TABEL OF CONTENTS

Overview Of Ambush Marketing

Introduction

Types Of Ambush Marketing

Ambush Marketing Steps

Essential Of Ambush Marketing

Case Studies

Points In Favor Of Ambush Marketing

Points Against Ambush Marketing

Article By Jerry Welsh

Limitations

Conclusion

Overview of Ambush Marketing:-

Ambush Marketing represent the activity of company in which company represent himself to the particular event with out paying an sponsorship fees. This activity is done by the companies to creates its brand image in the market.

Definition Of Sponsorship:-It is define as “a cash or kind of fees paid to a property in return for access to the exploitable commercial association with that property”.

Ambush Marketing focused on three board themes:-1) The effectiveness of Ambush Marketing2) Legal and ethical issues related to Ambush Marketing3) Consumer awareness of Ambush Marketing

It is classified in two classes:-1) Direct Ambush Marketing/ Forging2) Indirect Ambush Marketing / Intrusion

Introduction

The Oxford dictionary defines Ambush as - "surprise attack by persons lying concealed."

Thus, Ambush marketing can be understood as a surprise attack on an event sponsor by its

compitior

The official definition of Ambush Marketing can be stated as follows:

"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"

Ambush marketing takes place when a trader seeks to utilise the publicity value of an event, for instance - a major sports tournament or a concert, to gain a benefit from it despite, not having any involvement or connection with that event and more particularly, having made no financial contribution to entitle him to derive benefit from it. Ambush marketing is a radical concept which involves setting up some activity that makes use of the event and the interest in it, rather than shelling out for direct sponsorship.

Example: A Pepsi hot air balloon flying above Sharjah, on the day of the Coca Cola Cup Final.

Ambush Marketing

FORGING INTRUSION

Types of Ambush Maeketing:-

Ambush marketing can manifest itself in two manners.

FORGING:Often a major event has a name, logo, or other insignia identifying it. Unauthorized persons use these insignia, or insignia, which are sufficiently similar to the authentic insignia to cause confusion. In this form of ambush marketing the ambush marketer misleads the public into thinking that he is an authorized sponsor or contributor associated with the event.

Example:

During the Football World Cup Collins, a beer company used the marks associated with the World Cup and was promoting tickets. FIFA fought the case in an Irish court and won the case against Collins.

INTRUSION In this form of ambush marketing, the ambush marketer seeks not to suggest a connection with the event but rather to give his own name, trade mark, or other insignia exposure through the medium of the publicity attracted by the event; this is done without any authorization of the event organizer. In this type of Ambush Marketing the Ambush Marketer strives to use the event and the attention gained via the event to promote his product.

Example:

Pepsi during the 2002 FIFA World Cup did not claim that they were supporting the World Cup. However, it used the event to promote their product.

The Second form of Ambush Marketing (Intrusion) is more popular with marketers than the First Form (Forging) due to the legal implications of the First Form (Forging) of Ambush Marketing.

Ambush Marketing Steps:-

Ambush Marketing does not have a set procedure. However, there is a standard set of procedures followed by companies in the past.

Step 1: Establish your Marketing Objectives

The first step is common to whatever Marketing or Promotional Strategy you adopt. You need to identify the Marketing Objectives of the firm which are based on your overall Corporate Objectives and on which will be based your Marketing Strategy. Such a strategy should include identifying your Target Audience, brand image and brand positioning, etc.

Step 2: Establish your Promotional Strategy

This involves formulating a strategy for Promoting your brand and achieving the objectives that were set during the previous stage. A decision needs to be made on how to promote your brand; advertising, corporate sponsorship, etc.

Step 3: Selection of event

After Corporate Sponsorship or using events as a medium of promotion has been identified as a promotional strategy a decision needs to be made on - which event. This stage can be broken into two steps

a) Type of Event: Identifying the type of event you want to associate your brand like Sports or Cultural, etc. This is based on your brand positioning objectives.

