim first amendment rights of free
speech, especially when it comes to creative use. The First Amendment protects
commercial speech, but only if such speech is not false or misleading which is usually not
the case in ambush marketing cases (Nafziger, 480). In the case of New Zealand Olympic
and Commonwealth Games Associatio Inc v. Telecom New Zealand, The New Zealand
Olympic Association sued Telecom for their ad that featured the word “ring” in the
configuration of the Olympic rings. In addition the slogan, “With Telecom mobile, you can
take your own phone to the Olympics” (Vassallo, 1348). Although this case did not take
Ambush Marketing in the Olympic Games 9
place in the US and therefore could not be protected by the first amendment it illustrates
that fact that if such speech is not misleading to the consumer, it is difficult to grant an
injunction. Such was the case, in which the court found that the “typical newspaper reader”
would not be misled by the ad (1348). An example that takes place in the US did so during
the Winter Games in Salt Lake City Utah. During the 2002 Olympic Games, a religious
association handed out pamphlets with five colored fish in the form of the Olympic Rings
and used the words “Sowing the Seed in Salt Lake City—the New Testament Souvenir—
Winter Games Salt Lake City, Utah”. In this case the United States Olympic Committee did
not challenge the organization because of the First Amendment defense in addition to the
fact that it would be unlikely for consumers to believe that a religious group would sponsor
the Olympics (Nafziger 480).
Fair Use
The fair use defense allows someone to use a mark if it is used in good faith to
describe the goods or services. In the previously mentioned case of NFL vs. Coors, Coors
claimed a defense of fair use. However, the court rejected Coors claim stating that Coors
wanted to capitalize on the goodwill of the NHL, and was not utilizing the NFL trademark in
a descriptive sense. (Nafziger, 480).
Disclaimers
In the case of the National Football League v. Governor of Delware it was established
that in some forms of ambush marketing, a disclaimer can be used to avoid liability
(Nafziger, 480) Another example of the success of ambush marketing due to a disclaimer
would be during the 1992 Stanley Cup Pepsi put on an advertising campaign titled “ Diet
Pepsi $4,000,000 Pro Hockey Playoff Pool” in which, “Pepsi invited the public to collect
specially marked promotional materials, such as bottle caps, cups and scratch cards”
(Vassalo 1345) . If a consumer in a specific area won a certain number of games, they
would receive prizes. Pepsi did put out a disclaimer on all of their promotional materials
that they were not the official sponsors of the NHL. In fact, that year, Coke was the official
sponsor. The court ruled that, “ the likelihood of any false impression to sponsorship was
Ambush Marketing in the Olympic Games 10
minimal and, in any event was eliminated by the clear disclaimers”. Therefore the action
was dismissed from court. However, the case did set precedent on how the rest of the
nation and the world were to handle their ambush marketing cases (1346).
Specific Anti-‐Ambush Legislation
As illustrated, the laws already in place may or may not be effective in protecting
against ambush marketing strategies. As a result many countries have implemented their
own legislation. In 1978 the United States passed the Amateur Sports Act amended as the
Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act of 1998. The act grants the United States
Olympic Committee exclusive control over the Olympic Marks in the US. This differs from
normal trademark protection in the terms that it is not necessary to prove consumer
confusion and that the defendant would not have the defenses outlined in the Lanham Act
(Nafziger, 482). Until other legislation such as the Amateur Sports Act is passed, ambush
marketing will continue to present itself as a problem in global sporting events (Seguin,
2011, 301).
Controversial Nature of Ambush Marketing
In many cases, fans do not understand or notice the difference between a corporate
sponsor or ambush marketing. As a result, many fans mistake the ambusher for the official
sponsor. Due to this occurrence, official sponsors worry that,“ ambush marketing will
diminish the value of the exclusive rights acquired at some cost by the sponsors of the
event” (Marmayou).
Ambushers, however, argue that within the framework of normal business their
actions are perfectly legal and ethical. In fact, they go as far as to say that it is their
obligation as a business person to take advantage of a business opportunity. A company
may claim that, “without ambushing it is otherwise denied the right to participate in an
important promotional opportunity due to the inability to meet the cost of official
sponsorship and further that their duty to stockholders demands that ambushing activity
be undertaken” (Meeneghen).
