Scholarly Activity

WilSte78

EBSCO-FullText-03_16_20254.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Scholarly Activity

At sporting mega-events, there is increasingly intense competition off the field of play as well as on

it, with big brands battling it out for the attention of consumers. Some of these brands are associ-

ated with official event sponsors; others are associated with commercial rivals that have no official

association with events such as the Olympic Games or the Fédération Internationale de Football

Association (FIFA) World Cup. The latter group is increasingly engaging in what is termed “ambush

marketing”—for instance, by seeking to deliberately persuade or mislead consumers into thinking

they have an official association with a sporting mega-event. The emergence of ambush marketing

emanates from the centrally controlled sale of a small number of rights packages by bodies such as

the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and FIFA, which effectively exclude non-rights holders

from associating with an event. Brands that have no official legal right of association often therefore

seek to access similar benefits to official sponsors by engaging in a range of activities, including tar-

geted promotions and the creation of rival tournament properties. The focus of this article is fourfold:

(1) to explain how ambushing has emerged, (2) to define ambush marketing, (3) to identify various

types of ambushing, and (4) to discuss some of the management issues and challenges posed by

feature artICLe

Simon Chadwick

Nicholas Burton

709

The Evolving Sophistication of Ambush Marketing: A Typology of Strategies

Correspondence to: Simon Chadwick, Chair in Sport Business Strategy and Marketing, Director of Centre for the International Business of Sport (CIBS), Cov- entry university Business School, Priory Street, Coventry CV1 5fB, united Kingdom, +44 (0)24 7688 8486 (phone), [email protected].

710 feature artiCle

thunderbird international Business review Vol. 53, No. 6 November/December 2011 DOI: 10.1002/tie

securing rights, meaning that sponsorship’s overall esti- mated market value may amount to nearly $100 billion per annum.

Changes to the management of sponsorship rights and the way in which they are being protected have ac- cordingly seen contract values grow considerably over time, making sponsorship a major contributor to sport rights holders’ revenues. The development of corporate sponsorship programs by FIFA at the 1982 World Cup and the IOC at the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics gave rise to category exclusivity and commercial rights bundling in sponsorship, which have been key drivers in sponsor- ship’s subsequent growth. For the 1988 Olympic Games in Seoul, South Korea, Coca-Cola spent $22 million to become the exclusive drinks-category sponsor (Sandler & Shani, 1989); estimates from last summer’s Games in Beijing have major sponsors, including Coca-Cola, paying three times that amount, with sponsorship investment for major events projected to rise even further as London 2012 approaches. As a result, the IOC has estimated that sponsorship revenues account for 40% of total IOC turn- over, with similar shares reported by other global sport governing bodies (IOC, 2008).

Previous research

In the sponsorship literature, ambush marketing research has emerged over the past 20 years as an area of consider- able interest, characterized by four predominant themes: (1) an identification of what ambush marketing is, and its aims and objectives (Crompton, 2004; Meenaghan, 1994; Sandler & Shani, 1989; Séguin & O’Reilly, 2008); (2) the use of consumer-based measures of ambush market- ing’s impact on sponsorship, such as postevent consumer recall sponsorship studies (McDaniel & Kinney, 1998; Meenaghan, 1998; Sandler & Shani, 1989); (3) the discus- sion of the ethical concerns surrounding ambush market- ing and the morality of ambush campaigns (Meenaghan, 1994; O’Sullivan & Murphy, 1998; Payne, 1998); and (4) an exploration of the legal implications of ambush mar- keting efforts, and the measures available to sponsors and rights holders to combat ambush marketing (McKelvey, 2006; McKelvey & Grady, 2008; Townley, Harrington, & Couchman, 1998). Despite the advances being made in our understanding, ambushing nevertheless remains a largely underdeveloped field in need of further investiga- tion and analysis.

Recently, ambush marketing research has shifted focus, utilizing qualitative methods to produce case-study analyses and interviews rather than simply establishing con- sumer recall. Such an approach has enabled the renewed

trends in Sponsorship

A s official sport sponsorship has grown and devel- oped in importance and sophistication over the past three decades, so too have the efforts made

by unassociated brands to capitalize on the financial benefits and media value provided by sport. The need for marketers, sponsors, and officials to acknowledge, un- derstand, and defend against ambushing has been magni- fied by the staggering growth of sponsorship investment over the past 25 years. This article therefore examines where we are right now with ambush marketing, present- ing a new conceptualization of the phenomenon, and proposing a new typology of ambushing strategies. The research upon which it is based has sought to explore the managerial implications of ambushing for sponsors and commercial rights holders, and thus contributes to a bet- ter understanding of how to manage and protect official sponsorships.

Following a restructuring in the International Olym- pic Committee’s (IOC’s) sponsorship program by or- ganizers of the 1984 Los Angeles Summer Olympics, ambush marketing emerged as a significant threat to sport sponsorship, providing marketers with a means of associating with sport properties and event commodities such as the Olympic Games and the Fédération Interna- tionale de Football Association (FIFA) World Cup, with- out contributing financially to the properties in order to secure an official association. By offering would-be sponsors an alternative means of associating with an event, without substantial expense, ambush marketing has therefore emerged as a threat to the investments made by official sponsors, potentially devaluing sport sponsorship by cluttering the marketing environment surrounding sponsorship.

