Ambush Marketing

Ambush marketing or ambush advertising is a marketing strategy in which an advertiser "ambushes" an event to compete for exposure against other advertisers.

The term was coined by marketing strategist Jerry Welsh, while he was working as the manager of global marketing efforts for American Express in the 1980s. Most ambush marketing campaigns aim to associate a brand with the prominence of a major event, without actually being an "official" partner or sponsor of said event. An advertiser may indirectly ambush an event by alluding to its imagery and themes without referencing any specific trademarks associated with it, or in "direct" and "predatory" means—where an advertiser engages in the fraudulent use of official names and trademarks to deliberately mislead consumers.

Actions against ambush advertising are most common in sport (where major events such as the FIFA World Cup, Olympic Games, and the Super Bowl are prominent targets), as the practice can devalue and dilute exclusive sponsorship rights, and in some cases, infringe upon the organizers' intellectual property rights. Such actions may include restricting advertising in "clean zones" around an event site, removing or obscuring references to non-sponsors at venues, and requiring host countries to pass laws to grant the organizer legal rights to enforce clean zones, and to restrict the use of specific words and concepts to create unofficial associations with the event.

Anti-ambush marketing regulations have attracted controversy for limiting freedom of speech, and for preventing companies from factually promoting themselves in the context of an event.

Intent and techniques

Typically, ambush marketing is used to " ride off" the prominence and draw of a major event, aligning promotional activities and publicity around it, without having to pay fees to the event's organizer to be designated as an "official" sponsor in a certain product category. Ambush marketing techniques can be classified into two categories. The first, "direct" forms of ambush marketing, involve advertisers promoting themselves as being a part of or associated with an event, diluting the exposure of official sponsors and their respective campaigns—especially if they are the product of the non-sponsor's competitors, while indirect forms of ambush marketing use imagery relating to an event in advertising to evoke a mental connection with it, without specifically mentioning it.

"Predatory" forms of direct ambush marketing involve fraudulent claims by a non-sponsor that pass themselves off as being an "official" sponsor, usually by making direct references to trademarks relating to an event, but without having any official authorization from the event's organizers to identify itself as an official sponsor or use its trademarks. An advertiser may attempt to perform a publicity stunt inside the venue itself to attract attention to their brand, such as having attendees wear attire that is associated with the company. An official sponsor can also be involved in direct ambush marketing if they perform more extensive promotional activities at an event than they were originally authorized, such as distributing branded merchandise when they were only granted advertising on signage—especially if these activities compete with those of another sponsor authorized to do so.

A company may also perform direct ambush marketing by riding coattails—factually marketing their role in connection to an event or its participants. For example, a company which produces sporting equipment may advertise that they are the official supplier for a specific athlete or team. Similarly, a non-sponsor may choose to solely sponsor the event's telecast by a broadcaster, but not the event itself. The factual acknowledgment of a non-sponsor's involvement with the participants in an event by, for example, a television host or commentator, can also be considered an incidental form of coattail marketing, as it provides additional unpaid publicity to the brand.

Most forms of indirect ambush marketing involve a non-sponsor making use of imagery, themes, and values similar to what the event and campaigns from official sponsors express, either positively or negatively, and without making specific references to the event itself or its trademarks. In essence, the advertiser markets itself using content that evokes a mental association with the event, and as a result, appeals to those who are aware of the event. Advertisers may use a well-known nickname for the event that is not a trademark, such as "the big game".

Similarly, a non-sponsor may use "distractive" techniques to divert consumers' attention away from the actual event and its official sponsors using similarly indirect means; for example, a non-sponsor may saturate the area at or around its venue (including street vendors, billboards, and public transport) with a competing marketing presence. Such "saturation marketing" may either be indirectly related to the event, or be incidental and make no references at all. In some cases, a company may sponsor or create a similar "parallel property," designed to compete directly with a major property by evoking similar thematics.

Regulations

In response to the threats of ambush marketing and other forms of trademark infringement, organizers of major sporting events have sometimes required host countries or cities to implement special laws that, going beyond standard trademark law, provide regulations and penalties for advertisers who disseminate marketing materials that create unauthorized associations with an event by making references to specific words, concepts, and symbols. Organizers may also require a city to set up "clean zones" in and around venues, in which advertising and commerce is restricted to those that are authorized by the event's organizer—specifically, the event's official sponsors.

In some cases, a venue may be required to suspend its naming rights for the duration of the event if the venue is named for a concern that is not an official sponsor, during which it is referred to under a generic name by all event-related materials and telecasts, and all signage referring to the sponsored name may be obscured or removed. For example, 2010 Winter Olympics hockey venue General Motors Place (since renamed to Rogers Arena) was renamed "Canada Hockey Place" for the duration of the Games.

