Thursday, March 3, 2011

Ambush Marketing - An Effective Marketing Technique or

Just a Worthless Fad!
A Look Into the Effectiveness of Ambush Marketing
Ambush marketing is a marketing technique where a company associates its brand to a
sporting event without paying any sponsorship fee (Skildum-Reid, 2007). In other words, the
company which is involved in ambush marketing is not an official sponsor of the event;
however, it places its advertisements on the event at prominent places so the spectators are bound
to pay attention to these advertisements. Thus, the company actually takes benefit of the
publicity and the reputation of a particular event by making an association with it, without
paying the due sponsorship fee (Simon and Nicholas, 2010).
Effectiveness of Ambush Marketing
Ambush marketing is a direct and effective marketing technique because it places the
marketing material in front of a large crowd in a major event and the crowd is bound to pay
attention to it. From a corporate perspective, ambush marketing is one of the most enforcing
ways through which any newly launched product or brand can be advertised and managed at the
same time but with its own pros and cons (Meenaghan, 1996).
Effective marketing is the way of choosing various different marketing channels which
are currently available in the most effective manner for executing their marketing plan since it is
the most important aspect that comes into play. When conducting a marketing plan for a
particular product, it is the first and foremost priority to identify the different channels that can
be used or are contemporarily used for successful and efficient marketing campaigns. Ambush
marketing is effective because it compels a large number of people to pay attention to the
marketing material of a brand or product.
With the increasing level of competitiveness that is gaining phenomenal pace, it has
become increasingly important to market products through the exploration of greater frontiers
and channels. Since the target audience of many products are highly scattered and are not bound
to any specific area or demographic unit, all kinds of marketing channels whether it be through
print means of using newspapers or through electronic means where television and radio, are
utilized for marketing the product by making use of diverse dimensions.
Some people think that ambush marketing is just another fad of marketing gurus, but
well, this is not quite true. Ambush marketing is a guerilla and direct technique to get attention of
thousands of customers without spending much. For example, Nike has used the recent FIFA
world cup event for ambush marketing; and according to the consumers from UK, US and other
European countries, Nike has benefitted from their ambush marketing technique more than any
other company without being the official sponsor of the event.
Moreover, some people are of the view that ambush marketing is a highly unethical
marketing practice. In their opinion, the sponsor pays millions of dollars while the ambush
marketers or ambushers for that matter; just get the benefit of the event without paying their due
share. On the contrary, people who are in favor of ambush marketing opine that it is the
legitimate and legal right of the companies to find the most cost effective ways of marketing
their brands, products or services; therefore, ambush marketing is nothing but a very cost
effective and highly efficient marketing technique (O'Sullivan & Murphy, 1998).
Conclusion
In the end, it can be concluded that apart from the debate of ethical and moral
justification of ambush marketing, it is still a very effective direct marketing technique to get the
attention of a large number of people without spending much on the overall marketing campaign.
Ambush Marketing A Threat to Corporate
Sponsorship
By Tony Meenaghan
October 15, 1996
As the corporate sponsorship of sports events has grown, so too has the practice of ambush
marketing. Is the practice legal and ethical? How can a legitimate sponsor counteract the effects of
an ambusher?
Upgrade to premium to get access to all articles.
Buy
SHARE THIS
y
y
y

Share
Email
Buy
Corporations concerned about the efficiency of traditional methods of marketing communications have adopted a
range of alternative media to target audiences. One such medium is commercial sponsorship, which has grown
significantly in recent years. By sponsoring an event or providing a budget for an events broadcast, a sponsor can
generate audience awareness while simultaneously creating associations of the events values in peoples minds.
In this article, I focus on an increasingly prevalent corporate sponsorship practice in which a company, often an event
sponsors competitor, attempts to deflect the audiences attention to itself and away from the sponsor. This practice,
known as ambush or parasitic marketing, simultaneously reduces the effectiveness of the sponsors message
while undermining the quality and value of the sponsorship opportunity that the event owner is selling. As such, it may
seriously inhibit the further growth of corporate sponsorship. Here I seek to warn sponsors of the potential threat to
their sponsorship investments, outline the nature of ambushing and its strategies, and discuss the ethical
perspectives related to ambush marketing and possible strategies and responses that a corporate sponsor might
consider.
The Devel opment of Commerci al Sponsorshi p
Commercial sponsorship for marketing purposes developed only during the past twenty-five years. Sponsorships
ability to transcend language and cultural barriers makes it an attractive global marketing option. In 1970,
sponsorship expenditure in the United Kingdom was only 4 million, but, by 1994, an estimated 450 million was
spent on sponsorship.1 In the United States, market sponsorship expenditure grew from $850 million in 1985 to a
projected 1996 expenditure of $5.4 billion.2
The worldwide sponsorship market grew from an estimated $2 billion in 1984 to $13.02 billion in 1994.3 The key
markets of Europe and the United States dominate the industry worldwide, valued in 1994 at $4.28 billion and $4.25
billion or 32.9 percent and 32.6 percent of worldwide expenditure respectively.4Continued strong growth in this
medium is forecast. These estimates of sponsorship expenditure include only the direct costs of securing the
sponsorship rights. Expenditures to leverage or promote these rights must be at least equal to the direct costs, and
many major sponsors invest several times the direct cost to exploit their initial investment.
ASIA PACIFIC: INDIA

AMBUSH MARKETING - GROWTH IN INDIA
Author: Sharad Vadehra, Kan and Krishme
The term ambush is used to connote the older method of warfare in the present era of commercialization,
competition and advertisement.
Ambush marketing is usually employed at the times of big sporting events, where big corporations cash is on the
names of the sporting events without paying the requisite fee, which constitutes the crux of direct ambush
advertising. However, it is not sporting events only which become the mode of deploying ambush marketing. Of late,
India has witnessed a spurt in the cases of ambush marketing even without any association with the sporting events.
The objectives of ambush marketing are twofold:
1. To get maximum returns on the marketing buck and
2. To undermine the branding efforts of the rivals by stealing the attention, increasing the clutter and confusing the
viewers.
Ambush marketing was first witnessed in 1984 Olympics and the 1996 Cricket World Cup which highlighted the
concept in India. During the 1996 World Cup, although Coca Cola was the official sponsor of the tournament, Pepsi
ambushed the campaign by coming up with the tagline nothing official about it.
India as a nation thrives on cricket as its staple sport. To tackle the issue of direct ambush marketing in cricket
tournaments, the ICC and BCCI came up with an agreement for the players in the year 2003, whereby the players
were prohibited from appearing in advertisements for companies which were competitors for the sponsoring
company. However, the contract just became the focus of a controversy and did not see the light of the day.
In recent times, the nation has been a witness to hoarding ambush advertisements. Jet Airways came up with an ad
campaign saying Weve changed! To ambush the campaign, Kingfisher airlines came up with Weve made them
change which was further ambushed by Go Airways saying Weve not changed. We are still the smartest way to
fly. The hoardings in this case, were placed in the city of Mumbai in a vertical sequence. The campaigns proved to
be a funny sight to the city but a slap in the face of competitors as each competitor was feeding into the campaign of
the other.
However, the latest war was between Hindustan Unilevers shampoo brand Dove and Procter & Gambles shampoo
brand Pantene. P&G launched its intriguing ad campaign for Pantene with the tagline A mystery shampoo. Eighty
percent women say it is better than anything else. A few days later and before P&G could launch the new Pantene,
Hindustan Unilever ambushed the campaign by placing an adjacent hoarding with the tagline There is no mystery.
Dove is the No. 1 shampoo., thus ambushing Pantenes campaign.
In the examples described above, the ambushed company cannot avail of any specific legal remedy. The advertising
campaign can only be considered an unfair trade practice, the remedy for enforcement of which is not very clear.
Ambush advertising can be trapped in the legal web by legislations like The Trade Mark Act, 1999 or The Copyright
Act, 1957 when it is direct. However, the two examples described above, use the indirect ambush which cannot be
trapped under any specific legislation and it leaves the underdog brand in a tight spot. Thus, the need of the present
hour is for the Indian government to provide for some specific legislation which lay down a prescribed behavior for
advertisements.
In the 2003 case of ICC vs. Arvee Enterprises and Philips, the Delhi High Court, while recognizing the alleged act as
ambush marketing categorically stated that such acts were not in fact prohibited under current Indian law.
Ambush advertisements are an enticing and thrilling mode of advertising. Although ambush advertisement mars the
campaign of the first brand, it ends up giving a lot of publicity to both the brands. The campaign sells like hot cakes
amongst the media and captures the mindscape of the consumer in seconds. The ethical concerns over ambush
marketing are a controversy in itself. Ambush marketing is just an aggressive behavior observed in the commercial
arena but it definitely does not revolve around fair practices. Thus, there is a need to draw a line and where it should
be drawn has to be decided by a prescribed mode of legislation.
Coca-Colas Marketing Googly To PepsiCo

By: South Asia Correspondents, India
Published: May 05, 2009
India - Taking the direct advertising wars and spoof brawls of the cola giants a step further, Coca Cola is deploying
ambush marketing tactics during the Indian Premier League's second season.

Consider this. Both PepsiCo's Youngistaan' brand ambassadors - Virender Sehwag, captain of Delhi Daredevils, and
Ishant Sharma, member of Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR) - have been formally present at various promotional
activities for arch-rival Coca-Cola India, simply because Coca-Cola is the associate sponsor and the official pouring
partner for both Delhi Daredevils and Kolkata Knight Riders.

Sehwag, for instance, attended a special send-off ceremony for Delhi Daredevils organised by Coca-Cola India. At
the event, Sehwag, along with Coke brand ambassador Gautam Gambhir, unveiled a limited edition bottle of Coca-
Cola for IPL.
"The campaign will run till the end of the IPL season and will involve merchandising opportunities as well," Srinivas
Murthy, general manager marketing (flavors), Coca-Cola India, said.
A PepsiCo spokesperson declined comment.

Coca-Cola is also making the most of its sponsorship by associating Shah Rukh Khan and team KKR with its clear
lime brand, Sprite. A TV campaign for Sprite featuring three KKR players - Sourav Ganguly, Ajit Agarkar and Murli
Karthik - besides Shah Rukh, has also been launched.
"The creative utilisation of Shah Rukh has been good in terms of the Sprite and KKR association," Harish Bijoor,
brand-domain specialist and CEO, Harish Bijoor Consults Inc, said.

Further, Ishaant Sharma (another Pepsico Youngistaan' brand ambassador) from KKR will now be spotted on
Sprite's limited edition bottles and hoardings, along with Saurav Ganguly and Shah Rukh Khan (both, incidentally,
are ex-Pepsi brand ambassadors). Sprite Kolkata Knight Riders' limited edition bottles will have the insignia of key
players of the KKR team, featuring Saurav Ganguly, Ishant Sharma and David Hussey or Saurav Ganguly, Brendon
McCullum and Murli Kartik.

Ambush marketing refers to the means by which companies not officially associated with an event ride on its
popularity and get themselves subtly associated with it. The ambushers often gain as much mileage as the event's
official sponsors.
One of the most popular examples of ambush marketing was the 1996 Cricket World Cup. Coca-Cola was the
official sponsor and paid around Rs 40 crore for the privilege, but PepsiCo cheekily stole all the limelight with its
Nothing official about it' campaign.

In India, there is almost no protection against indirect ambush marketing. However, for direct ambush marketing,
there are several laws like The Trade Practices Act, the Trade Marks Act, The Copyright Act, The Counterfeit
Goods Act and the Merchandise Marks Act.

Has the move benefitted Coca-Cola? "The big disadvantage is that IPL had to move out of India and a lot more
could have been achieved if the event had been on Indian soil," Bijoor said.

"Further, cola wars have reached a certain degree of fatigue and may not catch as many eyeballs as they once
did."
Ambush Marketing: How Nike and Pepsi Hijacked The World Cup

579 days ago by Willis Wee, in Uncategorized
Discussion: 3 |
Tweet
1423
Author's RSS
This RSS
Ever wonder who the official sponsors of
theWorld Cup are? If your answer is Nike and Pepsi, it is apparent that youre under the spell of
ambush marketing.
Both Nike and Pepsi arent the official sponsors but created campaigns that followed the World
Cups heartbeat. Nike featured stars in theirnational team jerseys, while Pepsis advertisement
brings out an African flavor.
So whats ambush marketing? It involves running similarly themed campaigns around the time
of the event without actually mentioning the event itself. Nike, especially, has shown others how
it should be executed (including print ads). The associations hinted in the ad, the timing of its
release and most importantly, the wow factor that makes it so viral, spreading across the
globe are flawlessly executed.
Parasitic Marketing or Ambush Marketing

By:

Jay Badiyani
Senior Lecturer & HOD
Shri Jaysukhlal Vadhar Institute of Management Studies
And Shri Bipin T. Vadhar College of Management
Jamnagar, Gujarat
Cell: 94264 60369, E-mail: jayb1@rediffmail.com


Abstract.
Parasitic life means dependent life. The ambush or parasitic marketing is the marketing which take the
advantage of value of publicity of major event specifically sports event without paying the requisite fee
and being the official sponsor. It has affected world cup football, World cup cricket and Olympics in a
big way. Other events also got affected. There are laws against it enacted by some countries specifically
Australia but, Indians need to do a lot for elimination of such activities. Will government take the steps?
The paper.
Introduction.
As in biology, parasite means those living organisms that live on food made by other living creatures.
Parasitic marketing means taking the advantage of value of a major event publicity i. e. that product or
company live on food made by other events. It is also refered as Ambush marketing.
Marketing guru Jerry Welsh has first coined the word Ambush marketing as a situation in which a
company or product seeks to ride on the publicity values of a major event without having to finance the
event through sponsorship. Ambush Marketing means when companies try to pass themselves off as
official sponsors when they are not. Most of the advertisements are done during major sporting
events. Companies begin to advertise nationwide.
Another way Ambush marketing explained is pretending to be a sponsor of a major sporting events but
actually not being a sponsor i.e. without paying requisite fees.
Ambush or parasitic marketing can be classified in two classes.