Ambush Marketing in the Olympic Games 11
While efforts to decrease ambush marketing for global sporting events are done
with good intentions it is also necessary to allow unaffiliated businesses to take advantage
of business opportunities. In addition, trying to prevent ambush marketing can interfere
with individual’s freedom of expression. For example, an individual soccer player should be
able to chose which brand, Nike or Adidas, they would like to sponsor them, no matter who
the official sponsor of the World Cup is. As a result, laws made to regulate ambush
advertisers should done carefully.
Ambushers Appealing to Political and Cultural Environments
Many of 2014’s world cup official sponsors will have more to worry about with their
marketing campaigns due to the political unrest in Brazil. The violence in Brazil is mostly
made up of protestors who are, “fed up with high poverty, a lack of health care, and poor
public services in the shadow of $11 billion event preparations”. Instead of seeing such an
environment as a marketing disaster, Coca-‐Cola, one of FIFA’s official sponsor’s decided to
take advantage of the situation by establishing itself as a socially responsible corporation.
Coca-‐Cola has launched a local program called Colevito, “which it created in 2009 to teach
job skills. Coke will employ about 1,000 Colevito graduates across Brazil during the World
Cup”. In addition, Coke has produced a series of documentary-‐style short films of a 92,000
mile tour through 90 countries for the championship trophy. During the tour Coke
successfully reached 175 markets, with more than one million people viewing the cup. In
addition, Brazilians were allowed to touch the solid-‐gold World Cup trophy, despite FIFA’s
normal rules of, ”only tournament champions and heads of state to touch the trophy” due
to the lack of all citizens in Brazil to view the trophy. Not only did these efforts reinforce
Coke’s, “The World’s Cup” theme, but it appealed to Brazil’s culture and its love of soccer
(Business).
Adidas, also one of FIFA’s official sponsors have taken advantage of Brazil’s love of
soccer by giving an official World Cup Ball to any Brazilian born on the day of their
campaign launch.
Ambush Marketing in the Olympic Games 12
IOC and Regulations
Most companies are limited to ambush marketing because of the increase in cost of
entry for sponsorship of main events. This becomes a major problem because it takes away
from the actual sponsor of the Games (Chanavat & Desbordes 2014, 152). And because of
this, the IOC says that the host countries have to adopt regulations in order to protect the
symbolism of the event. When companies decide to join in and use the symbols of the
events such as the Olympics, FIFA, UEFA, and many more, there is high tension between the
actual sponsors and the wannabe sponsors or Ambushers (153).
Some say that ambush marketing came to at the Montreal Olympics in 1976. In 1984
at the Los Angeles Olympics, Fuji was the original sponsor, meaning they paid for the rights
to become the partner. And Kodak sponsored the broadcasting of the Games on ABC. What
Kodak was hoping to do was make the people think they were the sponsor instead of Fuji
(154).
Some probably think that Ambush marketing is a simple, one kind of strategy tactic.
They will soon find out that they could not be any more wrong. Some examples of past
tactics and present tactics are; soccer teams have contracts that vary from the individual
players. This allows players to wear the team sponsor on their shirts, and different sponsor
on their feet. In the article “Towards the regulation and restriction of ambush marketing?
The first truly social and digital mega sports event: Olympic Games, London 2012” there is
an example of David Beckham. He was seen wearing the Nike swoosh brand on his shirt
because Nike has a contract with the team. Yet he was also wearing Adidas cleats, this was
allowed because of his other contract, his personal endorsement contract. Another example
involving soccer player Wayne Rooney; he had used social media (Twitter) to advertise
Nike, this linked Nike to the team that Rooney was associated with, however Adidas was
the official team sponsor. This proves that Nike was undermining Adidas. When using
social media to advertise for a company is now known as social ambush, this is what Wayne
Rooney had been a part of (156).