For e.g. Nike has positioned its brand as a Sports brand therefore, it has always been associated with sports event

b) Specific Event: After the Event type has been identified a decision needs to be made as to, which particular event should be selected for brand promotion.

for e.g. After Nike has identified Sports as the Event type it wants to target, the next step is to select a specific event, like Ice Hockey or Soccer World Cup.

Step 4: Why do you want to associate yourself with the event

An obvious question that needs to be asked is - Why do you want to associate your brand with a particular event? Is it essential for your company? Will it give the company the leverage it wants? Do you think that associating your brand whether directly or by ambushing will help you position your brand better? Is it in co-operation with the image you want to create your brand? If the answers to the above questions is yes. Then, the option with you is to either to sponsor the event or to use Ambush Marketing.

Step 5: How much are you willing to spend?

This, alongwith other factors will determine whether Sponsoring an event or Ambushing an event is the option to be selected. If you think sponsoring the event is worth the investment and it helps you achieve what you want to achieve from the

brand then go ahead with it. However, beware of your competitors who will be trying to Ambush you. If you actually do sponsor the event then ensure there is enough protection against potential Ambushers.

However, if you think the investment required in sponsoring the event is not worth it and will not help you achieve what you wanted to, from the event. Then Ambush marketing might be the best bet available to you.

Step 6: Implementing

The last and final step in Ambush Marketing is Implementing your strategies. Ambush marketing needs to be creative and the ramifications of your strategy needs to be assessed. Ambush Marketing does not have a set procedure so, your creativity matters the most. Ambush Marketing implementation has to have a few essentials.

Essential of Ambush Marketing:-

Though Ambush Marketing does not have a set procedure, there are a few essential things that form part of a successful Ambush Marketing Campaign.

Catch your competitor unawares: Timing of your attack or Ambush needs to be precise. Don't give your competitor (Event sponsor) the time to react to your ambush, nor should he be given the time to lobby with the Event organizer to keep a few safeguards in the Event.

Creativity: Creativity stands for 'Find out new ways of doing the same thing'. Constantly be on the look out for new ideas. Your competitor has the advantage of being officially associated with the event thus, Creativity is the only thing that could give you an edge over your competitor.

Rope in the Players: If you can't associate your brand with an Event then, the best thing is to associate your brand with the players playing in that Sports Event. Pepsi, during the FIFA WORLD CUP 2002 used the likes of Beckham and Roberto Carlos along with other big names in Football to associate itself with the World Cup. They did it successfully to Ambush the official sponsor Coca Cola.

Capture media time:Most successful Ambush Marketing attempts were successful because they captured the media time during, before and after the Event. The likes of Pepsi have been successful because they captured the media time during, before and after the event.

Don’t play against the law. Play with it: This is the most essential part of a successful Ambush Marketing. Do not use the logo or symbols or insignia associated with the event to promote your brand. This may lead to legal hassles due to Intellectual Property Rights infringement. Intrusion is the best form of Ambush marketing that needs to be adopted.

Case Study:-

Pepsi Yeh Dil Mange More

There is 'NOTHING OFFICIAL ABOUT IT' when it comes to Pepsi and its Marketing strategies. Pepsi has been a major contributor of finance to sporting facilities. Pepsi has over the years used Sporting events to promote and enhance its brand image, be it Officially(Official sponsor) or unofficially(Ambush Marketing).

The two major events where Pepsi has successfully resorted to AMBUSH MARKETING have been the ICC CRICKET WORLD CUP in 2007 and the FIFA FOOTBALL WORLD CUP in 2002.

Well there is Nothing Official about the fact that Pepsi was present at the ICC CRICKET WORLD CUP 2007 whether, officially or unofficially.

Official Sponsor:

Coca Cola was the official soft drink of the ICC CRICKET WORLD CUP. Coca Cola started promoting itself as the Official Soft drink of the ICC Cricket World Cup held in West Indies.

Ambush Strategy:

Pepsi responded to the Coca Cola promotion of the official Soft Drink of the Cricket World Cup, 2007 by carrying out a mega media campaign with the punch line NOTHING OFFICIAL ABOUT IT. To carry out its campaign Pepsi roped in the SACHIN TENDULKAR. The use of Sachin Tendulkar to promote its brand by using the attention gathered because of the event undermined the success of Coca Cola as an Official Sponsor.

