Ambushmarketing

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Marketing world is ever changing. It is described as the most dynamic aspect of any

kind of business. Industry experts would no doubt agree upon this fact.

Marketers or strategists as we may call them today strive to come up with “out of this

world” ideas to stay in the business or to stay in THE LIME LIGHT!

Such efforts have given birth to variety of new concepts, one of which is Ambush

Marketing. But, do such ideas of novelty really work?

Many a time’s creative marketing strategies either create a temporary hype about the

concerned product or help in short term improvement of sales. Very few outstanding

efforts have a long lasting effect on the consumer’s mind.

OBJECTIVE OF THE PROJECT

The following Research study has been done on one such creative marketing strategy

called Ambush Marketing. It is a study of after effect of an Ambush, on the consumer

behavior.

A co. directly attacks its rival B co. through its own ad or by stealing the show in the rival

co.’s ad. The questions that arise in our minds are:

Does this trick really work for the A co.?

Do the target audiences actually make a decision to purchase the product as a

result of such an Advertisement?

Why a brand resorts to a strategy like this?

How much of the envelope can and should be pushed, without being too offensive

or irrelevant? - are the important issues discussed here.

SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

As “Ambush Marketing” is a new marketing concept, it was mandatory to refer to

secondary data for a better understanding. It includes how and when this practice started;

the legal aspects of using this strategy and its types. Various examples from the Indian

advertising industry have been taken and an analysis of their viewership, effectiveness

and fulfillment of their intended motives is done in this research study.

For a better and clear understanding 4 brand Ambush advertisements are taken which are:

HUL’s Dove vs. P&G’s Pantene – Mystery shampoo hoarding ad

Jet Airways vs. Kingfisher Airlines – Hoarding ad

Tide vs. Rin TV commercial

Coca Cola vs. Pepsi ad.

The buying procedure of customers in these above mentioned product categories is

studied.

LIMITATION OF THE REPORT

The project report does not go into the details of the products and branding of services. It

only highlights the brand wars waging through advertisements among these brands.

This study has a limited sample size, which is fairly enough for a learning experience.

There has been a constant occurrence of Brand wars in advertising and marketing,

therefore there are many examples that can be given. Although for the purpose of having

a focus on the topic and qualitative understanding, few brands from varied sectors are

taken.

The case examples are from industries like fast moving consumer goods (FMCG), service

industry and food & Beverages industry.

LITERATURE REVIEW

INTRODUCTION

MEANING

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.”

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.

"Ambush marketing is the planned effort by an organization to associate themselves

indirectly with an event in order to gain at least some of the recognition and benefits that

are associated with being an official sponsor.”

This practice of pulling a fast one on the competition is an old one, some industry experts

call it campaign sabotage or hijack; academicians feel it is a form of guerilla marketing;

while marketing consultants prefer the term 'Ambush marketing'.

It is an effort by an unauthorized party to appropriate the goodwill of an event at the

expense of another company's (usually a rival's) association with the event. It occurs at

two levels — onsite and on media.

Onsite ambush marketing occurs at the event itself and the area surrounding it,

including the approach roads and so on, and covers everything from refreshments,

clothing, billboards, posters, stalls and so on.

Media ambush marketing would occur through sponsorships of spots, scrolls, logo

positions and so on, on the media used to cover the event (generally TV, radio or

press). For example, L'Oreal hair colour ads appearing during the Lakme India

Fashion Week broadcasts.

Ambush marketing is clearly another tool in a brand's arsenal and is a part of competitive

marketing aimed at building awareness and creating a differentiation in a competitive

market place.

The success of any sponsorship finally rests on the sponsor's ability to sign a watertight

contract, fully leverage the opportunity and always stay a step ahead of competition.

The objectives of ambush marketing are twofold:

1. To get maximum returns on the marketing buck. Official sponsorship costs are

forbiddingly high, even for deep-pocketed marketers, and simply unaffordable for

others.

2. To undermine the branding efforts of the rivals by stealing the attention,

increasing the clutter and confusing the viewers. The Pepsi hot air balloon flying

above Sharjah, on the day of the Coca-Cola Cup final, is one such example.

BENEFITS:

Ambush advertising helps both brands — leader and challenger — gain

instant salience. It raises interest in the category and gets more people

talking.

It makes ordinary content more exciting. In isolation, you wonder what’s

so ‘talk-worthy’ about the individual pieces of work.

The truth is: with ambush advertising, nobody loses. Everybody wins.

Both the brands and their companies get lots of free media.

The advertising agencies win because the client increases spends —more

then was planned — and so more revenue!

Lots of people in the advertising and marketing companies find sudden

purpose. This releases energy and creates renewed enthusiasm. The

CEOs of both companies spend more time with the concerned brands’

heads who therefore get greater OTS (opportunity to see) and visibility.

The news and trade media, always looking for content, have something

to write about. This is like fresh juice. They can now fill lots of columns.

Media owners are happy because of the sudden increase in media spends.

Distribution channels are thrilled — heightened conversation for both

brands increases traffic to the store.

As for consumers, they are enjoying all the fuss and are hopeful this will bring prices

down — because of fierce competition.

TYPES OF AMBUSH MARKETING

1. "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").

2. "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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_store

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_externality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-rider_problem

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.

3."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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_cost

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commensalism

THE TIMELY PROCESS OF AMBUSH MARKETING:

A question of 'when'

Sabotage can take place at absolutely any point in a brand's campaign cycle; but experts

agree that the teaser phase is when a brand is most vulnerable to attack.

There are three key "occasions" when sabotage is likely to take place:

The first is the teaser phase of a campaign, which is equivalent to giving

competition "advance notice"; so that a competing brand can step in prepared and

do its job.

The second situation is akin to "bleeding with a glass jaw" in boxing parlance.

Just as in boxing, a glass jaw is a chin that practically begs to be punched

severely; a brand might open itself up for attack by providing gaps that a

competing brand can fill in. For instance, a bizarre claim made by brand X can

have brand Y jumping in to convey how it is better. "Here, you're just asking to be

hammered, by providing an opening that begs to be filled in on how XYZ is better

than I am," shrugs Halve. While teasers only give a time gap for sabotage, this is

like a disguised invitation to be hit by the competition.

The third scenario is simply a creative way to steal someone's thunder. For

instance, Pepsi's 'Nothing official about it' was a statement on Coca-Cola's

'Official sponsor of the Cricket World Cup' years ago. It was a way of turning a

competitor's bragging to rubble.

But of all these cases, teaser campaigns are obviously more vulnerable than others --

particularly when they are about intrigue, and not central to the campaign to follow. On

the other hand, if the teaser is just the prequel to a strong, well thought-out, long-term

position, it is quite safe.

An example: When Maharashtra Times tried to hijack DNA's outdoor teasers, not much

happened; DNA's hoarding of people with taped-up mouths was merely the opening

salvo of a strong 'Speak Up, it's in your DNA' juggernaut. MT wasted some money; DNA

went on to become the launch of the year.

DECODING SABOTAGE: THE 'WHY' OF IT

Why Ambush Marketing? :

1. More Business.

A brand takes open swipes at its competitor in such abrasive ways for the reason of

getting instant attention

Sabotage usually happens when brands stop talking to consumers and start talking to each

other, experts feel; and it may not be in the interest of either brand, if the objective is all

wrong. Most of the time, this is just an opportunity to show off how clever a brand is,

with the target group being the competing brand/agency. It becomes about one-

upmanship. Also the potential target consumer base which is exposed to the marketing

practice of competing brand gets to know about the brand which carries out the ambush.