1. Direct ambush marketing. In 1994 football world cup, MasterCard received exclusive rights for using
world cup logo, but a rival Sprints communication used the logo without permission. This is direct
attack but can be defended by laws.

2. Indirect ambush marketing. Several ways indirect ambush marketing can take place like sponsoring
the broadcast of the event, sponsoring subcategories of the major event etc.
Kodak vs. Fuji : An example of Ambush marketing.
Eastman Kodak of Rochester, NY reportedly spend about $40 million to be the sole imaging sponsor of
the 1996 Olympic Games. Fuji another film company, which advertised on the radio and on
newspaper, believed that the promotion may take advantage of the country's strong interest in
sports. Fuji also planed to offer a poster series and desk calendar featuring athletes such as Dan
O'BRIEN and Michael Johnson, both strong contenders for the Olympic team. The concern is that
people walk away thinking that another film company besides Kodak is an Olympic sponsor. Fuji
was sponsor the track and field since 1990, Images of Excellence show just how blurry the line is
between savvy marketing and deliberate ambushing can become.
Outcomes of Ambush marketing.
Main consequences of ambush marketing are

* The commercial value of the event decreases.
* It creates unhealthy competitive environment.
* It may adversely affect the funding of the event.
* Every company would like to be an ambusher instead of paying a huge amount for sponsoring.
Protection against Ambushers.
Australia enacted a new law called Sydney 2000 Act to deal specifically with the ambush marketing. The
objectives of the acts are

* To protect and to further, the position of Australia as a participant in the games, and support the
world Olympic and Para Olympic movement.

* To do the above to the extent that it is within the power of the Parliament to assist in protecting the
relation and ensure the performance of the obligations of the Sydney 2000 Games bodies to the World
Olympic.
In India there is almost no protection against indirect ambush marketing. However, for direct ambush
marketing there are several laws like The Trade Practices Act, Trade Marks Act, The Copyright Act, The
Counterfeit Goods Act and Merchandise Marks Act etc.
The Future Managers views.
Here, every talented person can think about laws which should be enacted against the ambush
marketing. When asked to 200 current and past M. B. A. students, 184 opined that there should be
laws against ambush marketing arguing that those spend much on events must get advantages of the
expenditure. 12 saying no for framing the rules arguing that it's the era of competition. Everybody is
free to decide what to do and business of every business to stay in business. 4 expressed unwillingness
to opine for the issue.


Conclusion.
Should India frame such laws when day by day the popularity of sports events specifically Cricket is
increasing. The answer may be yes or no but if yes, then there are several questions for the
government and organizers. Will government answer it ?
Ambush Marketing
MAY 02, 2009 FARHAAN PANAGAR 2 COMMENTS
Ambush marketing as a situation in which a company or product seeks to ride on the publicity values of
a major event without having to finance the event through sponsorship. It is a marketing campaign that
takes place around an event but does not involve payment of a sponsorship fee to the event. It occurs
when a company signs on to sponsor an event as official sponsor, and a rival hijacks the mind space
through backdoor means. Ambush Marketing means when companies try to pass themselves off as
official sponsors when they are not. Most of the advertisements are done during major sporting events.
It is a concept that describes the actions of companies who seek to associate themselves with a
sponsored event without paying the organizers. or most events of any significance, one brand will pay to
become the exclusive and official sponsor of the event in a particular category or categories, and this
exclusivity creates a problem for one or more other brands. The ambush consists of giving the
impression to consumers that the ambusher is somehow affiliated with the event. Ambush marketing
can provide some, if not most, of the benefits of a legitimate, paid-for sponsorship at relatively little
cost.


Perfect example of Ambush Marketing
Ambush marketing can be classified in two classes.
1. Direct ambush marketing. In 1994 football world cup, MasterCard received exclusive rights for using world cup logo, but a
rival Sprints communication used the logo without permission. This is direct attack but can be defended by laws.
2. Indirect ambush marketing. Several ways indirect ambush marketing can take place like
sponsoring the broadcast of the event, sponsoring subcategories of the major event etc.
It would be pertinent to review why exactly companies do sponsorships as a part of their marketing
programs because this will help explain the implications of ambush marketing.
Audience awareness: When people are relaxing they can imbibe information faster. This helps the brand message penetrate
effectively into the consumer psyche.
Image: Sponsorship leads to the brands image enhancement by virtue of association with a high profile
event.

Segment targeting: Sponsorship enables the marketers to target their consumers in an efficient &
relevant manner. So if Mercedes Benz wants to reach CEOs, they can do so more efficiently by
sponsoring a golf tournament than by advertising on TV.
Other options: Sometimes companies have no other avenue for reaching the masses due to
governmental restrictions on advertising etc. (for example many tobacco & alcohol companies cannot
directly advertise).

Public Relations: Finally, sponsorships give an opportunity to get high visibility & Free PR.
Conclusion
Ambush Marketing should be understood as a marketing strategy occupying the consumer mind space
for an event. What Ambush Marketing is not, is some underhanded attempt to take advantage of
sponsored properties without paying the associated fees. The marketing decision around sponsorships is
really a question of whether or not the sponsorship, as currently offered, is really commercially viable.
Successful ambush strategies feed on ill-conceived sponsorships and inept sponsors; in that regard,
Ambush Marketing is the natural result of healthy competition and has the long-range effect of making
sponsored properties more valuable, not less, in that successful ambushes, over time, help to weed out
inferior sponsorship propositions.
Ambush marketing as a situation in which a company or product seeks to ride on the publicity values of a major
event without having to finance the event through sponsorship. It is a marketing campaign that takes place around an
event but does not involve payment of a sponsorship fee to the eventclick here for details [...]
Ambush marketing: HUL's last-minute surprise foxes
P&G
Kala Vijayraghavan, ET Bureau Jul 29, 2010, 12.53am IST
Tags:
y Unilever
MUMBAI: It was quick and it was smart. It was an ambush in the skies that Hindustan Unilever launched
against archrival Procter & Gamble, spoiling the latter's elaborately laid-out plans for its shampoo brand
Pantene.
The story starts on July 23, when Mumbai woke up to hoardings that screamed: 'A Mystery Shampoo!!
80% women say is better than anything else'. P&G, it was later found, was planning to unveil the new
Pantene on August 1.

Ads by Google
y Healthy Hair Secret ?Shilpa's Secret Is Pantene Shampoo Visit Us To Get Your Free
Sample.www.Pantene.co.in
y Birla Sun Life '95 FundEnsure Growth + Stability on Your Investments. Apply for Birla
MF!BSL95.MutualFund.BirlaSunLife.com
When the suits at HUL found out, they saw an opportunity to score a point. They ambushed P&G. On July
28, even as the P&G hoardings stood tall on its skyline, Mumbai woke up to another hoarding that was
upfront, and suggestive of its source of inspiration. It said: 'There is no mystery. Dove is the No.1
shampoo'. Dove is one of the four brands in HUL's shampoo portfolio.
The HUL national campaign took just one day to go from brief to execution, and was handled by Ogilvy &
Mather India. Says a senior official who was involved in the campaign: "This was the quickest advertising
turnaround in the company's history." An integrated brand campaign normally takes six weeks.
HUL's quick repartee was partly the outcome of Unilever CEO Paul Polman empowering the company's
managers earlier this year to take on-the-spot decisions to counter competition. The P&G response was
terse. Without naming HUL, a company spokeseperson said: "One of our international competitors has
been consistently trying to denigrate our brands, via either disparaging advertising or unsubstantiated
claims across categories."
It's classic ambush advertising, a company feeding off its competitor's campaign. It's something the Indian
advertising landscape hasn't seen enough of. Some of the exceptions have been Jet and Kingfisher,
Coke and Pepsi, among others.
For instance, when Coke bagged the official sponsorship rights to the 1996 cricket world cup in the
subcontinent, Pepsi came up with this tag line for itself: 'Nothing official about it'.
It comes with the territory, says Jagdeep Kapoor, managing director, Samsika Marketing Consultants, a
leading strategic marketing consultancy. "Teaser campaigns are vulnerable to such attacks," he says.
"Companies should focus on consumers rather than the competition. Eventually, consumers will decide
based on the brand's performance and image."
Procter & Gamble has three shampoo brands in India: Pantene, Head & Shoulders, and Rejoice. And
Dove is one of the four brands in HUL's shampoo portfolio, the others being Sunsilk, Clinic Plus and Clinic
All Clear.
Ironically, the leadership claims of both companies on the hoardings rests on their own research, that too
limited. For example, the P&G 80% contention is "based on a Thailand consumer test done by P&G
Japan in October 2008 among 1,200 women".
Similarly, HUL's claim on Dove is based on "winner hair care category, survey of over 30,000 people by
Nielsen". A company official said Dove is the leader in the top-end shampoo segment with sales of Rs
200 crore in 2009-10.
People in the industry say companies are getting aggressive on the advertising front because consumer
spends on relatively discretionary purchases have been subdued due to food inflation. Growth in the
overall shampoo market has slowed from 17% in 2008 to 11% in 2009 and 9% in 2010 (till May).
Samsung vs Nokia: Smart marketing or
ambushing?

Samsung beats Nokia in Indian smartphone market.
NEW DELHI: In a packed theatre, scores of excited movie buffs sat through a long march of
commercials patiently, but the organisers were dismayed. It was an exclusive premier of
SRK-starrer Ra.One for mobile phone maker Nokia's premium users at PVR Select City
Walk mall in Delhi, but the advertisements that had been running for the previous few
minutes were ofSamsung mobile!

That was in October. Two months later, whenNokia rolled out Lumia cabs in Bangalore as
part of its biggest marketing drive in the country to promote its first Windows smartphone,
Samsung brought out its own Omnia cab and stationed it outside the Lumia showroom for a
few days.

Analysts call it ambush marketing, Samsung says it's not. Whatever, but the cut-throat
competition between the country's top two mobile handset players looks like the old Cola
War between Coca-Cola and PepsiCo and refreshes memories of Pepsi's 'Nothing official
about it' campaign during the 1996 cricket World Cup that introduced the concept
of ambush marketingin India.

"We do not acknowledge, react or engage in ambush marketing," a Nokia spokesperson
says. "We believe in responsible marketing, where we will disclose more than what is
required to our consumers, as we did in the case of the minor software glitch in Lumia
800."

Samsung denies ambushing Nokia, and says both the examples were part of independent
marketing initiatives. "We were running a media innovation in October for tablets wherein
all screens at Ambience Mall PVR and Inox in Mumbai showed the ads," a Samsung
spokeswoman says.

Samsung move won't affect Nokia
And there was no 'Lumia Cab' in Bangalore when Samsung rolled out a convoy of 'Omnia W'
cabs for three days, she says, adding they were parked outside Samsung Smartphone Cafes.

"Ambush marketing rules apply if there are territorial rules that are applicable, as in the
case of cricket World Cup... In the case of smartphones, all companies are aggressively
trying to grow the category," she says.

All is fair in love & war
Samsung has emerged the most aggressive mobile handset maker over the past couple of
years. It pipped Apple as the world's top smartphone player during the July-September
quarter last year and in India, GfK data suggests Samsung may have already overtaken
Nokia as the largest smartphone vendor in value terms, thanks to the rising popularity of its
Google Android phones led by the Galaxy range.

The marketing war in India has intensified after Nokia rolled out its first Windows-based
smartphone, Lumia, last month. Samsung has started pushing its own Windows
smartphone Omnia, launched more than a year ago, harder.

An email comparing Lumia 800 and Omnia W features and concluding 'Why donate 9,000
extra to Nokia' is in circulation. While Samsung denies any connection with the mail, Nokia
says ambush marketing is not about deriding the other brand. "Ambush marketing, if done
in a creative manner, appeals to the consumers," says a Nokia spokesperson. "It's not a
crude attack on the rival."