Pepsi was at its AMBUSHING BEST at the FIFA FOOTBALL WORLD CUP, 2002 held in Korea and Japan.

Official Sponsor:

Millions of Dollars were spent by Coca Cola to get the Official Sponsorship of the FIFA FOOTBALL WORLD CUP, 2002. But at the end of the event Pepsi went with the honours of capturing more attention than Coca Cola got

Ambushing Strategy:

Pepsi once again used the star power of Major Footballers like David Becham, Roberto Carlos and other well known Footballers. It came up with an innovative idea of a match between the Football Stars and Sumo Wrestlers, the prize for the winner being PEPSI. Though the Sumo Wrestlers won the match, the real winner was Pepsi.

PEPSI AT ICC CRICKET WORLD CUP 2007

PEPSI AT FIFA FOOTBALL WORLD CUP, 2002

REASON BEHIND PEPSI's SUCCESS

The main reason behind Pepsi's success at Ambush Marketing was that it did make any direct reference to the event. It merely used the event to successfully capture audience attention. What made catching attention easier was that it had innovative and creative media campaign and it used the Stars of the event to promote its brand.

VODAFONE:-

Marketers always look for creative ideas to capture audience's attention. Imagine, two streakers running nude in the middle of an exciting Rugby Match. That's exactly what Vodafone did to try and attract audience's attention.

Two streakers bearing the Vodafone logo on their bodies invaded the pitch during the second half of a Rugby match between New Zealand and Australia in Sydney.

The streakers ran up to and around New Zealand (All Blacks) player Andrew Mehrtens as he was preparing for a crucial penalty kick.

Though Australia won the match 16-14 the real winner in terms of capturing public attention was VODAFONE. This is a case of Ambush Marketing as the official sponsor of the event was TELSTRA an Australian Telecom company, which is in direct competition with Vodafone.

Nike leads the pack when it comes to Ambush Marketing. A Swoosh here and a swoosh there. Nike always manages to find a way to use a popular event like the Olympics to promote its brand without actually sponsoring the event in any capacity.

Boston Marathon is a 26 mile marathon race. One such race took place on April 16, 2007. Adidas was the official footwear sponsor of the event. Adidas had put up hoardings all over the race track. However, Nike came up with an innovative strategy which involved having a billboard at the subway tunnel which fell in the path of the race track. Nike had used loads of dirty socks and had painted the Nike

Swoosh and the event date on it. The hit and run campaign included the use of slogan - right down to the dirty socks

Nike during the World Cup invested in some kind of five-a-side event, as well as putting electronic score displays with instant updates on the sides of buses.

Ambush Marketing At various Popular Events:-

Ambush Marketing and the NFL,1995:-

Jerry Jones' was the owner of an American Football Club, Dallas Cowboys. His National Football League marketing philosophy - making ambush marketing sponsorship pacts with NFL non-sponsors Nike and Coca-Cola Co.

The National Football League slapped a $300 million lawsuit on Mr. Jones for his alleged role in Ambush Marketing.

The actions taken by the NFL prompted American Express Co. to reconsider its multi year deal worth $15-20 millions with Mr. Jones to become a sponsor of Texas Stadium.

During the weeks that followed, NFL Properties, sponsors, and media partners created a television program with Visa USA-Fox teaming up to air it. The program "Call for Quarterbacks" was aired during Fox's prime-time programming. Celebrity quarterbacks were the guest star in the Fox program. A promotional contest preceded the program with Visa

NIKE: JUST DO IT

Nike Ambushing Adidas at Salt Lake City

running a spot each night.

During the 1995 season of NBA marketers from PepsiCo to Burger King Corp. launched high profile sports campaigns without paying the sponsorship money. Official sponsors like Coca-Cola Co. and McDonald's Corp. did nothing to defend their positions with more powerful tie-ins or re-evaluation to their sponsorships altogether.

