Scholarly Activity

18 Volume 27 • Number 1 • 2018 • Sport Marketing Quarterly

Sport Marketing Quarterly, 2018, 27, 18-30, © 2018 West Virginia University

Introduction Th e term ambush marketing fi rst emerged during the 1984 Los Angeles Summer Olympic Games. Whether the term was fi rst coined by a journalist or by an industry executive remains unclear. However, what is not in question is that the term gained immediate traction and has become engrained as such in sport marketing and sponsorship lexicon. Th e continued reliance on this term, however, begs the question: what might have transpired in the reportage of competition between companies engaged in sport sponsorship had the media initially adopted a less pejorative term, such as IMG’s blunt marketing (McKelvey, 2014), or an even more neutral term, such as parallel marketing?

Th e use of the term ambush marketing is, in and of itself, laden with a pejorative slant. Likewise, the man- ner in which individual writers choose to report on this particular form of marketing activity, and whose side or perspective they adopt, represents an additional

level of bias. Th e tone and perspective conveyed to the public in employing the term, and in the perspectives adopted and espoused by journalists, informs a view of the practice shrouded in terms of fairness and ethics that refl ect upon the sport property, offi cial sponsors, and those companies that choose to forego offi cial associations.

In this study, we examine the evolution of print media coverage of the practice of ambush marketing. Specifi cally, we seek to ascertain how a segment of the print media has, through written reporting, dis- cussed and framed the practice of ambush market- ing to its readers. In examining how media reports have framed the marketing issues of non-sponsors, we contribute to the academic literature by demon- strating an evolution in the way the term ambush marketing is understood, and how the practice has become more accepted. We begin with a review of how ambush marketing has been described in the academic literature, followed by a description of the

Th e Evolution of Media Reporting of Ambush Marketing Nicholas Burton, Kevin Snyder, and Steve McKelvey

Nicholas Burton, PhD, is an assistant professor of sport management at Brock University. His research is focused on the na- ture and strategy of ambush marketing in the sport industry, sponsorship management and strategy, and commercial rights management. Kevin Snyder, PhD, is an assistant professor of sport management at Southern New Hampshire University. His research interests include sport business strategy and sport management in innovation and knowledge services. Steve McKelvey, JD, is an associate professor of sport management and the associate department chair for external relations in the Isenberg School of Management at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. His research interests include ambush marketing, sport sponsorship, athlete right of publicity, sport marketing, and intellectual property law.

Abstract Th is study examines the representation of ambush marketing in news media in an eff ort to determine how ambush marketing discourse has evolved as practices have grown in sophistication, strategy, and acceptance. Historically, much of the discussion and debate surrounding ambushing has been led by com- mercial rights holders who have engendered a fundamentally parasitic, pejorative view of ambushing—a bias that has informed and infl uenced both practitioner and academic perspectives of ambush marketing. Th e fi ndings of this study shed new light on a progressive evolution in ambush marketing discourse and coverage across news and trade publications. A defi ned shift in the tone and perspective of ambush mar- keting media representation is apparent, suggesting a greater acceptance of ambushing in the popular and industry presses, and diminished infl uence on the part of commercial rights holders. Keywords: ambush marketing, ambush marketing coverage, media bias, media representation, media cov- erage, media reporting, marketing rights, commercial rights holders

Volume 27 • Number 1 • 2018 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 19

methodology employed in this study, the results, and finally, the implications of our work.

Literature Review

The Origins of Ambush Marketing Sport sponsorship as a formal marketing practice grew out of the changes in sponsorship sale and delivery implemented for the 1982 FIFA World Cup and 1984 Los Angeles Summer Olympic Games (Sandler & Shani, 1989; Crow & Hoek, 2003). Inspired by these developments in the structure of commercial rights partnerships, the philanthropy previously associated with corporate funding of sport was replaced with commercial activity that sought to increase profits and capitalize on sport’s rising marketing value (Hoek & Gendall, 2002). However, while sponsorship has grown in value and sophistication over the past three decades, so too have the efforts of non-sponsors attempting to leverage the commercial potential of sport. The term ambush marketing quickly emerged as a way to identify any advertiser surrounding a sporting event that did not pay the sport property for marketing rights (Meenaghan, 1994; Crow & Hoek, 2003). Bayless (1988) and American Express Marketing Executive Jerry Walsh (Emmett, 2010) have commonly been credited with coining the phrase ambush marketing, however, evidence suggests that the term first gained popularity following IMG Marketing Director Mark McCormack’s use of the term in describing Kodak and Fuji’s rivalry around the 1984 Los Angeles Summer Olympic Games (McKelvey, 2014).

Sandler and Shani (1989) provided the first academic look into ambush marketing, describing the practice as “a planned effort (campaign) 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” (p. 11). In differentiating ambush marketers from television advertisers, the authors argued that the objective was not brand exposure, but rather a direct association with the sporting event in the consumer’s mind (Sandler & Shani, 1989). Although the proposed definition took a largely neutral view of ambushing, the broad categorization of seeking to gain “some of the recognition and benefits associated with being an official sponsor” (p. 11) made differentiating marketing activities of non-sponsors nearly impossible. The benefits of any marketing campaign, sponsorship or otherwise, can include increased brand awareness, image transfer, and increased sales (Gwinner & Eaton, 1999; Meenaghan, 2001). Defining ambush marketing in this broad manner equally implied that any athlete endorsement or venue sponsorship may be ambushing

if the company does not also provide financial com- pensation to the corresponding sport property.

Creating a common definition of the term has thus challenged scholars to delineate what constitutes innovative marketing tactics as opposed to illegitimate association with a sport property. Shortly following the 1992 Barcelona Olympics, Meenaghan (1994) sug- gested the following definition: “the practice whereby another company, often a competitor, intrudes upon public attention surrounding the event, thereby deflecting attention toward themselves and away from the sponsor” (p. 79). Meenaghan’s (1994) definition proposed a shift away from Sandler and Shani’s (1989) understanding towards an ethical perspective laden with more of a pejorative bias that included labelling ambush marketers as “intruders” and raised ethical concerns (O’Sullivan & Murphy, 1998; Payne, 1998). However, this definition posed many of the same dif- ficulties in categorizing marketing efforts. “Intruding upon public attention” or “deflecting attention away from the sponsor” are inherent in nearly all interrup- tive marketing activities.

Holding sport property-based marketing partner- ships in higher regard has the effect of sanctifying cer- tain aspects, such as the grounds, themes, and spaces surrounding sporting events (Shilling & Mellor, 2014), while negating the legitimate marketing rights and op- portunities unofficial sponsors have to operate in that space. The labeling of ambush marketing can be seen as a battle to capture value created from the sporting event. For example, a company can pay an athlete to endorse their brand, a venue for naming rights, and a television network to run their commercials. Each of these stakeholders has a right to increase their finan- cial returns from investing in the event. Historically, sport properties have been more aggressive in setting the boundaries for this practice, resulting in many activities being termed ambush marketing (Crow & Hoek, 2003; McKelvey & Grady, 2008).