2. Less capital invested with high returns.

The brand doesn’t have to invest in media time, the advertisement film

making costs are saved, there is no use of celebrity endorser, and a lot of

time is also saved.

Not every hijack attempt works in favour of the cheeky brand. Often, the

hijacked brand also gets the benefit of the hijacker's media budgets. The

primary objective of a hijack is often entertainment, at the cost of being

persuasive enough to sell your product.

Advertisers often forget that they are not in the business of advertising

only to entertain; every marketer's primary objective is to get people to

buy their product.

3. Making a Brand statement.

Typically, the brand that faces eyeball to eyeball competition goes the sabotage way the

most. Furthermore, categories that enjoy just two big players as adversaries are happiest

doing this.

It is interesting to note that market leaders usually stay away from acknowledging

competition. Would it perhaps be logical to conclude that a challenger brand is most

often seen sabotaging a market leader's communication efforts? Not really. Branding

experts feel it is not a challenger brand that sabotages, it is the challenger mentality in

any brand that does so -- the 'panga lena hai' attitude. It's akin to the Shah Rukh Khan

versus Aamir Khan debate. Shah Rukh knows he's the numero uno, but still likes to

behave like a challenger, and attacks Aamir all the time.

Sabotage is obviously a short-term strategy, a pit stop, and there may not be anything

wrong with that. It is said that the really good ones make a statement about their own

brand -- taking a swipe at competition is the icing on the cake.

The Pepsi-Michael Jackson world tour incident, a few years ago, is an example of a

sabotage that had its roots in a sound strategy. As is known, the tour was cancelled

halfway, leaving millions of fans disappointed globally. Coca-Cola was quick to step in

with the line, 'Dehydrated? Time for a Coke'. Consumers loved it, because it came from

what Coke stands for as a refreshment drink.

Others feel that if a brand attacks a competitor's inherent brand values, it can work. For

instance, when Thums Up said 'Grow up to Thums Up', it was attacking Pepsi where it

hurt -- its inherent sweet taste, and the vulnerability of its kiddy-consumers to being

called kiddies. But when the attack is purely on a competitor's ad, research finding after

finding indicates consumers don't understand or appreciate such efforts.

HISTORY OF AMBUSH MARKETING

Ambush marketing was first witnessed in 1984 Olympics, in the international market;

and the 1996 Cricket World Cup which highlighted the concept in India.

RISE OF THE PSEUDO-SPONSORS IN 1980’s

Ambush marketing has polarised opinion over the 25 years of its existence. Derided by

some as a parasitic practice that devalues both the brand of a sports property and the

official sponsorship associations it has in place, it is lauded by others as creative

opportunism that fuels interest in the sports property it is piggy-backing. What is without

question, however, is that the practice has created some of sport’s most commercially

memorable moments.

Ambush marketing as a concept first came to light at the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics.

Those Games, which generated a surplus of some US$250 million, were deemed an

overwhelming success. They were the first to be funded entirely privately. In order for

this to happen, the organisers of the Games and the International Olympic Committee

(IOC) themselves had implemented a restructuring of their sponsorship platform in the

early 1980s. Prior to the 1984 Games, any number of sponsors had been allowed to tie

themselves to the Olympics on an ‘official’ basis. This policy came to a head at the 1976

Montreal Olympics when there were 628 ‘official’ sponsors. As a paper by Chadwick’s

department at Coventry University (‘Ambush marketing in sport: An assessment of

implications and management strategies’) testifies, although this policy provided finance

for the Games, it “also meant the dilution of the Olympic brand, and smaller impact for,

and awareness of, official sponsors.”

The plan in place for the 1984 Games saw product categorisation and sponsor exclusivity

implemented for the first time. Although the concept was designed to, and indeed

succeeded in, raising revenue for the Olympics by providing greater value for the

sponsors, it also opened the door to ambush marketers seeking to capitalise on the event,

as they were no longer able to do so legitimately.

Of course, it is now often difficult to differentiate between ambush marketing and

guerrilla or parasitic marketing, or even simply genuinely creative marketing.

Chadwick’s department at Coventry has come up with the following definition: ‘Ambush

marketing is a form of strategic marketing which is designed to capitalise upon the

awareness, attention, goodwill, and other benefits, generated by having an association

with an event or property, without an official or direct connection to that event or

property.’

Historically, most ambush marketing has taken place around significant sporting events,

utilising a wide variety of media including television commercials, on-location

promotions, and outdoor media all designed to link a brand to an event in the absence of

an official connection, or to confuse the message of a rival brand with official

sponsorship status. As such, the widely accepted term of ‘ambush marketing’ might be a

little misleading. Perhaps ‘pseudo-sponsorship’ would fit better.

AMERICAN EXPRESS vs. VISA CAMPAIGN WAR

Indeed, ambush marketing campaigns have tended to be fought between two rival giants

in any given industry. Often the rivalries are deep-rooted and the marketing wars long-

lasting. One such sustained campaign was the war waged by American Express

throughout the late 1980s and 1990s to combat Visa’s status as exclusive Olympic

marketing partner.

According to Michael Payne, who fought a sustained reactive and proactive war against

the ambushers in his role as marketing director at the International Olympic Committee

from 1988 to 2002, “Amex never recovered from losing the Olympic rights to Visa after

the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games. American Express may do nicely in most places,”

Payne says in his illuminating book ‘Olympic Turnaround’, “but not at the Olympics.”

American Express’ ambushing activities in the late eighties in particular incurred the

wrath of the IOC and ensured that the company fell foul of one of the unforgiving ‘name

and shame’ campaigns that characterised anti-ambushing action in the period.

Amex began its boundary-pushing campaign in 1986.

Launched a promotional campaign in Asia ahead of the Seoul Olympics in 1988. In a

blatant case of misrepresentation, the company began offering Olympic medallions from

the ‘Olympic Heritage Committee’ in Switzerland. Of course, the company neglected to

reveal that such an organisation in fact existed not in Switzerland, but in the minds of the

Amex marketing men.

The IOC advised American Express to withdraw their campaign immediately, otherwise,

full page ads would be taken out in each of the territories concerned informing the public

of the bogus nature of Amex’ campaign and the company’s deceptive methods.

Furthermore, the IOC then promised that Olympic athletes and sports ministers would be

wheeled out across the very same territories to deride American Express, denouncing

their activities as highly damaging to grass roots support of sport while at the same time

cutting up American Express cards for a selection of the world’s media.

Within hours American Express claimed the whole thing to be a terrible

misunderstanding. Nevertheless, it didn’t put a stop to the company’s attacks on Visa.

Just months after having its ambushing wrists slapped by the IOC, American Express was

back to its opportunistic best. As a warm-up to the 1988 Seoul Olympics, the South

Korean capital hosted the 1986 Asian Games. American Express took pictures from the

opening ceremony of the 1986 event and doctored them to look like the Olympic opening

ceremony for a poster campaign whose message was ‘Amex welcomes you to Seoul.’

Jerry Walsh, the American Express head of marketing who had lost the Olympic rights in

1984, was adamant that ambush marketing not only had a place in sport, but that

corporations had a duty to their shareholders to engage in it. Why should IOC allow an

official sponsor to reap all the benefits from a special event.

Hostilities between Visa, the IOC and American Express rumbled on into 1992 and the

Barcelona Olympics. As Payne describes, Amex was becoming increasingly infuriated by

the IOC-backed Visa persisting with comparative advertising campaigns. In the US,

Payne says, Visa’s tagline was ‘the Olympics don’t take American Express’, with images

of ticket windows being slammed shut in the faces of American Express card holders.