Taco Bell took advantage of the National Basketball Association labor dispute to organize a pay-per-view bout between endorser Shaquille O'Neal and Hakeem Olajuwon. Taco Bell hinted at a live match up months ago starting the two NBA centers in a TV spot months ago. The two stars competed for a $1 million prize late in the year. The event also had place for secondary sponsorship positions, including Shaq's footwear sponsor. Reebok International and Spalding Sports Worldwide, which had endorsement deals with both stars were also involved.

Taco Bell also sold specially priced food packages and gave away collectors cups. Taco Bell also did the re-broadcasting of the event and also sold it on video.

AMERICAN EXPRESS VS. VISA:-

In the 1994 Winter Olympics in Norway, American Express's advertising campaign was "If you're traveling to Lilehammer, you'll need a passport, but you don't need a Visa." Visa was the official sponsor of those Olympic Games.

NIKE: IT JUST DOES IT:-

At Salt Lake City, 2002 (Winter Olympics held in Salt Lake City, USA) marketing games are played with as much vigour as real games.

Despite, Nike not being an official sponsor for the games every hockey team at the Games is outfitted from head to toe, inside and out, by Nike.

With, the cost of sponsorship ranging from $5 million to $50 million (depending on the level of sponsorship and coverage).

Nike did not have to pay anything for the sponsorship yet the coverage it got out of athletes sporting Nike swoosh was more than what any official sponsor would hope to get out of an event. A survey conducted by MSNBC among spectators revealed that people conceived Nike to be the sponsor of the games.

Another company that used Ambush Marketing to get leverage out of the Event was Columbia Sportswear.

Ambush Marketing and the NBA, 1995

Columbia Sportswear chose an even cheaper option than the one chosen by Nike. NBC announcers seen broadcasting every evening - sported the logo of Columbia Sportswear. thanacking a team or athlete.

AMERICAN EXPRESS

In 1988 Seoul Olympics, American Express promoted medallions supporting an "International Olympic Heritage Committee," something totally unconnected with the Games; then it retouched photos of Seoul's Olympic Stadium from the Asian games to make them resemble the 1988 Olympics

VISA V/S AMERICAN EXPRESS In 1992, Visa paid approximately $20 million to sponsor the Summer Olympics in Barcelona, Spain and the Winter Olympics in Albertville, France. In addition, Visa spent millions on a marketing campaign designating itself as the official credit card of the 1992 Olympics.

One of Visa's television campaigns made a frontal assault on one of its competitors, American Express (AmEx), by stating " 'The Olympics don't take American Express."' [20] In response to the Visa commercial, AmEx aired an ad with winter sports athletes telling viewers that "to enjoy the 'fun and games' they 'don't need a Visa."' AmEx intended the commercial to show that many stores, restaurants and hotels in Albertville, France accepted the AmEx card. After this ad aired, Visa claimed that AmEx carried out an ambush marketing strategy. AmEx countered by saying that this charge was unfounded because Visa initiated the confrontation and it was merely setting the record straight.

NIKE, INC. AND REEBOK INTERNATIONAL, LTD.

Another example of ambush marketing or aggressive promotion occurred at the 1992 Barcelona Olympic Games between two sports apparel manufacturers, Nike, Inc. (Nike) and Reebok International, Ltd. (Reebok). At the 1992 Olympic medal ceremonies, athletes wore jackets made by Reebok, an official Olympic sponsor. Nike, however, conducted a highly visible advertising campaign without "paying a penny in Olympic sponsorship fees." Nike held press conferences for Olympic athletes under contract with Nike and additionally displayed large murals of U.S.A. basketball team members on the side of Barcelona buildings. In support of its advertising campaign, Nike Divisional Manager Mark Pilkenton stated "We feel like in any major sporting event, we have the right to come in and give our message as long as we don't interfere with the official proceedings."