While legitimate instances of trademark and con- tractual infringement occur, sport properties have focused on these comparatively few cases to sweep- ingly tag both legitimate and illegitimate marketing activities by non-sponsors alike as somehow immoral or illicit. In doing so, the practice of ambush market- ing has often been cast as unethical or illegal, and as a result, non-sponsors have been accused by commercial rights holders and official sponsors of intentionally becoming parasites and impeding sponsor returns. Finally, the duty of labeling ambushers typically falls to sport properties due to their higher affinity (usually) amongst sport consumers and perceived authority on the matter. While the official sponsor could critique a

20 Volume 27 • Number 1 • 2018 • Sport Marketing Quarterly

competitor’s marketing program, consumers may view this as standard competition rather that diminishes the affiliation the sponsor hopes to create with the sport property.

Much of the difficulty in agreeing upon a single definition of ambush marketing lies in one’s role in executing a sponsorship. As previously stated, sport properties have a legitimate financial interest in protecting their business partners and ensuring the value of their saleable assets (McIntosh, et al., 2012; Scassa, 2011; Seguin, 2008). Marketers, simul- taneously, are eager to compete on any grounds and have incentive to find creative ways to reach potential customers. Scholars studying ambush marketing have reflected this dichotomy in framing the actions of the non-sponsor (O’Reilly, Pound, Burton, Seguin, & Brunette, 2016). When specific marketing partnerships are signed, each party (sport property, athlete, sponsor, media outlet, etc.) outlines the boundaries of what is allowed. However, marketing rights may overlap when an athlete is endorsing one brand off the field and affiliated with a team sponsored by a second brand on the field. The tone and language used to describe conflicts such as these are essential to understanding how ambush marketing has evolved.

However, while some scholars (especially those in the early evolution of the research and discourse) have maintained a pejorative view of the practice, others have adopted a much more neutral and unbiased view. Scholars have, for instance, argued that expecting non-sponsors to treat sponsorship in a manner that differs from other promotional tactics is unrealistic (Shani & Sandler, 1998; McKelvey & Grady, 2008). Executives who are on the front lines of sport sponsor- ship have also typically viewed ambush marketing as just another legal and ethical tactic in the battleground for shelf space and consumer share-of-mind. As found in a study by Seguin & Reilly (2008), this was even the case amongst executives of TOP sponsors, all of whom “referred to ambush marketing as competitive mar- keting practice” (p. 70) and reported that they were, as a group, less concerned with the impact of ambush marketing than they were the impact of sponsorship clutter. As further concluded by Seguin & Reilly (2008), “the practice of ambush marketing by certain corporations is now recognized as common practice in the sport industry as it has become an alternate strategy to purchasing rights to official sponsorship status” (p. 66).

Ambush Marketing: What’s the Harm? Such accusations, however, have been the subject of considerable research and debate within the academic community. The most common assessment of harm

from ambush marketing lies in the measurement of consumers’ ability to identify the actual official sponsors through recall and recognition surveys (Sandler & Shani, 1989; Stotlar, 1993; Pham & Johar, 2001; Séguin, Lyberger, O’Reilly, & McCarthy, 2005; Séguin & O’Reilly, 2008). While consumers have typically struggled to identify official sponsors of an event (Sandler & Shani, 1989; Seguin et al., 2005; Wolf- steiner, Grohs, & Wagner, 2015), conflicting results throughout the extant literature have undermined the allegations of rights holders regarding ambush marketing’s negative impact (Lyberger & McCarthy, 2001; McKelvey & Grady, 2008), instead identifying a number of potential causes for consumer confusion. For example, respondents have frequently identified companies related to the event or that have prom- inence within their industry (Johar & Pham, 1999; Pham & Johar, 2001). Likewise, the recency of expo- sure to a marketing message or brand has been found to impact consumer recall (McDaniel & Kinney, 1998). To the degree that companies desire awareness of sponsorship as a marketing objective, little academic evidence exists to suggest that consumers are attentive to specific sponsorships, official or otherwise.

Moreover, consumer confusion may also be the result of too many official sponsors cluttering the environ- ment around the event (Séguin, et al., 2005). While sport properties have voiced concerns about ambush marketers, they have often simultaneously increased the number of sponsored categories, thereby diluting the value of an official partnership. Properties often will narrowly carve up exclusive categories in order to increase their pool of potential sponsors and maximize revenue generation, all the while claiming that ambush marketers clutter the sponsorship landscape. As the numbers of sponsors have increased, consumers have also been found to be indifferent to ambush marketing when asked if the practice is “annoying” or “unethical” (Dickson, Naylor, & Phelps, 2015; Meenaghan, 1998; Sandler & Shani, 1998; Séguin & O’Reilly, 2008; MacIn- tosh, Nadeau, Séguin, O’Reilly, Bradish, & Legg, 2012).

Perspectives of Ambush Marketing Scholars have also examined the perceived threats posed by ambushing, directing their investigations to the cognitive processes involved in creating connec- tions between companies and consumers (Gwinner & Eaton, 1999; Cornwell, Weeks, & Roy, 2005; Wolfstein- er et al., 2015). Most recently, Dickson et al. (2015) con- cluded that locals disapproved of ambush marketing, but only a minority found the practice to be annoying. However, the authors also highlighted the variation in ambush activities, consistent with Chadwick and Burton’s (2011) typology. Similarly, outsiders, such as

Volume 27 • Number 1 • 2018 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 21

journalists, evaluating the activities may view certain ambush activities as clever, while viewing others less favorably. For example, ambush activities can be clas- sified as direct, associative, or incidental (Chadwick & Burton, 2011). The intent and potential rewards vary greatly, as do the perceptions from consumers.

Nevertheless, despite ambiguity in defining the threat posed to official sponsors, commercial rights holders and event organizers have increasingly at- tempted to gain control over their intellectual property and the physical space surrounding events in an effort to safeguard official sponsorship and restrict ambush opportunities. Sport properties have a vested interest to protect the value of their sponsorship programs; activities that undermine this value have a potential negative impact on sponsorship renewals and the ability to increase sponsorship fees. Most notably, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and other properties have legislated restrictions of all non-spon- sor advertising in areas around the event (McKelvey & Grady, 2008; Scassa, 2011). These actions have demonstrated the monopolistic power of international governing bodies of sport and their view of ambush marketing as a parasitic activity towards their events (Louw, 2012; McKelvey & Longley, 2015; Scassa, 2011).