The US$20 million they had paid to the IOC for their official sponsorship ensured they

received no complaints from the governing body about this campaign. This time,

however, American Express responded with more style, pointing out in its own ad

campaigns that ‘to visit Spain, you don’t need a visa.’

This is perhaps one of the finest examples of successful ambush marketing. With no

recourse to the law, proof of a violation of intellectual property rights being very hard to

pin down in this instance, Visa was forced to accept the campaign as legitimate, as, of

course, American Express insisted it was. Visa was left to rely on the property owner, the

IOC, to provide more protection of its rights in the future. In the case of Visa versus

American Express, the IOC, led by Payne, stepped in to negotiate a truce between the

warring credit card giants. American Express agreed to halt its ambushing efforts if Visa

stepped down its comparative advertising campaigns. The truce, however, didn’t last for

long. The marketing strength of an Olympic association, however illegitimate, was too

strong a draw for the maverick Amex, and the ambush campaigns were back for the

Lillehammer winter Olympics in 1994. ‘American Express – Norway 1994’, ran the

ambiguous proclamations of the Amex ads. Consequently the IOC allowed Visa to

restart, with a new rapacity, its comparative ads. By 1996, American Express had finally

accepted it had lost the battle and has since refrained from any further ambush activity

surrounding the Olympics.

AMBUSH BY NIKE IN THE 1990’s

Nike’s ambushing of Euro ’96 and World Cup ‘98 was not the first time the American

giant had courted controversy through such ambush campaigns. Indeed, throughout the

eighties and nineties, the company’s marketing men courted the image of Nike as the bad

boy of sportswear. The 1996 Atlanta Olympics provided a huge platform for the

sportswear company to show its marketing muscle, and it wasn’t about to let the fact that

Reebok held the official Olympic sportswear sponsorship get in the way of that. Nike

went on the attack immediately, constructing a Nike outlet store just outside the athletes’

village in Atlanta. The signage was very prominent and the site remained highly visible

throughout the coverage of the Games, becoming a visitor attraction around the venue in

the process.

Furthermore, Nike began to undercut Olympic ideals with clever modifications of

Olympic slogans in a series of advertising campaigns. ‘We don’t sell dreams, we sell

shoes,’ read one of the ads, ‘Faster, Higher, Stronger, Badder,’ read another. An eight-

page advertising spread in Sports Illustrated rammed home Nike’s message for the

Games: ‘If you can’t stand the heat, get out of Atlanta,’ it said, and ‘If you’re not here to

win, you’re a tourist.’

The IOC at the time took the fight to the sportswear giant. It simply pointed out to the

Media that the feedback they were getting from athletes and spectators indicated that the

campaign was backfiring. Athletes were very proud to be at the Olympics and likely to be

uncomfortable when their shoe sponsor says they have failed unless they win a gold

medal. In fact, by thumbing its nose at the IOC, Nike was crossing the very fine line

between having an impact and biting the hand that creates tomorrow’s heroes.

The press began to turn on Nike, deriding the company for trashing Olympic ideals. IOC

organised an urgent meeting with Nike (who had also initiated a move to smuggle

promotional signs into the stadium with spectators). The meeting did not get off to a good

start; it later turned out to become unprofessionally violent.

It was then planned to threaten Nike with the hardest IOC counter-ambushing action the

world had ever seen. A plan was put in place to round up a series of silver medallists

from the Games for a worldwide press conference to let them express their views on

Nike. Secret discussions were held with Brad Hunt, the agent of Nike’s star athlete of the

Games, 400 and 200 metres runner Michael Johnson, to see whether Johnson would be

willing to stand up and speak out against Nike. Hunt and Johnson perhaps were open to

the idea. The final feather in the IOC’s threat-making cap was the decision to ban

completely any form of Nike branding from all sports equipment at the Games and to

withdraw all accreditation for any Nike personnel, making it impossible for them to look

after their athletes.

Unsurprisingly, Nike eventually desisted, reining in the aggressive stunts of its PR team

and toning down its remaining advertising. Later when Reebok reneged on its contractual

partnership with the Sydney organisers a few months before the 2000 Games, Nike

showed it was an Olympic convert.

Nevertheless, Nike’s aggressive and unofficial marketing campaigns during the Atlanta

Olympics had stung the IOC and moved them to launch an ambush campaign of their

own, the first ever global brand marketing campaign it had undertaken. It was called

‘Celebrate Humanity’ and one of the ads featured bantam weight Bulgarian weightlifter

Yoto Yotov hoisting a gigantic barbell over his head at the Barcelona Games.

AMBUSH AT FIFA WORLD CUP

The 2006 Fifa World Cup in Germany will live long in the memory of many soccer fans.

An unmitigated success, the tournament drew praise from all quarters for the German

hosts, the competing teams and the global coverage. Yet while Italy will always be

remembered as the champions of the tournament, it was the Dutch team that provided

perhaps the most memorable off-field moment of that year’s World Cup.

As the Netherlands prepared for their second game of the tournament, against the Ivory

Coast, tens of thousands of Dutch supporters were making their way from their

neighbouring country to Stuttgart where the game was to take place during the late

afternoon of Friday 16th June at the Gottlieb-Daimler-Stadion.

Among the revelling Dutch visitors were a group of marketers from the (confusingly

named) Dutch brewery Bavaria Beer. Armed with around 120,000 pairs of orange

lederhosen emblazoned with the Bavaria brand, the marketers prepared to ambush one of

Fifa’s biggest sponsors for the tournament, Anheuser-Busch’s Budweiser brand.

The Dutch supporters, renowned for their crowd mentality, donned the amusing

promotional trousers in their thousands. Fifa officials, having been alerted to the

situation, issued orders for security people on the ground to strip the Dutch supporters of

the offending articles. This they did, leaving hundreds of Dutch fans to watch the game in

nothing but their underwear. The world’s media, obviously, ran riot with the story, even

suggesting Fifa’s heavy-handed approach to protecting its official sponsor infringed on

human rights.

The next day, in the aftermath of the Netherlands’ 2-1 victory over their African

adversaries, Fifa’s director of communications, Markus Siegler, explained to the world’s

press that the governing body was alert to the kind of 'ambush' marketing Bavaria had

attempted. it seemed like an organised attempt to conduct a mass ambush publicity

campaign was taking place.

Peter Swinkels, the man behind Bavaria’s campaign, lodged an official complaint with

Fifa, claiming it was “absolutely ridiculous” and “far too extreme” to order the fans to

take off their orange branded lederhosen.

No doubt with a glint in his marketing eye, Swinkels then went on to express his hope

that the fans had remembered to wear orange underwear, adding a denial that the trousers

were an ambush, describing them instead as a Dutch nod to German culture.

Despite Swinkel’s denials, the incident is now renowned as one of the most effective

pieces of ambush marketing in sporting history – and that despite the ploy’s apparent

failure.

Clearly the ambush failed because they didn’t get into the stadium. But in another sense it

worked perfectly because suddenly everyone across the world was talking about it. Other

countries never heard of the Bavaria Beer company and now they had, so even though it

failed the fact it was so brazen resulted in many people across the world getting to hear

about the brand.”