Ambush Marketing in the Olympic Games 13
What Advertisers Should Look out for
In the London Games, the controllers have come up with rules to avoid the
happening of Ambush Marketing. With the economy being the way it is, mege sports events
have become more and more popular. This is the way to reach millions of people. The
example used in the article “The London Olympics 2012: what advertisers should watch”
was Nike in the 1996 Summer Olympics. They had run advertisements through the Atlanta
area and it turned out that when asked, the population thought that Nike was the official
sponsor, however it was actually Adidas that was the official sponsor. To become a
sponsor, companies have to pay their way in (Taylor 2012, 459). Along with this example,
Taylor listed out five issues that were worth following at the London Olympics, they were
(459):
1. The continued growth of sponsorships and whether there is greater effort to
measure the effectiveness of sponsorships
2. Digital advertising’s role in the Olympics
3. How advertisers in traditional media capitalize on the high viewership of the
Olympics
4. The trend towards Olympic sponsors considering corporate social responsibility
issues in advertising
5. The degree to which ambush marketing during the Olympics continues to occur
There is a much greater interest in sponsorships, as stated before, because of the
viewers the company gets when it is connected to a mega sporting event such as the
Olympics and FIFA and many others. It is stated in the article that the London Games have
11 “official sponsors. To become one of these, you have to be ready to pay between $80 and
$100 million to be able to sponsor both Summer and Winter Olympics. Sometimes the
ambushers get time in the spotlight for “acting out” you could say. For example, ambush
marketing took place at a World Cup game in South Africa (461). Four women showed up
wearing the colors of another beer company (Bavarian Beer), which were the orange
colors. This was a wrong doing because the official sponsor was Budweiser. This caused
some turmoil and led to them being in the spotlight. Ambush marketing isn’t always a walk
Ambush Marketing in the Olympic Games 14
in the park though, these four women received so much attention because they were
possibly facing some jail time for doing this (463).
Sponsoring and Ambush Marketing
Why do people choose to be sponsors? Being able to sponsor a mega-‐sport event is
one of the most popular ways to reach mass amounts of people. When reading “The role of
Mega-‐sports event interest in Sponsorship and Ambush marketing Attitudes”, it said that
businesses choose sponsoring because mega sports event can transmit promotional
messages to billions of people through television and other ways of communication
(Macintosh, 2012, 44). The desire to be affiliated with those five rings is the highest when
comparing sponsorship with any other mega sporting event. By being a sponsor there is a
huge benefit, it gets your brand out there and puts your brand in the populace's eye. Makes
them want to be like the athletes and wear what they are wearing. Nevertheless, the
International Olympic Committee (IOC) brought in a vast amount of money from the
sponsors in 2010. The amount that they profited was around $866 million. All of this was
given to the IOC from the nine sponsors that paid to have their name correspond with the
mega event (43). This brings up the question again of why become a sponsor when you can
create advertisements that are placed in the people’s minds? To answer this question; with
all of the high interest to gain as much as a sponsor does causes some issues. Ambush
marketing is said to be known as “a planned effort by an organization to associate itself
indirectly with an event in order to gain at least some of the recognition and benefits of
being an official sponsor of the Games” (44). All ambush marketing does is confuse the
population as to who is the real sponsor. In the article written by Macintosh, he says that
he found that 69% of people had no impact on their purchasing habits. Macintosh
conducted a test to see if respondents who have a higher level of interest in the Olympic
Games will have more positive sponsorship attitudes than those with lower levels of
interest in the Games. In the results, 619 surveys were handed out and finished. The people
who had higher levels of interest in the Games showed that they held more serious
attitudes about ambush marketing. This means that the higher the levels, the more likely
you will support the sponsors and their athletes. Then another result that was found was
Ambush Marketing in the Olympic Games 15
that those with were more engrossed feelings in the Olympic Games viewed the official
sponsors as industry leaders. Also the results showed that those with certain dimensions
can tell the difference between official sponsors and non official sponsors (47). This all
makes sense if you take it into consideration. It is more likely that a person who is not
interested in the Games is less likely to tell the difference between a real or an ambusher.
IOC Creating rules to Keep out Nike
The article “Brand Police are on the Prowl for Ambush Marketers at London Games”
states that the IOC has been accused of being over protective of their sponsors. Also, this
article says that Nike is the top dog in the Ambush marketing game. And the IOC has come
up with rules to keep Nike from taking away from official sponsors. The article states that
Nike would be taking it easy which will take off some of the pressure of the shoulders of
Adidas (Segal, 2012). This came as a relief for Adidas because they were reported to have
paid $62 million to become a sponsor. However Nike will not be totally out of the Games in
London because they sponsor the United States Olympic Committee, this means that Nike
gear will be worn throughout the competition (Segal).
The IOC has come up with a vast amount of rules that is helping to stop ambush
marketing. This only took them two decades to accomplish, but it may be coming true.
Adam Rendle is a London Lawyer and he stated that anything looking like it possibly could
be linked to the Games is at risk of creating an association. This is helping the sponsors get
their brand awareness out there without having turmoil created with the other brands that
did not pay for sponsorship (Segal).