Conversely, non-sponsors have an obligation to their shareholders to market their products and services in the most effective means possible as long as within the bounds of the law. Positioning ambush marketing as parasitic and predatory, regardless of the ambush- er’s methods or intent, fundamentally reflects the perspective and influence of major sports properties (Meenaghan, 1994; Meenaghan, 1996; Crow & Hoek, 2003). Sport properties have direct financial incentives to protect corporate partners and to label unaffiliated marketing activities as illegitimate and unethical (McIntosh et al., 2012). Amongst the most common tactics employed by rights holders in attacking ambush marketers has been the use of “name and shame” public relations initiatives, publicly condemning alleged ambushers while simultaneously promoting the sponsor’s integrity and standing (Burton & Chad- wick, 2009). In addition to sport properties, marketing agencies have also been influential in protecting event knowledge and directing discourse around ambush marketing (Ellis, Parent, & Séguin, 2016). Key to this has been the use of media in deriding ambush market- ers and championing sponsors’ efforts and contribu- tions around events.

The Potential Impact of Media Bias As stakeholders of sport properties are often key sourc- es for stories, journalists, as well as editors and media owners, may evidence a variety of biases resulting from

one side of a story receiving unwarranted attention (Baron, 2006). This can most often be evidenced in the order of quoted sources, in the specific choice of words or terminology used by the reporter, and in the overall tone of their reporting. Such media bias can be ideo- logical or partisan (Baron, 2006). There is a growing body of political science and economic literature that attempts to explain when and where media coverage may be biased (Groeling & Kernell, 1998; Groseclose & Milyo, 2005; Gentzkow & Shapiro, 2010; Birz & Lott, 2011; Chiang & Knight, 2011).

For example, bias may reflect the preferences and career concerns of journalists, editors, or owners (Djankov, McLeish, Nenova, & Schleifer, 2003; Baron, 2006). In the case of ambush marketing, journalists may possess and advocate their own personal ideology and could be predisposed, subconsciously or otherwise, to favor a sponsor or commercial rights holder, or con- versely, to favor business competition or a specific am- bush marketer. Additionally, the entity that is initiating the news story can serve as a potential source of bias. Historically, sport properties have transmitted news regarding ambush marketing, often using press an- nouncements to decry ambush marketing. Meanwhile, few if any non-sponsors have purposely and publicly sought to draw journalistic attention to their marketing campaigns. Bias in ambush marketing media coverage may thus be a product of those perspectives available to journalists being the most vocal in describing, or decrying, purported ambush activities.

Furthermore, bias may be present if journalists cater to their sources in order to retain insider access. To appease high-ranking executives of sport properties and individual sponsors, individual reporters may side with the entity that provides them the better access to future news stories. Bias may also arise from the preferences of media consumers (Leeson & Coyne, 2005; Chiang & Knight, 2011): espousing the “evils” of ambush marketing may make for a more interesting article than praising a clever marketing campaign. Finally, the level of knowledge of the journalist may influence the degree of potential bias evidenced. The ethical and legal parameters of ambush marketing in particular are highly nuanced, thus arguably increasing the likelihood of a reporter simply choosing to adopt a more simplistic official versus unofficial paradigm for their reporting.

The potential for bias in media reporting on ambush marketing represents an area yet to be explored in ac- ademic research. Regardless of what factors ultimately drive potential bias within each individual reporter, academic research has confirmed that bias matters, as “it affects many people’s perceptions about events”

22 Volume 27 • Number 1 • 2018 • Sport Marketing Quarterly

(Lott & Hassett, 2014, p. 66). Given the emphasis placed on ethical and moral perspectives of ambushing within the extant scholarly research, and the effort by rights holders to position ambushing in a moral con- text (O’Sullivan & Murphy, 1998; Meenaghan, 1998; Payne, 1998; Payne, 2005), the role media reporting has played in framing ambush marketing discourse presents potentially valuable insight. Recognizing that biases in print media have the potential to influence consumer attitudes (e.g., DellaVigna & Kaplan, 2007; Gerber, Kaplan & Bergan, 2009; Chan & Stone, 2013), we have thus endeavored to investigate how the tone, terminology, and rhetoric of ambush marketing re- portage has evolved over the past 30 years. In so doing, the following three questions guided our research:

1. Has the terminology and description of print media reporting on ambush marketing been primarily negative (pejorative), neutral (balanced) or positive (accepting) of ambush marketing?

2. To what extent, if any, has the ambush mar- keting terminology used in trade publications differed from that of popular press?

3. How does the current tone of ambush mar- keting coverage compare to 30 years ago? Is the reporting on the practice more positive or negative?

Overarching this study is the fact that the media has, over the past few decades, taken a growing interest generally in the business, governance, and politics of sport. This is evidenced by, among other things, the rise of regular sports business columns in major newspapers (including dedicated sports business reporters), and the success of trade publications (e.g., Sports Business Journal, Sports Business International). Hence, the media’s reportage of ambush marketing may be a reflection of this wide media interest in sport business generally. In taking an exploratory perspec- tive, this study provides a pioneering look at media portrayal and discourse regarding ambush marketing, and the potential influence commercial rights holders have exerted in guiding public knowledge of, and opinion towards, ambush marketing.

Methodology The methods employed reflected the exploratory and introductory nature of the research, and were in- formed by the extant media bias and ambush market- ing literatures. In following a textual analysis proce- dure, insight was gained into the dominant discourse, terminology, rhetoric, and stakeholder perspectives contained within each text, allowing for the data to be examined and understood in depth.

Data was collected from across major international English-language publications through a series of controlled LexisNexis database searches, conducted in the spring and summer of 2015. Canvassing the 30- year period between ambush marketing’s emergence in 1984 and the summer of 2014 (in order to include both the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympic Games and 2014 FIFA World Cup), in total, four data subsets were collected from four specific Boolean keyword searches:

1. ‘“Ambush Marketing” AND (“Olympics” OR “FIFA”)’ in the New York Times (NYT);

2. ‘“Ambush Marketing” AND (“Olympics” OR “FIFA”)’ in Advertising Age (AdAge);

3. ‘“Pepsi” AND “Ambush Marketing” AND (“FIFA” OR “World Cup”)’ in LexisNexis Major World Region Publications (LxFIFA); and

4. ‘“Pepsi” AND “Ambush Marketing” AND “Olympics”’ in LexisNexis Major World Region Publications (LxIOC).

These four searches were selected based on the breadth and depth of results yielded from a series of initial, investigative database searches into ambush marketing print media coverage. The publication databases targeted—New York Times, Advertising Age, and LexisNexis’ Major World Region Publications— provided the study with three distinct and important perspectives: (1) a journalistic perspective from a major national U.S. news broadsheet, (2) an informed and expert marketing insight from a leading trade periodical, and (3) local coverage from event host cities through an amalgamation of esteemed and reliable in- ternational English-language publications. Print news and professional marketing publications—New York Times and Advertising Age—were included in the data collection to compare and contrast a trade publication with mainstream print media.