Some marketing experts believe Samsung is playing it smart. "Competition is all about being
opportunistic and scoring a goal when the rival is least prepared. And that's where Samsung
has proved to be a better player," says Saurabh Uboweja, director of brand consulting and
design firm Brands of Desire.

Even if customers think Samsung played the smart Alec, it won't hurt the brand as the
ambush creates the perception of a smart, witty and on-the-go brand, says Uboweja.

"It's much like the customers today who don't feel guilty about pulling a leg or playing a
prank on their peers," he adds.

Rules of ambush
Former advertising professional and chick lit writer Anuja Chauhan says focused ambushing
is better than rapid-fire ambushing. "It makes more sense to keep it (ambush) more
informative and publicise it," says Chauhan, who came up with the 'Nothing official about it'
tagline for Pepsi in 1996.

The aim of the ambush is to leverage the strength of the competitor. It has to be smart and
not say derogatory things about the competitor, she says. An independent analyst says
Samsung's strategy won't affect Nokia.

"Even in a war, ambush is the recourse of an upstart, and not of the ruler," says the analyst,
requesting anonymity. "At best, ambush can be a tactical move. But it won't hurt Nokia."

YLR Moorthi, professor (marketing), IIM-Bangalore, says ambush marketing somehow
speaks of a company not confident of holding out in the open. "Samsung is a challenger in
the mobile market in India. So, they might be seeking out opportunities to hurt Nokia," he
says.

And it has managed to bridge the gap with Nokia considerably in the smartphone segment,
which accounts for some 8% of the 213-million Indian handset market. According to
latest IDCfigures, Nokia accounted for 35.3% of all smartphone shipments in the country
during the July-September quarter last year, followed by Samsung at 26%.

In the overall mobile phone market, the market shares are 31.8% and 17.5%, respectively,
for Nokia and Samsung. Deepak Kumar, research director (telecommunications & mobile
phones) at IDC India, says the smartphone landscape in India will remain fluid for the next
couple of quarters.

"The picture would start becoming clear in the second half of 2012, when the various
operating system platforms would have mostly unfolded their plays across a variety of
hardware," says Kumar.
Ambush Marketing
Posted: August 9, 2011 in Uncategorized
0
OVER THE YEARS MARKETERS HAVE FOUND SEVERAL INNOVATIVE WAYS TO ADVERTIZE THEIR
BRANDS. AMBUSH MARKETING IS ONE OF SUCH UNIQUE AND CREATIVE WAYS OF MARKETING.
IN GENERAL AMBUSH MEANS AN ATTACK FROM HIDDEN POSITION. IN AMBUSH MARKETING,
COMPANY CAPITALIZE TO ADVERTIZE THEMSELVES ON THE EVENTS, IN WHICH ITS NOT AN
OFFICIAL SPONSOR. THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS EXAMPLES IN WHICH OTHER COMPANIES
DRAGGED THE LIMELIGHT, WITHOUT BEING AN OFFICIAL SPONSOR. SOME OF THE EXAMPLES
ARE:


FIFA World Cup 2010: Adidas was one of the official sponsors of 2010 FIFA World Cup held in South Africa. Adidas bagged
the sponsorship by beating their closest rival NIKE.

NIKE went for Ambush Marketing and launched Write the Future Campaign. The campaign featured TV commercials
consisting of football stars like Rooney, Ronaldo were launched three weeks before the starting of FIFA World Cup. As a result,
NIKE was successful in creating a lot of buzz, even before start of World Cup. In a survey published by The Nielsen Company, it
was claimed that NIKE was more benefitted from the event, in comparison to official sponsor Adidas. The campaign was so
successful that some people misunderstood NIKE as the official sponsors of the World Cup.
Video Commercial Write The Future Campaign

Wills Cup 1996: Pepsi was unsuccessful to get sponsorship of 1996 World Cup. But Pepsi used Ambush Marketing to capitalize
such event by launching a campaign called There is nothing official about it. This campaign was targeted to steal the show
from Coca-Cola who was official sponsor of the World Cup.

Ambush Marketing still being one of the most cost effective and creative ways of marketing, has still faced a lot of criticism. This
criticism mainly comes from the official sponsors, who have spent millions of dollar to get sponsorship. It has been thought
increasing use of Ambush Marketing during big events could reduce the value of official sponsorship, which in turn may hinder
sponsorship funding.
Upcoming Events: Rugby World Cup 2011

The Rugby World Cup 2011 is one of the most awaited events starting from 9th September in New Zealand. Even before starting
of World Cup, Sponsors are worried that some companies may use Ambush Marketing and try to gain popularity through the
event at the expense of sponsors. As a result of increasing pressure from sponsors to safeguard their sponsorship rights has forced
Government of New Zealand to introduce Anti-Ambush Marketing Legislation as a part of a major Events Management Bill.
This article has been contributed by Manish Badlani who is a management student from IBS (ICFAIBusinessSchool) Mumbai.
He is passionate about marketing and likes to analyze the marketing strategies of leading companies as well as the changing
trends of the industry.
Pringles Ambush Marketing at Wimbledon
Advertising at an event without being an official sponsor

Posted on 09 July 2009
by Didier Vassout
How does one associate a brand to a sporting event without being an official commercial partner or
sponsor? By ambush marketing!
Almost 24,000 cans of Pringles were distributed to spectators on Wednesday July 1st outside the
Wimbledon All England Club. This was part of an ambush marketing campaign developed by the
Touch agency for Procter & Gamble.
The packaging, made to distinctly resemble the cans that tennis balls come in, with these are not
tennis balls written on them, allowed the product to make a noticeable (and tolerated) presence to
thethousands of spectators at the tournament. The brand did take a risk, as there was the
possibility that the products would not be allowed inside in the stadium, as usually is the case for
non-official sponsors.

Sporting events seem to be the perfect targets for ambush marketing. You can probably
recall Dims campaign during the Rugby World Cup that we talked about earlier. To reinforce the
campaign and to continue it on its good track, legendary tennis player doubles (including Roger
Federer and Bjrn Borg) were joined by a Sir Cliff Richard to attract even more attention.
The campaign also benefited from some coverage on Radio 1, in the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail,
and The Washington Business Journal It was applauded as being fantastic, well thought out and
executed by a Procter & Gamble executive.
Over the years marketers have found several innovative ways to advertize their brands.
Ambush Marketing is one of such unique and creative ways of marketing. In general
Ambush means An attack from Hidden Position. In Ambush Marketing, Company
capitalize to advertize themselves on the events, in which its not an official sponsor.
There have been numerous examples in which other companies dragged the limelight,
without being an official sponsor. Some of the examples are:
FIFA World Cup 2010: Adidas was one of the official sponsors of 2010 FIFA World
Cup held in South Africa. Adidas bagged the sponsorship by beating their closest rival
NIKE.
NIKE went for Ambush Marketing and launched Write the Future Campaign. The
campaign featured TV commercials consisting of football stars like Rooney, Ronaldo
were launched three weeks before the starting of FIFA World Cup. As a result, NIKE was
successful in creating a lot of buzz, even before start of World Cup. In a survey published
by The Nielsen Company, it was claimed that NIKE was more benefitted from the event,
in comparison to official sponsor Adidas. The campaign was so successful that some
people misunderstood NIKE as the official sponsors of the World Cup.
Video Commercial Write The Future Campaign
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSggaxXUS8k
Wills Cup 1996: Pepsi was unsuccessful to get sponsorship of 1996 World Cup. But
Pepsi used Ambush Marketing to capitalize such event by launching a campaign called
There is nothing official about it. This campaign was targeted to steal the show from
Coca-Cola who was official sponsor of the World Cup.

Ambush Marketing still being one of the most cost effective and creative ways of
marketing, has still faced a lot of criticism. This criticism mainly comes from the official
sponsors, who have spent millions of dollar to get sponsorship. It has been thought
increasing use of Ambush Marketing during big events could reduce the value of official
sponsorship, which in turn may hinder sponsorship funding.
Upcoming Events: Rugby World Cup 2011

The Rugby World Cup 2011 is one of the most awaited events starting from 9th
September in New Zealand. Even before starting of World Cup, Sponsors are worried
that some companies may use Ambush Marketing and try to gain popularity through the
event at the expense of sponsors. As a result of increasing pressure from sponsors to
safeguard their sponsorship rights has forced Government of New Zealand to introduce
Anti-Ambush Marketing Legislation as a part of a major Events Management Bill.
This article has been contributed by Manish Badlani who is a management student from
IBS (ICFAIBusinessSchool) Mumbai. He is passionate about marketing and likes to
analyze the marketing strategies of leading companies as well as the changing trends of
the industry.






Ambush marketing a term often hissed in industry
circles occurs when one brand pays to become an
official sponsor of an event (most often athletic) and
another competing brand attempts to cleverly connect
itself with the event, without paying the sponsorship fee
and, more frustratingly, without breaking any laws. Ambush, or guerilla, marketing is as undeniably
effective as it is damaging, attracting consumers at the expense of competitors, all the while
undermining an events integrity and, most importantly, its ability to attract future sponsors.
It is no surprise that ambush marketing techniques are at their utmost when the stakes are highest.
And the stakes are never higher than at galactic sporting events such as the FIFA World Cup and
the Olympics the hands down, undisputed, two most mammoth events on modern earth. The 1998
World Cup final in France was watched by 1.7 billion; the 2002 World Cup in June is expected to
draw a cumulative audience of almost 5 billion. The sponsorship yield from the 1988 Olympics was
estimated at US$ 338 million. For the 1986 World Cup it was US$ 1 billion. By 1992, only four years
later, the Olympic revenue had increased to US$ 700 million. In 2000, individual Olympic sponsors
shelled out up to US$ 40 million apiece. By 1998, the World Cup scored US$ 29 billion.


As would be expected, along with increasing viewership and increasingly prohibitory sponsorship
costs, ambush marketing has developed into an art form. FIFA says such tactics "lack decency and
creativity." Indecent? Maybe. Uncreative? Anything but. Highlights in ambush marketing history
include:
y 1984 Olympics: Kodak sponsors TV broadcasts of the games as well as the US track team
despite Fuji being the official sponsor. Fuji returns the favor in kind during the Seoul 1988
games of which Kodak is the official sponsor.
y At the 1992 Barcelona Olympics Nike sponsors press conferences with the US basketball
team despite Reebok being the games official sponsor.
y In the greatest ambush marketing feat of all time Nikes man Michael Jordan, Air
Sponsorship himself, accepts the gold medal for basketball and covers up the Reebok logo
on his kit.
y 1994 Winter Olympics in Lillehammer, Norway: In response to official-sponsor Visas claims
that American Express is not accepted at the Olympic Village, AmEx creates an ad
campaign claiming (correctly) that Americans do not need visas to travel to Norway. The
1994 Visa-AmEx affair was a continuation of a scrap featuring the exact same campaigns
from the 1992 Winter Olympics.
y 1998 World Cup, France: Nike again.
y 2000 Sydney Olympics: Qantas Airlines slogan "The Spirit of Australia" sounds strikingly
similar to the games slogan "Share the Spirit." Qantas claims its just a coincidence to the
sound of official-sponsor Ansett Air helplessly banging its fists on the conference room
table.
y 2002 Boston Marathon: Nike strikes again. As adidas-sponsored runners come off the
course they are treated to spray-painted swooshes honoring the day of the race, but not
the race itself.
And where does the law stand in such cases of ambush marketing? Usually somewhere out of view.
Unlike piracy or counterfeiting, ambush marketing cases are rarely actionable, especially if the
ambushers know what they are doing. In 1992 the granddaddy of boy bands New Kids on the Block
sought legal action against newspaper USA Today, when it set up a charge-per-call service asking
readers to tell them what they thought of the New Kids. The New Kids suit (like their careers),
ended unfavorably.
For those finding themselves on the working end of an ambush marketing campaign, the real
question is one of ethics. Is ambush marketing an ethical business practice? The ambush marketing
cases that get the most press are those involving heavyweight brands with massive resources, such
as Nike, adidas and Reebok or Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Between such large and equal players,
ambush marketing is deemed a last ditch technique to use when no other forms of competition are
available the corporate sponsorship answer to Mutually Assured Destruction.