These concerns are of particular importance for sport sponsors and commercial rights holders, as the in- vestment made by sponsors and the revenue generated by event organizers have grown exponentially over the past 25 years. Global sponsorship spending in 1984 amounted to approximately $2 billion (Meenaghan, 1991); more recent estimates of sponsorship investment in the United Kingdom alone project sponsorship expenditures to surpass £1 billion in 2009, with projections forecasting a further rise in the run-up to the 2012 London Olym- pic Games. In total, the 2008 international sponsorship industry was calculated to have been worth $43.5 billion (IEG, 2007), a growth of $19.1 billion over the previous six years. Moreover, marketing expenditures in leverag- ing and promoting sponsorship are generally agreed to have at least equaled, if not exceeded, the amount spent

the evolving Sophistication of ambush Marketing: a typology of Strategies 711

DOI: 10.1002/tie thunderbird international Business review Vol. 53, No. 6 November/December 2011

As sponsorship has grown and ambush marketing has emerged, the academic study of ambushing has nevertheless developed as a major, contem- porary issue that sponsorship research needs to address.

in past research, a two-stage research process was under- taken. The first phase of research was the creation and de- velopment of a database of reported ambushing incidents. Based on an in-depth documentary analysis, this provided a unique historical perspective on ambush marketing at- tempts and the subsequent counter-ambushing strategies that sponsors and/or property owners have taken. Given the nature of ambush marketing, the largely underde- veloped theoretical body surrounding ambushing, and its substantial media presence around major sporting events—particularly given the growing importance of sport sponsorship—the use of print and news media, as well as a number of firsthand observations and accounts of ambush- ing, provided an initial framework for the study.

The document analysis undertaken drew from more than 1,000 sources relevant to the study of ambush mar- keting, guerrilla marketing in sport, parasitic marketing, and sport sponsorship. The sources used were predomi- nantly English- and French-language news items, as well as a collection of German and Polish sources, drawing on the languages spoken and understood by the research team. The works analyzed included print media, web- based news sources, legal documentation, and television advertising media, as well as peer-reviewed journal articles and collected ambush marketing visual materials. Rather than providing a detailed review and analysis of the con- tent of the collected pieces, the aim of the document analysis was to create a database of incidents of legitimate event sponsorship ambushing. As such, throughout the analysis, dates, events, official event sponsors, ambushers,

investigation of what constitutes ambush marketing, and revealed further insight into how ambush campaigns are perceived within the sport sponsorship community. Per- haps most important, suggestions of ambush marketing’s role as a factor in—and contributor to—marketing clutter, has raised greater concern over the impact of ambushing on sponsorship, and the proliferation of marketing and sponsorship opportunities surrounding major sporting events (Séguin & O’Reilly, 2008).

Even though ambush marketing research to date has provided an initial understanding of ambush marketing, a number of criticisms can be made. First, while a num- ber of counter-ambushing methods have been proposed (Hoek & Gendall, 2002; Meenaghan, 1994, 1996; Townley et al., 1998), these strategies have yet to be meaningfully tested or explored, save those involving legal or legislative protection. Likewise, although the discussion of ambush marketing is deeply rooted in discussions about sport sponsorship, there is a dearth of research into the actual impact of ambush marketing, from a practical, manage- rial, or strategic perspective. Finally, and most disconcert- ingly, no definitive understanding of ambush marketing exists, and recent developments in sport marketing have raised renewed concerns over the actual impact of am- bushing on sponsorship. Moreover, it is still not entirely clear what specifically constitutes ambush marketing. In- deed, our common understanding of ambush marketing appears to be based on definitions proposed 20 years ago. Such definitions offer only a limited perspective of the aims, motives, and uses of ambush marketing as a market- ing communications tool.

As sponsorship has grown and ambush marketing has emerged, the academic study of ambushing has neverthe- less developed as a major, contemporary issue that spon- sorship research needs to address. Unfortunately, to date no satisfactory conceptualization of ambush marketing exists, and our understanding of ambushing is grounded in studies conducted two decades ago. These studies do not adequately represent the evolution of ambushing, and ensuing and associated concerns and issues, over the past 20 years. In order to address these limitations, this study therefore focuses on adding value to our understanding of ambushing, analyzing the methods and strategies preva- lent in ambush marketing practice, and creating a unique typology of ambush marketing, proposed herein.

research Method

In order to look deeper into the problems and issues raised within the existing research base, and to address the out- dated and sometimes irrelevant view of ambushing taken

712 feature artiCle

thunderbird international Business review Vol. 53, No. 6 November/December 2011 DOI: 10.1002/tie

marketing at both the strategic and tactical levels, across a variety of sports, in the defense against ambush tactics, or past research on the subject. In total, 12 respondents completed interviews, in which they detailed their experi- ences of sponsorship and ambush marketing. Interview- ees were also asked to define ambush marketing, and to explain in detail the methods, tactics, and strategies used by ambushers, sponsors, and events rights holders, in re- lation to ambush marketing.