IBM, AT&T AND XEROX:-

The Summer Olympics at Atlanta in 1996 saw a clash of interest between the sponsors of the event. IBM occupied a sponsorship category - technology whereas, companies like AT&T and Xerox, were also Olympic sponsors, in the computing and communications area. BellSouth Corp. and Scientific Atlanta

SEOUL OLYMPICS - 1988

BARCELONA OLYMPICS - 1992

ATLANTA OLYMPICS - 1996

The Games could not restrict ambush efforts through media as the TV rights commanded a high fee and it was not possible for a Television Network to sell media only to Olympic sponsor, opening the doors to non-sponsors with advertising inspired by Olympic imagery. Networks like NBC, which spent $450 million for the Atlanta Olympics, cannot be expected to sell media slots only to Olympic sponsors, they have to make money back.

The only thing the Olympic organizers could do was to carry out an aggressive public relations campaign against ambushers. They also took help of celebrity endorsers and cross-promotion among sponsors designed to reinforce their official rights holder status.

Ambush Marketing is the "Rosie Ruiz" of the corporate sponsorship, in which an advertiser tries to show up at the finish line of an event without any sweat on its gym shorts.

- Darby Coker, Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games.

KODAK VS. FUJI:- Eastman Kodak of Rochester, NY spent about $40 million to be the sole imaging sponsor of the 1996 Games. But Fuji is not the official sponsor of the Olympics that title belonged to arch-rival. In New York, an elaborate display honoring 100 years of track and field was unveiled, featuring past Olympic athletes along side 1996 hopefuls. The exhibit was displayed across the U.S. landing in Atlanta in time for the Summer Olympics. The Exhibit called Images of Excellence is full of photos and cosponsored by Fuji Photo Film of Tokyo.

Fuji also advertised on the radio and on newspaper, to take advantage of the country's strong interest in sports. Fuji also offered a poster series and desk calendar featuring athletes such as Dan O'BRIEN and Michael Johnson, both strong contenders for the Olympic team.

According to Darby Coker, director of marketing for the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games - "It erodes their ability to raise funds from paying sponsors in the future."

ANSETT AND QANTAS AIRLINES:-In the period leading up to the Sydney Games, both Ansett and Qantas Airlines embarked on marketing campaigns that featured athletes, including Olympic athletes. Qantas television advertisements appeared in high density prior to the Games. These advertisements received considerable airtime and public recognition:

At a survey done 42% of all Australian respondents indicated that they thought Qantas was an official sponsor of the Games. Only 15% of the same respondents indicated that they thought Ansett was an official sponsor. Qantas was not an official 2000 Games sponsor. Ansett was.

As the Sydney 2000 Games drew nearer Qantas stepped up its advertising campaign. Qantas sponsored both pre-Olympic meets and the Olympic selection trials for the Australian swimming team. The trials were broadcast from the Olympic swimming pool and the broadcast featured the Qantas name and logo.

SYDNEY OLYMPICS - 2000

Qantas also sponsored the Bledisloe Cup rugby game between Australia and New Zealand which was held at Stadium Australia - the main stadium for the Olympics. A Qantas "flying kangaroo" logo formed on the arena at Stadium Australia featured prominently in Qantas's advertising.

Thus, Qantas was able to establish a link between it and the Olympic Stadium and also between the Australian swimming team and Qantas.

Ansett moved the court against Qantas alleging Ambush marketing. It requested an expedited hearing because of the proximity of the Olympics, which were to start on 15 September. Although the hearing commenced, it settled after several hearing days without a decision from the court. There seems little doubt that Qantas emerged victorious since there was no declaration of infringing conduct or any corrective advertising ordered.

The Qantas advertisements did not feature the Olympic motto, the Olympic symbol, the other Olympic designs or the torch and flame. Similarly, they did not use any of the Sydney 2000 Games indicia. Arguably there may have been a breach of Section 12(1) of the Sydney 2000 Act, which prohibits the use of Sydney 2000 Games images for commercial purposes. However, it is unlikely that the courts will see this type of visual representation as a marketing tactic which, to the reasonable person in the circumstances of the presentation, suggests a connection with the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. It may, in fact, imply little more than "the encouragement of sporting excellence."

The Ian Thorpe incident:

Nike was the official clothing supplier for the Australian Olympic team. Thorpe was sponsored by Adidas. At a medal presentation ceremony, the swimmer had his towel draped over the Nike logo on his official team tracksuit.