However, for some, ambush marketing is the only way to compete. To become the official sponsor
of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Anheuser-Busch paid more than US$ 50 million. In
accordance with its agreement, it got all rights to use the word "Olympic" and the five-rings logo.
Schirf Brewery, a local (and very small) company, came up with the rather ingenious (and
apparently legal) idea of marking its delivery trucks with "Wasutch Beers. The Unofficial Beer. 2002
Winter Games." In accordance with copyright rules, Schirf had avoided using either the word
'Olympics' or the five-ringed logo. However, it had without a doubt connected itself to the games.
One might be more inclined to sympathize with the woes of a local microbrewery over, say, adidas.
In other words, does Goliath have an unfair competition claim against David?
Is ambush marketing simply a natural evolution in a game where the stakes are so high that quaint
ideas like Kant's categorical imperative and the Golden Rule are perversely unrealistic? It would
appear so. Probably the most outright and unapologetic (not to mention successful) brand to
embrace ambush marketing is Nike. If you are a major footwear producer, Nike has ambushed you:
Converse in Los Angeles in 1984; Reebok in Atlanta in 1996; adidas on just about every continent in
every two or four year competition.
Strategically avoiding sponsoring events and thus exposing itself to its own tactics, Nike instead
sponsors teams or individuals. In the upcoming 2002 World Cup, sponsored by adidas, many of the
top teams such as Brazil are outfitted entirely in Nike gear. In this, adidas has no recourse. Nike
also sponsored the US hockey team at the 2002 Winter Olympics and got plenty of exposure
despite not paying the Olympic Organizing Committee a penny. In addition to such focused
sponsorship, Nike is spending US$ 18 million on its 2002 World Cup ambush by funding bus-side
screens to display the latest scores and hosting a mysterious "Scorpion" tournament featuring some
of the world's best footballers.
Nikes ambush of the 1996 Atlanta Olympics is still seen as the ambush of all ambushes. Saving the
US$ 50 million that an official sponsorship would have cost, Nike plastered the city in billboards,
handed out swoosh banners to wave at the competitions and erected an enormous Nike center
overlooking the stadium. The tactics devastated the International Olympic Committees credibility
and spooked other organizations such as FIFA into adopting more assertive anti-ambushing
strategies.
The result of all of Nikes ambushing appears to pay off though. Following the 1996 Atlanta debacle,
many thought Nike had been an official sponsor of the games. More recently, a December 2001
study found that, from a list of 45 likely sponsors of the 2002 World Cup, 20 percent of those polled
picked Nike. Rick Burton, executive director of Warsaw Sports Marketing Center at the University of
Oregon, points out the obvious, "Nike has done nothing illegal." Simon Pestridge, Nikes brand
manager, explains more diplomatically in an interview with MSNBC in February of this year: "Nike
likes to come at things from a different angle."
Industry agreement is that, while getting ambushed is as inevitable as taxes and that other thing,
there are steps a brand can take to minimize the damage. Merrill Squires, managing partner of the
Dallas-based Marketing Arm, said in a 1999 interview with ABCnews.com, "The weak link is
marketers who sign a sponsorship deal and dont look at it carefully. They need to negotiate for
every potential right to block out competitors." This blocking out is an option the Olympics offers
sponsors, giving them first crack at all available commercial time or billboard spaces in their
industries. Unfortunately, marketers dont always take advantage of such offers, considering them
potentially too costly.
Obviously, as ambush marketing becomes more and more widespread and acceptable the
biggest losers will be the events themselves. Organizations such as the Olympic Organizing
Committee and FIFA rely on the revenue from corporate sponsorship for survival. As brand
marketers increasingly view "official" sponsorship as equivalent to flushing wads of cash down a
bottomless toilet, organizers will become more and more strapped for the means with which to host
the events.
With more questions and accusations than answers, the bottom line is that ambushing is probably
just the next step on the marketing evolutionary ladder. Never a gentle industry to begin with and
with consumers becoming increasingly conscious about being the end of the means, brands that
spend their time sniveling about "fairness" will most likely have little audience for their whimpers.
Adidas America spokesperson Travis Gonzolez sums up the ambush marketing debate, "If
everyone throws up their logos, its all-out war." Nikes Pestridge, ever the diplomat: "We play inside
the rules and we bring a different point of view thats true and authentic to sport."
"Sport," George Orwell once said, bridging both, "is just war minus the shooting."

About the Book :


Ambush Marketing : Game within a Game
In the contemporary world many corporate entities pour in huge sums of money to sponsor popular
sports and cultural events with the aim of promoting their brands and products exclusively.
Increasingly, however, they find themselves outwitted by ambush marketing ingenious and
innovative ways used by rivals to associate their brands with a particular event and derive enormous
gains, but without paying sponsorship fees. Event organizers, including major international
committees and governments, view this phenomenon as a threat, because they rely heavily on
sponsors to finance events.
This unique book explores how the highly competitive, yet self-confident, world of business promotion
and advertising has been shaken by ambush marketing. Using examples from around the world, it
surveys the different ambush marketing practices prevalent today. It shows the limitations of
traditional legal measures such as actions for passing off, and infringement of trade marks and
copyright in dealing with such activity.
The author offers insights into possible solutions to the problem and includes an extensive discussion
on the significance of event-specific anti-ambush marketing legislation. Widening the scope of the
discussion, he goes on to examine whether placing restrictions on ambush marketing would be valid in
the context of competition law and whether any constitutional rights may end up being violated.

Ambush Murketlng: u threut for sponsors
by BHAVYA SOLANKI on NOVEMBER 22, 2010
Ambush marketing is a means of getting the maximum bang for the buck while stealing some of a
rivals thunder- The Hindu Business line
As the costs of becoming official sponsors of a major sports event have mushroomed in recent years,
sponsors increasingly have to deal with what has become known as ambush marketing.
History:
Ambush marketing as a concept first came to light at the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics. Those Games,
which generated a surplus of some US$250 million, were deemed an overwhelming success. They were
the first to be funded entirely privately. Prior to this any number of sponsors were allowed to tie
themselves to the Olympics on an official basis. During 1976 Montreal Olympics there were 628
official sponsors.
# 1984 Olympics: Kodak sponsors TV broadcasts of the games as well as the US track team despite Fuji
being the official sponsor. Fuji returns the favor in kind during the Seoul 1988 games of which Kodak is
the official sponsor.
# At the 1992 Barcelona Olympics Nike sponsors press conferences with the US basketball team despite
Reebok being the games official sponsor.
# In the greatest ambush marketing feat of all time Nikes man Michael Jordan, Air Sponsorship himself,
accepts the gold medal for basketball and covers up the Reebok logo on his kit.
In 1996 soft drinks giant Coke, paid a fortune for the right to call itself the official sponsors of the World
Cup. Rival Pepsi promptly launched a massive advertising blitz based on the catch line Nothing official
about it. The Pepsi campaign captures the public imagination and Coke, the official sponsors lost out.
From this incident the word ambush marketing was introduced to the market proving its potential and
subtlety in usurping the consumers mind and marketers described it as a parasitic activity that
encroaches on legitimate sponsorship.
Then in December 2002 media highlighted heated debates involving Companies such as Britannia, LG,
Philips India and HPCL; players of Indian Cricket Team, the ICC and BCCI.
The reason for such tension was ambush marketing, the clauses which recently bought out by the ICC in
the contract that restricted cricket players from endorsing products other than ICCs official sponsors for
any event conducted by the ICC during 2002-07. This clause was introduced by ICC to safeguard the right
of Companies who had paid huge sums of money to obtain the sponsorship rights for all matches to be
held during 2002-07. The official sponsors had reportedly brought the right for $550 million from the
Global Cricket Corporation (GCC), ICCs marketing partners.
The Indian Cricket Players strongly opposed ICCs decision claiming that the contract terms were
unfavorable to their financial interests. The players from Africa and Australia, as well as the Federation
of International Cricketers Association (FICA),

spoke against ICC and supported the Indian cricketers.
The issue soon snowballed into a legal battle when the ICC tiled cases against companies including
Britannia, Philips India and HPCL for running promotions based on the World Cup for their products.
What is Ambush Marketing?
Ambush Marketing is a marketing Campaign that takes place around an event but does not involve
payment of a sponsorship fee to the event. Ambush Marketing occurs when a brand tries to exploit the
media attention of a major sporting event by connecting itself with the event without being an official
sponsors without paying sponsorship fee.
Ambush Marketing is undeniably effective and some marketing professionals even praise it as the
boldest and most creative form of advertising ever. Whereas on the other hand ambush marketing
substantially undermines an events integrity as well as its ability to attract future sponsors and hence
results into corroding the fundamental revenue base of major sports events like Soccer World Cup,
Cricket World Cup or Olympic Games.
Sports Sponsorship is one of the most popular forms of commercial sponsorship which is a huge
business opportunity. Companies spent lavishly on getting themselves associated with sports that were
popular in their region.
Thus ambush marketing raises the question of what legal options are available to organizers and official
sponsors of such events to prevent ambushers.
IPR and Ambush Marketing:
The growth of the sports industry has thrown up opportunities for sponsorship, endorsement and
broadcasting and seeks for a high degree of vigilance on the parts of the sportsperson, authorities,
sponsors and other agencies.
The existing intellectual property regime is efficient enough to deal with the problems and legal
intricacies related to ambush marketing. The law of trademarks and copyright can be used in this regard.
Trademarks can be taken as serving two main purpose:
1. 7o protect the goodwlll of the buslness;
2. 7o protect consumers from deceptlon, l.e., to prevent the
purchuslng of goods or servlces by the publlc ln the mlstuken
bellef thut they orlglnute from unother truder.
Trade mark rights in the field of sports vary, they could arise from the unauthorized use of the names,
nicknames, images and other identifying features. They could also arise in relation to logos and names of
clubs/ associations in terms of trading activities.
That being the case, any unauthorized use of any kind of logo or symbol associated with any event will
be clear cut case of trademark infringement.
The question regarding trademark infringement due to this ambush marketing came into limelight when
ICC filed a suit against HPCL, Philips India and Britannia Industries for an ad interim injunction during
2003 cricket World Cup.
In ICC v. Ever Green Service station[2], Plaintiff contended that the plaintiffs company is formed by
members of ICC to own and control all commercial rights including media, sponsorship and other
Intellectual Property rights relating ICC events and plaintiff is organiser of the ICC Cricket World Cup
2003 hosted in South Africa. The plaintiff is the copyright owners of the artistic work in its logo ICC
World Cup South Africa 2003.
Further the plaintiff contended that the defendant which is service station selling petroleum products of
HPCL together misrepresented their association with them by together misrepresented their association
with them by way of misusing and passing off the trademarks of the plaintiff company in its artistic
works.
Defendant failed the prima facie case to show the use of logo.
In the other case, ICC v. Arvee Enterprises Ltd.,[3] the judgement was against the plaintiff, the case was
for temporary injunction restraining defendants from publishing any advertisement associating
themselves with the plaintiff and the Cricket World Cup in any manner whatsoever, passing off
plaintiffs indicia and the marks; and indulging in unfair trade practice misappropriating its publicity
rights.
ICC again contended against Philips India who had a logo Philips: Diwali Manao World Cup Jao and
Buy a Philips Audio System win a ticket to the World Cup inserting a pictorial representation of a ticket
with an imaginative seat and gate number saying Cricket World Cup 2003, on the advertising campaign
amounts to passing off, unfair competition, and ambush marketing, as the defendants have
intentionally used these slogans in the advertising campaign, in order to create an identification with the
Event and to sell their goods by mis-representation.
Hence defendants are misrepresenting their association with the plaintiff and the World Cup, by
advertisements in media, including newspapers, television, internet and magazines and by using said
offending slogans with the intention to unlawfully derive commercial benefit of association with the
plaintiff and the World Cup
It is pleaded that the ticket conditions of the Event prohibit such distribution of tickets, unless
authorised by the plaintiff and that the defendants have resorted to ambush marketing to take
advantage of the World Cup without investing a single rupee towards its success. The defendants are
guilty of passing off indicia, mark and identity of the plaintiff and the World Cup thereby causing
irreparable harm and injury to them. It is also pleaded that defendants are also depriving the sponsors
of the Event from enjoying the exclusivity of rights granted to them and preventing the plaintiff from
performing its contractual obligation.
Passing off cases can be divided into two broad categories: First are those where the competitors are
engaged in a common field of activity and the plaintiff complains that the defendants have named,
packaged or described his product or business in a manner likely to lead the public to believe that the
defendants product or business is that of the plaintiff. Second type of passing off, is where it is alleged
that defendant has promoted his product or business in such a way as to create the false impression
that his product or business, is in some way approved, authorised or endorsed by the plaintiff or that
there is some business connection between them. By this false linkage or relationship, the defendant
hopes to gain on the goodwill of another. Here ICCs case was based on this form of passing off.
So far as plea of ambush marketing is concerned, the phrase ambush marketing is different from
passing off. In the passing off action, there is an element of overt or covert deceit whereas the ambush
marketing is opportunistic commercial exploitation of an event. Here the ambush marketers does not
seek to suggest any connection with the event but gives his own brand or other insignia, a larger
exposure to the people, attracted to the event, without any authorization of the event organizer. The
organizers call it ambush marketing by the defendant, for promoting his brand or product without
incurring financial obligation like the official sponsors. The ambush marketing may be inside the stadium
like clash between official and personal endorsements or outside the stadium. And if we consider the
issue of copyright, it is clear that if the logos or symbols associated with an event can be copyrighted,
the degree of protection that can be offered against any unauthorized use would be much higher.
But with all these arguments also the plaintiff company was not able to establish the prima facie case on
their side and hence lost the case by putting one more feather in the hat of ambush marketers.
Taking in to note the recent practices by ambush marketers there are some practices which are prima
facie unlawful:
1. 8nuuthorlzed use of uny klnd of logo or symbol ussocluted
wlth uny event;
2. Commerclul use of rlghts, beneflts wlthout uuthorlzutlon;
3. 8se of words, symbols or plctorluls confuslngly slmllur to the
event;
4. 8nuuthorlzed use of the sportsperson or sports celebrlty
uppeurunce durlng the event for the udvertlsement purpose;
5. Attempt to ussoclute wlth un event wlthout llcence;
6. 7he productlon of prlnt publlcutlon or televlslon feutures ubout
the event by the compunles wlthout puylng the sponsorshlp
fees.
Conclusion:
Every sponsorship involves a commercial agreement between a company and sportsperson to enter into
a joint venture to promote their mutual interests whereby in return for a financial contribution, a sports
organisation or individual players allow the use of their name in commercial activities. A critical tool for
the success of any sports sponsorship arrangement is the viability and legality of the sponsor ship
agreement.
7he most buslc pructlce by umbush murketers ure slmply buylng
up blllbourd spuces uround un event, ussurlng thut people who
uttend the event wlll see the murketlng. 7hls pructlce ls entlrely
legul, ulthough event orgunlzers und sponsors muy flnd lt
unnoylng. Ambush murketers muy ulso be more subtle, dolng
thlngs llke pusslng out t-shlrts, huts, und other promotlonul geur
to people uttendlng the event so thut thelr brundlng ls seen ln the
studlum.
Hence looking into the whole scenario the most effective means for organizers of sporting events to
block out unauthorized advertising is to negotiate deals with the stadium that allow the organizer to
fully control advertising on the premises.
For example, the organizer may demand the stadium to be handed over clean site, that is, cleared of
all advertising by companies that are not official sponsors. The organizer may also demand to rename
the stadium for the time of the event, and control access to the stadium grounds including the airspace
above the premises. By means of cannily designing the general terms and conditions of ticket sales,
organizers may even impose dress-codes on the spectators, leaving out those wearing shirts or caps
which blatantly display the logos of non-sponsors. In order to create ad-free special zones beyond the
boundaries of the stadium grounds, the FIFA has even engaged the German government to pass anti-
advertising ordinances for the areas surrounding the World Cup 2006 venues and for the main access
roads. The UK proposed position for the 2012 Olympic Games is similar. After the football fever and the
common wealth games; the upcoming Olympics, 2012, the advertisers will be in the front gear, apart
from those who get the sponsorship rights; ambush marketing will be on the display as well.
mbush Marketing =
The strategic placement of marketing material and promotions at events that will attract
consumer and media attention, ambush marketing begins by identifying opportunities to
successfully capitalize on. Paying attention to media sources that provide information about
upcoming activities, sporting events, celebrity appearances, and even protests can accomplish this.
Media sources for ambush marketing can include radio, print, broadcast, Internet, etc.
If the event is likely to attract media attention, companies must determine how to incorporate their
information into the media coverage for the event. Carrying out an effective and legal ambush
marketing campaign is challenging, yet the potential payoff can be huge in terms of return on
investment.
Getting the ambush marketing message seen can be done boldly or via a surprise attack. For
example, using models clad in bikinis with a companys logo painted on their bodies is a relatively
bold way to attract onlookers, while a surprise attack would use an individual or group or people
positioned in the crowd to hold up a sign bearing the company logo just as the camera is focused on
them. This is ambush marketing defined by On-Point Marketing & Promotions (onpoint-
marketing.com)
Ambush Marketing (Des Moines, IA) utilizes the same philosophys. If you need more ambush
marketing information or would like to find out more about Ambush and our specific services,
please e-mail me at ambushdsm@gmail.com
writing credit: Onpoint Marketing & Promotions (onpoint-marketing.com)