Nike Goes for Gold
In this article, the Olympic Delivery Authority is described ODA. This group watches
out for ambush marketers and penalizes them for what they have done. After the exchange
rate of pound to dollar, the charges can be up to over $31,000. They were working very
thoroughly to stop the non-‐sponsors of the Games (Passikoff, 2012). They were
anticipating some advertisements that would try to go above and beyond the rules and
Ambush Marketing in the Olympic Games 16
regulations. But the Olympic Delivery Authority is prepared to stop them from gaining
anything from those advertisements (Passikoff). With the regulations that they have
created, these allowed them to have police up to 200 meters around a location.
To go around these rules and regulations, Nike made a very creative advertisement
that had athletes in towns called “London”. This was very sneaky; there was no direct
naming of the Olympics however one cannot help but make the connection (Passikoff).
Many companies have come to terms with Ambush Marketing, however Nike is still
trying to overcome the rules and regulations. The commercial that I talked about above,
Nike placed that out in the world in 2012 for the London Olympic Games. This just shows
how creative Nike has been in the past.
FIFA Example
Another time that Nike had been creative was when they came up with the FIFA
advertisement. Where they started out with kids just playing regular soccer then they turn
into professionals like Ronaldo and others from teams all around the world. This was a
silent introduction into the FIFA world cup. Adidas was not happy with this advertisement.
Because, as I said before, Adidas has the contract with teams where they are able to have
them wear cleats that have the Adidas logo on them because they have personal
endorsement contracts.
There are many examples of Ambush Marketing in Games around the world. We as
consumers, don’t see it all the time, it is hard to pinpoint. The majority of most Ambush
Marketing campaigns use subliminal messaging to catch our eye and it sticks in the back of
our heads.
2012 London Organizing Committee Contract
As previously mentioned ambush marketing is described as “a planned effort by an
organization to associate themselves indirectly with an event“(Hartland 2012, 69) and by
doing this they attempt to “gain at least some of the recognition and benefits that are
associated with being an official sponsor” (69). For the 2012 Olympic Games, London’s
Ambush Marketing in the Olympic Games 17
original bid had to include measures to prevent ambush marketing. Once London was
awarded the Games they had to pass “legislation that made it illegal for companies that are
not official sponsors to link their products with the Games” (69).
The London Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games, LOCOG, was put in place
to prevent potential infringements on the Games from happening. LOCOG was required to
enter into the “Host City Contract, obligations under this contract meant fulfilling all
commitments made in the bidding process including protection for the official sponsors”
(70). Although many believe that this Act my have gone to far. Within the document it
stated that representation is “any image, graphic design, sound or word of any kind which
is likely to suggest to the public an association between a person, goods or services and the
London Olympics” (71). It also stated that association was defined as being any kind of
“contractual or commercial relationship, corporate or structural connection; or the
provision of financial or other support” (71).
The key terms that was considered forms of associations for the 2012 Olympic
Games included: Games, 2012, twenty twelve, two thousand and twelve, gold, silver,
bronze, London, medals, sponsors, and summer (72). Using any two of these words in
conjunction was considered a “violation with a significant fine” (Taylor 2012, 462).
Research conducted with Google advance showed that there was 2,284,414 found
violations of the contract. The majority of these hits was not to promote the company but
but innocent coincidence such as communities, local councils, student communities,
charities, etc. (Hartland 2012, 77). An example of this would be a local school wanting to
promote its 2012 Summer Sports Day. By using these words in their promotions would
“according to the letter of the law, be an infringement under the measures taken to protect
the Olympic brand” (72).
The UK’s Chartered Institute of Marketing believes “ the Act goes far beyond its valid
remit of preventing ambush marketing and preserving investment value for official
sponsors” because of the examples just mentioned (72). They believe that it “fails to give
allowance to the minuscule efforts of small and medium sized companies to gain some
benefit from the presence of the Games” (72).
Does the Act go to far? Should it only apply to companies that own a certain amount
of market share or have a certain amount of revenue and income? Even with this Act, major
Ambush Marketing in the Olympic Games 18
companies such as Nike, Red Bull, Subway, and many others have still had effective
advertising without violating the Act. Let’s take a look at how these companies strategies of
their ambush marketing.
2012 London Olympic Games Examples of Ambush Marketing
Nike for the 2012 London Olympic Games launched Find Your Greatness Campaign.