Other incidents

There were many other incidents in the Sydney Olympic Games which could amount to Ambush Marketing. Optus also resorted to Ambush Marketing at the Sydney Olympics(using Cathy Freeman in promotions prior to the beginning of the games.) undermining the importance of Telstra which was the Olympic Sponsor.

In 1994, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York enjoined Sprint Communications (Sprint) from issuing cards bearing the World Cup mark. In March 1991, the International Soccer League (ISL) entered into an agreement with Mastercard International (Mastercard) which allowed Mastercard to be an official sponsor of the 1994 World Cup.

The sponsorship agreement granted Mastercard the exclusive right to use the World Cup'94 trademarks on "All card-based payment and account access devices." Subsequently, in May 1992, Sprint entered into an agreement to become an Official Partner of the 1994 World Cup. This agreement was restrictive and expressly limited Official Partners' rights to not "infringe upon the rights of Official Sponsors." Sprint interpreted its Official Partner status to permit the issuance of 100,000 telephone cards bearing the World Cup mark.

The district court addressed the issue of contract interpretation, not ambush marketing. The

FIFA WORLD CUP - United States Of America, 1994

court held that the Sprint cards fell under the definition of card-based payment and account access devices and prohibited Sprint from using the World Cup logo. Furthermore, the court determined that "extrinsic evidence demonstrated that both Mastercard and ISL intended that Mastercard should have the exclusive right to use the World Cup marks for telephone calling cards."Time Warner Sports Merchandising, the company that licensed official products for the World Cup, took legal action against more than 105 manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers to prevent the sale of counterfeit products. Numerous stories exist detailing the problem of counterfeit goods making their way into the United States, including soccer ball decorations in a New York deli and sweatshirts in Miami. These examples are legally actionable because many of the products are copies of protected trademarks.

Points In Favor Of Ambush Marketing:- Gives a Level Playing FieldAmbush Marketer opens up an Avenue for Non Sponsors to promote their brand awareness and identity thus giving them a level playing field against their rivals who have attained a high platform by attaining Sponsorship right.

Competitive MarketingAmbush marketing according to some analysts is a form of competitive marketing. It keeps the sponsors on their toes and allows for the Consumer to get a complete picture.

Its my turnThis is the argument put forward by Ambush Marketers which points out to the fact that every company resorts to such strategy. If I do it today someone else will do it tomorrow.

Benefits not meeting price

Sponsoring an event requires millions of dollars as sponsorship fees. The benefits derived out of such sponsorships is not matched by the benefits derived which are limited in number.

Points Against Ambush Marketing:-

Ethical issue:

The argument waged against Ambush Marketing is that it is against ethical norms to ambush someone who has paid millions of Dollars for recognition as an Olympic Sponsor.

Financially Detrimental

The argument raised by Event Organizers is that Ambush Marketing will make finding sponsorship difficult in the future and this will be detrimental to the holding of such event in the future.

Confusion

The argument here is that Ambush Marketers confuse the audience about the Sponsors of the event.

Not good for Image of the firm

The argument being raised is that Ambush marketing could do more worse than good to the image of the Ambush Marketer if the audience perceives it as an anti-event activity.

AN ARTICLE BY THE PERSON WHO COINED THE TERM - AMBUSH

MARKETING – JERRY WELSH

A while ago, I accessed the search engine "Google" to see what's new in Ambush

Marketing. Surprisingly, I saw page after page of entries on Ambush Marketing, a term I

coined years ago when I was at American Express.

I was shocked, however, to encounter the mindless drivel that now must be passing for

legitimate commentary on Ambush Marketing, which evidently has come to mean -- to

some, mostly sports event organizers, I suspect -- something akin to commercial theft.

Believing that there is no better time than now to return to the realm of common sense in

talking of competitive Marketing, and simultaneously to expose self-serving pleading in

the guise of disinterested intellectual commentary, I'm writing this brief piece assaying

the origins and principles of Ambush Marketing.

The roots of Ambush Marketing can be found in several phenomena typical of modern

sponsorships: the escalating prices for, and often the distressed imagery of, category-

exclusive sponsorships; in their routinely poor packaging and in their flawed

presentation to potential sponsors; and in the increasing level of marketing competition

in major categories of consumer products and services.