The interviews employed a grounded approach aimed at generating insight into the practitioner per- spective of ambushing. Responses were recorded when permitted, and subsequently transcribed, allowing each to be coded and analyzed, adding further detail to the study. Key themes, such as the nature of ambush market- ing, the parallels between marketing and law present in ambush practices, and issues surrounding its legitimacy and the authority of sponsors, guided the interviews, and provided a useful platform in further analyzing the case database created.

the evolution of ambushing In re-examining the history of ambush marketing through the case database, an evolution in the tactics used, the countermeasures taken, and the communications media available to ambushers, is apparent. As with sponsorship, whose growth and development over time has been well documented (Crimmins & Hom, 1996; Meenaghan, 1998), so too has ambushing evolved since its emergence in the 1980s, driven by technological advancements and the growing financial importance of sport marketing.

and the strategies taken both to ambush the event and to protect against ambushing were noted, resulting in 350 detailed cases included in the initial database (see Table 1 for sample entries).

It is important to note that, for this study only those instances of ambush marketing whose impact on sponsor- ship is most of interest have been included. Most major sporting events (such as the Olympics or the World Cup) employ ambush marketing protection teams to inves- tigate often hundreds of potential ambush marketing cases, many of which are simple intellectual property rights infringements, involving the use of trademarks, copyrights, the unlawful manufacturing of merchandise, or the illegal redistribution of tickets. While cases such as these are of obvious interest to event rights holders, their impact on sponsorship is generally minimal and can easily be dealt with using cease-and-desist letters, or the enforcement and protection of an organization’s intellectual property. In order to properly assess and understand the nature of ambush marketing as related to sponsorship, for this study only those cases involving the ambushing of direct competitors, incidents drawing international media coverage, multinational promotional campaigns, or those attempts that garnered preventative or reactionary counter-ambushing efforts, were included.

The second phase of research consisted of a series of semistructured interviews with industry professionals and academic researchers, exploring their knowledge and opinions of ambush marketing, and their perception of its place in marketing. Respondents were selected based on experience, either direct or indirect, with ambush

Year event ambusher ambushee tactic employed/Countermeasures taken 2008 Summer Olympics:

Beijing, China Gatorade (PepsiCo) Coca-Cola Gatorade ran a television spot featuring Chinese athletes counting down to

2008; the ad concluded with a group of children, aged approximately 7–10, in a large Olympic-training-style center playing table tennis counting down to 2012 and 2016

2006 fIfa World Cup: Germany

Bavaria Brewery Budweiser Stadium officials forced fans to remove Bavaria’s promotional wear—orange lederhosen promoting Bavaria—and watch the game in their underwear.

1996 uefa euro 1996: england

Nike umbro Nike purchased all poster space/advertising sites in and around Wembley Park tube station as a means of promoting the brand during the event; these actions sparked uefa’s preemptive measures taken for euro 2000 and tour- naments since (renting all advertising media within a 1–3 km radii of venues).

1992 Summer Olympics: Barcelona, Spain

american express Visa american express ran advertisements correctly stating that visitors to Spain “don’t need a visa”; Visa took no official action, and american express pub- licly defended their advertising campaign as legitimate and not ambushing.

1984 Summer Olympics: Los angeles, Ca

Nike Converse Nike developed murals near the Olympic Games sites featuring Nike-sponsored track athletes, visible from within the Los angeles Olympic Coliseum, resulting in 42% of americans confusing Nike as an official sponsor of the Games.

table 1 ambush Marketing Case Database (Sample)

the evolving Sophistication of ambush Marketing: a typology of Strategies 713

DOI: 10.1002/tie thunderbird international Business review Vol. 53, No. 6 November/December 2011

conscious campaigns have all served as alternatives to early ambush media, challenging the creativity and au- thority of official sponsors.

the Practitioner’s View The evolution of ambush marketing evidenced in the database is also reflected in the views and experiences of sponsorship practitioners in regard to ambushing. A number of recurring themes emerged from the defini- tions offered by respondents, including an emphasis placed on the role of authority, intended association, and the broad range of techniques used. Most interestingly, each of the respondents, when asked to describe ambush marketing in their own words, reiterated the difficulty practitioners face in defining ambushing, noting the wide range of activities and tactics used, and the gener- ally broad, grey area that an ambush marketing definition must cover.

One participant defined ambushing as “a company conducting marketing activity around a sports property . . . which creates in consumers’ mind a link to the event . . . including a broad spectrum of behaviors and activities.” The allusion to the multitude of activities included in am- bushing was echoed by other respondents, who variously noted that “you can’t limit it to any one medium” and “no one sentence can define it.” Another definition put forward, “gaining media exposure for an event for you that you haven’t purchased the official rights,” highlights the emphasis placed on exposure and awareness by many.

