Ambush marketing
Ambush marketing is a strategy where advertisers leverage major events, particularly sporting events, to promote their brands without incurring the costs associated with official sponsorship. This practice can shift audience attention away from authorized sponsors and poses challenges for legitimate advertisers, potentially undermining their marketing efforts. The concept, introduced in the early 1990s, encompasses various tactics including direct ambush marketing, where a brand may use trademarked logos without permission, and indirect methods like associating a brand with an event's values or imagery without direct sponsorship. Notably, the International Olympic Committee has implemented rules, such as Rule 40, to combat ambush marketing, aiming to protect the interests of official sponsors and uphold the event's intellectual property rights. These regulations limit how non-sponsors can reference Olympic events, particularly via social media. However, such measures have sparked debate surrounding free speech and the rights of companies to market themselves legitimately. Overall, while ambush marketing can be an effective strategy for some brands, it complicates the landscape of event sponsorship and can negatively impact both event organizers and sponsors.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Ambush marketing
Ambush marketing is an advertising strategy in which advertisers capitalize on a major event (most notably sporting events) without paying a sponsorship fee. Such campaigns draw attention away from official sponsors and onto the ambushers through creative means. Whether direct, indirect, or incidental, this marketing practice can be hugely successful for the ambusher while hurting the legitimate advertising efforts of its competitors. Ambush marketing may also harm the event host, as corporate sponsorship is one of the main sources of revenue for major events.
Overview
The term “ambush marketing” was coined in the early 1990s by Jerry Welsh, at that time the global marketing manager for American Express. There are three main types of ambush marketing: direct, indirect, and incidental. Direct ambush marketing ranges from ambushing “by degree” to outright predatory practices. A company is considered to have ambushed by degree when it is an official sponsor and its advertising campaign goes beyond what has been agreed to in the contract. An example of this breach of contract could be the handing out of free T-shirts when the contract was only for signage around a stadium. Direct ambushing also occurs when a brand uses protected intellectual property, such as trademarked team logos, without permission in an advertisement. In “coattail” ambushing, a brand associates itself with an event by overemphasizing its connection to that event; this may be legitimate but is still not official sponsorship. In predatory ambushing, a nonsponsor either claims official sponsorship or denies a competitor’s official sponsorship.
One type of indirect ambush marketing strategy is values-based ambushing, in which a nonsponsor tailors its advertising to show the same values or themes as the event. Another indirect ambush is by association, in which advertisers use imagery and terminology that are not protected by law; this differs from coattail ambushing in that there is no legitimate connection between the brand and the event. In ambushing by distraction, a promotional presence is set up near an event without making specific references to that event. This type of advertising may involve surprise promotions (called “blitz marketing”) that distract the audience or parallel property ambushing, the sponsoring of an event similar to the ambush campaign’s target.
In saturation ambushing, a form of incidental ambush marketing, a brand’s advertising is increased during the time of an event while making no official reference, direct or indirect, to that event. The brand capitalizes on the event’s increased broadcast media attention. In unintentional ambushing, a media spokesperson might mention a brand in passing, such as equipment worn by an athlete; though not a promotion, audience members may perceive it as such and assume that the brand is a sponsor of the event. The Nike shoe company successfully capitalized on this type of ambushing during the 1996 Olympic Games, which were sponsored by its competitor Reebok.
The negative impacts of ambush marketing eventually caused the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to take action against such tactics. Rule 40, which was developed in 1991 by the IOC as a means of controlling ambush marketing, limits companies from using Olympic-related terms or properties, such as logos, symbols, or mottos, unless they are approved sponsors. Throughout the twenty-first century, depending on the games and the host nation, Rule 40 has adjusted to attempt to negotiate between companies and organizations who are supporting athletes and sports, particularly on social media, as well as athletes who are promoting or representing certain brands. In the 2024 Paris games, for example, Rule 40 restricted athletes from appearing in advertising during the time frame of the games, from July 18 to August 13, and allowed them only one post thanking any unofficial sponsors, without indication that their product or relationship in anyway impacted their performance. Such rules were put into place to avoid and deter ambush marketers.