The Olympic Games (Winter and Summer) and the men’s FIFA World Cup were specifically targeted due to the prominence and popularity of ambushing experienced around both events (Burton, 2011). In order to further narrow the focus of the data collection and specify coverage around specific incidents and events, Pepsi was chosen as a case study of ambush marketing for two datasets (LxFIFA and LxIOC). The selection of Pepsi was based on Pepsi’s history as an ambush marketer, a lack of legitimate sponsorship assets in the examined events, and competition with official sponsor Coca-Cola (McKelvey, 2006). Pepsi does maintain and leverage legitimate and highly valuable endorsement agreements with a large stable of athletes—particularly in the case of the FIFA World

Volume 27 • Number 1 • 2018 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 23

Cup—however, their activation efforts of those en- dorsements in the context of the events analyzed have consistently been prime examples, and exemplars, of ambush marketing at the highest levels of sport.

In total, through the four LexisNexis searches conducted, 354 articles were accessed from more than a dozen countries, including the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, and Japan. Following a preliminary analysis intended to eliminate duplicate and irrelevant articles, 130 articles were removed from the overall data set, resulting in a final sample of 224. Subsequent to the data collection process, the database search results were organized chronologically, and ex- tracted and collated as Microsoft Word document files, to allow for a manual coding analysis to be undertaken.

Coding Process Coding of the articles was done following the process for summative content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). First, we sought to identify the tone and key phrases of the article (Potter & Levine-Donnerstein, 1999; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005), placing specific em- phasis on the predominant perspective or balance of the article, and the tone and terminology used in describing both ambush marketing practices and sponsorship protection efforts. In exploring the usage of ambush-marketing-related terminology, we focused on where authors might have been biased towards an ambusher or a sport property. An initial review of the articles was conducted independently by two members of the research team to reduce the chance that results were not skewed by a single interpretation. Guided by the research questions, the researchers sought to identify keywords, differences in tone and terminolo- gy, perspective of the authors and focus of the articles.

Upon completion of this initial coding process, a weighted modified Fleiss’ (1981) kappa coefficient was

calculated between the two coders in order to assess the degree of agreement. Fleiss’ kappa calculates the reliability of agreement for observational data between multiple coders for categorical ratings (Hallgren, 2012). As a generalization of Scott’s pi coefficient, Fleiss’ kappa was selected in order to account for weighting between the scores on the scale, and in order to better measure the actual level of agreement across absolute values (Hallgren, 2012). The final Fleiss’ kappa score yielded was k=0.676, indicating a substantial level of agreement between the members of the research team (Landis & Koch, 1977).

Following this preliminary coding process, a number of key indicators of potential bias in ambush marketing were recorded and refined, drawing upon the ambush marketing literature and newly formed codes emergent throughout the open coding proce- dure. Discernible terminology, tone, phrasing, and balance were identified within the findings, informing a categorization of bias (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). This categorization provided the basis for the development of a Contextual Bias Scale (see Table 1), intended to guide a second, selective phase of coding. This scale development mirrored previous studies into media bias in print media, and provided the first such scale in ambush marketing research. Adkins, Covert, & Wasburn’s (2007) study into ideological representation and media biases, wherein the authors constructed a scale based upon thematic and tonal coding, afforded a template upon which to build. This ensured a degree of methodological rigour and balance. The final measure comprised a five-point scale, reflecting the variation in the balance of perspectives and the apparent link between balance and tone, as illustrated in Table 1.

The coding of the data aligned with the Contextual Bias Scale called for each text to be independently

TABLE 1. Contextual Bias Scale

1 The article/author unilaterally condemns the practice of ambush marketing; the article presents explicitly official sponsorship-linked opinion and bias (e.g., sneaky, parasitic, illegal, illegitimate).

2 The article is guided by rights holder and/or sponsor perspective; its rhetorical representation of ambushing is largely judgment neutral, though pejorative terminology is present.

3 The article presents balanced insight and perspective from both ambusher and ambushed properties; it employs judgment-neutral terminology and narrative.

4 The author/article is predominantly guided by the perspective of the alleged ambush marketer; it does not endorse or promote ambush marketing campaigns, and refrains from the use of overtly judgmental or sponsor-biased terminology.

5 The article advocates, justifies, or openly supports ambush marketing; the article employs positive terminology (e.g., creative, clever, intelligent) in defining and describing ambush practices.

24 Volume 27 • Number 1 • 2018 • Sport Marketing Quarterly

coded and categorized by two members of the research team-based on the observed rhetoric used in describ- ing ambush marketing and the article’s depiction of ambushing activities, as well as the tone of the text, and the relative balance or imbalance of stakeholder perspectives included. To verify the consistent coding of the data, two additional coders, both familiar with the practice and scholarship of ambush marketing, reviewed the articles. Prior to reading the articles, each was given specific coding instructions and remained blind to the research questions of the study. Coders were given feedback as they reviewed a sample article to ensure that they understood the categorizations.

Following the coding procedure, an adjusted Fleiss’ kappa score (1981) was calculated across the four coders in order to assess the level of agreement. Given the difficulty in establishing interrater agreement for multiple coders in a multi-item scale study (Light, 1971; Davies & Fleiss, 1982), an adjusted score was calculated combining adjacent scores (Stemler, 2004). This adjusted score accounted for the consensus amongst raters, and variance between adjacent scores. The final Fleiss’ kappa score yielded k=0.6725, indi- cating “substantial agreement” between the coders (Landis & Koch, 1977).

Finally, in collating the data and scale results, a modified consensus-based approach was employed in order to facilitate analysis (Tastle, Wierman, & Dum- dum, 2005). Where absolute agreement did not exist in the raters’ scores, dominant scores (where three coders were in agreement) were accepted; in the absence of a prevailing majority, an average was calculated of the four coders’ scores, yielding a final rating for the article in question.

Results Our primary research objective was to assess how the popular press has described and positioned ambush marketing over the last 30 years. The distribution of articles across the Contextual Bias Scale illustrates

the predominantly negative to neutral portrayal in mainstream news and industry print publications over the course of ambush marketing’s history (See Table 2 below). 173 of the 224 articles examined were classified as either “2” (guided by a rights holder perspective) or “3” (predominantly neutral stakeholder perspective). In examining the results of this analysis further, however, a number of observations can be made.

The prevailing negative portrayals of ambush- ing—articles scored as 1 or 2 on the Contextual Bias Scale—account for 77 of the 224 articles analyzed, or 34.4% of all articles coded. While results were bunched towards the middle, slightly more articles represented the perspective of the sport property—77—to only 50 similarly in favor of the ambusher. See Table 2 for details.