Two interviewees, in response to questions regarding their awareness of ambush marketing as it impacts spon- sorship and commercial rights values, stated explicitly that while ambush marketing can pose certain logistical and managerial issues for rights holders, ambush market- ing is nevertheless indicative of a valuable property, and as such is not entirely unwelcome. Interestingly, while the interviewees agreed that sponsors must leverage their investments better and capitalize on the marketing op- portunities available to them, each of the respondents stressed the view that sponsorship protection and the defense against ambush marketing is the responsibility of the rights holder, in order to protect investments and justify rising sponsorship costs, rather than that of the sponsor.

Ultimately, the consensus among respondents was an inherent difficulty in summarizing ambush marketing in concise terms, instead referring back to the various goals or objectives set, the wide array of tactics available, and ambushing’s unlimited scope in terms of reach and applicability. Given this uncertainty, and based on an analysis of the case database and interviews conducted,

While television advertising continues to be a main ve- hicle for ambush campaigns during major events, the Internet has recently grown into a notable marketing platform for nonsponsors and offers new and unexplored opportunities for marketers. The appeal of ambushing for companies has only heightened over time, due to the high-cost, undefined-reward environment that typifies sport sponsorship, further emphasizing the challenge facing sponsors.

Also influencing ambush marketing’s changing na- ture have been the counter-ambush mechanisms used by rights holders, an indication of the moderate success enjoyed by event organizers in combating ambush mar- keters. The earliest tactics employed by ambushers took advantage of easily identifiable and available marketing opportunities being passed over by official sponsors, including signage near event sites and event broadcast sponsorship. However, given the efforts of sponsors and rights holders to better protect sponsorship, the availabil- ity of such opportunities has waned. The IOC, in negotiat- ing television broadcast rights with media partners, now restricts the use of the term broadcast sponsor within their broadcast agreements, obliging broadcasters to police their own advertising partners. The Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) has taken broadcast spon- sorship protection a step further, buying and controlling all advertising time during matches and allotting the time to sponsors. As a result, sponsors are not only protected from potential ambush campaigns, but are also forced to better leverage their investment.

Moreover, UEFA have also spearheaded the use and enforcement of marketing exclusion zones surrounding stadia and event-host sites, as a result of Nike’s Euro 1996 and 1998 FIFA World Cup promotions. These exclusion zones have also been implemented by the Olympics and are now seen as a required element of any Olympic-host bid, as part of anti-ambush marketing legislation; such protection has forced ambushers to become more cre- ative and encouraged greater planning for larger, more ambitious ambush campaigns. While ambushing has in- frequently been strategically managed, these mechanisms have forced ambush marketers to plan better and commit greater time and resources than ever before to success- fully ambush events. For rights holders and sponsors, though, the growing number of ambush marketers, as well as the increased media attention given to ambushing since the 2006 FIFA World Cup, is evidence of ambush marketers’ willingness to adapt to these countermeasures. Among the methods employed for more recent sporting events, online promotions, viral marketing campaigns, off-site giveaways, and increasingly creative and legally

714 feature artiCle

thunderbird international Business review Vol. 53, No. 6 November/December 2011 DOI: 10.1002/tie

lack of diligence on the part of the organizer. This catego- rization, as with preceding attempts within sponsorship literature, emphasized above all the marketing opportu- nities available to ambush marketers, as well as providing a new look at ambushing’s reach as a marketing vehicle.

Based on these observations, it is worth noting that sport broadcasters are increasingly working with spon- sors to protect the latter’s investment from ambushing by rivals’ advertising space purchases. The IOC, in an effort to protect against this form of ambush, now stipulates within their broadcast contracts that media partners regu- late advertisements more strictly, and prohibit the use of the phrase “broadcast sponsor,” and variations thereof. Similarly, UEFA, as part of its sponsorship package, pur- chases all advertising time during its event broadcasts and distributes that time to their sponsors, stopping any broadcast sponsorship ambushing and forcing sponsors to better leverage their associations.

Likewise, based on UEFA’s experiences at the 1996 European Championships (and the subsequent 1998 FIFA World Cup), the use of advertising media in and around host venues is now strictly policed by event or- ganizers and local governments, thanks to the advent of marketing exclusion zones surrounding stadia, and the enactment of ambush marketing legislation in Olympic host cities. However, despite the advancement and con- tinued progression of counter-ambush marketing mea- sures, the growth of ambush as a communication tool has only been accelerated, thanks in part to the growth of new media, the remarkable growth of the sport mar- ketplace, and the sophistication of sport sponsorship. While broadcast sponsorship for the biggest sporting events is now largely protected against, other opportuni- ties have emerged, and new methods developed. Rather than listing more recent or contemporary efforts taken by ambushers as categories in the same way as those pro- posed before, a typological approach has been taken to conceptualizing modern ambush marketing, addressing the fundamental lack of a theoretical conceptualization that has restricted ambush marketing research to date.