Ghazini Ambushes Rab Ne Bana di Jodi classic Gureilla Marketing
In a classic gureilla marketing move Aamir Khan has ambushed Yashraj films and Shahrukh
khan's movie Rab Ne Bana Di jodi as reported byMumbai Mirror
In a surprise move that has caught Shah Rukh and Yashraj Films off-guard, Aamir and his
producers tied up with leading multiplexes (BIG Cinemas, Cinemax and PVR) across the
country, where SRK-starrer Rab Ne is releasing today, to give all the ushers, ticket-sellers the
distinctive buzz-cut that Aamir sports in Ghajini.People will go to watch Rab Ne...but see
these Aamir's Ghajini prototypes everywhere in the theatres


I feel for the ushers even though paper reports that it was a voluntary move nevertheless its a
neat marketing move which will ensure that aamir's movie rides on the attention of Shahrukh's
Rab Ne Bana Di Jodi

Ambushes a war tactic
Shunu Sen
Ambush marketing is a means of getting the maximum bang for the buck while stealing
some of a rival's thunder.

R. Zutshi, Vice-President, Sales and M. B. Lee, Vice-President, Marketing, Samsung India, announcing Team
Samsung, a line-up of seven cricketers endorsing the company's products.
In the recent controversy between the cricketers and the ICC, a term called `ambush
marketing' has been used a lot. Apparently, the sponsors of the ICC tournament have
used a clause to prevent the host of brands that currently use players as endorsers
from `ambushing' the main sponsors of the tournament. The ICC clause said that
players cannot endorse any other brands a month before the ICC Champions Trophy
and for a month after as well.
In a larger context, what are the objectives of ambush marketing? Is it a clever
marketing tactic? Or is it an unethical method of hitting your rival below the belt? What
are the instances of ambush marketing that you have experienced or used yourself, and
can you describe some famous instances where these tactics were used to effect?
Ravi Kumar, on e.mail
IN THE recent past, the term `ambush marketing' has been excessively used and
abused with few understanding the true meaning of the term. I would like to begin by
defining, in my understanding, the term `ambush marketing'. Ambush marketing is an
effort by an unauthorised party to appropriate the goodwill of an event at the expense
of another company's (usually a rival's) association with the event. It occurs at two
levels onsite and on media. Onsite ambush marketing occurs at the event itself and
the area surrounding it, including the approach roads and so on, and covers everything
from refreshments, clothing, billboards, posters, stalls and so on.
Samsung, during the 1996 Olympic Games, launched a very successful onsite ambush
effort in Atlanta City. Samsung, an unofficial Olympic sponsor, launched an aggressive
ambush marketing scheme directed at Panasonic by taking squatters rights to a parking
lot on the outer limits of the Centennial Olympic Park. Panasonic, the official Olympic
sponsor, displayed its logo on the CNN tower looming over the Olympic Park. The
result, Panasonic captured only three per cent awareness compared to the nine per cent
stolen by Samsung.
Media ambush marketing would occur through sponsorships of spots, scrolls, logo
positions and so on, on the media used to cover the event (generally TV, radio or
press). For example, L'Oreal hair colour ads appearing during the Lakme India Fashion
Week broadcasts.
The objectives of ambush marketing are two. First, to get maximum returns on the
marketing buck. Official sponsorship costs are forbiddingly high, even for deep-
pocketed marketers, and simply unaffordable for others. Pepsi paid $22 million to
become a global sponsor of the two World Cups and the ICC tournaments.
The second and more common reason: to undermine the branding efforts of rivals by
stealing the attention, increasing the clutter and confusing the viewers. The Pepsi hot
air balloon flying above Sharjah, on the day of the Coca-Cola Cup final, is one such
example. More recently, there is, for instance, the straight fight between Hero Honda, a
global sponsor of the Champions Trophy taking place in Sri Lanka, and its rival TVS.
TVS has, according to industry experts, paid Rs 12 crore to rope in cricketer Sachin
Tendulkar as its brand ambassador for three years.
Ambush marketing is clearly another tool in a brand's arsenal and is a part of
competitive marketing aimed at building awareness and creating a differentiation in a
competitive market place.
The current ICC controversy is precipitated by the desire to protect official sponsors of
the Champions Trophy. The ICC does not want to allow any company to cash in on its
events secured by other sponsors paying huge sums of money. The objective is to
protect the exclusive rights granted to the sponsors at a whopping cost of $550 million
(until 2007). The International Olympic Committee is facing a similar problem. Sports
brands such as Nike, which sponsored the entire uniforms of all the hockey teams from
head to toe have achieved high salience and association without paying the $5 million
to $50 million official sponsorships amounts.
Should the ICC protect the sponsors' exclusive rights that they have demanded and
paid for? Yes, they should. Should the sponsors be protected from ambush by rivals?
Yes, they should. However, I would like to add here, that in spite of the protection
provided, there will still be loopholes and opportunities for rivals to undermine the
mileage gained from such events. One such example is the Pepsi World Cup baseline
`Nothing official about it'.
The success of any sponsorship finally rests on the sponsor's ability to sign a watertight
contract, fully leverage the opportunity and always stay a step ahead of competition.
LG, for instance, has played smart in its recent global sponsorship contract with ICC.
For the price it has paid to ICC, it has also seized the global sponsorship right to
computer and computer peripherals apart from the durables. Consequently, Samsung
cannot burst onto the TV screen even with its computer peripheral's commercials that
feature the cricket stars. However, the fact remains that LG did not block the cell phone
category, thus leaving it open for Samsung to advertise. But despite these measures,
there is little that be can be done to control creative advertising. Samsung in an all out
effort to undermine LG's sponsorship is launching a campaign saying `Official sponsor
of the digital passion'. It is important to remember, there is a war out there and one
brand's ambush is another's victory!
Ambush Marketing A Threat to Corporate Sponsorship
y Autores: Tony Meenaghan
y Localizacin: Sloan management review, ISSN 0019-848X, Vol. 38, N. 1, 1996 , pgs. 103-113
y Resumen:
o While few of us can miss the evidence of company sponsorship at sports events like the Olympics or World Cup
Soccer, how many can recognize which were the legitimate sponsors and which were competitors "ambushing" the
effectiveness of the sponsor's message? Meenaghan traces the recent growth in corporate sponsorship of various
sporting events as a marketing tool and elaborates on some of the complexities of gaining sponsorship rights. He
reflects on some of the benefits that accrue to the sponsor, such as audience perceptions of patriotism, adventure,
and quality. Those benefits may be diluted, however, by ambush marketers that associate with major events without
securing rights. For example, in the 1984 Olympics, Fuji was the worldwide sponsor, but Kodak became a sponsor of
the ABC television broadcasts and the official film of the U.S. track team, thereby directing attention away from Fuji.
Other examples abound, as ambushers create confusion in consumers' minds about who the "official" sponsor really
is. Meenaghan addresses the legality and ethics of ambushing. Frequently, ambushers do nothing illegal and do not
use official logos or trademarks, but merely imply association with an event. Sponsors' only recourse may be to
purchase all the rights to an event, including broadcast rights. Ethical issues are harder to define; does using an
image of downhill skiing, for instance, imply sponsorship of the Winter Olympics? Meenaghan offers strategies for
protecting against ambushers, particularly on the part of event owners. The International Olympic Committee's anti-
ambush program protects all emblems, marks, and symbols and enjoins any city sponsoring the event to protect
those symbols as well. In the end, awareness of the possibilities of ambushing is probably the sponsor's best
protection.
y Any at t empt t o copy/ publ ish any part of it wit hout pr i or appr oval wi l l be l i abl e f or l egal
pr oceedi ngs. For quer i es mai l us at
i deasmakemarket @gmai l . com ht t p: / / www. i deasmakemarket . com/ 2011/ 05/ ambush- market i ng-
most -cont empor ar y. ht ml #i xzz1j Xj 43j pN
Under Cr eat i ve Commons License: At t ri but i on