Broadcasters of events may be contractually required to give the official sponsors right of first refusal to purchase advertising time during their telecasts. Some events may require all advertising time to be controlled and allocated by the organizer itself, such as the UEFA Champions League.

Examples

The earliest example of general anti-ambush advertising legislation were passed in South Africa in 2001 in preparation for the 2003 Cricket World Cup. The law gave the Minister of Trade and Industry the ability to designate specific events as "protected," making it illegal to use the event's trademarks visually, audibly, and "in promotional activities, which in any way, directly or indirectly, is intended to be brought into association with or to allude to an event," to "derive special promotional benefit from the event," without the consent of the organizer. Prior to the 2011 Rugby World Cup, New Zealand passed the similar "Major Events Management Act," which prohibits any promotional use of words, emblems, and concepts implying association with events specifically designated as "major" by the national government, without permission from the event's organizers. The law also provides the ability for clean zones to be established around event sites for the purposes of enforcing advertising rules and providing crowd control.

Rule 40 of the Olympic Charter forbids all Olympic athletes from participating in marketing activities for companies that are not official sponsors of the Olympics, even if they have official relationships with the advertiser, during a timeframe that begins 9 days before the opening ceremony, and ends 3 days after the Games' conclusion.

The United Kingdom passed the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 prior to the 2012 Summer Olympics: on top of existing laws providing special protection for Olympic symbols, the act banned the use of the words "2012" and "Games" by non-sponsors, either together, or with words or concepts relating to the event, such as "Gold," "Silver," "Bronze," "Medals," "Summer," "Sponsors," or "London," to imply an association with the Games. LOCOG also announced plans to enforce these rules in the internet keyword advertising market.

Examples

The "credit card wars"

The first notable instances of ambush marketing occurred between the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, and the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul. Earlier Games allowed any number of companies to be official sponsors, and there were a record 628 sponsors for the 1976 Summer Olympics in Montreal. Despite the revenue it provided for the Games, the ability for sponsors to promote awareness of themselves within the context of the Games was diluted by the sheer number. In order to improve the value of these sponsorships, the International Olympic Committee implemented a system of exclusive sponsorship rights within specific market categories for the 1984 Summer Olympics.

In 1986, credit card company American Express (Amex)—rival to official sponsor Visa Inc., began a marketing campaign in Asia promoting merchandise from a fictitious "Olympic Heritage Committee," supposedly based in Switzerland. American Express halted the campaign following complaints by the IOC, who threatened to denounce the company's actions with ads and media events in which sports ministers and Olympic athletes from the countries involved in the campaign would cut American Express credit cards into pieces, if they did not withdraw the ads. In a follow-up, American Express released ads featuring a photo from the opening ceremony of the 1986 Asian Games held in the same city, captioned "Amex welcomes you to Seoul." The ad was intended to mislead readers into thinking that it was a photo of the Olympics' opening ceremony. Jerry Welsh, who was the manager of global marketing efforts for American Express in the 1980s, defended Amex's practices as a corporation's duty to its shareholders after they lost out on the official Olympic sponsorship rights to Visa, as well as coining the term "ambush marketing" to refer to these activities.

Amex's campaigns resulted in retaliatory advertising from Visa; in a continuation of an ongoing campaign promoting its exclusivity at certain venues and events, Visa ran advertising promoting that it was the only credit card accepted at Olympic venues and for purchasing tickets. Amex in turn felt that Visa's advertisements were misleading, citing viewers who interpreted the ads as to believe that no other credit cards were accepted anywhere in the host city during the Olympics (such as at shops and restaurants), rather than applying only for Olympic ticket sales and at venues. Prior to the 1992 Winter Olympics and Summer Olympics, American Express aired advertisements acknowledging these facts, explained with the slogan "You'll need a passport, but you don't need a Visa." Prior to the 1992 Summer Olympics, the company also promoted a partnership with Iberia and Turespaña that made American Express "the official credit card of tourism in Spain"—a campaign which factored the Olympics, as well as Seville Expo '92. The IOC negotiated a truce between Amex and Visa to tone down their advertisements, but encouraged Visa once Amex returned to its ambush marketing in 1994, and Amex finally conceded defeat by 1996.

Nike

Since the mid 1990s, Nike became known for several major ambush marketing schemes at the Olympics and association football tournaments.

In the 1992 Summer Olympics, while the United States Olympic team was sponsored by Reebok, most of the prominent players on the United States men's Olympic basketball team had been signed up by Nike as professionals. At the podium ceremony Michael Jordan famously covered up the Reebok logo with the American flag.