For example, in the previous categorizations at- tempted, all broadcast sponsorship efforts are grouped as one (Meenaghan, 1994, 1996); within this new typology, the distinction is made between sponsors of a member as- sociation or club leveraging their tie to an event, and the efforts of a direct competitor of an official sponsor pur- posely ambushing its rival in an effort to devalue its spon- sorship and mislead consumers. As such, this typology is less a categorization of the marketing communications opportunities available to ambushers (e.g., broadcast sponsorship, outdoor advertising media, promotional

we propose a new definition of ambush marketing. In many ways, given the more capitalistic nature of ambush marketing today described by respondents and witnessed in the case database, “ambush” marketing as a title may be somewhat misleading; rather, the French “pseudo-parrain- age,” or pseudo-sponsorship, is perhaps more applicable. Nevertheless, in re-envisioning ambush marketing com- munications today, the following definition is proposed:

Ambush marketing is a form of associative marketing 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 connection to that event or property.

revisiting ambush Strategies As well as disputing ambush marketing’s nature, past studies on ambush marketing have equally attempted to identify the key tactics or techniques used by ambushers in attacking sporting events and sponsors. Past examina- tions of ambushing have previously revealed five market- ing opportunities typically used by ambushers, categoriz- ing ambush campaigns into the following: sponsoring the broadcast of an event; sponsoring subcategories and leveraging this sponsorship aggressively to overshadow competitor sponsors; buying advertising time surround- ing event broadcasts, before and after official telecasts; aligning major promotions, not sponsorship-related, with an event and actively leveraging those promotions; and the use of alternative creative means—highlighting the innovation and dynamism of ambushers, and the plethora of opportunities to ambush events available (Meenaghan, 1994, 1996). Unfortunately, despite underlining ambush marketing as a marketing communication vehicle for future studies, this breakdown reflected an early view of ambush marketing, directly related to a competitor’s event sponsorship and limited in scope as compared to more recent efforts.

As such, an updated and expanded categorization was proposed, reflecting the change in ambush market- ing tactics over time (Crompton, 2004). In addition to including the sponsorship of event broadcasts and the use of television advertising time surrounding an event as previously noted, a further five potential ambush avenues were identified: the sponsorship of associated entities (other than the organizers/rights holders), the use of advertising media near/in proximity to the event/venues; advertising using a theme or implied association, creating a competitive attraction to distract from the event, and suggesting the accidental ambushing of an event due to a

the evolving Sophistication of ambush Marketing: a typology of Strategies 715

DOI: 10.1002/tie thunderbird international Business review Vol. 53, No. 6 November/December 2011

tions planning taken by ambush marketers, and focuses less on grouping together efforts in broadly descriptive categories. The 11 types of ambushing identified are further divided into three categories—direct ambush ac- tivities, indirect or associative ambushing, and incidental or unintentional ambush attempts—further highlighting the different strategies, motives, and measures used by nonsponsors to develop an attachment to an event.

Throughout discussions with interview participants and the analysis of past ambush marketing incidents, the 11 types of ambushing reflect a more varied understand- ing of the aims of ambushers than previously suggested but also highlight the confusion in identifying what defines ambush marketing. While invariably individual ambushing organizations will have different motives and

giveaways), and rather forms a unique perspective on the various objectives and implications of ambush campaigns and the themes and tactics used by ambushing parties, as well as a critical examination of the relationship between ambush marketer and official sponsor.

By analyzing the database created and the practitio- ner interviews undertaken, 11 newly created types of am- bush have been identified, ranging from the direct attack of one organization on a rival to the unintentional asso- ciation of a company with an event due to reputation or past marketing efforts (see Table 2). Critically, this typol- ogy draws on and evolves from earlier studies on ambush- ing, and includes a number of the same general themes. However, this new typology better reflects the managerial considerations and underlying marketing communica-

ambush Strategy Definition Case example

Number of Cases Observed in the Database

Di re

Ct a

M Bu

SH a

Ct iV

it ie

PREDATORY Ambushing

the deliberate ambushing of a market com- petitor, intentionally and knowingly attacking a rival’s official sponsorship in an effort to gain market share and to confuse consum- ers as to who is the official sponsor

Heineken, uefa european Championships, 2008

Heineken, in an effort to ambush Carlsberg’s official sponsorship, created marching-band-style “trom- Pets” (drum hats) for Dutch fans on their way to Bern that also acted as drums, branded with the Heineken logo and name; the company released advertisements featuring Dutch fans traveling to Switzerland, visiting the official Oranje fans camping complex, and Heineken marketing executives plot- ting ways to ambush the european Championships.

COATTAIL Ambushing

the attempt by an organization to directly associate itself with a property for the pur- pose of ambushing through a legitimate link, such as the sponsoring of participating athletes, or of a participating team or as- sociation, without securing official event sponsor status.

Not to be confused with the oft-used term “piggybacking”; while piggybacking implies acceptance or complicity, coattail ambush- ing refers to the association of a company to an event for the purpose of associating with the property.