Secondly, we sought to uncover how trade publica- tions approach the subject of ambushing as compared to print news sources. Broken down by data subset, differences in perspective and apparent bias begin to appear. Articles coded from subsets NYT, LxFIFA, and LxIOC all ranged between 27.6% and 35% of all articles rating as being opposed to ambush marketing prac- tices or informed exclusively by the official sponsor or rights holder perspective. By contrast, 76% of all articles included in the New York Times evidenced a bias towards rights holders in tone and terminology, a significant difference in perspective as compared to trade publications and international daily newspapers. Narrowed further, in examining specifically the trade publication (AdAge), our study found that 39 of 54 articles, or 76%, scored 3 or above, evidencing a much more balanced and favourable reporting on the practice of ambush marketing.

Finally, we sought to investigate the degree to which favorable coverage has grown more favorable towards the practice of ambush marketing over time. In this respect, a chronological review of the data offered considerable insight. Notably, the earliest media examinations of ambush marketing centered on

TABLE 2. Contextual Bias Scale Classification of Ambush Marketing Coverage in Media

1 2 3 4 5 Total

NYT 0 15 25 11 3 54

AdAge 1 18 3 3 0 25

LxFIFA 0 14 16 9 1 40

LxIOC 0 29 53 21 2 105

Total (N=224) 1 76 97 44 6

Volume 27 • Number 1 • 2018 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 25

ambushing’s perceived parasitic intent, whereas more recent advances suggest an evolution in media dis- course is underway. Upon breaking down the results of the Contextual Bias Scale before and after 2000, an evolution in ambush marketing discourse is evident. A total of 83 articles were published prior to the 2000 Sydney Summer Olympic Games (37.1%), while 141 (62.9%) came following the millennial Games. Only Advertising Age saw fewer articles pertaining to ambush marketing published post-Sydney, though the more positive depiction of ambushing evident prior to 2000 remained. The New York Times, by contrast, experienced an increase in ambush coverage and a more even approach towards ambushers. Also of note was an increasingly positive tone identified throughout the ambush marketing coverage since the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games. Overall, 101 of 144 (71.6%) articles examined in the aftermath of the Sydney Olympics have been neutral or favorable towards ambushing, with some even outright mocking rights management programs (see Table 3).

In total, while 44.6% of all articles examined that were published before 2000 earned scores of 1 or 2 on the Contextual Bias Scale, only 28.4% earned similar ratings following the millennial Games. Correspond- ingly, positive media coverage of ambushing prior to Sydney accounted for only 14.5% of all articles from that period, whereas nearly 28% of articles coded post- 2000 rated 4 or 5 on the bias scale.

Additionally, since the turn of the millennium, Pepsi’s marketing efforts have received increased attention across the major international news publica- tions around both the Olympic Games and the FIFA World Cup. Both data subsets saw marked increases in the amount of coverage following the 2000 Games, as well as a progression towards more positive views of ambushing. Across the international publications analyzed (LxFIFA and LxIOC), a total of 113 articles were written in 2000 or later, of which 76% were either neutral (54 articles) or written from an ambush marketer perspective (32 articles). Prior to 2000, only 50% of all world publication entries analyzed here portrayed ambushing in this manner.

Discussion and Analysis Our results provide evidence of a number of important developments in the ongoing discourse surrounding ambush marketing. Despite continued rhetoric and pressure from commercial rights holders to influence public opinion and a sustained reliance on host gov- ernment-provided event-specific legislation (McKelvey & Grady, 2008; Scassa, 2011), a defined shift in the language and semantics of ambush marketing media is apparent. A number of possible explanations for these developments exist and must be acknowledged.

Reporters may have become more knowledgeable about the workings of sport sponsorship and the nuances of ambush marketing, part and parcel of the

TABLE 3. Ambush Discourse Pre and Post-2000 Bias Distribution

1 2 3 4 5 Total

NYT

Pre-2000 0 12 19 10 1 42 (77.8%)

2000–2014 0 3 6 1 2 12 (22.2%)

Total 0 15 25 11 3 54

AdAge

Pre-2000 1 8 0 0 0 9 (36%)

2000–2014 0 10 3 3 0 16 (64%)

Total 1 18 3 3 0 25

LxFIFA

Pre-2000 0 2 2 1 0 5 (12.5%)

2000–2014 0 12 14 8 1 35 (87.5%)

Total 0 14 16 9 1 40

LxIOC

Pre-2000 0 14 13 0 0 27 (25.7%)

2000–2014 0 15 40 21 2 78 (74.3%)

Total 0 29 53 21 2 105

26 Volume 27 • Number 1 • 2018 • Sport Marketing Quarterly

overall growth in the interest in sports business, gov- ernance, and politics in general over the past several decades. This notion is supported by the discernible difference found between trade coverage of ambush- ing (AdAge) and the major national press (NYT), as Advertising Age offered a significantly more balanced and positive perspective of ambush marketing than mainstream print media outlets. This was not entirely surprising given that reporters for Advertising Age are trained to cover the marketing and advertising industry, and thus should have a much higher level of knowledge about the nuances of sponsorship and ambush marketing. Moreover, reporters for Adver- tising Age may be more neutral in trying to preserve their access to both the official sponsor and the alleged ambushing company.

Additionally, the textual analysis revealed a number of preliminary findings regarding the general tone and rhetoric used by the media in discussing ambush marketing. Throughout the articles examined, loaded or biased terms, such as unethical, illegitimate, and parasitic, appeared consistently—notably in print news coverage during the 1980s and 90s. Articles throughout the course of ambushing’s formative years relied heavily on rights holders’ perspectives, and thus regularly framed ambushing within the context of moral or ethical constructs, using terms like stealing, illicit, or dark art to describe ambush marketing activities and motives, and condemning ambushers over perceived or alleged piracy. The moral and ethical framing of ambushing extended so far as to one article decrying ambush marketers as “sad freeloader[s]” (Garrett, 1996, p. 16). This editorialization in ambush marketing coverage exemplified the predominantly sports property-informed perspectives represented in the Contextual Bias Scale. Descriptions of ambush marketing as "a spoilsport strategy by which an adver- tiser tries to disrupt the extensive and expensive plans of a competitor" (Elliott, 1992, p. D21) emphasized the illegitimacy of ambush marketers, and cast negative light on their motives and propriety in marketing around major events.

Furthermore, throughout the early history of ambush marketing, both news and trade publications repeatedly described ambush marketers and specific ambush marketing campaigns in militaristic terms. This combative discourse strongly emphasized a com- petitive relationship between sponsor and ambusher, and stressed the perceived intent of ambushing brands to ‘undermine’ official sponsors and events. This mili- taristic positioning often confused ambush marketing with guerrilla marketing, or referenced attempts by the ambusher to hijack a market rival’s sponsorship

using an attack strategy, ultimately playing off of, and perpetuating, the combative ambush theme.