OLYMPICS IN BEIJING

The real ambush at the Beijing Games took place between perennial rivals PepsiCo and

Coca-Cola. Coca-Cola’s official Olympic investment ran, and still runs, into the hundreds

of millions. Gatorade, a Pepsi subsidiary, ran a widespread television spot featuring

Chinese athletes counting down to 2008. The ad concluded with a group of children in a

large Olympic-training style centre playing table tennis, counting down to 2012 and

2016.

During the 1996 World Cup, although Coca Cola was the official sponsor of the

tournament, Pepsi ambushed the campaign by coming up with the tagline “nothing

official about it”.

India as a nation thrives on cricket as its staple sport. To tackle the issue of direct ambush

marketing in cricket tournaments, the ICC and BCCI came up with an agreement for the

players in the year 2003, whereby the players were prohibited from appearing in

advertisements for companies which were competitors for the sponsoring company.

However, the contract just became the focus of a controversy and did not see the light of

the day.

In the examples described above, the ambushed company cannot avail of any specific

legal remedy. The advertising campaign can only be considered an unfair trade practice,

the remedy for enforcement of which is not very clear.

Ambush advertising can be trapped in the legal web by legislations like The Trade Mark

Act, 1999 or The Copyright Act, 1957 when it is direct. However, the two examples

described above, use the indirect ambush which cannot be trapped under any specific

legislation and it leaves the underdog brand in a tight spot. Thus, the need of the present

hour is for the Indian government to provide for some specific legislation which lay down

a prescribed behavior for advertisements.

LEGAL ACTIONS AGAINST AMBUSH MARKETING

Are laws against ambush advertising needed? – is the question that many industry experts

have pondered upon. They have come up with several strong points which analyze both

the yes and no sides of the argument.

Yes points No points

Leads to anti-competitive results: - The

world cup is a colossal marketing

opportunity. For that very reason, sponsors

pay colossal amounts of money to be a part

of the advertising in the world cup.

Ambush advertising is a way in which

companies can gain the benefits of the huge

marketing opportunity without paying the

price. This will lead to anti competitive

results on the market. These companies

would be receiving an unfair advantage.

Not only over those who also are not

allowed to advertise being linked to the

world cup, but also those who paid the

hefty cost associated with it.

Incorrect. What companies can afford to

sponsor the world cup and all teams within

that world cup? Companies that own a

large proportion of the market share. What

will the advertising do for them? It will

increase their market share. How can the

growth of already large companies be cited

as good for competition? In reality this

could blow many smaller competitors out

of the water. The end result is that the

consumer gets a bad deal as the larger

companies are able to charge what they

want for whatever quality of product they

want.

Decreases FIFA’s revenue: - F.I.F.A runs

the world cup. They own the rights in

selling the marketing opportunities

contained within. If we did not have laws

against such ambush marketing, companies

would not pay such a premium for their

advertising space alongside the world cup

branding. In the end this would result in

poorer pitches, poorer management of the

football fixtures and would generally

disintegrate the entertainment value of

Not in the slightest would football decrease

in quality should Fifa lose out on a bit of

sponsorship money. In fact, if the football

players were not so concerned with money

perhaps they would play football better as

opposed to concentrating on branding

themselves. The whole idea of this shows

how far football is a corporate event. It

may be better should there not be so much

money involved in the sponsorship of the

world cup. Therefore, we should abolish

football. Given these results, we should

keep these laws against ambush

advertising.

these rules against ambush advertising.

Ambush advertising can lead to wasting

taxpayer’s money: - Not only does this

ambush advertising affect the World Cup –

the London 2012 Olympics will also be

targeted. £9.3 billion is the new budget for

the Olympics in London. What the

Government cannot attain through

sponsorship deals and advertisements, they

will gain from the tax payer. Given the

public purse debt. Given that all areas of

the public sector will receive budget cuts.

We should be pushing to get as much

money out of corporate sponsors as

possible. We will not be able to do this if

these companies thought that ambush

advertising was allowed; that another

company could gain the advertising space

for free.

But surely there is more of a waste of

money going into policing such trivial

misdemeanours. Not only did the law have

to be created; something which takes a vast

amount of time by numerous individuals

who all have to be paid. After this, the law

then needs to be policed. This will be once

by the police and then followed up by the

courts. This whole process is time

consuming, and the time is consumed by

individuals who charge high prices for their

time. There is no evidence to suggest that

the rules on ambush marketing save tax

payer’s money more than they cost.

Creativity should be rewarded? Not in the

slightest. A wrong doing is a wrong doing.

By obviating the advertisement laws these

companies are in fact stealing from the

World Cup and its brand. We would not

allow thieves to get away with their

criminality just because they had a creative

approach to their thievery, and the same

should go for companies that use ambush

advertising.

Creativity should be rewarded: - In

advertising it is the most creative ideas that

stand out. This creativity and ingeniousness

should be rewarded. Looking at the most

successful marketing campaigns we have

the classic gorilla advert for Cadbury’s.

Completely unrelated to the chocolate

brand but yet so well executed that

everyone remembered it. Compare this to

the menial banners and ‘sponsoring the

World Cup’ advertising that we have seen

around the World Cup stadiums. Snore. Is

it any wonder more people are paying

attention to the orange dresses for a Danish

beer than the benign advertising efforts of

Budweiser? We should not protect the

unimaginative.

But surely the fun is in the obviating of the

law! It would be no fun if everyone were

allowed to ambush advertises. In that case,

we would become so used to it that we

would barely notice it. The same goes for

the example of streakers; if this were

allowed and accepted in the sporting world,

many people would do it, and we would

become irritated by it. In fact,

legalising/legalizing such conduct would

detract from the enjoyment of the game.

Therefore we should keep the law where it

is to aid everyone’s enjoyment of the

sporting event and the occasional mishaps.

It adds to the fun: - We should not make

these sporting events so serious. It is for

this reason that trouble arises. People take

these things far too seriously. We all enjoy

the silliness of streakers/(stripper-rejects)

and we all enjoy the surprising and

inventive way in which companies try to

ambush the marketing for their product

range. It adds to the fun and excitement of

the world cup, and this is what we should

encourage. We should not have laws which

curtail the enjoyment of the world cup.

CASE no.1

Marketers and ad agencies often resort to 'hijacking' or sabotaging a competitor's

campaign, the Pantene-Dove example being a recent case in point.

Not too long ago, Indian consumers were baffled by the tussle on outdoor hoardings that

screamed for their attention. First, a shampoo brand, claiming to be the leader in its

space, launched an outdoor campaign that said, 'A Mystery Shampoo 80 per cent women

say is better than anything else'. This was Procter & Gamble brand Pantene's extensive

teaser campaign, which was supposed to be a precursor to its new, revamped avatar.

Competing Hindustan Unilever shampoo brand, Dove seized the opportunity to take a

pot-shot, with massive hoardings of its own claiming, 'There is no mystery; Dove is the

No. 1 shampoo'. Often, one found these hoardings strategically placed near Pantene's

'mystery shampoo' ones. While the marketing managers applauds HUL's clever attempt at

playing spoiler to P&G's Pantene re-launch ambitions, industry observers have mixed

opinions on how consumers received the

campaign.

The consumer is often left confused, and may

still not know why to buy your brand.

According to a survey done by chlorophyll,

women didn't get the Dove-Pantene saga at all;

nor did they fully comprehend the play on the

word 'mystery'. The logic is simple: If one were

to take a pot-shot at a long-term property

associated with a brand, such as a claim like

one-fourth moisturizing cream, or even Nike's tagline 'Just do it', at least the effort has a

chance of being understood. Whether it works or not is another debate.