Nike’s insight behind this campaign was ”a powerful message to inspire anyone who wants
to achieve their own moment of greatness in sport, launched just as the world focuses on
the best of the best” (Nike 2012). Nike showed clips of everyday athletes training around
the world with a “common thread that the locations are all called London” (Nike). One
scene at a London gym, another at rugby matches in East London, South Africa. Also a
female boxer is practicing in Little London, Jamaica and in London, Ohio kids are playing
baseball. Nike was able to create a campaign around the word London with out actually
featuring London, England in their campaign. They got a lot of awareness with this
campaign by linking it with social media. This is an extremely well thought and produced
ambush-‐marketing tactic helped “Nike dominate over Adidas by a wide margin” (Global
Language Monitor 2012).
Subway had a different approach to the their ambush marketing campaign for the
2012 London Olympic Games. In 2008, Subway signed Michael Phelps to “capitalize off the
partnership over the last four years in advance of the 2012 Olympic Games” (Forbes, &
Jessop 2012). Over those four years Phelps “produced at least 30 different commercials”
(Forbes, & Jessop). From “July 18 through August 15-‐ during the days surrounding the
Olympic Games,” fans will not see advertisements by Subway featuring Phelps because of
the strict Act. Although he cannot be a sponsor during the actual games he has already
connected himself over the years with subway. Therefore, in consumer’s minds he is still
the official sponsor, not realizing they haven’t seen a commercial in awhile. This ambush
strategy helped rank Subway above McDonald’s, an official sponsor, in the Global Language
Monitor Brand Affiliation Index (Global Language Monitor 2012).
Ambush Marketing is not only done through commercial advertisements but also
the attire of the competing athletes. The “Shoe War” was a big issue leading up to London
Ambush Marketing in the Olympic Games 19
Olympic Games. This is because “Adidas is the official sponsor of the London Games, but a
problem arises because individual Olympic teams have their own contracts with individual
companies” (Taylor 2012, 462). An example of this is “runner Mo Farah is sponsored
personally by Nike, but the British Olympic Association is Sponsored by Adidas” (462). A
conclusion of this came out that “competition footwear is exempt because it is classified as
equipment, but medal ceremonies and warm-‐up create a problem as the athlete is under
pressure to wear the official brand” (463). Another accessory related ambush is Dr. Dre
and his Beats headphones when he “sent British team members special versions of the
Beats range branded with union flag colours” (Guardian, & Sweney 2012). This ambush
strategy helped Dr. Dre increase awareness in the 2008 Beijing Olympics when the
company “gave then to basketball star LeBron James and members of Team USA”
(Guardian, & Sweney). Panasonic, official sponsor believed this to be ambush marketing
and was “aggrieved by the stunt” (Guardian, & Sweney).
2014 Sochi Olympic Games Examples of Ambush Marketing
Ambush marketing was also very predominant in the latest 2014 Sochi Olympics
Games as well. Every year the language monitor creates a marketing report by brand
affiliation with both sponsors and non-‐affiliated sponsors of the Olympic Games. It is a
“proprietary, longitudinal study that analyzes the global association between individual
brands and the Sochi Winter Games” (Global Language Monitor). The top 4 marketers’ of
the Sochi Games rated by Brand Affiliation Index was Redbull, P&G, Samsung, and Subway
(Global Language Monitor). Both P&G and Samsung being official sponsors and Redbull
and Subway being unofficial sponsors. Once again Subway like previously mentioned in
the 2012 London Olympic Games used previous Olympic sponsors, Michael Phelps and
Apollo Ohno, once again leading up to the Games to help ambush the 2014 Sochi Games, but
how did Red Bull do it?
Red Bull’s marketing is unlike any of their other competitors. Redbull has “strong
links with extreme snow sports. They sponsor top athletes such as Sarah Hendrickson,
American world champion ski jumper. No only are these top athlete’s attire sponsored by
Redbull but all aspects of the snow sports including the making of many games outside the
Ambush Marketing in the Olympic Games 20
Olympics. Because of Redbull’s strong ties with snow sports year round, not just during the
Olympics it helps keep awareness up and attention increases once the winter Olympics
begin.