This emphasis on competition between ambush and sponsor further informed a prevailing focus through- out the negatively framed documents analyzed on the deleterious effects of ambushing on sponsorship values and returns. The potential for ambush marketing to confuse consumers as to the identity of the true spon- sor earned frequent mention, including concerns that “the efforts of sponsoring companies […] are diluted as a competitor attempts to associate its name to the cause” (Strauss, 1992, p. B4), or deriding ambushers and their attempts to “ride the coattails of the spon- sors” (Jensen, 1995, p. 3). In this context, ambushing has been commonly referred to as deceptive advertis- ing, exploitative of consumers, and misleading.

The discussion of ambush marketing’s parasitic implications further stressed the absence of financial commitments or contributions of ambushers to major events, commonly decrying ambushing as a low-cost alternative to sponsorship intended to undercut sponsors and threaten the viability of major sporting events. These concerns manifested in allegations of ‘free-riding’ and ‘piggy-backing’ throughout early ambush marketing media coverage, alongside fears that ambushing “could erode the value of […] sponsor- ships” (Beckett, 1992, p. 1E).

However, despite the prevailing negative perspec- tive and bias evidenced throughout ambushing’s early history, an evolution in ambush reporting is apparent, notably following the 2000 Sydney Sum- mer Olympic Games. As noted, a significant shift in tone is apparent post-2000, toward a more positive portrayal of ambush activities and greater balance in stakeholder perspectives. This change in tone followed the enactment and enforcement of the Sydney 2000 Games (Indicia and Images) Protection Act 1996, the first event-specific ambush legislation for the Olympic Games (Curthoys & Kendall, 2001; McKelvey & Grady, 2008; Scassa, 2011). The Sydney act enhanced Olympic intellectual property rights protections in an effort to limit non-sponsor marketing around the Games; the resulting trend in sponsorship protection efforts has seen the IOC and other event owners adopt increas- ingly stringent rights protection activities.

In the wake of the 2000 Sydney Games and these increased counter-ambush marketing interventionist activities, there has been a visible change in the tone and terminology used in describing ambushers. Usage of militaristic and confrontational terms has increas- ingly been replaced with sports-related references and a more positive and balanced portrayal of ambushing brands and activities. Ambush marketing coverage

Volume 27 • Number 1 • 2018 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 27

at the FIFA World Cup, for example, has grown from claims of ‘parasitic’, ‘guerrilla marketing attacks’ on sponsors, to soccer-related references of “proving that draw-the-foul PR works like a charm” (Chupick, 2010). Soccer-specific or athletic terminology, such as an am- bushing effort that “draws a red card” (Chupick, 2010), exemplifies the more playful tone recently utilized when describing ambush campaigns. Likewise, refer- ences such as ambush marketers seeking to “harvest a bit of Olympic glory” (Stamler, 2000, p. C9) or brands “don’t have to sit on the sidelines” (White, 2014, p. 8), play on sporting terminology and present ambushing still in competitive terms, but in a less-confrontational manner.

This apparent evolution in rhetoric witnessed from primarily combative-based terminology toward more sporting-based analogy, has been mirrored by an increased awareness and appreciation of the creativity of ambush marketers. A shift in terminology emerges in articles coded as 3 and 4 toward greater focus on ambushers’ commercial, non confrontational objec- tives, and on the ingenuity and propriety of ambush- ers’ common sense (McGuire, 2002). Ambush market- ing in this context has been described as “an attempt to capitalize on a major event to sell your product” (McGuire, 2002, p. 26), or “when companies seize upon creative opportunities to showcase their brand” (Shaw, 2008, p. P4), rather than the more prevalent parasitic or aggressive, deleterious intents ascribed to ambushers in earlier ambush coverage.

The trend towards a more positive portrayal and representation of ambush marketing following the 2000 Sydney Games appears to have become even more pronounced following the 2012 London Summer Olympic Games. Of the 32 articles examined that were authored during and immediately following the 2012 London Olympic Games, only 7 (21.8%) presented ambushing in a negative or rights-holder influenced manner. Rather, nearly 80% of those texts analyzed presented ambushing in a positive light. Of the 32, 12 sarcastically or caustically described Olympic ambush marketing prevention measures and overtly endorsed ambush marketers’ propriety and belonging at major events.

Interestingly, the coverage of ambush marketing may be growing more favourable as the actions to prevent its practices become more aggressive. Articles more positively portraying ambush marketers in recent years have often adopted a negative tone and perspective when discussing the rights protection and management efforts of major events. In the wake of counter-ambush marketing efforts by FIFA at the 2006 and 2010 FIFA World Cup Finals tournaments,

rights protection efforts were described as ‘surreal’ and ‘draconian,’ while ambush marketing was vindicated as a business and marketing strategy, celebrated as ‘enterprising,’ ‘creative,’ ‘imaginative,’ and indeed jus- tifiable as “‘pseudo-sponsorship rather than the ugly “ambush marketing’” (Du Toit, 2010). The London Olympic and Paralympic Games Act (2006), one of the most aggressive interventionist efforts to date, created a “right of association” clause intended to restrict the use of sport imagery and Olympic-related terminology in marketing and advertising around the Games (Scassa, 2011). The enforcement of the London Olym- pic legislation, aggressive on-site policing by Olympic stewards at events and in local communities, and strict enforcement on social media platforms (Waldie, 2012), sparked criticism within the United Kingdom, and earned global attention for the London organizers and alleged ambush marketers.

Conclusions and Future Directions Our analysis of over 200 articles from the past three decades of writing on ambush marketing illustrates numerous shifts in the acceptance and understanding of the practice. The findings suggest that particularly during the early decades of ambush marketing, rights holders acted as the primary driver of ambush discourse and media coverage, and exerted a large measure of influence in guiding ambush marketing discourse. This echoes concerns explored by Ellis et al. (2016) that ambush marketing knowledge transfer may represent an outlet for rights holder power, notably in the creation and communication of specific legislation designed to govern ambush marketing efforts. James & Osborn (2016) similarly raised concerns regarding the design and extension of ambush legislation, noting that Olympic marketing regulations have expanded with each subsequent event to encompass additional media and tactics, thereby extending transnational definitions of ambush marketing to befit Olympic rights holders’ perspectives and concerns.

A discernible evolution in media perspective is apparent, however, befitting a reframing of the pre- vailing definitions of the practice based on over 30 years of evolution (Burton, 2011; Chadwick & Burton, 2011). This evolution may indeed help to explain the increasing variations in how journalists describe and evaluate ambush marketing campaigns. While am- bush marketing may not be universally accepted, the description of the practice does appear to be evolving from notions of “stealing” to that of “enterprising.” Our results suggest that the usage of the term “ambush marketing” in media today is neutral in tone, favoring neither the sport property nor the unofficial marketer.

28 Volume 27 • Number 1 • 2018 • Sport Marketing Quarterly

Given the long-standing questions regarding ambush marketing ethics and morality (O’Sullivan & Murphy, 1998; Meenaghan, 1998; Payne, 2005), and rights hold- ers’ consistent positioning of ambushing in a negative light, this shift in tone and perspective is significant.