In explaining the practice of Ambush Marketing, and in noting its virtual necessity in

modern competitive business practice, and in advocating its desirability -- indeed its

inevitability -- there is no need to discuss ethics or morality. Companies routinely

compete, mostly, we hope and expect, honestly and hard; and Ambush Marketing,

correctly understood and rightly practiced, is an important, ethically correct, competitive

tool in a non-sponsoring company's arsenal of business- and image-building-- weapons.

To think otherwise is either not to understand -- or willfully to misrepresent -- the

meaning of Ambush Marketing and its significance for good -- and winning -- marketing

practice.

To begin with the unarguably obvious, it is true that, in major sponsorships packaged for

sale, there is room for only one company or product in each available category. Event

organizers hope to sell their event-sponsoring wares at an auction among major intra-

category competitors; after all, that's their game, their core business. Those companies

who want to buy, or can afford to buy, often do buy; others must consider their marketing

alternatives.

Let's acknowledge that, given the already high and continually rising prices for some of

these sponsorships, it is hardly surprising that some companies willingly pass on the

opportunity to sponsor, and undertake the search for ways to compete in the sponsored

space without bearing the onerous costs, and often the heavy burden, of the scandals and

other misadventures often associated with large modern sponsored properties,

particularly some of those in professional sports.

The point to understand is that, in buying a sponsorship, a company buys only that

specific, packaged product, offered as it is, with its constituent parts and attendant rights

(and its liabilities). In sponsoring, the company does not thereby purchase the rights to

all avenues leading to the public's awareness of that property; and, more importantly, the

company does not buy the rights to the entire thematic space in which the purchased

property is usually only one resident.

In other words, all else other than that which is specifically purchased is up for

commercial grabs. That's as it should be in sponsorship and as it is in the larger world of

both commerce and life: when you own and license Kermit you have only given the rights

you own to one specific frog - not to all frogs, and maybe not even to all green ones.

Non-sponsors who are sophisticated about marketing begin by asking themselves the

basic question about the thematic space in which the sponsorship exits: "Do I want to be

identified with the ideas, images, and events in this sponsored space?" In the case of the

Olympics, for example, do I as a non-sponsoring marketer want my products or services

identified with this generic space of sport, and more specifically, Olympic-type sporting

events? If so, then I begin to look for ways to purchase the imagery and values of the

Olympics in properties and events other than those specifically Olympic-sponsored.

If my competitor has just spent, say, $100 million to secure the Olympics sponsorship,

that gives me roughly the same amount (assuming I want parity in marketing

expenditures with my competitor) to get a similar benefit for my product or service

without sponsoring the Olympics. So long as I do nothing to claim that I'm indeed an

Olympic sponsor, and so long as I refrain from any other action or claim directly

misleading to the public, then I'm free to pursue other Olympic-related activities (e.g.,

television advertising on the Olympics broadcasts, perhaps onsite events, and customer

entertainment in the Olympic city), or non-Olympic -- but nevertheless sports-related --

activities and similar sponsorships (national teams, former Olympic athletes, children's

athletic causes and programs in Olympic-featured sports) to underscore my company's

support of, and dedication to, the thematic space which Olympic sports occupy.

The argument that, if I'm an inventive non-sponsor, mining the sponsored thematic space

in a clever way, the public may come to think of me as an Olympic sponsor, is not an

argument supporting non-ambushing activities, but is rather a possible testament to the

marketing skills of a non-sponsoring competitor. What the public perceives in the world

of sponsorship is interesting grist for the marketing pollsters, but is hardly the stuff of

which business morality should be gauged. Marketers routinely portray their wares in the

best possible light; and in times when sponsored properties are on attractive display, the

positive association with that thematic space -- if not with the specific sponsored property

-- is the natural, and altogether legitimate, inclination of marketing professionals.