Prevention Of Ambush Marketing Throughout this paper we have discussed the history of ambush marketing, the legal
issues of ambush marketing, the Olympic committees and their roles, and pervious
examples in past Olympics. Although we have yet to discuss how to prevent ambush
marketing. Many believe that ambush marketers are thieves, knowingly stealing something
that does not belong to them” (Payne 1998, 325). Also no other organization is more
“directly affected by the trend than Olympic Games organizers,” for the success of the
Olympics we must do everything in our power to prevent ambush marketing (326). In a
survey, research shows that 72% of respondents believed that the Games would not be
viable without the support of sponsors (326). In Conclusion, the International Olympic
Committee (IOC) must take steps to protect the Olympic sponsorship program, with such
actions discussed below.
First way to help protect the exclusive rights of the sponsors is ambush-‐marketing
education. The IOC believes that “public relations is becoming one of the best ways to
control ambush marketing” (327). By educating opinion leaders, the media, and consumers
on how ambush marketers are “trying to deceive them into believing that they too are
supporting the event, when they clearly are not” (328). This tactic has worked very well
previously in the past such as for the Atlanta Games during the 1996 Centennial Olympic
Games. By increasing understanding and gaining support for the policies will help “render
ambush marketing unacceptable in the minds of the consuming public, media and business
peers” (328).
Secondly to prevent ambush marketing the International Olympic Committee must
define the nature of exclusivity. This involves “specifying the core sponsorship rights that
are to be included in the marketing package” (328). This includes but is not limited to the
rights to the event, he rights to the international federation, the rights to the national team
or even to the individual athlete, and then to identify the rights not included (328). It is
Ambush Marketing in the Olympic Games 21
necessary to determine the exclusive rights because “as the integrity of these rights is
chipped away, so the likelihood of sponsors withdrawing their support or at least
demanding that the fees be reduced” (327).
A third and fourth step to consider is monitor alternative programs and prohibition
of non-‐sponsor association. By monitoring alternative programs ensures that “the agreed
exclusive rights are not violated” (329). While prohibition of non-‐sponsor associations
prevents non-‐sponsors form “gaining a perceived sponsorship link through joint
promotions with any official sponsor” and in effect this prohibits “an ambusher from
gaining Olympic association through a joint promotion (329).
Another tactic to prevent ambush marketing is creating a clean venue, by controlling
all forms of commercial activity, including “concessions, franchises, and type of food sold in
restaurants” (329). By specifying things from credit cards to brands of soft drinks to be
served. Once there is a clean venue and all items are sponsored related, the next task is to
“police infringements of agreements” to help ensure the sponsor’s rights (329).
Once the above tactics have been implemented the final steps would be to
coordinate with broadcasters, control of Olympic imagery, and banning licensed
merchandise and hospitality programs. These elements help the official sponsor have first
rights to all broadcast sponsorship and advertising rights for the events, as well as control
the use of symbols and words related to the Games as mentioned in the 21012 London
Organizing Committee Contract. Finally, by banning the use of licensed merchandise and
hospitality program this prevents the licenses from retail sale. This includes “official ticket
vendors are forbidden from selling tickets to the Games to non-‐official sponsors for use in
hospitality programs, competitions, and promotions,” because in the past this has been
successful attempts at ambush marketing (330).
Conclusion
In Conclusion, ambush marketing, the attempt by organizations to mislead
consumers into crediting that they are supporting a sports event has been around the
Olympic Games for many previous years and many years to come. The Olympic Games is
doing everything in their power to keep the official sponsors in control and have majority
Ambush Marketing in the Olympic Games 22
of the recognition and spotlight. Although the examples above show as ambush marketing
grows the dynamic between marketers and the corporate event planners will change
dramatically and cause issues for funding sporting events in the future. Therefore, the
committee must strengthen rules and regulations, inform consumers, and change attitudes
so corporations such as Kodak, Nike, Subway, Redbull, and other large non affiliated
sponsors can not take credit that belongs to official sponsors Prevention is easier than a
cure so if the IOC can make a stand now, society will hopefully see a change in the
marketing of the Olympic games and less ambush marketing.
Ambush Marketing in the Olympic Games 23
Literature References
Kaitlyn Turkett Macintosh, E., Nadeau, J., Seguin, B., O'Reilly, N., Bradish, C. L., & Legg, D. (2012). The Role of
Mega-‐Sports Event Interest in Sponsorship and Ambush Marketing Attitudes. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 21(1), 43-‐52.