As consumers gain a better understanding of marketing practices, sponsors will no longer be able to rely on simple association and will need to employ some of the similar creativity used by ambushers. Marketers have become more sophisticated in creating campaigns that use some sporting imagery to develop compelling promotions that entertain consumers without infringing upon sponsors’ and event owners’ rights or overtly attacking or parasitizing a rival brand. Contemporary ambush marketing comprises a wide variety of strategies, media, and objectives, ranging from the direct predatory attacks seen in the earliest examples of ambushing, to entirely legal, creative, and competitive marketing activities (Chad- wick & Burton, 2011). If framing ambush activities as unethical or illegitimate remains a key tactic on the part of event owners to influence consumers’ in support of their sponsors, a greater awareness of the evolving narrative identified here is required. Perhaps most important, commercial rights holders should be aware of the changing view of ambushing apparent across both news and trade media.

Due to the nature of our exploratory research, there are several limitations that must be acknowledged. First, the study’s sample represents a relatively small cross-section of ambush marketing print coverage. The sample’s specific focus on the Olympic Games and the FIFA World Cup, and inclusion of target ambushing brand Pepsi, were intended to narrow the focus of the sample and ensure relevance. However, the selection of smaller events, different countries or different ambush marketers could identify additional definitions of ambushing. Nevertheless, ambush marketing remains a niche area of marketing print media coverage; while we analyzed several hundred articles, the topic of ambush marketing does not allow for the broader scale econometric analysis of media bias found in political science or economics.

Additionally, corporations’ marketing activities may have evolved either to become more sophisticated in executing sponsorships or ambushing official mar- keting partnerships. Hence, a change in corporate behavior could also drive some of the changes in how the term ambush marketing is used. A qualitative reading of the texts that seeks to understand deeper themes in ambush coverage could contribute signifi- cantly to the literature. Further exploration of the tone and text of other sources of media in other ambush

marketing scenarios would provide fertile ground for future research. Scholarship on ambush marketing could also be advanced by studying how sponsors and non-sponsors have adapted to the new environment where ambush tactics are viewed as credible. Finally, to account for the increase in public interest in sport business, a survey of sport business writers could be conducted to assess their knowledge and opinions of ambush marketing.

Neutral print coverage of ambush marketing may have numerous implications for future research. For example, the risk of conducting an unofficial market- ing campaign—and potential criticism or public back- lash from media and rights holders—may be reduced, and may thus lead to a reevaluation of sponsorship investments. Likewise, event owners and sponsors must be aware of the implications of this evolution in perspective when attempting to frame the discussion around ambush marketing as a moral or ethical debate. Additional research is needed to appreciate the current understanding from the perspective of con- sumers, particularly where rights holders utilize public relations-based counter-ambush marketing measures.

Ultimately, as the cost of sport sponsorships contin- ues to grow and new marketing media and platforms are created, the opportunities to develop concurrent ambush marketing campaigns also rise. This paper highlights the evolution of marketing terminology in academia and the popular press. However, this evolution is incomplete and ongoing. As more compa- nies participate in marketing efforts around sporting events, the new strategies and tactics employed will necessitate new terminology, and an understanding of the legal and ethical marketing issues consequent. Additionally, further research on this topic could be expanded to include the analysis of the reporting of other media outlets (i.e., local newspapers within a host city, foreign language newspapers, and trade publications), and an examination of how ambush marketing campaigns are “reported” on Twitter. Our hope is that this paper inspires future work around the integration of media reporting, sport sponsorship, and academic research.

References Adkins Covert, T. J., & Wasburn, P. C. (2007). Measuring media

bias: A content analysis of Time and Newsweek coverage of domestic social issues, 1975–2000. Social Science Quarterly, 88(3), 690–706.

Baron, D. P. (2006). Persistent media bias. Journal of Public Economics, 90, 1–36.

Beckett, J. (1992, July 16). When it comes to Olympic ads, games have begun. St. Petersburg Times, p. 1E.

Birz, G., & Lott, J. R., Jr. (2011). The effect of macroeconomic news on stock returns: New evidence from newspaper coverage. Journal of Banking & Finance, 35, 2791–2800.

Volume 27 • Number 1 • 2018 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 29

Burton, N. (2011). Conceptualizing ambush marketing: Developing a typology of ambush strategy and exploring the managerial implications for sport sponsors. (Unpublished doctoral disser- tation), Coventry University, Coventry, UK.

Burton, N. & Chadwick, S. (2009). Ambush marketing in sport: An analysis of sponsorship protection means and counter-am- bush measures. Journal of Sponsorship, 2(4), 303–315.

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

Chan, J., & Stone, D. F. (2013). Media proliferation and partisan selective exposure. Public Choice, 156(3–4), 467–490.

Chiang, C., & Knight, B. (2011). Media bias and influence: Evidence from newspaper endorsements. Review of Economic Studies, 78(3), 795–820.

Chupick, J. (2010, June 18). Bavaria successfully draws red card from FIFA with skimpy stunt. Adweek. Retrieved from http:// www.adweek.com/prnewser/bavaria-successfully-draws-red- card-from-fifa-with-skimpy-stunt/4921

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

Crow, D., & Hoek, J. (2003). Ambush marketing: A critical review and some practical advice. Marketing Bulletin, 14(1), 1–14.

Curthoys, J., & Kendall, C. N. (2001). Ambush marketing and the Sydney 2000 games (indicia and images) protection act: a retrospective. Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, 8(2), 1–35.

Davies, M. & Fleiss, J. L. (1982). Measuring agreement for multi- nomial data. Biometrics, 38(4), 1047–1051.

DellaVigna, S. & Kaplan, E. (2007). The Fox News effect: Media bias and voting. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1187–1234.

Dickson, G., Naylor, M., & Phelps, S. (2015). Consumer attitudes towards ambush marketing. Sport Management Review, 18(2), 280–290.

Djankov, S., McLeish, C., Nenova, T., & Schleifer, A. (2003). Who owns the media? The Journal of Law and Economics, 46, 1030–1049.

Du Toit, M. (2010). FIFA World Cup 2010—ambush marketing or pseudo sponsorship? Lexology. Re- trieved from http://www.lexology.com/library/detail. aspx?g=dbf4cfb6-7fe9-4eb7-954e-f9e051da0074

Elliott, S. (1992, June 30). When sports pitchmen fall it's time to control the spin. The New York Times, p. D21.

Ellis, D. L., Parent, M. M., & Séguin, B. (2016). Olympic ambush marketing networks and knowledge transfer: Examining their impact on the institutionalization of anti-ambush marketing legislation. Journal of Sport Management, 30(5), 473–489.

Emmett, J. (2010). Rise of the pseudo-sponsors: A history of ambush marketing. SportsPro. Retrieved from http://www.sportspro- media.com/notes_and_insights/rise_of_the_pseudo-spon- sors_a_history_of_ambush_marketing

Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, 2nd Ed. New York: John Wiley.