The attack against legitimate advertisers who paid for the privilege to market at events, such as the Olympic Games, prevents such organizations from achieving the returns they expected from sponsoring an event. Another problem is infringement on an event’s intellectual property rights. Whether directly or indirectly referring to a protected name or symbol, ambush marketing ignores the rights of event organizers by capitalizing on efforts to promote their event.
Ambush marketing has also increased the cost of sponsorships. Corporate sponsorship is a key source of revenue for event organizers. However, if sponsors are not given exclusivity, the value of sponsorship is lost because brand interest in sponsorship is lost. If event organizers lose sponsorship, the event loses money, and the cost of tickets and future sponsorships must increase in order to pay for the event. This increasing cost makes a potential sponsor even more concerned about receiving full returns on investment. For these reasons, some event organizers have enacted rules aimed at preventing forms of ambush marketing, such as banning the use of certain phrases and images or physically restricting advertising activity within a certain distance of a stadium. These measures, however, have been criticized for hampering free speech and the right of companies to practice legitimate marketing strategies.
Bibliography
Berger-Walliser, Gerlinde, et al. “Bavarian Blondes Don’t Need a Visa: A Comparative Law Analysis of Ambush Marketing.” Tulane Journal of International & Comparative Law 21.1 (2012): 1–35.
Breen, Nick, and Mikaela Belcher. “Football, Marketing and the Art of the Ambush: Ambush Marketing in 2022.” Reed Smith LLP, 14 Nov. 2022, www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2022/11/football-marketing-and-the-art-of-the-ambush-ambush-marketing-in-2022. Accessed 5 Nov. 2024.
Chanavat, N., & Martinent, G. "Measuring Ambush-Marketing and Sponsorship Effects: A Football Consumer Response Approach." Journal of Strategic Marketing, vol. 29, no. 2, 2019, pp. 158–180. doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2019.1684977. Accessed 5 Nov. 2024.
Johnson, Phillip. Ambush Marketing and Brand Protection: Law and Practice. 2nd ed. Oxford UP, 2011.
Lin, Y. H., et al. "Effect of Ambush Marketing on Attitude and Purchase Intention in the Social Media Context: Misidentification and Identification." European Sport Management Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 1, 2020, pp. 207–226. doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2020.1843514. Accessed 5 Nov. 2024.
Magnay, Jacquelin. “London 2012 Olympics: Government Unveils Plan to Ban Ambush Marketing and Bolster Games Security.” Telegraph, Telegraph Media Group, 7 Mar. 2011, www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/8367354/London-2012-Olympics-Government-unveils-plans-to-ban-ambush-marketing-and-bolster-Games-security.html. Accessed 5 Nov. 2024.
Minato, Charlie. “Ingenious Ambush Campaigns from Nike, Samsung, and BMW Make Official Sponsorships Look Like a Waste.” Business Insider, 14 June 2012, www.businessinsider.com/best-ambush-marketing-campaigns-2012-6. Accessed 5 Nov. 2024.
Marlow, Lucy, et al. “Navigating Rule 40 for Athletes and Sponsors during the Paris 2024 Olympics.” JMW Solicitors, 7 Aug. 2024, www.jmw.co.uk/blog/intellectual-property-solicitors/navigating-rule-40-for-athletes-and-sponsors. Accessed 6 Nov. 2024.
Nufer, Gerd. Ambush Marketing in Sports. Routledge, 2013.
Scaria, Arul George. Ambush Marketing: A Game within a Game. Oxford UP, 2008.
Scassa, Teresa. “Ambush Marketing and the Right of Association: Clamping Down on References to that Big Event with All the Athletes in a Couple of Years.” Journal of Sport Management 25.4 (2011): 354–70.
Shewan, Dan. “Ambush Marketing: What It Is & Why It Works.” WordStream, 20 Nov. 2023, www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2018/04/04/ambush-marketing. Accessed 5 Nov. 2024.
Skildum-Reid, Kim. The Ambush Marketing Toolkit. McGraw, 2007.