Nike, Beijing Summer Olympics, 2008

following Liu Xiang’s injury in the men’s 110 m hurdles, Nike released a full-page ad in the major Beijing newspapers featuring an image of the disconsolate Liu, a Nike-endorsed athlete, and the tagline: “Love competition. Love risking your pride. Love winning it back. Love giving it everything you’ve got. Love the glory. Love the pain. Love sport even when it breaks your heart.”

PROPERTY INFRINGEMENT Ambushing

the intentional use of protected intellec- tual property, including trademarked and copyrighted property such as logos, names, words, and symbols, or knowingly infringing on the rules and regulations of an event, in a brand’s marketing as a means of at- taching itself in the eyes of consumers to a particular property or event.

unibet, uefa european Championships, 2008

Betting company unibet released a series of maga- zine advertisements in Polish magazine Pitkanonza for online betting on the european Championships, explicitly featuring the words “euro 2008” and foot- ball in their advertisements.

table 2 a typology of ambush Marketing

716 feature artiCle

thunderbird international Business review Vol. 53, No. 6 November/December 2011 DOI: 10.1002/tie

ambush Strategy Definition Case example

Number of Cases Observed in the Database

aS SO

Ci at

iV e

aM Bu

SH a

Ct iV

it ie

SPONSOR SELF- Ambushing

the marketing communications activities by an official sponsor above and beyond what has been agreed to in the sponsorship contract, effectively ambushing the property they support and infringing upon other of- ficial sponsors.

Carlsberg, uefa european Championships, 2008

Official sponsor Carlsberg extended its promotions beyond the scope of their sponsorship rights, ef- fectively ambushing the other sponsors by going beyond their contractual allowances; as well as their in-stadium promotions and signage, Carlsberg also gave away headbands to fans during the tourney, sporting fake team-colored hair; in the fan zones surrounding the stadium, Carlsberg gave away t-shirts to fans with the Carlsberg marks for those visiting the brand’s promotional booth.

ASSOCIATIVE Ambushing

the use of imagery or terminology to create an allusion that an organization has links to a sporting event or property, without making any specific references or implying an of- ficial association with the property.

Nike, Beijing Summer Olympics, 2008

throughout their 2008 summer marketing, Nike made considerable use of the number 8, a symbol of luck and fortune in China, as well as a symbol for the Games (whose start date was 08.08.08). Nike uses similar design patterns in several shoes and items of clothing, using the number 8, as well as drawing comparisons to the Beijing Olympic Sta- dium “Bird’s Nest” design, and the five rings logo.

DISTRACTIVE Ambushing

the creation of a presence or disruption at or around an event in order to promote a brand, without specific reference to the event itself and its imagery or themes in order to intrude upon public conscious- ness and gain awareness from the event’s audience.

Bentley, the Open Championship, 2008

Bentley prominently displayed a row of cars out- side Hillside Golf Club, directly adjacent to royal Birkdale, the host course of the Open, as a means of attracting interest and, in turn, deterring from Lexus’s official sponsorship of the event.

VALUES Ambushing

the use of an event or property’s central value or theme to imply an association with the property in the mind of the consumer.

Puma, european Championships, 2008

advertised their football line during the spring and summer with the slogan “JuNe 2008: tOGetHer eVerYWHere”—a direct reference to the euro- pean Championships being played that month, and the underlining themes of unity and anti-racism of the tournament.

INSURGENT Ambushing

the use of surprise, aggressively promoted, one-off street-style promotions or giveaways at an event, in order to maximize aware- ness, while minimizing investment and distracting attention away from official spon- sors and the event itself.

K-Swiss, french Open—roland Garros, 2008

K-Swiss ambushed rivals adidas and clothing spon- sor Lacoste in a one-off guerrilla marketing ploy, setting up an enormous purple K-Swiss-branded tennis ball on top of a crashed car, along a major route to roland Garros.

PARALLEL PROPERTY Ambushing

the creation of, or sponsorship of, a rival event or property to be run in parallel to the main ambush target, associating the brand with the sport or the industry at the time of the event, thus capitalizing on the main event’s goodwill.

Nike Human race, international, 2008

Nike organized a global “counterevent” called “the Human race,” being run in 24 cities across the world—including Shanghai—starting seven days fol- lowing the Olympics and featuring massive interna- tional marketing throughout the Olympics centered around Nike and the marathon.

table 2 a typology of ambush Marketing (continued)

the evolving Sophistication of ambush Marketing: a typology of Strategies 717

DOI: 10.1002/tie thunderbird international Business review Vol. 53, No. 6 November/December 2011

dependent, and is seen as a different approach to market- ing, an opportunity parallel to sponsorship.”

In this light, ambush marketing can be viewed as an alternative to sponsorship for companies, depending on their budget, interests, and brand image; for some organizations, taking a more bold, daring approach to marketing their products or services, represents an alter- native means of gaining some of the same benefits of asso- ciation with an event as sponsorship, while maintaining a connection with their own brand ethos. Throughout the database, certain trends are readily apparent in analyzing those companies actively ambushing and those sponsors commonly impacted. Less conventional, more trendy and anti-authoritarian brands, such as those emphasized by companies like Nike and Pepsi, appear significantly more likely to ambush sporting events, as compared to their more official-sponsorship-focused rivals Coca-Cola and Adidas.