Garrett, A. (1996, July 21). Stick’em up—and outwit the sponsor. The Observer, p. 16.

Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2010). What drives media slant? Evidence from U.S. daily newspapers. Econometrica, 78(1), 35–71.

Gerber, A., Kaplan, D., & Bergan, D. (2009). Does the media matter? A field experiment measuring the effect of newspapers on voting behavior and political opinions. American Economic Journal, 1(2), 35–52.

Groeling, T., & Kernell, S. (1998). Is network news coverage of the president biased? Journal of Politics, 60(4), 1063–1087.

Groseclose, T., & Milyo, J. (2005). A measure of media bias. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(4), 1191–1237.

Gwinner, K. P., & Eaton, J. (1999). Building brand image through event sponsorship: The role of image transfer. Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 47–57.

Hallgren, K. A. (2012). Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8(1), 23–34.

Hoek, J., & Gendall, P. (2002). Ambush marketing: more than just a commercial irritant? Entertainment Law, 1(2), 72–91.

Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qual- itative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.

James, M., & Osborn, M. (2016). The Olympics, transnational law and legal transplants: the International Olympic Committee, ambush marketing and ticket touting. Legal Studies, 36(1), 93–11.

Jensen, J. (1995, March 13). Atlanta Games craft barriers to am- bushers though sponsors’ clutter may play a role. Advertising Age, 66(11), p. 3.

Johar, G. V., & Pham, M. T. (1999). Relatedness, prominence, and constructive sponsor identification. Advertising & Society Review, 1(1), 299–312.

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.

Leeson, P. T., & Coyne, C. J. (2005). Manipulating the media. Institutions and Economic Development, 1(2), 67–92.

Light, R. J. (1971). Measures of response agreement for qualitative data: Some generalizations and alternatives. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5), 365–377.

Lott, J. R., Jr. & Hassett, K. A. (2014). Is newspaper coverage of economic events politically biased? Public Choice, 160, 65–108.

Louw, A. (2012). Ambush marketing and the mega-event monopo- ly: How laws are abused to protect commercial rights to major sporting events. The Hague, Netherlands: T.M.C. Asser Press.

Lyberger, M. R., & McCarthy, L. (2001). An assessment of con- sumer knowledge of, interest in, and perceptions of ambush marketing strategies. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 10(3), 130–137.

MacIntosh, E., Nadeau, J., Séguin, B., O’Reilly, N., Bradish, C. L., & Legg, D. (2012). The role of mega-sports event interest in sponsorship and ambush marketing attitudes. Sport Market- ing Quarterly, 21, 43–52.

McDaniel, S. R., & Kinney, L. (1998). The implications of recency and gender effects in consumer response to ambush market- ing. Psychology & Marketing, 15(4), 385–403.

McGuire, M. (2002, June 14). Beating around the ambush as Pepsi cops FIFA red card. The Australian, p. 26.

McKelvey, S. (2006). Coca-Cola vs. PepsiCo-A ‘Super’ Battle- ground for the Cola Wars? Sport Marketing Quarterly, 15(2), 114–123.

McKelvey, S. (2014, February 17). Memos reveal advent of ambush marketing around ’84 Games. Sport Business Journal, p.13.

McKelvey, S., & Grady, J. (2008). Sponsorship program protec- tion strategies for special sport events: Are event organizers outmaneuvering ambush marketers. Journal of Sport Manage- ment, 22(5), 550–586.

McKelvey, S., & Longley, N. (2015). Event-specific ambush marketing legislation for mega-sporting events: An economic perspective. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 16(5), 20–35.

Meenaghan, T. (1994). Point of view: Ambush marketing: Immor- al or imaginative practice? Journal of Advertising Research, 34(5), 77–89.

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

30 Volume 27 • Number 1 • 2018 • Sport Marketing Quarterly

Meenaghan, T. (1998). Ambush marketing: Corporate strategy and consumer reaction. Psychology & Marketing, 15(4), 305–322.

Meenaghan, T. (2001). Understanding sponsorship effects. Psychology & Marketing, 18(2), 95–122.

O’Reilly, N., Pound, R. W., Burton, R., Seguin, B., & Brunette, M. K. (2016). Global sport marketing: Sponsorship, ambush mar- keting, and the Olympic Games. Morgantown, West Virginia: FiT Publishing.

O’Sullivan, P., & Murphy, P. (1998). Ambush marketing: The ethical issues. Psychology & Marketing, 15(4), 349–366.

Payne, M. (1998). Ambush marketing: The undeserved advantage. Psychology & Marketing, 15(4), 323–331.

Payne, M. (2005). Reinventing the rings. Business Strategy Review, 16(1), 14–21.

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

Potter, W. J., & Levine‐Donnerstein, D. (1999). Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27(3), 258–284.

Sandler, D. M., & Shani, D. (1989). Olympic sponsorship vs ambush marketing—who gets the gold. Journal of Advertising Research, 29(4), 9–14.

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.

Séguin, B., & O’Reilly, N. J. (2008). The Olympic brand, ambush marketing and clutter. International Journal of Sport Manage- ment & Marketing, 4(1), 62–84.

Séguin, B., Lyberger, M., O Reilly, N., & McCarthy, L. (2005). Internationalising ambush marketing: A comparative study. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 6(4), 216–230.

Shaw, H. (2008, August 16). Marketing fatigue. National Post, p. P4.

Shilling, C., & Mellor, P. A. (2014). Re-conceptualizing sport as a sacred phenomenon. Sociology of Sport Journal, 31(3), 349–376.

Stamler, B. (2000, August 21). A company’s ad is rejected for coasting on the momentum of the Olympic Games. The New York Times, p. C9.

Stemler, S. E. (2004). A comparison of consensus, consistency, and measurement approaches to estimating interrater reliability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9(4). Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=4

Stotlar, D. K. (1993). Sponsorship and the Olympic winter games. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 2(1), 35–43.

Strauss, M. (1992, July 14). IOC fights sponsorship ambushing. The Globe and Mail, p. B4.

Tastle, W. J. Wierman, M. J., & Dumdum, U. R. (2005). Ranking ordinal scales using the consensus measure. Issues in Informa- tion Systems, 6(2), 96–102.

Waldie, P. (2012, July 31). Dr. Dre beats Olympic mar- keting ban. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/olympics/ dr-dre-beats-olympic-marketing-ban/article4451900/

White, A. (2014, May 23). World Cup 2014: YouTube football channel tackles mainstream broadcasters. The Daily Tele- graph, p. 8.

Wolfsteiner, E., Grohs, R., & Wagner, U. (2015). What drives ambush marketing misidentification? Journal of Sport Man- agement, 29(2), 137–154.

Copyright of Sport Marketing Quarterly is the property of Fitness Information Technology, Inc. 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.