At the 1996 Summer Olympics, Nike engaged in a marketing campaign including magazine ads and billboards, to compete with Reebok who had paid $50 million to become the event's official sponsor. Nike gave a $30,000 pair of gold-colored racing shoes to Michael Johnson, which he used during competition and later displayed on the cover of Time magazine. Consistent with its aggressively-toned marketing of the time, Nike's campaign featured slogans parodying those of the Olympics and attacking its values, including "Faster, Higher, Stronger, Badder", "You don't win Silver, you lose Gold", and "If you're not here to win, you're a tourist." Nike set up a prominent pop-up store near the athletes' village, and was also attempting to have fans to display signs with the aforementioned slogans inside venues. IOC marketing director Michael Payne noted that the campaign was being widely criticized, as athletes were "likely to be uncomfortable when their shoe sponsor says they have failed unless they win a gold medal", and that Nike was "crossing the very fine line between having an impact and biting the hand that creates tomorrow's heroes." Jim Andrews, a marketing executive, said "Nike took a lot of flack for that campaign. It wasn't in the spirit of the games. There's a lot of consumer love for the Olympics and the athletes, and that arketingjust crossed the line for a lot of people." Payne and the United States Olympic Committee's marketing director John Krimsky held a meeting over the campaign with Howard Slusher, a subordinate of Nike co-founder Phil Knight. The meeting quickly turned aggressive; Payne threatened IOC counter-measures, including pulling accreditation for Nike employees, banning the display of its logos on equipment, and organizing a press conference where silver medallists from the Games, as well as prominent Nike-sponsored athlete Michael Johnson, would denounce the company. Faced with these threats, Nike agreed to retract most of its negative advertising and PR stunts.

After Reebok unexpectedly pulled out on short notice, and likely attributed to new rules by the IOC and USOC that effectively banned Nike's aggressive ambush marketing antics used in 1996, Nike stepped in as the official sportswear supplier of the 2000 Summer Olympics in Sydney, Australia—using them to launch the company's first-ever global marketing campaign. To rebuke Nike's negative rhetoric, the IOC also engaged in a global marketing campaign of its own called "Celebrate Humanity", with one ad proclaiming 'Someone once said “If you don’t win the silver, you lose the gold.” Obviously they never won the silver.’

For the 2012 Summer Olympics, Nike was not an official sponsor but ran an ad campaign titled ‘Find Your Greatness’ featuring “everyday athletes” from cities named London in Ohio, Canada, Nigeria and Jamaica, which also tactfully avoided infringing on sponsorship rules.

At the 2020 Summer Olympics, during the medal ceremony the Brazil men's Olympic football team players did not fully wear the Brazil's official Olympic uniform provided by Chinese manufacturer Peak Sport, sporting only the pants while the jackets were tied around their waists. The players wore their Nike jerseys on the podium, apparently under orders from the Brazilian Football Confederation, as Nike sponsors their football teams. Other Brazilian athletes complained that the football players were not part of the Olympic team. Peak Sport voiced concern that Nike could be confused as one of its subsidiary brands.

Nike also performed saturation ambushes at UEFA Euro 1996 and the 1998 FIFA World Cup, by buying advertising space in the vicinity of the host venues in order to prevent the official sponsors (Umbro and Adidas respectively) from being able to promote themselves. Nike's actions influenced the eventual adoption of "safe zone" rules, requiring official sponsors to have exclusive use of all advertising locations within a certain radius of an event's venue.

For the 2010 FIFA World Cup, Nike conducted the “Write the Future” ad campaign, avoiding uses of FIFA or World Cup in its branding, but gaining awareness thanks to a YouTube video that featured star footballers, star athletes from other sports, and celebrities.

FIFA World Cup

During the 2006 FIFA World Cup, Bavaria Brewery distributed "Leeuwenhosen"—branded overalls with lion tails, colored in the orange of the Netherlands national football team. Officials at games directed fans to take off the Leeuwenhosen and put on orange-colored shorts instead, as the clothing infringed on the exclusive beer sponsorship rights owned by Anheuser-Busch. Bavaria Brewery was again accused of ambush marketing at the 2010 FIFA World Cup, when 36 female fans were ejected from a game (along with the arrest of two, later released, accused of violating the Contravention of Merchandise Marks Act) for wearing unbranded orange miniskirts that were provided by Bavaria; Sylvie van der Vaart, wife of Dutch player Rafael van der Vaart, had modeled one of the miniskirts in an advertising campaign for the brewery. Robbie Earle was also fired from his roles as ITV Sport

HOME


Content is Copyleft
Website design, code, and AI is Copyrighted (c) 2014-2017 by Stephen Payne


Consider donating to Wikimedia



As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases