Scholarly Activity

When ambush marketing is beneficial to sponsorship awareness: creating sponsor distinctiveness using exclusivity and brand juxtaposition Clinton S. Weeks, Peter J. O’Connor and Brett A. S. Martin

QUT Business School, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

ABSTRACT Ambush marketing is a contentious practice whereby brands com- municate an association with an event without being an official sponsor. Those involved in sponsorship commonly try to limit it by restricting ambusher activity in event contexts. We introduce the- oretical ideas around distinctiveness to explain that sponsors may actually fare better in terms of awareness outcomes when ambushers are present in the event context, if they strategically use ambusher presence to highlight their own distinctive sponsor status. Across two experiments we show that sponsor distinctive- ness can be achieved by communicating sponsorship exclusivity in ambusher presence, and by facilitating juxtaposition of sponsor and ambusher messages. Results include increased recall to spon- sor cues, and reduced recall to ambusher cues. The findings suggest ambusher restrictions may sometimes be counter- productive.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 14 December 2016 Accepted 2 August 2017

KEYWORDS Ambush marketing; sponsorship; memory; distinctiveness; brand juxtaposition

In recent times, brands have increasingly sought to develop linkages to popular events (sports, art, causes) aiming to fulfil a range of marketing objectives. This is perhaps best evidenced by the extraordinary growth in marketing expenditure on sponsorship rights fees – from around US$300 million in the early 1980s (Gardner & Shuman, 1987) to an estimated US$62.8 billion in 2017 (International Events Group, 2017). Motivating this growth is an expectation that being linked to popular events through activities like sponsorship will assist with objectives like improving brand awareness, developing brand image, and generating goodwill among consumers (Cornwell, Weeks, & Roy, 2005). Accordingly, major sponsorship opportunities can today be in such demand that event organisers are in a position to limit the number of brands they accept sponsorship funding from, and indeed, set increasingly high prices for the privilege of being an official sponsor. For example, the 11 brands in The Olympic Partner (TOP) programme paid a combined US$950 million for sponsorship rights across 2009–2012, which is a ten-fold increase from 1985–1988 (US$96 million; International Olympic Committee, 2016a); much greater than the rate of inflation over this time. These figures

CONTACT Clinton S. Weeks [email protected] QUT Business School, Queensland University of Technology, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane 4001, Australia

JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT, 2017 VOL. 33, NOS. 15–16, 1256–1280 https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2017.1372506

© 2017 Westburn Publishers Ltd.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

E P-

I PS

W IC

H ]

at 0

2: 11

1 4

N ov

em be

r 20

17

are expected to double for 2021–2024, taking average costs to US$175–200 million for each TOP sponsor, effectively locking out many would-be sponsors (Tripp, 2014).

While many brands might ultimately want to develop an association with major events, often only a limited few are able to afford and secure sponsorship rights. Consequently, a somewhat contentious form of marketing has developed in parallel with sponsorship, whereby non-sponsor brands aim to achieve similar outcomes to sponsors by communicating in ways that imply an association, but without necessarily paying for the official rights of association (Chadwick & Burton, 2011; Meenaghan, 1996). This is termed ambush marketing, based on the notion that these non-sponsor brands are essentially seeking to benefit from unofficial linkages to events, which can simulta- neously undermine the position of official sponsors (Payne, 1998). Despite perhaps being viewed as somewhat devious, it is practised by many well-known brands, and is commonly expected at major sporting events (Andrews, 2012; Nufer, 2013). It is decried by those officially involved in sponsorship as unethical and as offering an unfair advantage to brands that have not paid for the right of association (Chase & Kurnit, 2010). The counter-argument however, is that as long as such efforts fall within the law, they should be simply viewed as another form of competitive business activity (McKelvey & Longley, 2015). Indeed it is frequently noted that very few ambushing campaigns ever actually breach formal legislation or make explicitly false claims of sponsorship (Scassa, 2011).

Within the ambushing literature, it is generally recommended that sponsors protect themselves through educating consumers about ambushing, leveraging their invest- ment to ensure consumers are aware they are a sponsor, and by limiting non-sponsor brand activity around the event (Chadwick & Burton, 2011). This final recommendation is controversial however, since it can be seen as attempting to restrict normal marketplace activity, freedom of expression, and consumer choice (Caulfield, 2012; Scassa, 2011). Thus, while ambush marketing is seen as contentious, so too are the efforts to counter it (Nufer, 2016).

Although research on ambushing is growing, there remains limited empirical work examining its effectiveness and how it influences outcomes for sponsors, and even less research investigating counter-ambushing practices (Chadwick & Burton, 2011). Many authors advocate for restrictions on ambusher activity within event contexts as a way of protecting sponsors, largely based on the intuitive idea that if ambushers are not present, consumers will be less likely to perceive an ambusher-event association (Hartland & Skinner, 2005; Meenaghan, 1996). Indeed one study by Humphreys et al. (2010) demonstrates that recall of ambusher–event relationships increases when these brands are present in the event context. These ideas however, do not take into account that ambushers can and do still communicate linkages to events, in ways that cannot be restricted by sponsors, regardless of protective efforts (Nufer, 2016, suggests in fact that attempts to restrict ambushers can lead to greater innovativeness by ambushers in seeking to imply linkages). Nor do they take into account that memory for sponsor– event relationships in some cases might actually benefit from the presence of other brands (cf. Cornwell, Humphreys, Quinn, & McAlister, 2012).

In the current research, we forward an alternative perspective to putting restrictions on ambusher communications. That is, we propose that sponsor awareness objectives might benefit from the presence of ambusher communications within the event context,

JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1257

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

E P-

I PS

W IC

H ]

at 0

2: 11

1 4

N ov

em be

r 20

17

especially when sponsors can make strategic use of ambusher presence to distinctively highlight their own sponsor status. We investigate this by examining value for sponsors when communications distinctively highlight sponsorship exclusivity in the presence of ambushers, and when communications support distinctiveness via the juxtaposition of sponsor and ambusher messages. We restrict our examination to situations where sponsors and ambushers are direct market rivals within a brand category (a common scenario, where the ambusher’s goal might be to both benefit itself and undermine a market rival; Payne, 1998). Further, we consider only situations where the ambusher- event association is implied via communications, rather than being based on explicitly false or illegal claims of sponsorship.

Our paper makes three key contributions. First, we introduce theoretical ideas about distinctiveness from the memory literature to explain how current approaches of restricting ambusher communications might not be optimal for sponsor awareness objectives. We outline that, rather than thinking about sponsorship communications as being important in emphasising a sponsor–event relationship, and restrictions impor- tant in limiting exposure to ambusher–event relationships, more value might be obtained when sponsors distinctively highlight their sponsorship status in the presence of ambusher communications. Second we use distinctiveness ideas to show empirically that communicating attributes that are unique to sponsors, like exclusivity of sponsor status, can improve correct recall for sponsor–event relationships, but also reduce incorrect recall of ambusher–event relationships. We demonstrate this is most evident for high congruence sponsorships where consumers can be more inclined to assume a related brand within the event context is a sponsor (or co-sponsor). Third, we provide evidence revealing that the current practice of restricting ambusher presence within the context of sponsored events can actually be detrimental to sponsor awareness objec- tives. We show that if sponsor distinctiveness can be created by juxtaposing sponsor and ambusher messages (where only the sponsor can truly claim sponsorship), correct recall for the sponsor–event relationship increases, and incorrect recall for the ambusher– event relationship decreases. Moreover, we show that if ambushers communicate a thematic linkage to an event that is not juxtaposed with sponsor communications, then consumers can be just as likely to attribute sponsorship to the ambusher as they are to the true sponsor. This is important because ambusher restrictions can reduce the likelihood that sponsor and ambusher messages will be juxtaposed, and may therefore actually be counter-productive.

Ambush marketing

Ambush marketing is that which is ‘. . .designed by an organization to capitalize on the awareness, attention, goodwill, and other benefits generated by having an association with an event or property, without the organization having an official or direct connec- tion to that event or property’ (Chadwick & Burton, 2011, p. 714). Although blatantly false claims of sponsorship are typically prohibited by law, most ambush marketing attempts are not illegal, in that linkages are usually implied rather than made explicitly (Scassa, 2011). In large part, ambushing is considered to include the use of event themed advertising and promotion around the time of an event, or within the geo- graphic vicinity, and guerrilla marketing initiatives intended to attract consumer

1258 C. S. WEEKS ET AL.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

E P-

I PS

W IC

H ]

at 0

2: 11

1 4

N ov

em be

r 20

17

attention during the event (Kelly, Cornwell, Coote, & McAlister, 2012; Wolfsteiner, Grohs, & Wagner, 2015a). For example consider Nike’s ‘Find Your Greatness’ advertising cam- paign which featured everyday people in their own personal sporting pursuits at various towns around the world named London, which coincided with the 2012 London Olympics (sponsored by market rival Adidas). Or consider the case of German airline Lufthansa which painted the nose-cones of 40 of its aircraft to appear as soccer balls during the 2006 FIFA World Cup (sponsored by market rival Emirates). It is these types of implied thematic linkages that we consider in the current work.

Apart from themed communications, many authors also classify as ambushing, situations where brands engage in sponsorship at a lower level than the event itself (e.g. individual athletes or competing teams) and then leverage that sponsorship giving the impression of being an event sponsor (Carrillat, Colbert, & Feigné, 2014). Sponsoring media coverage of the event (rather than the actual event) is also often deemed ambushing since this can give the misleading impression of being officially linked to the event (Chase & Kurnit, 2010). A number of authors also include both instances that are intentional (deliberate attempts to imply an association) and those that are incidentally created through concurrent marketing communications that lead consumers to assume an association (Chadwick & Burton, 2011). In the sections below, we review research on three inter-related recommendations frequently dis- cussed in the ambushing literature for limiting ambushing (outside of legal action). We then explain the theoretical basis of our work which offers a new and alternative perspective.

Consumer education and ambusher disclosure

One of the key approaches to countering ambushing is often suggested to be through educating consumers about the practice and drawing attention to brands that engage in it (Shani & Sandler, 1998). In one study, Séguin, Lyberger, O’Reilly, and McCarthy (2005) reported that when consumers were informed that ambushers were brands seeking to give the misleading impression of being a sponsor, they generally viewed the practice as unethical and unfair. That work was based on self-report following an explanation of ambushing however, and so it is unclear how these attitudes might correspond to actual later encounters. Mazodier, Quester, and Chandon (2012) experi- mentally tested the impact of disclosing instances of ambushing to consumers using a ‘name and shame’ approach. They found that disclosure did result in negative sentiment towards named ambushers, but that doing so created a risk that consumers would develop a general distrust of any brands communicating linkages with events (both sponsors and ambushers). Humphreys et al. (2010) cautioned against a name and shame approach following their experimental work examining memory outcomes. They showed that explicitly naming an ambusher and event together in disclosure statements could inadvertently reinforce the linkage in consumers’ minds. One avenue not yet explored in this literature is the way a distinctive emphasis by the sponsor on its own unique sponsor status in the presence of ambusher communications, might implicitly suggest a lack of sponsor status for ambushers, without the need to draw attention to the ambusher–event relationship through explicit ambusher disclosure. We explore this idea in the current work.

JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1259

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

E P-

I PS

W IC

H ]

at 0

2: 11

1 4

N ov

em be

r 20

17

Leveraging of sponsorships

A second commonly noted recommendation for combatting ambushing is for spon- sors to actively leverage their investments as a way of promoting awareness of their sponsorship (Mazodier et al., 2012). Within the sponsorship literature, leveraging refers to using collateral marketing communications to capitalise on sponsorship investments, and hence strengthening sponsor-event linkages (Herrmann, Kacha, & Derbaix, 2016; Weeks, Cornwell, & Drennan, 2008). By implication, strengthening the sponsor-event linkage is suggested to help to guard against negative impacts of ambusher activity (Chase & Kurnit, 2010). Without communicating to consumers that the sponsor is in fact a sponsor, it would seem that ambushing brands that com- municate an event-linked association might then easily be mistaken as sponsors, and so leveraging is clearly important (Carrillat et al., 2014). In the current work, we suggest that not only are these communications useful for strengthening the spon- sor-event linkage, but that they hold most value for combatting ambushing when they distinctively highlight a brand’s sponsorship status against a backdrop of ambusher communications.

Restrictions on non-sponsors

A third common recommendation for limiting ambushing, as noted previously, is for sponsors and event organisers to put restrictions in place to reduce the ability of ambusher brands to create linkages to events (Chadwick & Burton, 2011). For exam- ple, broadcast advertising restrictions are often implemented for same-category brands at the time of an event, and venues can be required to implement ‘clean zones’ such that only sponsors can advertise or promote within the event vicinity (Chase & Kurnit, 2010). While such restrictions might make sense if it is assumed that ambushers then remain fully absent from the sponsorship environment, or otherwise do not create indirect linkages through alternative communication channels, it is perhaps unlikely this will always be the case. The current media landscape ultimately makes comprehensive restrictions difficult or even impossible to apply, with events now broadcast via diverse media channels, and ambushers able to gain exposure through avenues like social media which can be difficult to control (Delia & Armstrong, 2015; Kelk, 2014). It is therefore important to understand the impact of these restrictions, and if the current practice of trying to police ambushing is optimal. This is the focus of the current work.

In the following sections, we review research from the memory literature on distinctiveness, which we explain to have very direct relevance to sponsorship and ambushing. Building on research around consumer education and leveraging of sponsorship initiatives, and seeking to overcome potential concerns with ambusher restrictions, the literature on distinctiveness suggests an alternative perspective. It highlights that sponsors may fare better when they make strategic use of ambusher presence within the sponsorship context as a way of highlighting their own distinctive sponsor status.

1260 C. S. WEEKS ET AL.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

E P-

I PS

W IC

H ]

at 0

2: 11

1 4

N ov

em be

r 20

17

Theoretical framework and hypothesis development

Distinctiveness

A subject of renewed discussion in the basic memory literature in recent years that has relevance to sponsorship and ambushing is the idea of distinctiveness (Hunt, 2003, 2013; Hunt & Worthen, 2006). Work by Hunt (2013) outlines that rather than being an objective property that can be assigned to an object, distinctiveness should be con- ceptualised as the psychological processing of difference about some object within a broader context of similarity. This contrasts with the way many people think about distinctiveness, which is that it stems from an object simply being ‘different’ (Hunt & Worthen, 2006). Unless it is embedded within a context of similarity to allow contrast and juxtaposition, that difference does not create distinctiveness. For example, within an array of letters like ‘OOBOOOO’ the letter B is distinctive because it violates a broader context of similarity, with this violation leading to the processing of unique features of the letter B that make it different. The exact same letter is not distinctive in an array such as ‘PRBSOGU’ because it is not set within a context of similarity. In the second array, the B is different, but not necessarily distinctive because all the letters are different. Similarly, if ‘B’ is processed in isolation, it is made more salient in memory, but is not necessarily distinctive since it lacks a context with which to contrast (McDaniel & Geraci, 2006).

Distinctiveness of target information enhances subsequent memory for that informa- tion, especially in competitive settings where memory errors are possible (Hunt, 2003). For example, if asked to later confirm whether the presented array had contained the letter B, its likelihood of correct identification in the first array would be better than in the second, because B has been processed distinctively from its surrounding context. Relatedly, the likelihood of correctly identifying that non-displayed alternatives like M or E were not presented would also be better following the first array, because the distinctive processing that accompanied B allows M and E to be more easily dismissed.

Applying distinctiveness to sponsorship and ambushing

Although perhaps not immediately obvious, these ideas are very relevant to applied competitive settings like sponsorship and ambushing, where sponsor status can be misattributed to the wrong brand, and where there is potential for enhancing sponsor distinctiveness by creating an underlying context of similarity across competing brands. When consumers encounter messages from a number of different brands, where one indicates it is an event sponsor, and each other brand also communicates something unique about itself, the sponsor brand is not necessarily distinctive. The message being conveyed is different, and it may be remembered by some consumers, but this is not because it is distinctive relative to the other brands (cf. the mixed letter array described above). Instead, if the brands are contextualised as similar in some way (e.g. each is communicating being a sport-shoe brand, or each is communicating a thematic linkage to soccer), and only one uniquely indicates being event sponsor, then that sponsor brand should be processed distinctively, relative to the others. In Hunt’s (2013, p. 11) terminology, it would be conveying ‘difference in the context of similarity’ making it distinctive. It is more likely to be later correctly recalled as a sponsor, and the other

JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1261

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

E P-

I PS

W IC

H ]

at 0

2: 11

1 4

N ov

em be

r 20

17

brands more likely correctly classified as non-sponsors because of the contrast created between the true sponsor and them.

Thus, what is needed to create sponsor distinctiveness is to communicate some unique attribute, but this must also be in a setting where it can be contrasted (juxtaposed) with brands that do not have this attribute. This of course is not to suggest sponsorship settings are as simplistic as letter arrays, or that brand messages will ever all be the same. It is however intended to highlight the important role that facilitating perceptions of contex- tual similarity can play as a way of enabling contrast through juxtaposition, hence making unique attributes more distinct. It also highlights that preventing other brands from communicating in event contexts (as with ambusher restrictions) might therefore make it difficult for sponsors to achieve distinctiveness. When attempts are made to restrict non- sponsor brands (potential ambushers) from communicating linkages to an event, the rationale is that this will help to prevent consumers from learning an ambusher-event association, and from mistakenly misattributing sponsorship to the ambusher (Wolfsteiner et al., 2015a). What Hunt’s (2003, 2013) work on distinctiveness suggests however, is that sponsors may benefit more from being distinctively identifiable as a sponsor, and ambushers more identifiable as non-sponsors, when sponsors and ambushers can be juxtaposed within a shared context, with only the sponsor communicating the unique attribute of being a sponsor. This shared context might be created based on the event, the brand category, or perhaps both.

If it were assumed that ambusher brands were not active in the marketing environ- ment, then there would perhaps be no need for sponsors to create a sense of distinc- tiveness (Hunt, 2006). They could simply aim to be more salient and hence more retrievable from memory as a sponsor (similar to the letter B being presented in isolation rather than in an array). This idea of increasing salience is the basis of much of the current leveraging literature in sponsorship (Weeks et al., 2008). However, given the competitive marketing environment in which sponsors operate, and the inevitable situation that ambusher brands will often be present, creating distinctiveness can be seen as critical in supporting accurate memory for the sponsor being a sponsor, and consequently, ambushers not being sponsors. When ambusher brands are restricted from communicating within the same context as the sponsor, they may still often develop communications that establish a relational linkage to the event (e.g. separately communicated themed advertising within social media; Kelk, 2014). The risk here is that consumers process these ambusher–event relationships separately from the sponsor– event relationship, and hence distinctiveness of the sponsor is limited, in that the sponsor and ambusher are not directly juxtaposed. Essentially each brand may be creating a separate linkage to the event, rather than being placed in a broader over- arching context of similarity where sponsor status is distinct. What is needed to create sponsor distinctiveness is a relational context among the brands where sponsors com- municate distinctive information, and where sponsors and ambushers can be juxtaposed.

Hypotheses

In the current research, we have three hypotheses. Our first is based on the idea that the presence of ambushers in the sponsorship environment will increase the likelihood of

1262 C. S. WEEKS ET AL.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

E P-

I PS

W IC

H ]

at 0

2: 11

1 4

N ov

em be

r 20

17

ambushers being misattributed with sponsorship, but that this can be mitigated when sponsors distinctively communicate about their unique sponsor status in the presence of the ambusher. Ambusher presence creates a shared context where the brands can be contrasted/juxtaposed, so as to facilitate sponsor distinctiveness. Unless an ambusher can legitimately claim to be a sponsor, then sponsor status is a unique attribute distinctive to the sponsor alone, which only the sponsor can claim. We do note however, that with growth in situations where events have multiple sponsors (Carrillat, Solomon, & d’Astous, 2015), consumers may sometimes be inclined to assume multiple brands in the sponsorship environment are sponsors (or co-sponsors). Accordingly, here we sug- gest that communicating exclusivity of sponsor status can create distinctiveness for the sponsor relative to an ambusher (compared to simply communicating sponsor status without an emphasis on exclusivity). This hypothesis is central to our distinctiveness ideas, and is foundational to subsequent predictions.

H1: Presence of ambushers in the sponsorship environment will lead to increased misattribution of sponsorships to ambusher brands, but this will be mitigated when sponsor communications emphasise distinctiveness via sponsorship exclusivity (com- pared to where there is no emphasis on exclusivity). This will be evidenced via increased levels of correct event recall to sponsor cues, and decreased levels of incorrect event recall to ambusher cues.

We expect this distinctiveness effect to be most evident for high congruence sponsorships. Early research by Johar and Pham (1999) revealed consumers often mis- attribute sponsorships to non-sponsors that are logically matched (or congruent) to an event (e.g. a sport-shoe brand and soccer event). Hence, it has been noted that lever- aging may be particularly important when there is potential for high congruence ambushers (Wolfsteiner et al., 2015a). Here, we suggest that if misattribution is more common for high congruence sponsorships because ambusher brands are more natu- rally assumed to be sponsors, then the value of communicating distinctiveness should be more apparent for these relationships.

H2: The ability for distinctive sponsor communications to mitigate misattribution of sponsorship to ambusher brands will be most evident for high congruence sponsorships (compared to low congruence sponsorships).

Our third hypothesis relates to the idea that restrictions on ambusher activity may actually be detrimental to sponsor awareness objectives, because restrictions on ambushers can make distinctiveness difficult to achieve. Hunt’s (2003, 2013) work explains the importance of having a shared context of similarity, and hence allowing sponsors and ambushers to be juxtaposed as a way of highlighting distinctiveness. This will therefore be more difficult when sponsors and ambushers are both present but not in a shared context (e.g. if they are encountered distant from each other). We predict that misattribution of sponsorship to ambusher brands will be greatest when ambushers communicate a thematic linkage with an event, as opposed to simply being present without communicating a thematic linkage. This will be most evident when sponsor and ambusher messages are presented distant from each other, mixed among other

JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1263

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

E P-

I PS

W IC

H ]

at 0

2: 11

1 4

N ov

em be

r 20

17

unrelated brands (similar to the situation created by ambusher restrictions), since this limits consumers’ ability to juxtapose sponsor and ambusher messages, and thus limits sponsor distinctiveness. The effect will be mitigated however when sponsor and ambusher messages are presented in close proximity such that they can be juxtaposed, making sponsor status more distinctive for the sponsor brand. This hypothesis is important because it speaks to the potentially detrimental effects of ambusher restrictions.

H3: Misattribution of sponsorship to ambusher brands will increase when ambushers communicate a thematic linkage to an event (compared to when they do not commu- nicate a thematic linkage). This will be most evident when ambusher communications are mixed among unrelated communications from other brands, and less evident when ambusher communications are juxtaposed with sponsor communications.

The current research

The current research consists of two experiments. Experiment 1 tests H1 by giving participants exposure to sponsorship information with and without the presence of an ambusher brand, and where sponsor distinctiveness is emphasised by highlighting sponsorship exclusivity, or is otherwise not emphasised. It tests H2 by allowing for a comparison of effects across high and low congruence relationships. Experiment 2 tests H3, by providing participants with exposure to sponsor and ambusher communications where ambusher messages are either event themed or non-event themed, and where sponsor and ambusher communications are either presented in a shared context (juxta- posed), or mixed among other brands (not juxtaposed). In Experiment 1 sponsorship information is presented via news stories, and in Experiment 2 it is presented via branded social media posts. Memory for the brand–event relationships is assessed using brand-cued event recall in both experiments.

Experiment 1

Design and participants

Experiment 1 used a 2 (ambusher presence: present, absent) × 2 (sponsor commu- nication distinctiveness: exclusivity declaration, no exclusivity declaration) × 2 (brand- event congruence: high, low) × 2 (brand recall cue: sponsor, ambusher) mixed design. Ambusher presence and sponsor communication distinctiveness were between-sub- jects variables, while brand-event congruence and brand recall cue were within- subjects independent variables. Brand-cued event recall was the dependent variable. The participants were 120 native English-speaking undergraduate business students (MAge = 20 years, age range 17–29). The sample was well suited since this demo- graphic is regularly exposed to branded information in the media and is commonly targeted by consumer brands. Moreover, the use of a relatively homogenous sample helps with theory testing by limiting extraneous influences (e.g. generational differences).

1264 C. S. WEEKS ET AL.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

E P-

I PS

W IC

H ]

at 0

2: 11

1 4

N ov

em be

r 20

17

Materials

The materials for Experiment 1 were 12 fictitious news stories containing information about upcoming sponsorships. The news story paradigm has been employed success- fully in a number of sponsorship studies (Cornwell, Humphreys, Maguire, Weeks, & Tellegen, 2006; Humphreys et al., 2010; Wolfsteiner et al., 2015a), and serves as a useful way to instantiate variations of sponsorship information. It is also similar to how many consumers learn about sponsorships beyond just exposure at an event or on television. In the current experiment, each news story was designed to convey details about an upcoming event being sponsored by a given brand (see Appendix), and these were modelled on real sponsorship news stories (e.g. Reuters, 2015; Tripp, 2011). The news stories for each event were structured similarly but contained varying descriptions for a sense of realism. In those for the ambusher absent condition, each was composed of five sentences describing the upcoming event and its sponsor, what the event was about, and that the sponsor was looking forward to it. An additional two sentences then separately offered a general comment from an event organiser. In the news stories for the ambusher present condition, the final two sentences were instead a comment from a direct market rival brand, linking itself to the event in the style of ambush marketing. These final two sentences thus served to instantiate ambusher absence or presence.

The ambusher present condition allows for a shared context to support sponsor- ambusher juxtaposition. To support the sponsor communication distinctiveness manip- ulation, an emphasis on sponsorship exclusivity was employed (i.e. sponsor distinctive- ness in context of ambusher). For half the participants, the news stories described the sponsor as having obtained exclusive sponsorship rights for the event, while for the other half, stories simply indicated that a sponsorship deal had been reached with the sponsor. This was based on the idea that an exclusive sponsorship can belong to only one brand, whereas a sponsorship that is not described as exclusive may be less likely assumed as unique to just one brand. Of the 12 news stories, six were for high congruence sponsorships (e.g. Bridgestone sponsoring the Fresh Track Off-Road Rally) and six were for low congruence sponsorships (e.g. Marriott Hotels sponsoring the Nautical Mile Backstroke Cup). Pairs of brands that were chosen to serve as sponsor and ambusher for each event were from the same product category, and were pretested to ensure suitability in terms of market prominence and similarity. The design was counterbalanced such that half the participants saw one brand from each pair as the sponsor and the other as the ambusher, while the other half of participants saw the brands in reversed roles.

Stimulus pretesting

Exclusivity and distinctiveness pretest To confirm the idea that consumers may often perceive brands in the sponsorship environment as co-sponsors unless exclusivity is declared, and as a check on our exclusivity manipulation as a way of instantiating sponsor distinctiveness, 100 pretest participants were recruited. All were undergraduate business students, different from those in the main experiment. They each read a series of the experimental news stories, where half emphasised sponsorship exclusivity and half made no such emphasis. After

JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1265

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

E P-

I PS

W IC

H ]

at 0

2: 11

1 4

N ov

em be

r 20

17

each story, they indicated on two 7-point scales (anchored: ‘very unlikely’ and ‘very likely’), how likely they felt the first named brand (sponsor) was the only sponsor of the event, and how likely they felt the other named brand (ambusher) was also a sponsor of the event. Results showed participants were more inclined to assume a brand was the only sponsor when it was labelled as exclusive, t(99) 6.95, p < .001 (MNoExclus_Spon = 4.11, MExclus_Spon = 5.08). Correspondingly, they were more inclined to assume a second named brand (ambusher) was also a sponsor when no exclusivity declaration was made for the sponsor, t(99) = 5.50, p < .001 (MNoExclus_Amb = 4.29, MExclus_Amb = 3.46).

As a check on the idea that exclusivity statements can promote sponsor distinctive- ness in the presence of an ambusher, an additional two questions were asked following each news story. Participants indicated on two separate 7-point scales (anchored: ‘not at all’ to ‘extremely well’), how well they felt the information in the story made each brand stand-out from other similar brands. Results showed they perceived the sponsor as more distinctive (standing out) when described as exclusive sponsor, t(99) = 2.51, p = .014 (MNoExclus_Spon = 4.85, MExclus_Spon = 5.02), and conversely, that ambushers were less distinctive when sponsors made an exclusivity declaration, t(99) = 4.01, p < .001 (MNoExclus_Amb = 4.22, MExclus_Amb = 3.89). Thus, in line with Hunt’s (2003, 2013) ideas, the results showed that communicating a unique attribute like sponsorship exclusivity increased perceptions of sponsor distinctiveness, and reduced perceptions of ambusher distinctiveness. The pretest results therefore support the use of the exclusivity manip- ulation within Experiment 1 as a distinctiveness instantiation.

Brand prominence and similarity pretest Pairs of brands to be used within the news stories (as sponsor and ambusher) were dominant competing brands within specific product categories, as supported by listings in the Global Market Information Database. As a check on market prominence and brand similarity, 120 pretest participants were recruited to offer ratings for a pool of selected brand pairs. Once again, all were undergraduate business students, different from those in the main experiment. Prominence of each brand was rated using three purpose- developed 7-point scale item statements (. . .is a prominent brand; . . .major brand; . . . well-known brand), derived from the work of Pham and Johar (2001). Similarity of brands in each pair was rated using a 7-point scale (anchored: ‘not at all similar’ to ‘very similar’) based on Grewal, Cline and Davis (2003). Brand pairs selected for use were those where each rated above 5.00 on prominence (MProminence = 5.98), and where their similarity rating was above 5.50 (MSimilarity = 6.38).

Brand-event congruence pretest The news story stimuli were developed so that half described high congruence sponsor- ships, and half described low congruence sponsorships. To check this was perceived as intended, the same 120 participants from the previous pretest rated the congruence of brand–event relationships using two 7-point scale items (anchored: ‘poorly matched’ to ‘well matched’ and ‘not logical’ to ‘very logical’) based on Roy and Cornwell (2003). Results supported the news stories as adequately instantiating the congruence manip- ulation, with high congruence pairings rated significantly higher than low congruence pairings, t(119) = 32.34, p < .001(MHiCong = 6.76, MLowCong = 2.53). All high congruence pairings rated above 6.20, and all low congruence pairings rated below 3.65.

1266 C. S. WEEKS ET AL.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

E P-

I PS

W IC

H ]

at 0

2: 11

1 4

N ov

em be

r 20

17

Procedure

Participants were assigned randomly to one of the conditions when they arrived at the testing room. They were informed they would be reading news stories about upcoming events and answering questions to gauge their perceptions. News stories were pre- sented on a computer screen and participants read each one at their own pace in individual testing cubicles. After each story, participants were asked to indicate their likelihood of attending that type of event on a four-point scale. This was done to ensure they attended to the information, and to make the task meaningful without creating the expectation of a memory test. Following the news stories, participants completed a short on-screen visuospatial puzzle distractor task to create a delay between exposure and testing. Memory for the sponsorship information was then assessed in the form of brand-cued event recall. The 24 sponsor and ambusher names from the news stories were presented one at a time on-screen, and participants were asked to type the name of the event the brand was said to have been sponsoring if it was a sponsor, or to type ‘not a sponsor’ if it was not a sponsor. They were asked to provide a description of the event if they could not remember the exact name. Order of brand cues was randomised for each participant.

Results and discussion

Recall scores were calculated for each participant based on the proportion of times (out of 12) events were correctly recalled to sponsor cues, and incorrectly recalled to ambusher cues. A 2 (ambusher presence) × 2 (sponsor communication distinctiveness) × 2 (brand-event congruence) × 2 (brand recall cue) mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed, with brand-cued event recall as the dependent measure. Results revealed a significant main effect of brand recall cue, F(1, 116) = 266.75, p < .001, such that participants were more likely to recall events to sponsor cues (MSpon = .53) than to ambusher cues (MAmb = .17). There was also a main effect of ambusher presence, F(1, 116) = 16.03, p < .001, that was qualified by an interaction between recall cue and ambusher presence, F(1, 116) = 29.01, p < .001. As shown in Figure 1, recall of events to sponsor cues was very similar regardless of whether or not ambushers were present in news stories (MAmbAbsent_Spon = .53, MAmbPresent_Spon = .52), but recall of events to ambusher cues increased significantly between when ambushers were absent versus present (MAmbAbsent_Amb = .06, MAmbPresent_Amb = .28). The stability of correct recall to sponsor cues here suggests that ambusher presence in the sponsorship environment may not create an overly negative impact on sponsor awareness, but rather, simply lead consumers to also attribute the sponsorship to ambusher brands (e.g. perception of co- sponsor, as per our pretest results).

There was no main effect of sponsor communication distinctiveness, F(1, 116) = .02, p = .898, however, importantly, there was a higher level interaction between brand recall cue, ambusher presence, and sponsor communication distinctiveness, F(1, 116) = 8.59, p = .004 (see Figure 2). In support of H1, this interaction indicates that while a distinctive emphasis on exclusivity made little difference to recall when ambushers were not present in the sponsorship environment (distinctiveness cannot play a role when other brands are not available to create a shared context for juxtaposition, like an

JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1267

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

E P-

I PS

W IC

H ]

at 0

2: 11

1 4

N ov

em be

r 20

17

isolated letter B), when ambushers were present, the distinctive emphasis on exclusivity led to higher levels of event recall to sponsor cues, and lower levels of event recall to ambusher cues. This was evidenced in follow-up comparisons. When ambushers were not present, recall to sponsor cues was similar both in the absence and presence of an exclusivity declaration, F(1, 58) = .28, p = .600 (MNoExclus_Spon = .55, MExclus_Spon = .52), and correspondingly, recall to ambusher cues was also similar in both the absence and

Recall to Sponsor Cue

Recall to Ambusher Cue 0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.7

0.0 Ambusher Absent

Ev en

t R ec

al l P

ro po

rti on

Ambusher Present

Figure 1. Event recall to sponsor and ambusher brand cues in ambusher absent vs. present conditions.

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.7

0.0 Ambusher Absent Non-Distinctive (no exclusivity)

Ev en

t R ec

al l P

ro po

rti on

Ambusher Present Non-Distinctive (no exclusivity)

Ambusher Absent Distinctive

(exclusivity)

Ambusher Present Distinctive

(exclusivity)

Recall to Sponsor Cue

Recall to Ambusher Cue

Figure 2. Event recall to sponsor and ambusher brand cues in ambusher absent vs. present conditions, crossed with sponsorship distinctiveness (exclusivity declaration).

1268 C. S. WEEKS ET AL.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

E P-

I PS

W IC

H ]

at 0

2: 11

1 4

N ov

em be

r 20

17

presence of an exclusivity declaration, F(1, 58) = .30, p = .588 (MNoExclus_Amb = .05, MExclus_Amb = .06). When ambushers were present to support a shared context for juxtaposition, however, correct recall to sponsor cues was significantly higher when an exclusivity statement was provided to create distinctiveness for the sponsor, F(1, 58) = 5.09, p = .028 (MNoExclus_Spon = .47, MExclus_Spon = .58), and incorrect recall to ambusher cues was marginally lower when an exclusivity statement was provided for the sponsor, F(1, 58) = 3.02, p = .088 (MNoExclus_Amb = .33, MExclus_Amb = .23). This aligns very directly with our sponsor communication distinctiveness prediction, and with the idea that communicating a unique attribute like sponsorship exclusivity facilitates dis- tinctiveness in the presence of an ambusher where the two can be contrasted via juxtaposition.

We additionally found support for H2 which predicted that the effect described above would be strongest for high congruence sponsorships (see Figure 3). That is, there was a significant interaction between congruence, recall cue, ambusher pre- sence, and sponsor communication distinctiveness, F(1, 116) = 4.78, p = .031. Follow- up analyses revealed the effect of sponsor communication distinctiveness became stronger for high congruence relationships, and fell away for low congruence relation- ships. For high congruence relationships, when ambushers were present, provision of an exclusivity statement significantly increased correct recall to sponsor cues F(1, 58) = 8.02, p = .006 (MNoExclus_Spon = .54, MExclus_Spon = .70), and significantly reduced incorrect recall to ambusher cues F(1, 58) = 5.61, p = .021 (MNoExclus_Amb = .44, MExclus_Amb = .26). For low congruence relationships, however, when ambushers were present, provision of an exclusivity statement did not significantly increase recall to sponsor cues F(1, 58) = 1.01, p = .321 (MNoExclus_Spon = .39, MExclus_Spon = .45), nor significantly decrease recall to ambusher cues F(1, 58) = .31, p = .583 (MNoExclus_Amb = .22, MExclus_Amb = .19), although trends were apparent. Thus, in line with the ideas of Wolfsteiner et al. (2015a), efforts to combat ambushing through marketing communications may be particularly important for high congru- ence relationships. If consumers are more likely to assume related brands within the event context are sponsors, or co-sponsors (Johar & Pham, 1999), it is with these relationships that the value of communicating sponsor distinctiveness is most useful in limiting misattribution. In Experiment 2, we restrict our examination to high congruence sponsorships in order to further investigate issues around creating dis- tinctiveness through brand juxtaposition.

Experiment 2

Experiment 2 was designed to build on the findings of Experiment 1. It examines the impact of ambusher brands communicating an event themed linkage as opposed to simply being present at the time event information is encountered (which corresponds to a comparison of intentional versus incidental ambushing), and the way sponsor distinctiveness can be created by facilitating sponsor-ambusher juxtaposition. The examination is restricted to high congruence sponsorships. In Experiment 2, exposure to sponsor and ambusher information is via branded social media posts (similar to Twitter posts), as a way of demonstrating generality of effects beyond the news story paradigm.

JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1269

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

E P-

I PS

W IC

H ]

at 0

2: 11

1 4

N ov

em be

r 20

17

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.7

0

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.7

0

Ambusher Absent Non-Distinctive (no exclusivity)

Ev en

t R ec

al l P

ro po

rti on

Ev en

t R ec

al l P

ro po

rti on

Ambusher Present Non-Distinctive (no exclusivity)

Ambusher Absent Distinctive

(exclusivity)

Ambusher Present Distinctive

(exclusivity)

Ambusher Absent Non-Distinctive (no exclusivity)

Ambusher Present Non-Distinctive (no exclusivity)

Ambusher Absent Distinctive

(exclusivity)

Ambusher Present Distinctive

(exclusivity)

Recall to Sponsor Cue

Recall to Ambusher Cue

Recall to Sponsor Cue

Recall to Ambusher Cue

High Congruence Relationship

Low Congruence Relationship

Figure 3. Event recall to sponsor and ambusher brand cues in ambusher absent vs. present conditions, crossed with sponsorship distinctiveness (exclusivity declaration), for high and low congruence relationships.

1270 C. S. WEEKS ET AL.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

E P-

I PS

W IC

H ]

at 0

2: 11

1 4

N ov

em be

r 20

17

Design and participants

Experiment 2 employed a 2 (ambusher message type: event themed, non-event themed) × 2 (sponsor communication distinctiveness: juxtaposed, non-juxtaposed) × 2 (brand recall cue: sponsor, ambusher) mixed design. Ambusher message type and sponsor communication distinctiveness were between-subject variables, and brand recall cue was a within-subjects independent variable. Like the previous experiment, brand-cued event recall was the dependent variable. The participants were 120 native English- speaking undergraduate business students (MAge = 21 years, age range 18–33), different from those in Experiment 1.

Materials

The materials for Experiment 2 were 32 social media posts (similar to Twitter posts with an image and text, modelled on real posts from brands’ Twitter pages). Eight posts were from sponsor brands conveying a message about an upcoming sponsored event. An additional eight posts were from ambusher brands, and the remaining 16 posts were filler posts from other well-known brands. In the ambusher event themed message condition, ambusher posts contained an event themed image and text implying an event association (in the style of deliberate ambush marketing). In the ambusher non- themed message condition, ambusher posts contained a non-event related image and information (e.g. information about a new product release). The remaining 16 posts were from other brands and were non-event themed. Having ambusher event themed and non-event themed messages allows for a comparison of the effects of ambushers communicating a link to the event versus just being present (comparable to intentional versus incidental ambushing).

Materials were designed to test how ambushing effects might be mitigated by creating sponsor distinctiveness through directly juxtaposing sponsor and ambusher messages, compared to when messages are present from both brands but not directly juxtaposed. Half the participants were presented with messages in a way that supported juxtaposition (sponsor and ambusher messages encountered in close proximity among other similar brands) and half the participants were presented with messages in a way that was less conducive to juxtaposition (sponsor and ambusher messages encountered distant from each other mixed among other unrelated brands). Specifically, participants saw the social media posts in groups of four; each post was displayed individually on- screen one at a time, and then the group of four was displayed horizontally across the screen, with participants asked to make a judgement about which post they found most informative. For the non-juxtaposition condition, each group of four contained the post from one sponsor brand, mixed with three brand posts from different product categories (e.g. MasterCard, Adidas, Shell, Ikea). The corresponding ambusher post was always presented in a different block to the sponsor. This was designed to be analogous to when ambusher restrictions prevent advertising in close proximity to the true sponsor. For the juxtaposition condition, each block contained four posts from a single brand category (e.g. sport-shoes), where the sponsor and ambusher were both included, along with two other same-category brands (e.g. Asics, Adidas, Nike, Puma). This was designed as analogous to a situation where the ambusher brand might advertise within close

JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1271

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

E P-

I PS

W IC

H ]

at 0

2: 11

1 4

N ov

em be

r 20

17

proximity to the sponsored event and sponsor brand, in the absence of ambusher restrictions, thus supporting juxtaposition. The theme and juxtaposition manipulations were fully crossed. Like Experiment 1, the brand roles were counterbalanced across participants for each sponsor-ambusher pair.

Stimulus pretesting

Experiment 2 required the inclusion of additional brands since it involved eight high congruence events (rather than six as per Experiment 1) with four-brand displays. Additional brands were selected following further pretesting with 120 undergraduate business students. As with Experiment 1, all prominence ratings were above 5.00 on a 7- point scale (MProminence = 5.92), and similarity for each sponsor-ambusher pair was above 5.50 (MSimilarity = 6.37). Perceived congruence for the additional events was high (MCong = 6.68).

Procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to conditions when they arrived at the testing room. They were seated at computers in individually partitioned cubicles and informed their task involved viewing branded social media posts and gauging their perceptions. Social media posts were displayed on-screen one at a time, allowing participants to view the full message. As noted above, after each four posts, the four were displayed horizontally on the screen and participants were asked to select which post was ‘most informative’. This task served to reinforce the juxtaposition manipulation by displaying the brands together, but also worked to limit expectation of a memory test. After the eight groups of four posts had been presented, participants completed a short on- screen visuospatial puzzle distractor task, before being tested using the same brand- cued event recall procedure as Experiment 1. Following the memory test, participants performed a rating task designed as a manipulation check of the ‘themedness’ of the social media posts. They were presented with posts for each brand and asked to indicate on a 5-point scale (anchored: ‘Strongly Disagree’ to ‘Strongly Agree’) whether they agreed the post created a thematic linkage between the brand and event. All partici- pants gave ratings for each themed and non-themed post when brands were displayed as ambushers. The sequence was randomised for each participant.

Results and discussion

Prior to analysing the experimental results, the manipulation check ratings were exam- ined. As anticipated, participants rated the themed posts as significantly more event- themed than the non-themed posts, t(119) = 30.84, p < .001 (MNonTheme = 1.84, MTheme = 3.93). This supports our manipulation, and justifies the proposed comparison between event themed versus non-event themed ambusher messages.

To analyse results from the experiment, recall scores were again calculated as proportions (out of 8), based on events being recalled to sponsor cues and ambusher cues. A 2 (ambusher message type) × 2 (sponsor communication distinctiveness) × 2 (brand recall cue) mixed ANOVA was performed, with event recall as the dependent

1272 C. S. WEEKS ET AL.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

E P-

I PS

W IC

H ]

at 0

2: 11

1 4

N ov

em be

r 20

17

measure. Once again, results revealed a main effect of brand recall cue, F(1, 116) = 87.15, p < .001, with participants more likely to recall events to sponsor cues (MSpon = .39) than to ambusher cues (MAmb = .19). There was also a main effect of ambusher message type, F(1, 116) = 35.82, p < .001, which was qualified by a significant interaction between recall cue and ambusher message type, F(1, 116) = 19.04, p < .001. As illustrated in Figure 4, correct recall to sponsor cues was relatively unaffected by whether ambushers commu- nicated an event theme or not, F(1, 116) = 1.74, p = .189 (MNonTheme_Spon = 36, MTheme_Spon = .41), but event recall to ambusher cues increased significantly when ambushers communicated an event theme, F(1, 116) = 76.43, p < .001 (MNonTheme_Amb = .08, MTheme_Amb = .31). This is notable, and is essentially the basis of concern for many sponsors. It suggests that allowing ambushers to communicate thematically will result in them being misattributed with the sponsorship (and more so than simply from incidental encounters). Importantly however, this two-way interac- tion was qualified by a significant three-way interaction between brand recall cue, ambusher message type, and sponsor communication distinctiveness, F(1, 116) = 13.34, p < .001, suggesting a critical role for juxtaposition.

As shown in Figure 5, this three-way interaction suggests that when ambushers do not communicate a themed message, recall to sponsor cues is unaffected by whether sponsor and ambusher messages are juxtaposed, F(1, 58) = 1.25, p = .269 (MNonTheme_NonJuxt_Spon = .39, MNonTheme_Juxt_Spon = .33), and correspondingly, recall to ambusher cues is unaffected by whether sponsor and ambusher messages are juxta- posed F(1, 58) = 1.36, p = .248 (MNonTheme_NonJuxt_Amb = .07, MNonTheme_Juxt_Amb = .10). This makes intuitive sense because a sponsor in this situation is communicating a linkage to the event, and the ambusher is not, so distinctiveness via juxtaposition matters less. Some minor evidence of incidental ambushing is nonetheless apparent. When ambushers do intentionally communicate an event themed linkage however,

0.5

0.45

0.5

0.35

0.3

0.25

Ev en

t R ec

al l P

ro po

rti on

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0

Non-Event Theme Event Theme

Recall to Sponsor Cue

Recall to Ambusher Cue

Figure 4. Event recall to sponsor and ambusher brand cues in non-event themed and event themed ambusher conditions.

JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1273

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

E P-

I PS

W IC

H ]

at 0

2: 11

1 4

N ov

em be

r 20

17

correct recall to sponsor cues is significantly higher when messages can be juxtaposed, F (1, 58) = 4.79, p = .033 (MTheme_NonJuxt_Spon = .36, MTheme_Juxt_Spon = .46), and conversely, incorrect recall to ambusher cues is significantly lower when sponsor and ambusher messages can be juxtaposed, F(1, 58) = 6.25, p = .015 (MTheme_NonJuxt_Amb = .36, MTheme_Juxt_Amb = .25). Distinctiveness facilitated through sponsor-ambusher juxtaposi- tion supports recall to sponsor cues, and reduces recall to ambusher cues. Notably, as evident in the means above, there is no statistical difference between recall levels to sponsor and ambusher cues in the event themed non-juxtaposition condition, F(1, 29) = .01, p = .914. This is a striking finding, because it suggests that if ambushers communicate event themed messages (which are often the basis of ambushing cam- paigns) and those messages are not juxtaposed with a true sponsor message, then consumers may be just as likely to assume the ambusher is a sponsor, as they are to assume the true sponsor is a sponsor. It highlights the importance of juxtaposition, and the potentially counter-productive effects of ambusher restrictions if these prevent the likelihood of sponsor-ambusher juxtaposition.

General discussion

Our research was designed to investigate how sponsor distinctiveness might be created in the presence of ambusher communications as a way of improving sponsor awareness outcomes, and consequently, how the common practice of restricting ambusher activity in the context of an event might not always be optimal. We introduced theoretical ideas around distinctiveness from the memory literature (Hunt, 2003, 2013) to show that communicating a distinctively unique attribute like sponsor exclusivity can help to improve recall for sponsor–event relationships and reduce recall for ambusher–event relationships. We demonstrated this was

0.5

Recall to Sponsor Cue

Recall to Ambusher Cue

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

Ev en

t R ec

al l P

ro po

rti on

0.05

0 Non-Event Theme Non-Distinctive

(non-juxtaposition)

Event Theme Non-Distinctive

(non-juxtaposition)

Non-Event Theme Distinctive

(juxtaposition)

Event Theme Distinctive

(juxtaposition)

Figure 5. Event recall to sponsor and ambusher brand cues in non-event themed and event themed ambusher conditions, crossed with sponsorship distinctiveness (juxtaposition).

1274 C. S. WEEKS ET AL.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

E P-

I PS

W IC

H ]

at 0

2: 11

1 4

N ov

em be

r 20

17

particularly useful for high congruence relationships, presumably because consumers are more likely to assume a high congruence ambusher is a sponsor (Johar & Pham, 1999). Thus, high congruence relationships are where tactics like communicating distinctiveness may be of most impact.

We additionally evidenced that if ambushers communicate event themed linkages, sponsor distinctiveness will be best supported when ambusher and sponsor messages can be directly juxtaposed. Juxtaposing communications assists consumers in distinguish- ing between which brand is a sponsor and which is not. Notably when consumers were unable to juxtapose thematically linked ambusher communications with those of the sponsor, they were just as likely to assume both sponsor and ambusher messages came from sponsor brands – something quite concerning given that ambusher restrictions would typically limit the potential for juxtaposition and may therefore foster this type of situation. Wolfsteiner, Grohs, and Wagner (2015b) have previously reported that sponsors and ambushers may be remembered at similar levels, particularly when sponsors do not effectively leverage their investments, and here we show that this occurs when sponsor and ambusher messages cannot be juxtaposed. Our findings offer a novel perspective on combatting ambushing. Rather than trying to police the practice, our research suggests sponsors may be better placed to make strategic use of non-sponsor (and ambusher) presence in event contexts to distinctively highlight their status as sponsor.

Implications

It is not uncommon for event organisers and sponsors to go to considerable lengths to implement protective measures such as broadcast restrictions and clean zones around events, so as to limit ambusher presence within event contexts. Additional efforts are often made to restrict non-sponsor brands from using event-contextualised communica- tions (e.g. use of words like Olympic and Games are not allowed during the Olympics, but also terms like medal, victory, Summer, and performance where they might imply an association; International Olympic Committee, 2016b). Such restrictions can cover a wide range of situations, including those that might not necessarily be intentional ambushing (e.g. powerlifters at competitions under the International Powerlifting Federation can be asked to obscure any ‘non-approved logo or emblem’ on their clothing before lifting; International Powerlifting Federation, 2016). Often these restrictions can be the subject of significant controversy. Consider negative public reaction to the heavy-handed approach by organisers of FIFA 2010 in requesting police detain 36 female spectators dressed in orange mini-skirts supplied by Bavaria beer as part of a publicity stunt at a World Cup soccer match in 2010 (sponsored by market rival Budweiser; Nufer, 2013). What our work suggests is that much of these restriction efforts (and associated controversy) may actually be unnecessary and even counter-productive. Given that many ambushers will inevitably create linkages, it would seem sponsors might instead fare better by strategically using a backdrop of ambusher communications to distinctively highlight their own unique status as sponsor.

Limitations and future directions

In the current research, we showed that consumers were less likely to incorrectly misattribute sponsorships to ambusher brands following communications that

JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1275

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

E P-

I PS

W IC

H ]

at 0

2: 11

1 4

N ov

em be

r 20

17

supported sponsor distinctiveness. However, this does not necessarily indicate that no ambusher–event relationship was learned. That is, our findings did not reveal whether sponsor distinctiveness helped consumers to learn the ambusher–event relationship but view ambushers as ambushers (i.e. not sponsors), or whether sponsor distinctiveness inhibited learning of the ambusher–event relationship more generally. Determining which is occurring is an important avenue for future research since it may ultimately have implications for ambushers beyond just memory. For example, if communicating distinctiveness draws attention to the true nature of the ambusher relationship (i.e. participants are aware the brand is trying to mislead), it may result in negative attitudes if people do truly feel negatively about ambushing (Séguin et al., 2005). If however sponsor distinctiveness is inhibiting learning of the ambusher–event relationship, then our distinctiveness ideas offer a useful alternative to ‘name and shame’ disclosure statements, which are aimed at having consumers discount ambusher activities. Research by Humphreys et al. (2010) has reported that name and shame approaches can inadvertently reinforce learning of the ambusher–event relationship and increase the likelihood ambushers will be misattributed with sponsorship. If communicating sponsor distinctiveness inhibits learning of the ambusher–event relationship, then it may be a more useful alternative to explicit disclosure.

Research by Herrmann, Walliser, and Kacha (2011) has found that people may often be influenced by exposure to sponsorship at an implicit level (e.g. subsequent inclusion of sponsors in consideration set), even if they cannot explicitly remember seeing the sponsor. Thus, while we have shown that sponsor distinctiveness might enhance correct recall of sponsor–event relationships and reduce incorrect recall of ambusher–event relationships, we have not examined possible effects at the implicit level. This may be particularly important to consider in future research, since it is not currently clear how well these implicit effects apply to ambushers, and whether communicating distinctive- ness might be a useful way to limit such effects (it may well be one mechanism for this if it does inhibit learning of ambusher–event relationships as noted above). It would also be helpful to explore our distinctiveness ideas with varying types of sponsor-ambusher pairs, for example when ambushers are from outside the brand category of the sponsor. It is possible that different-category ambushers may be even more prone to being assumed ‘co-sponsors’ given the growth in events that have multiple sponsors from diverse brand categories (Carrillat et al., 2015). These types of situations may require a greater emphasis on creating a shared context of similarity in order to highlight distinctiveness.

In our work, we considered distinctiveness as created through communicating spon- sor exclusivity and facilitating sponsor-ambusher juxtaposition. Future research that investigates alternative ways in which distinctiveness can be created, and that varies the strength of distinctiveness manipulations (e.g. by placing greater emphasis on unique attributes, making juxtaposition more conspicuous, or examining joint exclusivity and juxtaposition effects) will be useful next steps. In addition, we presented our sponsor and ambusher messages as part of news stories and social media posts since sponsorship information is frequently encountered in these formats, and because of their flexibility in allowing for our manipulations. Sponsor and ambusher communica- tions however, are also often encountered in a variety of other ways, including inciden- tally during events, and so research that examines alternative instantiations will help to

1276 C. S. WEEKS ET AL.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

E P-

I PS

W IC

H ]

at 0

2: 11

1 4

N ov

em be

r 20

17

show generality of distinctiveness effects to those settings. Our work represents an initial investigation into communicating sponsor distinctiveness in the presence of ambushers, but more research is clearly warranted.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Clinton S. Weeks is a Senior Lecturer in the QUT Business School at the Queensland University of Technology in Australia. He has a Ph.D. in cognitive psychology and marketing from the University of Queensland in Australia. His work has appeared in journals such as Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Advertising, Psychology & Marketing, and Memory & Cognition.

Peter J. O’Connor is an Associate Professor at the QUT Business School at the Queensland University of Technology in Australia. He has a Ph.D. in organisational psychology from the University of Queensland in Australia. His work has appeared in journals such as Psychological Bulletin, Journal of Personality, European Journal of Psychological Assessment, and Journal of Individual Differences.

Brett A. S. Martin is a Professor in Marketing at the QUT Business School at the Queensland University of Technology in Australia. He has a Ph.D. in marketing from the University of Otago in New Zealand. His work has appeared in journals such as Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Advertising, Journal of Business Research, Marketing Letters, and Psychology & Marketing.

References

Andrews, J. (2012, August 3). Time to end ambush marketing. International Events Group, Retrieved from http://www.sponsorship.com/About-IEG/Sponsorship-Blog/Jim-Andrews/August-2012/ Time-to-End-Ambush-Marketing.aspx

Carrillat, F. A., Colbert, F., & Feigné, M. (2014). Weapons of mass intrusion: The leveraging of ambush marketing strategies. European Journal of Marketing, 48(1/2), 314–335. doi:10.1108/EJM- 11-2011-0641

Carrillat, F. A., Solomon, P. J., & d’Astous, A. (2015). Brand stereotyping and image transfer in concurrent sponsorships. Journal of Advertising, 44(4), 300–314. doi:10.1080/ 00913367.2015.1083916

Caulfield, P. (2012, July 12). Non-McDonald’s fries banned from Olympic Park. NY Daily News. Retrieved from http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/non-mcdonald-fries-banned-olympic- park-article-1.1113085

Chadwick, S., & Burton, N. (2011). The evolving sophistication of ambush marketing: A typology of strategies. Thunderbird International Business Review, 53(6), 709–719. doi:10.1002/tie.20447

Chase, C. R., & Kurnit, R. (2010). Fighting for what is left of exclusivity: Strategies to protect the exclusivity of sponsors in the sports industry. Journal of Sponsorship, 3(4), 379–393.

Cornwell, T. B., Humphreys, M. S., Maguire, A. M., Weeks, C. S., & Tellegen, C. L. (2006). Sponsorship- linked marketing: The role of articulation in memory. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(3), 312– 321. doi:10.1086/508436

Cornwell, T. B., Humphreys, M. S., Quinn, E. A., & McAlister, A. R. (2012). Memory of sponsorship- linked marketing communications. Sage Open, 2(4), 1–14. doi:10.1177/2158244012468139

Cornwell, T. B., Weeks, C. S., & Roy, D. P. (2005). Sponsorship-linked marketing: Opening the black box. Journal of Advertising, 34(2), 21–42. doi:10.1080/00913367.2005.10639194

JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1277

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

E P-

I PS

W IC

H ]

at 0

2: 11

1 4

N ov

em be

r 20

17

Delia, E. B., & Armstrong, C. G. (2015). #Sponsoring the #FrenchOpen: An examination of social media buzz and sentiment. Journal of Sport Management, 29, 184–199. doi:10.1123/JSM.2013-0257

Gardner, M. P., & Shuman, P. J. (1987). Sponsorship: An important component of the promotions mix. Journal of Advertising, 16(1), 11–17. doi:10.1080/00913367.1987.10673055

Grewal, R., Cline, T. W., & Davies, A. (2003). Early-entrant advantage, word-of-mouth communica- tion, brand similarity, and the consumer decision-making process. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 187–197. doi:10.1207/S15327663JCP1303_01

Hartland, T., & Skinner, H. (2005). What is being done to deter ambush marketing? Are these attempts working? International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 6(4), 26–36. doi:10.1108/IJSMS-06-04-2005-B005

Herrmann, J. L., Kacha, M., & Derbaix, C. (2016). I support your team, support me in turn: The driving role of consumers’ affiliation with the sponsored entity in explaining behavioral effects of sport sponsorship leveraging activities. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 604–612. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.05.016

Herrmann, J. L., Walliser, B., & Kacha, M. (2011). Consumer consideration of sponsor brands they do not remember: Taking a wider look at the memorisation effects of sponsorship. International Journal of Advertising, 30(2), 259–281. doi:10.2501/IJA-30-2-259-281

Humphreys, M. S., Cornwell, T. B., McAlister, A. R., Kelly, S. J., Quinn, E. A., & Murray, K. L. (2010). Sponsorship, ambushing, and counter-strategy: Effects upon memory for sponsor and event. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16(1), 96–108. doi:10.1037/a0018031

Hunt, R. R. (2003). Two contributions of distinctive processing to accurate memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(4), 811–825. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00018-4

Hunt, R. R. (2006). The concept of distinctiveness in memory research. In R. R. Hunt & J. B. Worthen (Eds.), Distinctiveness and memory (pp. 3–25). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195169669.003.0001

Hunt, R. R. (2013). Precision in memory through distinctive processing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(1), 10–15. doi:10.1177/0963721412463228

Hunt, R. R., & Worthen, J. B. (Eds.), (2006). Distinctiveness and memory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195169669.001.0001

International Events Group. (2017). Sponsorship spending forecast: Continued growth around the world. International Events Group. Retrieved from http://www.sponsorship.com/iegsr/2017/01/ 04/Sponsorship-Spending-Forecast–Continued-Growth-Ar.aspx

International Olympic Committee. (2016a). Olympic marketing fact file: 2016 edition. International Olympic Committee. Retrieved from doc.rero.ch/record/32376/files/?ln=en

International Olympic Committee. (2016b). Rule 40 of the olympic charter: What you need to know as a participant. International Olympic Committee. Retrieved from https://inside.fei.org/system/ files/Rule_40-Rio_2016-QA_for_Athletes_0.pdf

International Powerlifting Federation. (2016). International powerlifting federation technical rules book 2016. International Powerlifting Federation. Retrieved from http://www.powerlifting-ipf. com/rulescodesinfo/technical-rules.html

Johar, G. V., & Pham, M. T. (1999). Relatedness, prominence, and constructive sponsor identifica- tion. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(3), 299–312. doi:10.2307/3152078

Kelk, T. (2014, June 30). Is sponsorship being devalued by social media? Digital Sport. Retrieved from http://digitalsport.co/is-sponsorship-being-devalued-by-social-media#

Kelly, S. J., Cornwell, T. B., Coote, L. V., & McAlister, A. R. (2012). Event-related advertising and the special case of sponsorship-linked advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 31(1), 15–37. doi:10.2501/IJA-31-1-15-37

Mazodier, M., Quester, P., & Chandon, J. L. (2012). Unmasking the ambushers: Conceptual frame- work and empirical evidence. European Journal of Marketing, 46(1/2), 192–214. doi:10.1108/ 03090561211189284

McDaniel, M. A., & Geraci, L. (2006). Encoding and recall processes in distinctiveness effects: Toward an integrative framework. In R. R. Hunt & J. B. Worthen (Eds.), Distinctiveness and memory (pp. 65–88). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/ 9780195169669.001.0001

1278 C. S. WEEKS ET AL.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

E P-

I PS

W IC

H ]

at 0

2: 11

1 4

N ov

em be

r 20

17

McKelvey, S., & Longley, N. (2015). Event-specific ambush marketing legislation for mega-sporting events: An economics perspective. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 16 (5), 20–35. doi:10.1108/IJSMS-16-05-2015-B003

Meenaghan, T. (1996). Ambush marketing: A threat to corporate sponsorship. Sloan Management Review, 38(1), 103–113.

Nufer, G. (2013). Ambush marketing in sports. London: Routledge. Nufer, G. (2016). Ambush marketing in sports: An attack on sponsorship or innovative marketing?

Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, 6(4), 476–495. doi:10.1108/SBM-05- 2013-0008

Payne, M. (1998). Ambush marketing: The undeserved advantage. Psychology & Marketing, 15(4), 323–331. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199807)15:4<323::aid-mar3>3.0.CO;2-A

Pham, M. T., & Johar, G. V. (2001). Market prominence biases in sponsor identification: Processes and consequentiality. Psychology & Marketing, 18(2), 123–143. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6793

Reuters. (2015, April 13). Pepsi takes over NBA sponsorship rights from Coke. Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pepsico-nba-idUSKBN0N41HI20150413

Roy, D. P., & Cornwell, T. B. (2003). Brand equity’s influence on responses to event sponsorships. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 12(6), 377–393. doi:10.1108/10610420310498803

Scassa, T. (2011). Ambush marketing and the right of association: Clamping down on references to that big event with all the athletes in a couple of years. Journal of Sport Management, 25, 354– 370. doi:10.1123/jsm.25.4.354

Séguin, B., Lyberger, M., O’Reilly, N., & McCarthy, L. (2005). Internationalising ambush marketing: A comparative study. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 6(4), 11–25. doi:10.1108/IJSMS-06-04-2005-B004

Shani, D., & Sandler, D. M. (1998). Ambush marketing: Is confusion to blame for the flickering of the flame? Psychology and Marketing, 15(4), 367–383. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199807) 15:4<367::aid-mar6>3.0.CO;2-6

Tripp, M. (2011, June 6). Shick turns to NASCAR as it aims for a bigger cut of the razor market. Sports Business Daily. Retrieved from http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2011/ 06/06/Marketing-and-Sponsorship/Shick.aspx

Tripp, M. (2014, January 17). IOC reprices TOP deals at $200M. Sports Business Daily. Retrieved from http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/SB-Blogs/On-The-Ground/2014/02/SochiSiteTOPprice.aspx

Weeks, C. S., Cornwell, T. B., & Drennan, J. C. (2008). Leveraging sponsorships on the internet: Activation, congruence, and articulation. Psychology & Marketing, 25(7), 637–654. doi:10.1002/ mar.20229

Wolfsteiner, E., Grohs, R., & Wagner, U. (2015a). What drives ambush marketer misidentification? Journal of Sport Management, 29(2), 137–154. doi:10.1123/JSM.2014-0122

Wolfsteiner, E., Grohs, R., & Wagner, U. (2015b). Memory effects of different relational links between brands and sponsored events. Psychology & Marketing, 32(10), 1031–1048. doi:10.1002/mar.20841

JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1279

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

E P-

I PS

W IC

H ]

at 0

2: 11

1 4

N ov

em be

r 20

17

Appendix

Appendix shows examples of news story stimuli. Left vs. right panels show ambusher absent vs. present news stories. Top vs. bottom portions show exclusivity absent vs. present news stories.

Ambusher absent, no exclusivity declaration Ambusher present, no exclusivity declaration Sponsorship: Fresh-Track Offroad Rally Sponsorship: Fresh-Track Offroad Rally It was today announced that Bridgestone, one of the world’s largest producers of tyres, has been successful in its bid for sponsorship of the renowned Fresh-Track Offroad Rally. Bridgestone is expected to officially launch its sponsorship activities for the widely acclaimed event in the coming days. Traditionally taking place over two days, organisers of this season’s Rally plan to have cars compete over a three day period, in some best terrain on offer. The highly trusted tyre producer, Bridgestone said that its sponsorship of the Rally is a good fit with its existing marketing efforts, since the event will demonstrate the quality, reliability, and durability of its tyres.

It was today announced that Bridgestone, one of the world’s largest producers of tyres, has been successful in its bid for sponsorship of the renowned Fresh-Track Offroad Rally. Bridgestone is expected to officially launch its sponsorship activities for the widely acclaimed event in the coming days. Traditionally taking place over two days, organisers of this season’s Rally plan to have cars compete over a three day period, in some best terrain on offer. The highly trusted tyre producer, Bridgestone said that its sponsorship of the Rally is a good fit with its existing marketing efforts, since the event will demonstrate the quality, reliability, and durability of its tyres.

An official said that the Fresh-Track Offroad Rally is an event that always generates a lot of interest and excitement in the community. He said that everyone is keenly looking forward to the upcoming event and that the willingness to get involved shown by so many within the community, really demonstrates just how popular the event has become over the past few seasons.

Tyre brand Goodyear said that the Fresh-Track Offroad Rally is an event that always seems to generate a lot of interest and excitement in the community. Famous for its rubber tyres and other innovative rubber products, Goodyear is planning to gain exposure from the event by having sky-writers write the brand’s name prominently in the sky above the cars, on each day that they drive.

Ambusher absent, exclusivity declared Ambusher present, exclusivity declared Exclusive Sponsorship: Fresh-Track Offroad Rally Exclusive Sponsorship: Fresh-Track Offroad Rally It was today announced that Bridgestone, one of the world’s largest producers of tyres, has been successful in its bid for exclusive sponsorship rights to the renowned Fresh-Track Offroad Rally. Bridgestone is expected to officially launch its sponsorship activities for the widely acclaimed event in the coming days, but said it is looking forward to being the official sponsor. Traditionally taking place over two days, organisers of this season’s Rally plan to have cars compete over a three day period, in some best terrain on offer. The highly trusted tyre producer, Bridgestone said that its exclusive sponsorship of the Rally is a good fit with its existing marketing efforts, since the event will demonstrate the quality, reliability, and durability of its tyres.

It was today announced that Bridgestone, one of the world’s largest producers of tyres, has been successful in its bid for exclusive sponsorship rights to the renowned Fresh-Track Offroad Rally. Bridgestone is expected to officially launch its sponsorship activities for the widely acclaimed event in the coming days, but said it is looking forward to being the official sponsor. Traditionally taking place over two days, organisers of this season’s Rally plan to have cars compete over a three day period, in some best terrain on offer. The highly trusted tyre producer, Bridgestone said that its exclusive sponsorship of the Rally is a good fit with its existing marketing efforts, since the event will demonstrate the quality, reliability, and durability of its tyres.

An official said that the Fresh-Track Offroad Rally is an event that always generates a lot of interest and excitement in the community. He said that everyone is keenly looking forward to the upcoming event and that the willingness to get involved shown by so many within the community, really demonstrates just how popular the event has become over the past few seasons.

Tyre brand Goodyear said that the Fresh-Track Offroad Rally is an event that always seems to generate a lot of interest and excitement in the community. Famous for its rubber tyres and other innovative rubber products, Goodyear is planning to gain exposure from the event by having sky-writers write the brand’s name prominently in the sky above the cars, on each day that they drive.

1280 C. S. WEEKS ET AL.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

E P-

I PS

W IC

H ]

at 0

2: 11

1 4

N ov

em be

r 20

17

Copyright of Journal of Marketing Management is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.