McKelvey, S., Sandler, D., & Snyder, K. (2012). Sport Participant Attitudes Toward Ambush
Marketing: An Exploratory Study of ING New York City Marathon Runners. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 21(1), 7-‐18.
O'Sullivan, P., & Murphy, P. (1998). Ambush Marketing: The Ethical Issues. Psychology &
Marketing, 15(4), 349-‐366. Payne, M. (1998). Ambush Marketing: The Undeserved Advantage. Psychology & Marketing,
15(4), 323-‐331. Vassallo, E., Blemaster, K., & Werner, P. (2009). An international look at ambush marketing.
Intellectual Property Journal,22(1), 87-‐102. Claire Mirsky Business Week. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 June 2014. <http://www.businessweek.com>.
Marmayou, J.-‐M. (2013). Major Sports Events: How to Prevent Ambush Marketing. African Sports Law and Business Bulletin, 1, 40-‐60.
Nafziger, J. A.R., & Ross, S. F. (2011). Handbook on International Sport Law. Edward Elgar. Senguin, B. (2011). Framing ambush marketing as a legal issue: An Olympic perspective.
Sport Management Review, 14, 297-‐308. Trademarks Tradenames and Copyrights, 15 C.F.R. § 1125 () Vassallo, E., Blemaster, K., & Werner, P. (n.d.). An International Look at Ambush Marketing.
TMR, 95, 1338-‐1356.
Ambush Marketing in the Olympic Games 24
Caroline Elyse
Chanavat, N., & Desbordes, M. (2014). Towards the regulation and restriction of ambush marketing? The first truly social and digital mega sports event: Olympic Games, London 2012. International Journal Of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 15(3), 151-‐160.
Macintosh, E., Nadeau, J., Seguin, B., O'Reilly, N., Bradish, C. L., & Legg, D. (2012). The Role of Mega-‐Sports Event Interest in Sponsorship and Ambush Marketing Attitudes. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 21(1), 43-‐52.
Passikoff, R. (2012, August 7). Ambush Marketing: An Olympic Competition. And Nike Goes for Gold. Retrieved December 8, 2014, from Forbes website: http://Forbes
Segal, D. (2012, July 24). Brand Police Are on the Prowl for Ambush Marketers at London Games. New York Times Taylor, C. R. (2012). The London Olympics 2012: what advertisers should watch.
International Journal Of Advertising, 31(3), 459-‐464. doi:10.2501/IJA-‐31-‐3-‐459-‐464
Taylor O’Neil
Forbes, & Jessop, A. (2012, July 17). Subway's Partnership With Michael Phelps Brings The Brand Large-‐Scale Exposure. Retrieved December 10, 2014, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciajessop/2012/07/17/subways-‐partnership-‐with-‐michael-‐phelps-‐brings-‐the-‐brand-‐large-‐scale-‐exposure/
Global Language Monitor. (2012, March 31). Olympic Ambush Marketers Continue to
Dominate London 2012. Retrieved December 11, 2014, from http://www.languagemonitor.com/olympics/olympic-‐ambush-‐marketers-‐continue-‐to-‐dominate-‐london-‐2012/
Global Language Monitor. (n.d.). Olympics. Retrieved December 11, 2014, from
http://www.languagemonitor.com/category/olympics/ Guardian, & Sweney, M. (2012, July 31). Dr Dre beats Olympic brand police by sending
headphones to Team GB. Retrieved December 11, 2014, from http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/jul/31/dr-‐dre-‐beats-‐olympic-‐brand-‐police
Ambush Marketing in the Olympic Games 25
Hartland, T., & Williams-‐Burnett, N. (2012). Protecting the Olympic brand: winners and losers. Journal Of Strategic Marketing, 20(1), 69-‐82. doi:10.1080/0965254X.2011.628404
Nike, Inc., F. (2012, July 25). Nike Launches "Find Your Greatness" Campaign. Retrieved
December 9, 2014, from http://news.nike.com/news/nike-‐launches-‐find-‐your-‐greatness-‐campaign-‐celebrating-‐inspiration-‐for-‐the-‐everyday-‐athlete#
Payne, M. (1998). Ambush Marketing: The Undeserved Advantage. Psychology & Marketing,
15(4), 323-‐331. Taylor, C. R. (2012). The London Olympics 2012: what advertisers should watch.
International Journal Of Advertising, 31(3), 459-‐464. doi:10.2501/IJA-‐31-‐3-‐459-‐464