The contrary notion, put forward largely by sloppy event organizers, that non-sponsors

have a moral or ethical obligation to market themselves totally away from the thematic

space of a sponsored property, is simply nonsense which smart marketers have long

recognized as a commercial non-starter, as well as an intellectual affront. Sponsors have

bought a specific property; they have not bought a thematic space. Accordingly, they

have no right to police, protect, and otherwise administer what they have not bought,

have not created, and, therefore, do not own.

Once a sponsorship has been undertaken, then the real marketing games begin, assuming

only that non-sponsors want to occupy the thematic space that the sponsors -- by virtue of

their having paid the fee -- now occupy. The competitive thinking goes like this: what

programs, events, and other similar promotions can one do, within the space, to get the

marketing benefits, without having paid the fee for the sponsorship in that space.

What's wrong with that? Where's the "parasitic marketing," to quote a favorite phrase of

the putatively aggrieved event organizers and their sponsors? Smart marketing is

"parasitic" only to those who foolishly have not sufficiently covered their sponsorships

with adequate, anti-competitive bulletproofing. As your competitor, I do not have the

ethical obligation to make sure that your sponsorship is successful. I could -- but will not

do so here -- argue that the reverse obligation may well be the appropriate ethical and

practical stance for me.

Ambush Marketing ought to be understood simply as a marketing strategy with its

programmatic outcomes, occupying the thematic space of a sponsoring competitor, and

formulated to vie with that sponsoring competitor for marketing preeminence. Successful

ambush strategies feed on ill-conceived sponsorships and inept sponsors; in that regard,

Ambush Marketing is the natural result of healthy competition and has the long-range

effect of making sponsored properties more valuable, not less, in that successful

ambushes, over time, help to weed out inferior sponsorship propositions.

What Ambush Marketing is not, clearly, is some underhanded attempt to take advantage

of sponsored properties without paying the associated fees. As I've indicated, the

marketing decision around sponsorships involves the trade-off analysis of the sponsorship

costs, liabilities, and the extent to which the sponsorship, if purchased, can de defended

against successful ambush. This is but another way to ask the simple question of whether

or not the sponsorship, as offered, is really commercially viable, or worth anything

approximating its cost in the marketplace of available marketing propositions.

In the world of modern marketing, sponsor and ambusher are not moral labels to be

assigned by the self-appointed arbiters of ethics, but merely the names to be given to two

different -- and complementary, if competing -- roles played by competitors vying for

consumer loyalty and recognition in the same thematic space.

So that is the story of Ambush Marketing. I trust that I won't have to consult "Google!" again

in the near future, only to be horrified at what an unrecognizable ogre has been made of my

beautiful, conceptual marketing child, Ambush Marketing.

Limitations:-

Not many people know about ambush marketing Ambush marketing is practiced only by the top MNCS Also in top MNCS decision of ambush marketing is taken by the top marketing

managers.

Conclusion :-

Should India frame such laws when day by day the popularity of sports events specifically

Cricket is increasing? The answer may be yes or no but if yes, then there are several

questions for the government and organizers. Will government answer it ?

Ambush Marketing might be the sneakiest, most devious, and controversial forms of

marketing. Despite all this, it can be very effective. Recently at the British Open Hugo Boss

pulled off a great example of Ambush Marketing. They parked their sail boat off of the

waters of Turn berry, Scotland where the tournament was being held. They seemed to be

following Tiger Woods, which makes a lot of sense since he would be the one with the most

air time. Problem was Hugo Boss wasn’t an official sponsor. Ambush marketing is a form of

marketing in which a group takes advantage of an event (that is usually highly publicized,

documented, and seen by many) but with no affiliation with the event and no fee is paid.

Ambush Marketing should be understood as a marketing strategy occupying the consumer

mind space for an event. What Ambush Marketing is not, is some underhanded attempt to

take advantage of sponsored properties without paying the associated fees. The marketing

decision around sponsorships is really a question of whether or not the sponsorship, as

currently offered, Successful ambush strategies feed on ill-conceived sponsorships and inept

sponsors; in that regard, Ambush Marketing is the natural result of healthy competition and

has the long-range effect of making sponsored properties more valuable, not less, in that

successful ambushes, over time, help to weed out inferior sponsorship propositions.