y Ambush Marketing - Most Contemporary Innovative Strategy
y MAY
y 1
y 2011
y
y Category: ambush mar ket i ng, mar ket i ng
y
y
y Can any event match t he huge market offered by FIFA for sponsorships! This FI FA 2010 was no
di fferent but t hi s t ime somet hing very unique happened in the field of advert ising and
marketing campaigns. Before beginning let me ask you a question t hat who were t he t itl e
sponsors of FIFA 2010. I f you answer Nike and Pepsi then you are t ricked by a concept call ed
Ambush Market ing, a market ing concept which is prevalentl y used during sports events like
World Cup, Olympi cs or to target a rival over it s new strat egy, especiall y the tagli ne.
y
y What exactly is Ambush Marketing?
y
y The term Ambush Market ing i s coined by market ing guru Jerry Walsh. Ambush Market ing i s
such a sit uat ion where a company or brand spends bil lions of dollars to become the t itl e
sponsor of a major event and anot her ri val company or brand tries t o take advantage of t his by
cleverly connect ing wit h t he event wi t hout paying any sponsorshi p f ee. More important is that
when a company gets an excl usi ve right to t hat event t hen generall y no ri val companies ent er
the event directl y. But through t his type of marketi ng, t he ambusher (we will call t he company
whi ch seeks for ambush market ing) creates campaigns and adverti sements through whi ch it
tri es to confuse t he customer by showing i ts own af fi l iati on t o the event. Ambush marketing is
ef fect i ve as it att ract s consumers at the disbursal of t he rival s, undermining an event s integri ty
and most importantl y it s abili ty t o att ract f ut ure sponsors.
y
y What does it mean when you see such kind of marketing st rat egy? It means that regardless of
controversial t he st rategy may be whenever a company finds some opport unit y or a potential ly
let hal market ing technique i t won t stop f rom employing it even i f i t may get short term
benef its. Most of the ti me t he ambusher doesn t have a f ixed goal or strategy on how to
approach the case but t hey ai m mainly on how to win over thei r compet itors campaign. For
example, i f you approach a conventi on sponsored by your competi tor and you distribut e f reebies
like T-shirts or caps to t he audience. The audience would not onl y love to take t he f ree st uff but
also woul d wear t hem. In this way an entry woul d be made by you t o t he event . Imagine a
summit organized by Googl e and you have 100 people wearing Yahoo T-shi rt s or out si de an
Ai rt el event you distribute f ree Si ms of Vodafone to a sel ect f ew. In t his highl y compet iti ve
worl d companies would resort to any idea or t echniques to capture t he at tent ion of t he
consumer.
y
y FIFA 2010 A mecca for Ambusher
y
y It is no surprise t hat t he ambushers are best prepared when stakes are t he highest . And t he
stakes are never higher t han t he mega events l ike FIFA Worl d Cup. Thi s 2010 FIFA Worl d Cup
in Sout h Af rica saw many market ing events related to ambush market ing. Many biggies like
Nike and Pepsi came to t he arena wi th Adi das and Coca-Cola, t he main ri vals respect ively as t he
event sponsors.
y
y Nike came up wi th an adverti sement campaign wi t h featured players in thei r Nat ional Team
jersey and wit h Nike logo on nine of the part icipating teams just t hree l ess t han Adi das.
Moreover t he campaign had posters and videos which showed t he Nike as the main sponsor of
FIFA but in reali ty i t was all ambush marketing. The campaign was taken to t he internet media
through social networking forums and video sharing websi tes. The Write Your Headl ine
Write The Future campaign on Facebook and Twi t ter and t he best submi ssi on woul d be put
on el ect ric faade of the Li fe Cent re bui lding in Johannesburg.The star-studded adverti sement
feat uring Rooney, Drogba and Ronal dinho made t he most vi sit ed and l iked video on YouTube.
These st rategies made Nike a bigger and more recognizable brand t han any of the of fi cial
sponsors. From t he data shown below it i s easily seen t hat Nike has achieved a massi ve share
wit hout act uall y spending much.
y
y

y Bavaria beer, a Dutch company was seen invol ved in clear Ambush marketing when t hey hired
36 beauti ful women to wear orange out f its during a Holland and Denmark match. The col our of
the out fi ts brought awareness to the brand and most Dut ch fans came to know about t he stunt
done by t he beer company. Ot hers would have t hought t hat t he ladies were just a group clad
wit h orange out fi ts. But t he company got the requi red at tent ion when FIFA considered the
off icial partner Budwei ser s plea against this t ype of marketing. What FIFA aut horit ies di d was
they eject ed t he women f rom the ground and t hi s news was sprayed all across newspapers and
elect ronic media. This was a bril liant market ing st rategy for t he company, and t hey had all
planned t hat t he ousting of t he women woul d capt ure media s att ent ion.
y
y Ambush Marketing An Indian Perspective
y
y Back in India there has been recent ambush attacks by age old ri vals HUL and Proct er &
Gambl e. P&G came up wit h a teaser campaign sayi ng A mystery shampoo. Eight y per cent
women say it i s bett er t han anything el se. Before t he launch of t he new Pantene brand HUL
came up wi th a new set of campaigns saying There i s no mystery. Dove is t he No. 1 shampoo.
Thi s Dove-Pant ene duel was classic ambush market ing. Anot her very innovati ve event took
place bet ween t hree airline companies viz. Jet Lite, Ki ngfi sher and Go Ai r over t he tagl ine of Jet
Lit e. Jet Lite started a campaign wi th We have changed which was foll owed by Kingfi sher s
campaign as We made them change.To out do these companies Go Ai r came up wit h We have
not changed. We are st ill t he smartest way to fly.
y
y Types of Ambush Marketing
y
y
y
y
y Is Ambush Marketing Ethical ?
y
y There are no st ri ct laws in such cases for ambush market ing. Unl ike piracy or counterfei ting,
ambush marketing cases are rarel y act ionabl e, especi ally if t he ambushers know what they are
doing.
y
y To be present on t he working end of an ambush market ing campaign, t he question is one of
ethics. Is ambush marketing an et hi cal business practice? The ambush marketing cases which
come t o mind are those big brands wit h massi ve resources, such as Nike and Adi das or Coca-
Cola and Pepsi. Between such equal players, ambush marketing is deemed as a last technique to
use when no ot her forms of competit ion or st rategy are availabl e.
y
y However, for some f irms, ambush marketing is t he only way t o compete. In other words, does
Gol iat h have an unfai r compet it ion claim against David? It s for t he readers t o decide is i t an
unfair or a fai r pract ice
Ambush Marketing Smart Or Unethical?
July 22nd, 2008Sales & Marketing2 Comments
In 1999, Pepsi Cola was an official sponsor the World Cup Cricket tournament in India.
Its rival, Coca Cola, provided no form of financial support to the event.
However, that did not stop Coke from using the event for promotional purposes (refer article). Indeed the
company placed hired people in the stands to drink Coke, wear Coke t-shirts and furl Coca-Cola flags in
front of worldwide television audiences - all at an event sponsored by its rival.

Ambush marketing
The above example demonstrates the emergence of a controversial approach toward using large sporting
events or other significant events for promotional purposes. This approach is commonly referred to as
ambush marketing.
Ambush marketing is the practice of non-sponsors of major public events attempting to use the event for
their own promotional purposes, often at the expense of rivals who sponsor the event.
The practice can take a wide range of forms (refer article), and can include sponsoring media coverage of
an event (as opposed to sponsoring the event itself), sponsoring individual athletes or teams associated
with the event, placing advertisements on nearby billboards, or giving away items (such as t-shirts or
flags) for display at the event.
Such practices are particularly common at high profile sporting events, such as the Olympics or World
Cup Soccer.
Although often sneaky, advertisers typically attempt to work within the confines of the law, and illegal
practices are less common.

Why does it matter?
The practice of ambush marketing typically has an adverse effect on two parties official corporate
sponsors and the organizers of major events.
From the perspective of corporate sponsors, ambush marketing from rivals can have an adverse impact
upon the value of the sponsorship. Consider Addidas and its sponsorship of the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta.
The value of its sponsorship was significantly eroded by the actions of its rival, Nike, which plastered the
city in billboards, handed out swoosh banners to wave during competitions and erected an enormous
Nike centre overlooking the stadium.
Not surprisingly, many people believed Nike, not Addidas, to be the official sponsor (refer article).
Perhaps of greater importance is the adverse impact which ambush marketing can have upon organizers
of major events, such as the International Olympic Committee.
These organizations are reliant upon corporate sponsorships as their primary source of funding. Ambush
marketing places such sponsorships in jeopardy, potentially placing at risk the ability of event organizers
to manage and run major events.

Unethical or smart?
My initial thoughts were that all forms of ambush marketing were unethical companies who wish to use
major sporting events for promotional purposes could at least provide a financial contribution to such
events. Moreover, companies who are unwilling to support major events financially should not engage in
any conduct which could potentially sabotage the benefits of such events for official corporate sponsors,
particularly in cases where the sponsor concerned is a rival.
However, after further consideration, my opinion on the matter has changed, and I do not feel that it is
that simple. Ambush marketing can take many forms, and in my view, some forms are acceptable from an
ethical standpoint whilst other forms are not.

Acceptable Practices
The practice of sponsoring competing athletes or teams, for example, rather than sponsoring the event
itself, is perfectly acceptable. Individual athletes and teams would not be able to train or compete without
funding from sponsorships, and it is perfectly acceptable for companies to choose this method as a
means of promotion rather than sponsoring the event itself.
Also acceptable are the practices of sponsoring media coverage of an event (again, as opposed to the
event itself) or simply increasing the intensity of advertising in the lead up to the event.
Such practices, in my view, do not breach any ethical boundaries.

Unacceptable Practices
On the other hand, practices which do breach ethical boundaries include handing out t-shirts or flags to
attendees for display inside the arena, booking billboards in the vicinity of the arena for display
advertising, or handing out free samples of non-sponsor products, again in the vicinity of the arena.
Use the sporting arena or surrounding vicinity for promotional purposes should be limited to those who
support the event financially.
In addition, any attempts by non-sponsors to mislead the public into thinking that the company concerned
is indeed an official sponsor are particularly unethical.

Conclusion
Some forms of ambush marketing are acceptable from an ethical standpoint, others are not.
Those which are not undermine both the value of sponsorship from the point of view of corporations as
well as the ability of event organizers to secure funding required to order to manage and run the event
London 2012 ambush marketing rules to be amended
HomeNewsLondon 2012 ambush marketing rules to be amended
Submitted by Matt Cutler on Mon, 17/10/2011 - 07:17
Tagged in Brands and Marketing, United Kingdom, Event Management, Events, Law, Sponsorship, Summer Olympics & Olympics
ShareThisLinkedInEmailTweetFacebook
Members of the public who use their bodies to advertise brands during the Olympics could
face a fine of 20,000 under new rules that are set to be introduced by the UK Government.
The London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 is being amended to target people who
participate in so-called ambush marketing during the event. If Parliament approves the regulations,
ambush marketing stunts by individuals would become a magistrates' court offence.
It is possible advertising on the body could lead to a fine of 20,000, a spokesman for the Department
of Culture, Media and Sport told the BBC. It is about trying to stop potential ambush marketing.
Sponsors pay a large amount of money to be the official sponsors of the Games. An individual invaded a
diving event at the 2004 Athens Olympics with a company name adorning his bare chest.
The new rules will also extend beyond the main Olympic sites to landmark buildings in London including
the Houses of Parliament, Big Ben and Westminster Abbey. According to the legislation, company
directors behind any stunts could also face prosecution if they have prior knowledge of such actions.
With half the world watching on TV, the temptation for people to try to freeload on this event is
enormous, Tim Jones, a partner at law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, the official legal services
provider to London 2012, told Reuters. That (brand) protection is a fundamental part of the sponsor's
willingness to invest. Through the downturn in 2007 and 2008, sponsors have stuck with it and continued
to come forward.
Ambush marketing kicks-off in New Zealand
y
y
y inShare
Posted on 13/10/2011 by Penny Catley, and Kate Giddens
Those of you who are familiar with the game of rugby will be aware that New Zealand is currently hosting
the Rugby World Cup 2011 (RWC). Travellers from around the world have been treated to a spectacle of
sporting endeavour held in magical surroundings.
In recent years, intense interest has surrounded the outrageous activities of so-called ambush marketers at
various worldwide tournaments, with the RWC in New Zealand being no exception. Instances of alleged
ambush marketing have been reported even before the finals kick-off.
The Mermaid Bar, an adult entertainment venue in central Wellington, was warned it could face a $15,000
fine for instructing its staff to hand out flyers on the concourses of the Wellington Regional Stadium, within
the tournaments clean zone while wearing a miniature version of the ALL BLACK uniform. As an aside,
Wellington Regional Stadium is usually called Westpac Stadium, but naming rights and signage have been
removed during the tournaments clean period.
UK company OPRO faced an allegation of ambush marketing after Samoan player Alesana Tuilagi, was fined
$10,000 for wearing an OPRO branded mouthguard. Days later Alesanas brother Manu, who plays for
England, received the same fine for the same offence. OPRO Chief Executive Dr Anthony Lovat categorically
denied an ambush marketing attempt, stating the brothers use was coincidental.
New Zealand helicopter company Helipro was warned after one of its helicopters, and associated HELIPRO
branding, was sighted above the Wellington Regional Stadium allegedly holding passengers taking
photographs during one of the pool matches.
Also in the spotlight has been use, or rather misuse, of the registered trade mark ALL BLACKS and the
lengths the New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU) will go to protect its brand. The NZRU has taken exception
to:
y use of the catch cry Go the All Blacks on a luxury car dealerships street frontage that just happened to
be on one of the main access points to Eden Park,
y use of the phrase ALL BLACK RACK and accompanying NZRU registered fern devices by well-known New
Zealand fashion designer Trelise Cooper in her Wellington store, and
y a sale for All Black Lingerie on IM Lingeries store front. .
As the atmosphere reaches fever pitch and the world's focus intensifies, brand owners should remain
vigilant. Perhaps a surprise attack is just around the corner.
MARKETING
Ambushed!
Sponsors pay a lot to link their brands to sporting events. Then there are those who get
those links for nothing.
y Article
y Video
y Stock Quotes
y Comments (3)
MORE IN BUSINESS
y Email
y Print
y Save More
y
y
y
y smaller
y Larger
By SIMON CHADWI CK And NI CHOLAS BURTON
There's a war going on in the business of sports.
On one side are the sponsors that pay millions of dollars for their brands to bask in the publicity
surrounding certain teams and events. On the other: a growing number of companies that crowd
into the spotlight without payingsometimes by bending, or breaking, the rules.
The Journal Report
See the complete Business Insight report.
That's pretty galling to the companies that spent an estimated $43.5 billion last year for what they
thought were exclusive sponsorship rights with teams, leagues and events around the world. It
irks the organizations that sell those rights, too, since it hurts their ability to command high
pricessomething they can ill afford. A spokesman for the International Olympic Committee, for
example, estimates that sponsorship fees make up about 40% of total revenue for the Olympic
movement, which comprises the IOC, national Olympic organizations and Olympic committees of
the host cities.
Ambush marketing, as it's called, assumes many forms these days. Originally it described a
brand's attempt to associate itself with a team or event without buying the rights to do so, in order
to detract from a rival that paid to be an official sponsor. In one of the best-known
examples, American Express Co. rolled out television ads in 1992 with scenes of Barcelona,
Spain, the host city of the Summer Olympics that year, and a message that said "You don't need
a visa" to visit Spain. Visa Inc., an official sponsor of the Olympic Games, complained loudly.
Amex has said that the commercials did not refer to the Olympics and were not an attempt to
ambush Visa.