But if you attack something as obscure as a 'mystery shampoo' and 'being number one',

which the consumer might not so strongly associate with any of those two brands, then it

doesn't work.

Earlier a commercial for HUL’s Clinic All Clear Shampoo had spoofed P&G’s

Head & Shoulders. HUL’s ad showed Bollywood actress, Bipasha Basu,

searching for a girl with zero dandruff. The girl with dandruff mentions the name

of her shampoo, making a muted reference to Head & Shoulders. These are just a

few examples of the numerous comparative advertising campaigns in India.

The Zee-Bhaskar combine Diligent Media Corporation taking The Times of India

Group to court because the latter's campaign for Maharashtra Times had

'sabotaged' the Grey Tape launch campaign for Diligent's newspaper, Daily News

& Analysis (DNA); Dainik Bhaskar's teaser campaign for its launch in Ranchi

being hijacked by Hindustan.

MICROSOFT – APPLE: - Some years back, Microsoft launched a campaign to

advertise its online features under the punch line, “Where do you want to go

tomorrow?” Apple attacked this campaign through its new ad, “Where do you

want to go today?” – Thus suggesting that the consumer think about today rather

than tomorrow. They both used web advertising extensively to virtually and

subtly slap each other in the face.

CASE no.2

HUL vs. P&G

Procter & Gamble (P&G) and Hindustan Unilever (HUL), the two major producers of

consumer goods, have been involved in comparative advertising for a long time now.

Though earlier, the comparison was subtle or in the form of market price comparisons,

now they have come out in the open, taking the ad war to a different level.

For television viewers, it was hard to miss the now infamous Rin commercial, which was

unleashed on Indian television screens on February 25, 2010. Perhaps bombardment

http://theviewspaper.net/consumer-awareness/

would be a better word: the high-voltage TVC was supported by a media plan that

included primetime slots across all major GECs and news channels, in an effort to deliver

maximum impact over the long weekend.

ABOUT THE T.V. COMMERCIAL:

The ad shows two mothers waiting at a bus stop for their children, who are returning

from school. They spot each other's shopping baskets - one woman's basket sports a

packet of Rin, while the other has purchased Tide Naturals. The Tide lady looks proudly

at her purchase and brags about Tide's 'khushboo aur safedi bhi' offering (fragrance

combined with whiteness). The Rin lady simply smiles.

When the school bus rounds the corner and drops off the two children, the Tide lady's

boy is wearing a visibly dull shirt, while behind him emerges a boy clad in a spotless

white shirt, who runs past the shocked Tide lady, over to his 'Rin' mother. To make things

cheekier, the boy asks his mother, 'Aunty chaunk kyun gayi?' (Why is aunty so

shocked?), where the word 'chaunk' could easily be a reference to Tide's punch line,

'Chaunk gaye?'

The voiceover concludes that Rin is 'behtar' or superior to Tide, when it comes to

whiteness, and at a 'chaunkane wala' price of Rs 25, at that. A super, 'Issued in the interest

of Rin users', completes the commercial.

To make comparisons with competition involves discretion in execution, such as air-

brushing or pixelating a competitor's brand name/pack shot, and most definitely, keeping

away from referring to rival brand names. With this ad, however, Rin seems to have

broken every rule in the book. But what may seem like a publicity stunt to some, is, in all

probability, a well-thought out strategy on the part of Rin's makers, Hindustan Unilever

(HUL).

It started when HUL’ s Rin, filed a court case against P&G’s Tide Natural for claiming

that it contained natural ingredients like sandalwood and lemon, though it was a synthetic

detergent. Apart from the court case, HUL also launched a nation-wide ad campaign

which blatantly claimed that Rin is better than Tide as it offers more whiteness (“behtar

safedi”).

Subsequently Tide took HUL to court and the ad was withdrawn. But this ad was so

strategically launched on TV channels that it coincided with a long weekend,

guaranteeing enough visibility among consumers. Even after the ad was withdrawn, the

HUL spokesperson re-iterated that the advertisement was based on independent

laboratory tests based on international protocols and proved that Rin offers superior

whiteness.

CASEno.3

Examples are aplenty. the 'sky wars', where Jet Airways put up a hoarding announcing its

changed avatar; while Kingfisher jumped at the opportunity to put a hoarding above that

one, declaring, 'We made them change'.

On the first day only the Jet Airway’s hoarding was placed on the busy street of Mumbai.

After a day Kingfisher placed its cheeky take on the hoarding by placing itself above the

Jet hoarding.

GoAir wouldn’t want to stay behind in the race, so it made its presence felt by placing its

hoarding above that of kingfishers.

Further the opportunity was exploited by Indian railways intending to put down the entire

Airline industry itself.

Finally, BEST bus association takes up the responsibility to put an end to this advertising

madness by saying through yet another hoarding (placed above everything else), “Ab bus

karo – warna plane hoarding se crash ho jayega!!”

CASE no.4

Coca-Cola vs. Pepsi

And of course, the usual Pepsi- Coca-Cola jibes and the Nike-adidas wars.

"There was no question of any opportunity being created by Coke, nor were there teasers

for Pepsi to pick on; but this was simply irreverence on Pepsi's part, which made the

word 'official' sound stupid," says an advertiser's perspective.

The Pepsi-Coke ad war is one of the oldest examples of Ambush advertising. It started in

the 1980s when Pepsi launched its ad showing consumers preferring Pepsi over Coca

Cola in a blind taste test. The next major send-up came in 1996, when Pepsi introduced

its punch line “Nothing Official about It” after Coca Cola was declared the official

sponsor of the Cricket World Cup that year.

This war continued through subsequent take-offs on Mountain Dew, Sprite and Thumps

Up – by both brands. The virtual war had been very prominent since 2003 after the

aggressive ads of Mountain Dew and Thumps Up. PepsiCo launched a TV ad featuring

Ranbir Kapoor, Deepika Padukone and Shah Rukh Khan enacting a comic scene around

an alien. Coca Cola launched its parody on Pepsi through Sprite’s “Seedhi Baat, No

Bakwaas” punch line, featuring the look-alikes of the three actors seen in the Pepsi

advertisement.

COCA COLA DURING THE INDIAN PREMIER LEAGUE’S CRICKET

SEASON-II

Consider this. Both PepsiCo’s ‘Youngistaan’ brand ambassadors — Virender Sehwag,

captain of Delhi Daredevils, and Ishant Sharma, member of Kolkata Knight Riders

(KKR) — have been formally present at various promotional activities for arch-rival

Coca-Cola India, simply because Coca-Cola is the associate sponsor and the official

pouring partner for both Delhi Daredevils and Kolkata Knight Riders.

Sehwag, for instance, attended a special send-off ceremony for Delhi Daredevils

organised by Coca-Cola India. At the event, Sehwag, along with Coke brand ambassador

Gautam Gambhir, unveiled a limited edition bottle of Coca-Cola for IPL. The campaign

will run till the end of the IPL season and will involve merchandising opportunities as

well.

Coca-Cola is also making the most of its sponsorship by associating Shah Rukh Khan and

team KKR with its clear lime brand, Sprite. A TV campaign for Sprite featuring three

KKR players — Sourav Ganguly, Ajit Agarkar and Murli Karthik — besides Shah Rukh,

has also been launched. The creative utilisation of Shah Rukh has been good in terms of

the Sprite and KKR association.

Further, Ishaant Sharma (another Pepsico ‘Youngistaan’ brand ambassador) from KKR

will now be spotted on Sprite’s limited edition bottles and hoardings, along with Saurav

Ganguly and Shah Rukh Khan (both, incidentally, are ex-Pepsi brand ambassadors).