However, this new typology presents one particular newly emergent trend in sport marketing, the preemp- tive ambushing of a rival by an official sponsor, which has shifted power away from traditional ambushers. While

objectives behind their campaigns, the ultimate impact of their efforts on sponsorship and event-linked marketing has historically been the defining factor in determining ambush marketing. As such, sabotage marketing or pro- motional giveaways outside a sporting event, while not di- rectly attacking or impacting sponsorship in the majority of cases, nevertheless impact upon consumer awareness and brand image transfer, thus negatively influencing sponsorship effectiveness.

Moreover, whereas previously ambush marketing’s primary aim has been seen as a means of confusing consumers as to whom officially sponsors an event, or to detract from an official sponsorship’s media awareness and derive the same brand association benefits as official sponsors, contemporary ambush marketing appears to have evolved into a marketing communication vehicle unto its own. Undoubtedly, in the case of major com- petitors such as Nike and Adidas, Pepsi and Coca-Cola, or American Express and Visa, history has shown that influencing sponsorship success has been and continues to be an element of ambush marketing. However, as one sponsorship executive noted, “ambush marketing is client

ambush Strategy Definition Case example

Number of Cases Observed in the Database

iN Ci

De Nt

al a

M Bu

SH a

Ct iV

it ie

UNINTENTIONAL Ambushing

the incorrect consumer identification of a nonsponsoring company as an official spon- sor, unknowingly or inexplicitly, based on a previous or expected association with an event.

Speedo, Beijing Summer Olympics, 2008

Speedo earned considerable media attention throughout the Beijing Games as a result of the success of swimmers in their LZr racer swim- suits, resulting in the brand being identified as a sponsor and cluttering the market.

SATURATION Ambushing

the strategic increase in the amount of marketing communications around the time of an event by a nonsponsor in order to maximize awareness of the brand during the event, aggressively marketing the brand around an event, and maximizing the use of available advertising before, during, and after the broadcast.

lucozade, Beijing Summer Olympics, 2008

Lucozade, during the Olympic Games, aggres- sively promoted its brand through print and televi- sion advertisements, above and beyond their stan- dard marketing, prominently featuring athletes and a variety of sports, in line with the Olympics.

Note: Direct ambush activities are defined as the intended, targeted association of a brand (by an ambusher) with an event or property, through a clear, ex- plicit reference or an intended connection to the ambushee.

Indirect ambush activities are defined as the association of a brand with an event or property, through suggestion or indirect reference, drawing on the awareness and attention of consumers surrounding an event, without express reference or attachment to the property.

Incidental ambush activities are defined as the presumed association of a brand with an event or property, without that brand establishing a clear, explicit, or intended connection.

table 2 a typology of ambush Marketing (continued)

718 feature artiCle

thunderbird international Business review Vol. 53, No. 6 November/December 2011 DOI: 10.1002/tie

marketing and the overall capitalization on the value of sporting events. Cases from the 1980s through to the mid- 1990s appear to represent a clearer and better-defined competitive relationship between ambusher and am- bushee, with a number of attacks explicitly attacking a ri- val’s sponsorship (such as American Express’s “You don’t need a visa” Olympic-themed campaigns). However, in more contemporary examples, perhaps in line with the dramatic increase in sponsorship value over time, a more indirect, opportunistic approach now more accurately describes ambush marketing.

The emergence of relatively new and unexplored ambush tactics, such as value-based ambushing and self-ambushing, reaffirm the value associated with these mega-sporting events, and the potential benefits sought by organizations recognizing this worth. Brands, this shift would seem to indicate, have taken a much stron- ger focus on gaining and encouraging some benefit from a presumed association with an event, in place of early suggestions that ambushers sought primarily to detract from sponsorship and negatively impact a sponsor’s returns. While in some cases this is surely still a main focus, in capturing attention and drawing consumer awareness away from sponsors, ambushers are ultimately affecting the activities of sponsors. Our findings point away from intentional confusion and distraction toward a broader, more opportunistic and benefit-driven perspective of ambushing.

few cases exist to date, Adidas’s marketing activities at the 2008 UEFA European Championships represent an acute awareness of the threat posed by competitors Nike and Puma, and a move toward claiming full benefits of their sponsorship association. While not all official sponsors can be expected to preemptively attack known ambush- ers so blatantly, using ambush marketing techniques to combat ambush marketing is a development worthy of greater investigation.

impl icat ions and Conclusions

The aim behind such a typology is to better understand the process and management practices behind ambush- ing, as a means of better protecting sponsorship and de- fending against ambush campaigns. While identifying tac- tics used in the past—such as broadcast sponsorship—has raised awareness of the threat of ambushing and given rise to possible counter-ambush attempts, the continued confusion regarding what constitutes ambush marketing and how to cope with ambush marketing has underlined the need to better assess which campaigns legitimately threaten sponsorship, and to what degree.