Mastering the Art of Ambush Advertising
3:38
WSJ's Jennifer Merritt interviews Ben Sturner, president and founder of sports marketing firm The Leverage Agency.
But as the popularity of sports as an ad platform has balloonedspending on sports-related
marketing has reached nearly $100 billion a year, by some estimatesso have attempts at
ambushing. As a result, our definition of ambush marketing has to change. Today, increasing
numbers of companies try to hitch their brands to the biggest publicity magnets in sports without
paying for rights. And they do it in all sorts of ways, from one-off stunts to long-term campaigns.
Indeed, contemporary ambush marketing appears to have evolved into a marketing tool all its
own. As one sponsorship executive we interviewed noted, some companies use ambush
marketing as just another way to publicize and market their goods, with no motives concerning
their rivals' activities in the same area.
Sports organizations are doing more to protect their investments, and those of their sponsors. The
IOC, for one, now requires broadcasters of the Games to offer official sponsors first rights of
refusal for advertising time during programming. Bids from potential host cities, meanwhile, are
required to include guarantees that legislation will be in place to "reduce and sanction" ambush
marketing, and that street vending will be eliminated and outdoor and public-transport advertising
controlled from two weeks before the opening ceremony until the official closing. The rules include
a "binding option" to purchase all available outdoor and public-transport ad space "in the host city
and in cities having an operational role in the staging" of the Games.
Gaming the System
y The situation: Businesses pay millions to be the official sponsors of sports leagues, teams and events. Such rights
sales are an important revenue stream for sporting organizations.
y The problem: Other businesses increasingly bend, and sometimes break, rules meant to give the official sponsors
exclusivity. These so-called "ambushers" advertise their products in ways that suggest an association with the event
or team even though they didn't buy rights.
y The challenge: Sports organizations and official sponsors must come up with new ways to protect the value of their
franchises against ambushes that are growing in number and creativity.
In general, however, efforts to prevent ambushing continue to enjoy limited success as the
strategies ambushers use continue to multiply.
As the rules of the game change, companies must do more to recognize the various forms of
ambushing. With a clearer understanding, organizers and sponsors stand a much better chance
of protecting their investment. With this in mind, we propose the following updated breakdown of
ambushing, including its strategies and the threats to sponsors, rights-holders and event
organizers.
Direct Ambush Activities
This is when a brand intentionally tries to make itself seem associated with an event or property
for which it has purchased no rights and is not an official sponsor. Some companies choose to do
this mainly to attack rivals; others do it just to capitalize on the large audience generated by the
event or team.
Predatory Ambushing: Intentionally attacking a rival's official sponsorship in an effort to gain
market share and to confuse consumers as to who the official sponsor is. A good example is the
Amex campaign used against Visa during the 1992 Summer Games.
Coattail Ambushing: The attempt by a brand to directly associate itself with a property or event
by using a legitimate link other than becoming an official sponsor of the property or event. For
example, a sports-apparel company may sponsor an athlete who is participating in an event not
sponsored by the brand, an event that perhaps is even sponsored by a rival brand.
Property Infringement: The intentional unauthorized use of protected intellectual property. Such
properties can include the logos of teams or events, or making use of unauthorized references to
tournaments, teams or athletes, words and symbols.
For Further Reading
See these related articles from MIT Sloan Management Review.
y Ambush Marketing: A Threat to Corporate Sponsorship
By Tony Meenaghan (Fall 1996)
As the corporate sponsorship of sports events has grown, so too has the practice of ambush marketing. Is the
practice legal and ethical? How can a legitimate sponsor counteract the effects of an ambusher?
http://sloanreview.mit.edu/x/3818
y A Strategic Perspective on Sales Promotions
By Betsy D. Gelb, Demetra Andrews and Son K. Lam (Summer 2007)
How to plan profitable sales promotions by considering the stature of your brand in the marketplace, the message
being delivered, and how customers and competitors will react.
http://sloanreview.mit.edu/x/48401
y Viewing Brands in Multiple Dimensions
By Pierre Berthon, Morris B. Holbrook, James M. Hulbert and Leyland Pitt (Winter 2007)
The concept of a "brand manifold" helps managers understand that a brand's impact varies according to who is
valuing it, in what context and at what time.
http://sloanreview.mit.edu/x/48210
Self-Ambushing: Marketing activities by an official sponsor above and beyond what has been
agreed on in the sponsorship contract. This includes things like handing out free promotional T-
shirts at a game, without the sports organization's permission. The brand may have already
covered the stadium with its signs, or the organization may have earlier agreed to let a different
brand hand out shirts. In either case, it clutters the marketing space, ambushes the organization
the brand is supporting and infringes upon other official sponsors.
Indirect Ambushes
These are defined as the intentional association of a brand with an event or property through
suggestion or indirect reference. As in direct ambushes, many companies using this type of
ambush marketing see it as simply another way to publicize and market their goods, with no
motives concerning their rivals' sponsorship activities.
Associative Ambushing:The use of imagery or terminology to create an allusion that an
organization has links to a sporting event or property. In the summer of 2008, for example,
marketing campaigns by Nike Inc. made frequent use of the number 8a symbol of luck and
fortune in China, as well as a symbol for the Games. Nike was not a sponsor of the Beijing
Games.
Asked to comment for this article, a Nike spokesman noted that the company is a sponsor for
teams and athletes who compete in the Olympics. The spokesman wrote in an email, "With
respect to all our product and campaigns, we respect the intellectual property rights of others
(including the IOC and our competitors), and always strive to remain within legal boundaries."
Distractive Ambushing: Setting up a promotional presence at or near an event without making
specific reference to the event itself, its imagery or themes, in order to intrude upon public
consciousness and gain awareness from the event's audience.
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. In its soccer-related advertising during
the spring and summer of 2008, for example, Germany's Puma AG included the slogan "June
2008: Together Everywhere." The European soccer championships were played that month, and
the tournament's own marketing was emphasizing themes of unity and anti-racism.
A Puma spokeswoman says its campaign was part of the company's seasonal soccer ad
campaign and was meant to be "a reflection of bringing football fans from all over the world
together during a football tournament." Being a leading soccer brand, Puma "would be remiss" if it
didn't "recognize" such events, the spokeswoman added.
Insurgent Ambushing: The use of surprise street-style promotions at or near an event. For
example, on a major road leading to the 2008 French Open tennis tournament in Paris, sports-
shoe and apparel-maker K-Swiss Inc. parked a car that appeared to have been squashed by a
giant K-Swiss-branded tennis ball. Across the street, a K-Swiss van distributed gifts and marketing
materials highlighting the brand and its involvement with tennis.
Enlarge Image


Paul Hoppe
K-Swiss did not respond to requests for comment.
Parallel Property Ambushing: The creation or sponsorship of an event or property that is
somehow related to the ambush target and competes with it for the public's attention. For
instance, seven days after the Beijing Olympics ended, Nike launched an annual, one-day global
running event held in cities across the world.
Incidental Ambushing
This is when consumers think that a brand is a sponsor or is associated with an event or property
without any attempt on the brand's part to establish such a connection. Even if it's not intentional,
this kind of ambushing can be an issue for the host organization and for other sponsors because it
clutters the marketing environment.
Unintentional Ambushing: Sometimes media coverage will mention equipment or clothing used
by an athlete, or a company that is providing a service in support of an event. Consumers can
come away thinking the company is an official sponsor of the event.
Speedo, for example, was mentioned frequently during the Beijing Games due to the success of
swimmers wearing its LZR Racer swimsuits. In marketing studies after the Games, consumers
incorrectly identified Speedo as a sponsor. Such incidents can distract rights-holders and
organizers from defending sponsors against direct threats.
A spokesman for Speedo, which is owned by Pentland Group PLC of the U.K. but licensed in
North America to Warnaco Group Inc. of New York, says the publicity the LZR received during the
games was all due to "the incredible performances" of the swimmers.
Saturation Ambushing: Saturation ambushers increase their advertising and marketing at the
time of an event, but make no reference to the event itself and avoid any associative imagery or
suggestion. Their goal seems to be simply to capitalize on the increased broadcast media
attention and television audiences surrounding the event.
is company
Ambush Marketing:
This is a new practice we have developed for some of our clients. We take
advantage of their better placed competitors (in terms of search engine
popularity) and position our clients website strategically so that search
engine users find them instead of the better placed competitors.