‘Sprite Kolkata Knight Riders’ limited edition bottles will have the insignia of key

players of the KKR team.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

Hypothesis statement:-

There is a significant impact of Ambush marketing tactics on the buying behavior and

attitude of the consumer.

Research objective:-

To study the impact of ambush marketing practice on the consumer’s behavior.

To analyze whether ambush advertisements have a negative or positive effect on

consumer’s minds and their purchase decisions.

To study changing attitude, preferences of customers in the dynamic marketing

environment.

Research Design:-

In this Research, exploratory method or consumer survey method is used. The reason to

use exploratory method is that it helps to develop concepts more clearly, establish

priorities and improve the final research design. It helps to get a new perspective towards

the marketing strategies i.e. from the point of view of the end consumer. The 4 case

examples mentioned in the report are tested for their viewership. This is done in order to

observe whether the target customer gets what exactly the advertiser is trying to

communicate.

Data Collection:-

Both primary and secondary data are used. Secondary data is used to study the existing

market situation and general information about the issue at hand. As the concept emerged

in the international market first, secondary data has been used to understand the

international aspect. Primary research survey through questionnaire, interview for expert

opinion from advertising professionals.

Sample size:-

Population location – Mumbai,

Number of respondents – 155,

The sample population majorly consisted of young respondents like, college

going students, young corporate professionals, business men and women and

middle-aged government employees.

Sampling method:-

SRS i.e. simple random sampling method is used. The respondents were chosen on

random basis. The method used here is, those people who represent the entire target

market i.e. people who are aware of the advertising tactics happening around, people who

are brand conscious and who pay attention to advertisements in any media. Therefore

young population has been chosen as sample population.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS :

GENDER CHART

INCOME LEVEL CHART

OCCUPATION CHART

The demographics of the sample population are as

per the target audience for the concerned type of

marketing strategy. Brand war or Ambush is

something which is extensively followed by the

Gender No. %

Male 74 47%

Female 81 52%

Income level No. %

1Lac- 3 Lac 31 20%

3 Lac- 5Lac 20 10%

Above 5 Lac 15 13%

No Income 90 58%

Occupation No. %

Government service 10 6%

Corporate sector 23 15%

Business 16 10%

Students 95 61%

Others 11 7%

young generation, who are exposed to various entertainment media the most. Hence they

recognize the existence of brand wars and also watch advertisements.

The sample has almost equal number of male and female respondents. This ensures that

there is no bias in the opinions.

The occupation chart shows that the target audience of Ambush marketing can be from

students and corporate sector professionals. These are apparently the categories whose

consumption of branded products is comparatively high than the other categories.

APPLICATION OF Z-TEST

Table 1

One-Sample Statistics

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Preference of popular brands 156 2.22 1.067 .085

Viewership of HUL vs. P&G

ad

156 2.31 .920 .074

Brand wars grab attention 154 1.99 .867 .070

Hijacking helps Brand recall 154 2.58 .969 .078

Hijacking an ad is offensive 155 2.55 .962 .077

Brands fight instead of

promoting

156 2.29 1.101 .088

Rin vs. Tide ad is not Ethical 155 2.43 1.348 .108

Right to take legal action 156 2.22 1.049 .084

Impact of Jet vs. Kingfisher ad

on purchase decision

156 3.12 1.215 .097

QUESTION1:

Do you prefer buying popular branded products over unknown brands?

A total of 72% of the respondents buy popular brands. This shows how the brands have

penetrated the market. Although the sample population consists of large number of

students, their purchasing power is high. Therefore it can be inferred that income level

does not have direct effect on purchasing power, as we can observe that 58% of the

sample population lies under the No Income category (refer income level chart).

Preference of popular brands

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid 1 39 24.7 25.0 25.0

2 73 46.2 46.8 71.8

3 22 13.9 14.1 85.9

4 15 9.5 9.6 95.5

5 7 4.4 4.5 100.0

Total 156 98.7 100.0

Missing System 2 1.3

Total 158 100.0

Preference of popular brands No. %

Strongly Agree 39 25%

Agree 73 47%

Neutral 22 14%

Disagree 15 10%

Strongly Disagree 6 4%

Application of Z-test

Null hypothesis: the sample population prefers popular brands over unbranded products.

Assuming µo = 2,

µm = 2.22, Standard error (S.E) = 0.085 (from table 1)

Probability at 95% level of confidence = 0.05, Z value = 1.96Therefore, Z = µm-µo/S.E

Z = 2.22-2/0.085 = 2.59;

The Z value is greater than the table value of Z = 1.96. Therefore the null hypothesis is

accepted.

QUESTION2:

If you follow media advertising, then which type of advertisement appeals to you?

People may select more than one checkbox, so percentages may add up to more than

100%.

One tends to expect that today’s youth is a fan of provocative/ aggressive advertising

method, given the exposure to sensuality and violence they have got today. But, the

research findings show that along with youth oriented and humorous advertising, they

also have a preference for social message ads. From this fact we can infer that the

Type of advertisement No. %

Emotional 21 13%

Social message 52 33%

Youth oriented 57 37%

Provocative/ Aggressive 20 13%

Humorous 57 37%

strategy of playing a spoil sport against competition may be considered as anti-social by

today’s youth.

QUESTION3:

Your purchase is influenced by which of the following Advertisement factors?


100%.

It is a household fact that TVs are on almost for 20 hours a day. Therefore by default,

television medium is the no.1 factor to an impact through advertisements. The second

Advertising Medium No. %

Print Ads 20 13%

T.V. Media Ads 86 55%

Hoardings/ Billboards 18 12%

Word of Mouth publicity 78 50%

Others 8 5%

best preferred medium is a slight surprise which is word of mouth publicity. This can be

explained by the rapidly increasing social network. Due to which people stay connected

with each other and exchange ideas every minute.

QUESTION4:

Have you seen such Ad campaign hoardings, where an outdoor campaign that said, 'A

Mystery Shampoo 80 per cent women say is better than anything else’ was P&G brand

Pantene's extensive teaser campaign, which was a precursor to its new avatar. Competing

HUL shampoo brand Dove hijacked the campaign with massive hoardings of its own

claiming, 'There is no mystery; Dove is the No.1 shampoo'. These hoardings strategically

placed near Pantene's 'mystery shampoo' ones. Viewership of HUL vs. P&G ad No. %


Agree 71 46%

Neutral 40 26%

Disagree 15 10%


Viewership of HUL vs. P&G ad


Cumulative

Percent

Valid 1 28 17.7 17.9 17.9

2 71 44.9 45.5 63.5

3 40 25.3 25.6 89.1

4 15 9.5 9.6 98.7

5 2 1.3 1.3 100.0

Total 156 98.7 100.0


Total 158 100.0


Null hypothesis: there is a significant amount of sample population that have seen the advertisement.

Assuming µo = 2,

µm = 2.31, Standard error (S.E) = 0.074 (from table 1)


Z =2.31-2/0.074; = 4.20


accepted. Also we can infer that people often notice the billboards put up on highways.

These are strategically placed near traffic signals so that people read and observe the

entire billboard while waiting in traffic.

QUESTION5:

What does such an act of ambush by a Brand tell you about the brand?

Inference of Ambush Ads No. %

Ambush is an opportunity to show off how clever a brand is 29 18%

Brands have stopped talking to consumers and started talking to each other 26 17%

It is a publicity stunt 45 29%

Trying to acquire rival brand’s market share 59 38%

The brand wants to improve sales 30 19%


100%.