In examining past ambush campaigns from the da- tabase, collected within the context of this new typology, a distinct shift in paradigms is evident; while early in am- bush marketing’s history, predatory and coattail ambush strategies were most prominent, more recently ambush marketing has taken a decided emphasis on associative

Professor Simon Chadwick holds the position of Chair in Sport Business Strategy and Marketing at Coventry university Business School, where he is also the founder and director of the Centre for the International Business of Sport (CIBS). Chadwick’s research and teaching interests lie in the areas of sponsorship, sport marketing, and commercial strategy in sport; his work in each of these areas has been published widely, and he has consulted with some of the world’s leading organizations involved in sport.

Nicholas Burton is a doctoral candidate and research scholar at Coventry university Business School and researcher for the Centre for the International Business of Sport. His research has received international media at- tention, including a number of book chapters, press articles, and journal publications. His main research interests include ambush marketing, sport sponsorship, athlete endorsements, and sports celebrity branding, with particular focus on the management of sport marketing and sponsorship.

references Crimmins, J., & Horn, M. (1996). Sponsorship: From management ego trip to marketing success. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(4), 11–21.

Crompton, J. L. (2004). Sponsorship ambushing in sport. Managing Leisure, 9(1), 1–12.

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

the evolving Sophistication of ambush Marketing: a typology of Strategies 719

DOI: 10.1002/tie thunderbird international Business review Vol. 53, No. 6 November/December 2011

Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (Eds.). (2003). Business research methods. Ox- ford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Cornwell, T. B., & Maignan, I. (1998). An international review of spon- sorship research. Journal of Advertising, 27(1), 1–21.

Coulson, N. (2004, February). Ambush marketing. Brand Strategy, 179, 32.

Farrelly, F., Quester, P., & Greyser, S. A. (2005). Defending the co- branding benefits of sponsorship B2B partnerships: The case of ambush marketing. Journal of Advertising Research, 45(3), 31–39.

Flanaghan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327–358.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Kane, E. (1985). Doing your own research: Basic descriptive research in the social sciences and humanities. London: Marion Boyars.

Lee, M. S., Sandler, D. M., & Shani, D. (1997). Attitudinal constructs towards sponsorship: Scale development using three global sporting events. International Marketing Review, 14(3), 159–169.

Lyberger, M. R., & McCarthy, L. (2001). An assessment of consumer knowledge of, interest in, and perceptions of ambush marketing strate- gies. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 10(2), 130–137.

Meenaghan, J. A. (1983). Commercial sponsorship. European Journal of Marketing, 17(7), 5–73.

Retsky, M. L. (1996). One person’s ambush is another’s free speech. Marketing News, 30(14), 14.

Sayer, A. (1992). Methods in social science: A realist approach (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Séguin, B., Lyberger, M., O’Reilly, N., & McCarthy, L. (2005). Inter- nationalizing ambush marketing: The Olympic brand and country of origin. International Journal of Sport Sponsorship and Marketing, 6, 216–230.

Shani, D., & Sandler, D. (1998). Ambush marketing: Is confusion to blame for the flickering of the flame? Psychology & Marketing, 15, 367–383.

Smith, H. (1975). Strategies of social research: The methodological imagination. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Walliser, B. (2003). An international review of sponsorship research: Ex- tension and update. International Journal of Advertising, 22(1), 5–40.

IEG. (2007). IEG sponsorship report. Chicago: Author.

International Olympic Committee. (2008). Marketing fact file 2006. Lausanne, Switzerland: Author.

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

McKelvey, S. M. (2006). Coca-Cola vs. PepsiCo—A “super” battleground for the cola wars? Sport Marketing Quarterly, 15(2), 114–123.

McKelvey, S., & Grady, J. (2008). Sponsorship program protection strategies for special sport events: Are event organizers outmanoeuvring ambush marketers? Journal of Sport Management, 22, 550–586.

Meenaghan, T. (1991). Sponsorship—Legitimising the medium. Euro- pean Journal of Marketing, 25(11), 5–10.

Meenaghan, T. (1994). Point of view: Ambush marketing: Immoral or imaginative practice? Journal of Advertising Research, 34(5), 77–88.

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

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

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

Payne, M. (1998). Ambush marketing: The undeserved advantage. Psy- chology & Marketing, 15, 323–331.

Sandler, D. M., & Shani, D. (1989). Olympic sponsorship vs. “ambush” marketing: Who gets the gold? Journal of Advertising Research, 29(4), 9–14.

Séguin, B., & O’Reilly, N. (2008). The Olympic brand, ambush market- ing and clutter. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsor- ship, 4(1), 62–84.

Townley, S., Harrington, D., & Couchman, N. (1998). The legal and practical prevention of ambush marketing in sports. Psychology & Mar- keting, 15, 333–348.

addi t ional references Bennett, R. (1986). Meaning and method in management research. Graduate Management Research, 3(3).

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.