First Ambush Marketing Rankings for
London 2012
By: admin
Published: October 10th, 2011
Subway, Red Bull and Sony among Top Ambush Marketers of London 2012
Olympics
Non-sponsors Ranking High on Brand Affiliation Index for London 2012
Austin, Texas, October 10, 2011. Subway, Red Bull and Sony are among the Top Ambush
Marketers for the London 2012 Olympics.
The Ambush Marketing Rankings for London 2012 were released earlier today by The
Global Language Monitor (GLM), the Internet and Media Trend Tracking Company. In the
rankings, GLM measures the strength of the brand affiliation for each
official Olympic sponsor as well as those of their primary competitors.
Among Worldwide Partners, Samsung, McDonalds, Visa, Dow and P&G scored the highest
on GLMs Brand Affiliation Index (BAI) for London 2012.
Ambush Marketers can, and often do, out-perform official sponsors. The term ambush
marketing is well understood to mean that an organization knowingly exploits a brand
affiliation with the Games without the benefit of official sponsorship. However, all
perceived Olympic sponsors according to their presence in the global media, and
statistically linked to the London Games, qualify for the Ambush Index. GLM measures
whatever perceived relationship exists between their organizations and London 2012, said
Paul JJ Payack, president of the Austin, Texas based Global Language Monitor. In some
cases the brand affiliation is due to successful current or past affiliations, such as that of
Lenovo and the Games. Other times, it is because of clever (and legal) marketing efforts
that exploit a companys association with individual Olympians or sports in general, such as
Subway ads with an Olympian who has come to symbolize the games themselves, or Red
Bull securing naming rights to the Cycling venue.
Among Worldwide Partners, the companies with the highest Brand Affiliation Index for
London 2012 follow:
Rank Worldwide Partners Highest BAI
1. Samsung 66.15
2. McDonalds 62.63
3. Visa 50.60
4. Dow 48.34
5. P&G 47.17
Leaders: Highest Brand Affiliation Index
As you can see, Samsung, McDonalds and the others are tightly tied to the upcoming
games.
Not all organizations are faring as well in the BAI. Here a few of the laggards in having their
identities tied to London 2012.
Rank Worldwide Partners Lowest BAI
1. Panasonic 1.97
2. ATOS 7.81
3. Omega 8.95
Laggards: Lowest Brand Affiliation Index
Among some Worldwide Partners, non-sponsor Sony scores a far higher BAI than the
Official Worldwide Partner, Panasonic. The same is true for Lenovo and Acer as well as
Subway and McDonalds.
Rank Non-Sponsor BAI Score Sponsor BAI Score
1. Sony 280.75 Panasonic 1.97
2. Lenovo 101.00 Acer 33.81
3. Subway 145.90 McDonalds 62.63
Non-sponsors with Higher BAI than Official Sponsors
Finally, the scores of all organizations are indexed against each other, to better understand
the relative Brand Equity rankings of Sponsor vs. Non-sponsor.
So non-sponsor Nike has 13X more brand equity associated with London 2012 than the
Official Partner, Adidas, while the Official Partner BAs three main competitors combined
have only a fraction of the associated brand equity associated compared to BA (.33
combined).
The Olympics are still ten months off, enough time for the laggards to improve their
performance.
The Rankings will be released monthly up to and following London 2012. Complete
information on the monthly Ambush Marketing Rankings for London 2012 Olympics can be
delivered as a subscription. For Subscription information call 925.367.7557 or
email pjjp@post.harvard.edu.
About Global Language Monitor
Founded in Silicon Valley, GLM collectively documents, analyzes and tracks trends
worldwide, with a particular emphasis upon the English language. GLM employs
proprietary algorithmic methodologies such as the NarrativeTracker for global Internet
and social media analysis. NarrativeTracker is based on global discourse, providing a real-
time, accurate picture of what the public is saying about any topic, at any point in time.
NarrativeTracker analyzes the Internet, blogosphere, the top 75,000 print and electronic
global media media, as well as new social media sources.
Austin-based Global Language Monitor is the pioneer in web-based media analytics.
What is Ambush Marketing?
By DURAN | NOVEMBER 4, 2011
y
y 2
inShare
y
y
In 1984, the Olympics became a self-sustaining entity
when the International Olympics Committee (IOC) put on its first games that did not require public
funding. They accomplished this by offering lucrative sponsorship contracts that provided exclusive
rights to official sponsors. Unknowingly, they also gave birth to new advertising strategy known as
Ambush Marketing.
Ambush marketing is an emotionally-charged phrase that refers to the practice of appearing to
align a brand with an event for which that brand has not paid for the right to be a sponsor. Probably
this practice had existed in some form long before 1984, but the sheer volume of money involved
and the worldwide attention given Olympic events have led many to view the 1984 Olympic games
as the origin of ambush marketing.
1984 Kodak Ambushes Fuji Ambush Marketing Is Born
Fuji won the rights to be an official sponsor of the 1984 Olympic games, leaving Kodak out in the
cold. However, Kodak responded by purchasing extensive advertising during the broadcast of the
games. Although Fuji was the official sponsor, many viewers saw Kodaks ads and mistakenly
believed Kodak was a sponsor too.
Since then, sponsorship contracts and competitor tactics have escalated in a constant battle to
maintain the value and integrity of sponsorships while allowing for free trade and creative
advertising.
Some ambush campaigns flirt with the law; others clearly break it. Yet, the value of these
sponsorships ensures someone will be planning an attack on a corporate sponsors exclusivity. If
you can get your brand in the broadcast or media images or even in the news surrounding an event,
many viewers will not remember why you were there, but simply that you were.
Is Ambush Marketing Legal?
Many high profile instances have proven to be perfectly legal. It can be cost prohibitive for a sponsor
to control every ad outlet associated with an event, leaving gaps that competitors can purchase.
Furthermore, many early sponsorship contracts simply did not take into account these marketing
strategies that competitors would try.
1. Some ambushes are legal.
When Kodak purchased broadcast ads for the 1984 Olympics, they acted fully within their legal
rights. Fuji may have felt it was unfair, but nothing in their sponsorship contract guaranteed that no
competitors ads would run during the games.
In another highly publicized ambush marketing campaign, American Express sought to undermine
Visas Olympic sponsorship. American Express ran ads that skirted breaking the law. Leading up to
the Barcelona Olympics in 1992, they ran ads that said, You dont need a visa to visit Spain. These
were ruled legal as they did not mention any trademarked phrases.
The NHL sued Pepsi in Canada in over ads that mentioned cities and events that fans would
associate with their local NHL team despite the fact that Coca-Cola was the official soft drink of the
NHL. The NHL felt Pepsi made a connection to their brand with these ads. However, Pepsi prevailed
because their ads did not mention NHL team names or other trademarked brands or phrases.
2. Some are illegal.
Other situations are not legal and these can have repercussions for brands that go too far. In the
wake of past ambushes, many organizations and cities have enacted laws and regulations that
further protect their entities from encroachment.
In 2003, Coors settled with the NCAA for $75,000 because Coors held a sweepstakes using NCAA
tickets as the grand prize. At the time, NCAA tickets clearly stated that they could not be awarded as
prizes without the consent of the NCAA. Despite being asked to desist, Coors went ahead and
awarded the prize, and even planned another sweepstakes for the following season.
In order to secure the agreement with Coors, the NCAA threatened to expel any winners who tried to
redeem their tickets. Had it come to this, both brands likely would have suffered from the negative
press associated with expelling fans.
3. New Contracts Better Define Sponsorships
Event owners have improved their sponsorship packages in the decades they have been responding
to ambushes. They work with local media outlets and broadcasters to ensure that they can offer
black out areas where competing ads will not be permitted. Many cities now enact ordinances to
support local event advertising blackouts.
Is Ambush Marketing Ethical?
As many examples have borne out, many people feel these tactics are unfair even when they are
legal. If a company has purchased exclusive rights to sponsor an event, sponsors and event owners
feel that other companies should respect the deal and focus their marketing efforts elsewhere.
1. Naive expectations of fairness are foolish.
If a marketing tactic is legal, some competitor will likely take advantage of thhe opportunity. There
are rarely just two competing brands in a market, and nice guys finish last. Playing fair may mean
playing foolish.
Corporations have a responsibility to their stockholders to pursue activities that contribute to their
bottom line and not leave these avenues open to their competition. Some experts even posit that
taking a hard stance against ambush marketing impedes free trade.
2. Many layers of sponsorship cause confusion.
Beyond the lack of practicality in the assumption that everyone will back off and do what a sponsor
considers to be the right thing, advertisers and events also struggle with the issue of multiple layers
of sponsorship. Long before a team or player arrives at an event, that entity may have entered into
sponsorship agreements that have to be honored.
As event owners promise more exclusivity, they push individuals and teams into conflicts of interest.
This has led some organizations to go to extreme lengths to protect sponsorships.
In India, the International Cricket Council (ICC) has run into problems with this to the point that many
players nearly boycotted the championship in 2003. They felt they could not participate in
accordance with strict ICC sponsorship rules without running afoul of their individual or team
contracts.
What Is at Stake?
Many people are involved to some degree in ambush marketing, and their conflicting needs add to
the emotion surrounding these marketing strategies.
1. Event Owners
Ambush marketing campaigns dilute the value of an event sponsorship. In order to maximize the
revenue they can generate from an event, owners strive to combat marketing that impinges on their
brand and event sponsorships.
Many have blamed event owners for the clumsy situations in the past which arose from sponsorship
packages that did not provide full exclusivity to sponsors. Event owners carved up rights packages
that maximized their revenue without considering the implications for sponsors.
Event owners have since learned the importance of retaining some control over broadcast rights,
and constructing packages that either offer more exclusivity or at least make it clear to potential
sponsors that they may have to purchase more ads to monopolize the situation.
Cities seeking to lure world events like the Olympics now have to assemble agreements from local
media outlets in advance and promise local ordinances that protect sponsors from ambush attempts.
Putting these laws in place reassures potential sponsors, has helped discourage or prevent some
tactics, and offers legal recourse when laws are disregarded.
2. Sponsors
Event sponsors have had to learn that buying a sponsorship alone may not provide the exclusive
coverage they seek. After paying for the sponsorship, they may need to spend up to three times
more money buying up local and broadcast advertising. Only by controlling all the media can they
hope to blanket an event with their brand and drown out the competition.
Still, there has to be some realism involved too. With so many layers of sponsorship, particularly in
athletics, it can be hard for any company to completely own the glory.
Sponsors also have to strike a balance between protecting their rights and not generating press
about their competition. The more these conflicts can be settled quietly, the less publicity their
ambushers win from a situation.
3. Athletes
Many players are caught in an endorsement maze where they have to black out brand labels on
their uniforms and shoes in order to participate in world class events. When Michael Jordan
accepted his Olympic medal on the podium in 1992, he had to drape a towel over the Adidas brand
to satisfy his individual contract with Nike. Even though Adidas was the Olympic sponsor, Nike knew
those photos of Jordan on the podium would persist for years, and they moved to protect their
association with Jordan.
4. Competing Advertisers
As mentioned above, advertisers are tasked not to respect the desires of the competition, but to find
was to creatively outperform them. Many advertisers find they are taking shots when competitors cry
foul for activities that are within the law and may even be outside the advertisers control.
Some situations involve what may be innocent references to non-sponsor products. In the 2010
Olympics, Speedo bathing suits were credited with better performances from athletes who attested
to their benefits, although Speedo was not a sponsor. Pretty soon media personnel were discussing
the brand and its potential benefit, which we can expect will lead to new ordinances and contracts
governing what the media are allowed to report.
Competing advertisers should be aware of the rules in place before launching an ambush campaign.
Even when an advertiser does not break the law, the perception of wrongdoing may lead to difficulty
securing future contracts or sponsorships.
5. Fans
Fans have been caught in the middle of this as they unwittingly promote advertisers in ambush
campaigns.
In 2006, the brewer Bavaria gave away their branded lederhosen to Dutch fans traveling to Germany
to watch the Fifa World Cup, sponsored by competing brewer Anheuser Busch. When thousands
fans arrived wearing branded merchandise from a non-sponsor, officials forced those fans to remove
their lederhosen and watch the game in their underclothes.
There have been reports of schoolchildren in South Africa having to remove Coca-Cola stickers from
their lunch boxes and labels from the soft drinks within the lunch boxes in order to gain entrance to a
sporting event. It is unclear whether Coca-Cola was responsible for placing the stickers and drinks
there, but this story demonstrates the lengths to which some expect they can inconvenience fans to
protect sponsorships.
Ambush Marketing Takes Many Forms:
* Broadcast advertising Many advertisers try to run ads during an event for which a competitor is a
sponsor.
* Billboards in host city and major inbound routes Many cities now include blackout offers for major
events, but smaller events may be ripe for these ad blitzes.
* Apparel worn by participants Players are increasingly forced to tape over brand names on their
apparel when competing in sponsored events. Still, as with the 2010 Speedo swimsuits, word gets
out.
* Apparel worn by fans Although some venues may come down hard on large scale organized
campaigns, items like hats and other accessories may slip under their radar. If not, at least your fans
will still be fully dressed when asked to remove a visor.
* Creative use of vehicles like blimps, sailboat sails, and the sides of trucks Did anyone say it
would be illegal to park ten trucks around the city with your brand name on them? Actually, it is
possible now for large events that a city will have enacted such an ordinance, but for smaller events
these can be a great way to gain brand visibility in the neighborhood.
* Use of similar slogans or place names Leading up to an event, your ads can mimic your
competitors and the events as long as you do not break the law.
Your Ambush Marketing Campaign
You may be wondering what this means for your business. Whether you are currently involved in the
lucrative business of athletics sponsorship or not, you may be able to use ambush marketing tactics
to benefit your advertising efforts and diminish the success of your competitors sponsorships.
Corporate sponsorships are moving into many new industries and fields. Opportunities abound for
creative advertisers who are not afraid to venture into the gray areas surrounding these forms of
advertising.
1. Understand the legal implications.
Before you engage in any marketing that falls into gray areas, you will want to be sure you
understand whether or not you are breaking the law and what the penalties might be.
Some countries have enacted strict laws that call for the incarceration of principals involved in
ambush marketing campaigns. That may not be worth the risk for your company.
Many advertisers have skirted the law by using city names and dates without referring specifically to
trademarked events. You should have your campaign vetted to be sure you stay inside the law or
you could end up wasting your money on ads or marketing materials that are suppressed.
2. Be prepared to be the bad guy.
Legal or not, some people are going to be offended by an ambush campaign. The more publicity
associated with an event, the bigger the potential backlash your firm may encounter in the press or
online. Defensive postures only fan the flames of bad publicity, so you need to be prepared to accept
responsibility and move on.
3. Remember that the press may be worth it.
Even if you are thwarted in your ambush attempt, the bad press may be worth it. Undaunted
following the lederhosen incident, Bavaria went on to stage an ambush at the 2010 World Cup in
South Africa. Bavarias ads leading up to the event featured women in bright orange mini-dresses. At
the World Cup, thirty-six women in the crowd wore bright orange Bavaria dresses.
They were evicted from the game and two were arrested on charges of organizing the ambush. The
incident has received a lot of press, making Bavarias name known throughout marketing circles
anyway. Everyone who has heard the story probably knows Bavaria was not the World Cup sponsor,
but they also closely associate the two brands in their minds because of this incident.
4. Consult a professional.
Ambush marketing campaigns may have legal implications, and you will want
skillful reputationrepresentation online to manage any publicity to your brands benefit. Seek out a
marketing adviser who can lead you to the best bang for your ambush budget.
Ambush Marketing Specialists
Let our team of advertising experts help you plan an ambush marketing plan. We have the creative
talent and marketing experience to boost your brand recognition and connect with your ardent
fans. Contact us today to learn what your next ambush marketing campaign might look like.