59 responses say that Ambush is used to acquire rival brand’s market share and 45 agree

that it’s only for publicity. This proves that it is all about literal cut throat competition.

Advertising has gone beyond the realm of information about the product, awareness and

increase in sales.

QUESTION6:

Do you think brand wars and sabotage (like Coke vs. Pepsi ad campaign fight) are only

for the purpose of grabbing instant attention? Brand wars grab attention No. %


Agree 78 50%

Neutral 21 13%

Disagree 10 6%


Brand wars grab attention


Cumulative

Percent

Valid 1 45 28.5 29.2 29.2

2 77 48.7 50.0 79.2

3 21 13.3 13.6 92.9

4 10 6.3 6.5 99.4

5 1 .6 .6 100.0

Total 154 97.5 100.0


Total 158 100.0


Null hypothesis: the advertisements depicting brand wars are only for the purpose of grabbing viewer’s attention.

Assuming µo = 2,

µm = 1.99, Standard error (S.E) =0.070 (from table 1)


Z = 1.99-2/0.070; = -0.143

The Z value is not equal to and doesn’t exceed the table value of Z = 1.96. Therefore the

null hypothesis is rejected.

QUESTION7:

Hijacking or sabotaging a competitor's campaign helps the brand in getting high brand

recall.Hijacking helps Brand recall No. %


Agree 58 37%

Neutral 50 32%

Disagree 25 16%


Hijacking helps Brand recall


Cumulative

Percent

Valid 1 19 12.0 12.3 12.3

2 58 36.7 37.7 50.0

3 49 31.0 31.8 81.8

4 25 15.8 16.2 98.1

5 3 1.9 1.9 100.0

Total 154 97.5 100.0


Total 158 100.0


Null hypothesis: there is a significant increase in brand recall due to the practice of Ambush Marketing.

Assuming µo = 2,

µm =2.58, Standard error (S.E) =0.078 (from table 1)


Z = 2.58-2/0.078; = 7.44


accepted. The situation is similar to that of a public fighting scene. Whenever there’s a

road accident, people gather around the spot and remember to narrate the accident to their

friends. Same is with ambush ads consumer’s attention is fixed on the ad and if its

interesting they recall the ad in near future too.

QUESTION8:

Hijacking competitor’s ad campaign is being too offensive.

Hijacking an ad is offensive


Cumulative

Percent

Valid 1 16 10.1 10.3 10.3

2 68 43.0 43.9 54.2

3 47 29.7 30.3 84.5

4 18 11.4 11.6 96.1

5 6 3.8 3.9 100.0

Total 155 98.1 100.0


Total 158 100.0


Null hypothesis: the sample population agrees that hijacking competitor’s ad is an offensive trick.

Assuming µo = 2,



Z = 2.55-2/0.077; = 7.14


accepted.

QUESTION9:

The practice of Ambush marketing stress’s more on the fight between 2 brands rather

than highlighting the product/ brand related information.

Hijacking an ad is offensive No. %


Agree 68 43%

Neutral 48 31%

Disagree 18 11%


Brands fight instead of promoting


Cumulative

Percent

Valid 1 38 24.1 24.4 24.4

2 68 43.0 43.6 67.9

3 24 15.2 15.4 83.3

4 19 12.0 12.2 95.5

5 7 4.4 4.5 100.0

Total 156 98.7 100.0


Total 158 100.0


Null hypothesis: the sample population is of the opinion that brands fight instead of promoting their products in Ambush advertisements.

Assuming µo = 2,



Z = 2.29-2/0.088; = 3.30


accepted. The marketers have failed to make an impact on consumer’s mind by pulling a

Brands fight instead of promoting No. %


Agree 69 44%

Neutral 24 15%

Disagree 19 12%


fast one on competitors because consumers look away from such ads thinking the brands

are only fighting and there is nothing to know about the product from the ad.

QUESTION10:

Many competing brands attack each other directly through advertisements. For e.g. the

latest offensive Rin TV commercial claiming to be better than Tide by not just naming

but showing the competitive product - ‘Tide se kahin behatar safedi de Rin’. Is this

practice ethical and should have limits set?

Rin vs. Tide ad is not Ethical No. %


Agree 45 29%

Neutral 23 15%

Disagree 22 14%


Rin vs. Tide ad is not Ethical


Cumulative

Percent

Valid 1 49 31.0 31.6 31.6

2 45 28.5 29.0 60.6

3 23 14.6 14.8 75.5

4 21 13.3 13.5 89.0

5 17 10.8 11.0 100.0

Total 155 98.1 100.0


Total 158 100.0


Null hypothesis: the sample population agrees that ads such as Rin vs. Tide ad are not ethical in nature.

Assuming µo = 2,



Z = 2.43-2/0.108; = 3.98


accepted.

QUESTION11:

The rival brand which is attacked in the ambush should have the right to take a legal

action against the hijacker brand?Right to take legal action No. %


Agree 63 40%

Neutral 32 20%

Disagree 15 10%


Right to take legal action


Cumulative

Percent

Valid 1 42 26.6 26.9 26.9

2 63 39.9 40.4 67.3

3 31 19.6 19.9 87.2

4 15 9.5 9.6 96.8

5 5 3.2 3.2 100.0

Total 156 98.7 100.0


Total 158 100.0


Null hypothesis: the sample population is of the opinion that the ambushed brand has the right to take legal action against the hijacker brand.Assuming µo = 2,



Z = 2.22-2/0.084; = 2.62


accepted. The consumers analyse this practice on moral grounds and say that an

ambushed brand should get justice by taking a legal action against the hijacker.

QUESTION12:

There was a 'Advertisement war', where Jet Airways put up a hoarding announcing its

changed avatar – “We have changed”; while Kingfisher jumped at the opportunity to put

a hoarding above that one, declaring, 'We made them change'. – Does such brand ambush

or fights have an impact on your purchase if you are a user of one of the brands in fight?

Impact of Jet vs. Kingfisher ad on purchase decision


Cumulative

Percent

Valid 1 17 10.8 10.9 10.9

2 33 20.9 21.2 32.1

3 42 26.6 26.9 59.0

4 42 26.6 26.9 85.9

5 22 13.9 14.1 100.0

Total 156 98.7 100.0


Total 158 100.0


Null hypothesis: the ambush marketing done by kingfisher on jet airways affects consumer’s purchase decision.Assuming µo = 3,


Probability at 95% level of confidence = 0.05, Z value = 1.96

Impact of Jet vs. Kingfisher ad on purchase decision No. %


Agree 33 21%

Neutral 43 27%

Disagree 42 27%


Therefore, Z = µm-µo/S.E

Z = 3.12-3/0.097; = 1.24

The Z value does not exceed the table value of Z = 1.96. Therefore the null hypothesis is

rejected.

From this result we can infer that the majority of population does not get affected by

ambush practice. Their purchase decision is not dependent on the fact that whether their

own brand is doing it or not.

This is the most crucial part of the research. The crux of all the matter at hand is whether

this marketing strategy actually results in consumers going out and purchasing the

famously controversial product. Would anyone switch to a brand which pulls clever

potshots at competitors? Would the user of kingfisher (as the case here) proudly

recommend the brand to a friend considering the act of ambush? 41% of the respondents

disagree with this point.

So, if Ambush has got nothing to do with the actual sales, if it cannot convert the

potential customer into a loyal customer for its brand, then it is not worth putting the

ethical image of a brand at stake for mocking the competition.

CONCLUSION

With the increasing focus on capitalism and commercialization, there has been a steep

rise in the growth of the advertising industry. Due to the increase in competition, every

brand today is trying to attract the maximum number of consumers through advertising.

Today, advertising per hour has reached to 18-19 minutes on radio and 14-17 minutes on

television.

According to Kalle Lasn, an international critic of advertising, “it (advertising) is the

most prevalent and toxic of mental pollutants. From the moment your radio alarm sounds

in the morning to the wee hours of late-night TV micro jolts of commercial pollution

flood into your brain everyday.” However, Ambush advertising is undoubtedly a

necessary evil for media, business, the economy, consumers and capitalist businessmen.

Healthy competition is necessary in a capitalist society, and hence Ambush advertising is

welcome. But the way it functions these days, it has been reduced to a dirty game of

mockery between brands and hardly affects the informed consumers’ choices. Today, ad

agencies, in order to project their clients as the most superior, often parody the

commercials of their competitors, leading to virtual wars in the advertising industry.

Do people really care about such comparisons? Do such ads help us to make better, more

informed choices? Not likely so. The Indian consumer is getting more aware these days,

and such ads are just a matter of amusement for the consumer.

Such ads don’t serve the consumers’ interests at all and on a larger platform, we don’t

really care about such underhand tactics. If a brand is good, it will be successful

irrespective of its ad campaign. And if it’s bad and the company insecure, then even bold

comparative ads won’t do anything for the brand.

There is a difference between informing the consumer and degrading your competitor’s

image. This kind of Sabotage advertising hardly affects the sale of the products; they

merely send out an unethical message and amuse the audience. A good commercial

should just show the qualities of its products, rather that mocking others and leave it to

the consumer to choose from the myriad options on offer.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Countering Ambush Marketing:

Control media advertising.

Control placement of hoardings and booths.

Stop the players from promoting the ambushers brand.

Learn how to ambush

Leverage the sponsorship

Limit nonsponsors’ ability to advertise

Establish control over advertising during event broadcast

Make a time-buy

Limit broadcasters’ ability to sell time

Prohibit virtual advertising

Limit participants’ ability to endorse brands of nonsponsors

Educate consumers

Provide positive PR for sponsors

Provide negative PR to shame ambushers

Surveillance programs

Limit number of sponsorships to a manageable number

Prohibit pass-along strategy

Incorporate sponsor’s name

Legal restriction

ANNEXURES:

QUESTIONNAIRE

The Impact of Ambush Marketing on Consumer Behavior

Meaning of AMBUSH MARKETING: Ambush marketing is the planned effort by an

organization to attack directly or indirectly the rival brand in order to gain at least some

of the recognition and benefits. The practice of pulling a fast one on the competition is an

old one -- some call it campaign sabotage or hijack; it is also a form of guerrilla

marketing; marketing consultants prefer the term 'ambush marketing'. Marketers and ad

agencies often resort to 'hijacking' or sabotaging a competitor's campaign.

Name

Age

Gender

Male

Female

Income Level

1Lac- 3 Lac

3 Lac- 5Lac

Above 5 Lac

No Income

Occupation

Government service

Corporate sector

Business

Student

Others

1. Do you prefer buying popular branded products over unknown brands?

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

2. If you follow media advertising, then which type of advertisement appeals to

you?

Emotional

Social message

Youth oriented

Provocative/ Aggressive

Humorous

3. Your purchase is influenced by which of the following Advertisement factors?

Print Ads

T.V. Media Ads

Hoardings/ Billboards

Word of Mouth publicity

Others

4. Have you seen such Ad campaign hoardings, where an outdoor campaign that

said, 'A Mystery Shampoo 80 per cent women say is better than anything else’

was P&G brand Pantene's extensive teaser campaign, which was a precursor

to its new avatar. Competing HUL shampoo brand Dove hijacked the

campaign with massive hoardings of its own claiming, 'There is no mystery;

Dove is the No.1 shampoo'. These hoardings strategically placed near

Pantene's 'mystery shampoo' ones.

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

5. What does such an act of ambush by a Brand tell you about the brand?

Ambush is an opportunity to show off how clever a brand is

Brands have stopped talking to consumers and started talking to each other

It is a publicity stunt

Trying to acquire rival brand’s market share

The brand wants to improve sales

6. Do you think brand wars and sabotage (like Coke vs. Pepsi ad campaign fight)

are only for the purpose of grabbing instant attention?

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

7. Hijacking' or sabotaging a competitor's campaign helps the brand in getting

high brand recall.

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

8. Hijacking competitor’s ad campaign is being too offensive

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

9. The practice of Ambush marketing stress’s more on the fight between 2

brands rather than highlighting the product/ brand related information.

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

10. Many competing brands attack each other directly through advertisements.

For e.g. the latest offensive Rin TV commercial claiming to be better than

Tide by not just naming but showing the competitive product - ‘Tide se kahin

behatar safedi de Rin’. Is this practice ethical and should have limits set?

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

11. The rival brand which is attacked in the ambush should have the right to take

a legal action against the hijacker brand?

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

12. There was a 'Advertisement war', where Jet Airways put up a hoarding

announcing its changed avatar – “We have changed”; while Kingfisher

jumped at the opportunity to put a hoarding above that one, declaring, 'We

made them change'. – Does such brand ambush or fights have an impact on

your purchase if you are a user of one of the brands in fight?

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

BIBLIOGRAPHY & WEBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Economics and consumer behavior - by Angus Deaton, John Muellbauer

Marketing Management – by Philip Kotler

Market Research – by C R Kothari

ICAFI’s Marketing Mastermind

WEBLIOGRAPHY

http://www.sportspromedia.com/notes_and_insights/rise_of_the_pseudo-

sponsors_a_history_of_ambush_marketing/

www.afaqs.com

http://www.marketing-interactive.com/news/12576

http://brandthinkmarketingdo.com/?p=985

http://trak.in/Tags/Business/kingfisher-airlines-gives-huge-boing-order-

king-of-good-times-vijay-mallya-has-done-it-again/

http://www.legalcity.net/Index.cfm?

fuseaction=MAGAZINE.article&ArticleID=7631391

http://www.legalcity.net/Index.cfm?fuseaction=MAGAZINE.article&ArticleID=7631391

http://www.legalcity.net/Index.cfm?fuseaction=MAGAZINE.article&ArticleID=7631391

http://trak.in/Tags/Business/kingfisher-airlines-gives-huge-boing-order-king-of-good-times-vijay-mallya-has-done-it-again/

http://trak.in/Tags/Business/kingfisher-airlines-gives-huge-boing-order-king-of-good-times-vijay-mallya-has-done-it-again/

http://brandthinkmarketingdo.com/?p=985

http://www.marketing-interactive.com/news/12576

http://www.afaqs.com/

http://www.sportspromedia.com/notes_and_insights/rise_of_the_pseudo-sponsors_a_history_of_ambush_marketing/

http://www.sportspromedia.com/notes_and_insights/rise_of_the_pseudo-sponsors_a_history_of_ambush_marketing/

http://businesstoday.intoday.in/bt/story/evolved-marketing-for-an-

evolved-consumer/1/5368.html

http://businesstoday.intoday.in/bt/story/evolved-marketing-for-an-evolved-consumer/1/5368.html

http://businesstoday.intoday.in/bt/story/evolved-marketing-for-an-evolved-consumer/1/5368.html

Ambushmarketing

Documents

Transcript of Ambushmarketing