Ambush Marketing

Under Ambush marketing (also Parasite marketing or parasite marketing) refers to marketing activities that aim to exploit the media attention of a major event, without being a sponsor of the event. The term ambush comes from the English and means ambush. Ambush marketing is viewed as a sub-form of guerilla marketing.

Even if the negative attribution suggests this, Ambush marketing activities only in exceptional cases are illegal.

  • 3.1 Examples
  • 3.2 Countermeasures
  • 4.1 Research gaps
  • 4.2 Legality question
  • 4.3 Criticism of countermeasures

Background

In particular, major sporting events like the Olympic Games or World Cups are a much-used framework for advertising and sponsorship. The organizers and sponsors have a massive interest, the visibility, reach these events, exclusive use for the marketing activities of the sponsors. Such exclusivity is not provided by law. Everyone is allowed to report on the events and to take advantage of the general interest for the sporting event, provided no copyright, trademark or the house right of the organizer are violated. For this reason, try organizers and sponsors about lobbying to have to extend the reach of their rights law (for example, Olympic Protection Act) and use their proprietary and contracts with the reporting mass media to promote coverage of the sponsors and to reduce the visibility of non- sponsors.

For example, does the FIFA before that in their tournaments the logos are hidden from the non- FIFA sponsors to ensure that only FIFA sponsors can benefit from the public coverage of FIFA events. Even companies that have rented the naming rights to football stadiums, have to do without these names during FIFA tournaments.

Theory

Term and negative use

"To ambush " means " attacked, ambush ". The translation shows that the term has a negative connotation. German language authors also use the term parasite or parasitic marketing. With this choice of words is the one of the competitors, uses of ambush marketing, are denounced as free riders and on the other hand suggests the illegality of the procedure.

Bartoluzzi, Dubach and Frey 2002 Ambush Marketing defined as "the unauthorized free-riding, in which an outsider of an event benefited, without being a sponsor ." Meenaghan, in turn, describes ambush marketing as "the practice whereby another company, Often a competitor, intrudes upon public attention surrounding the event, thereby deflecting attention to Themselves and away from the sponsor " " The practice whereby another company, often a competitor, in the public attention surrounding an event penetrates, it distracts from this ( sponsor) and tried to focus on it. "

By Gerd Nufer comes following comprehensive definition:

" Ambush marketing is the procedure of companies, the direct and indirect public through their own marketing, in particular communication activities to signal an authorized connection to an event, even though the companies concerned have not legalized or only underprivileged marketing rights to the assistance of third party event."

The aim of the footboard driver is to be positively associated with the event and on the other hand, preventing competitors from this effect. First of all official sponsors so lose some of the effect of their money bet. Frequently sponsor and Ambusher are direct competitors. A well-known example is the competition in the sporting goods manufacturer Adidas and Nike to the attention at major sporting events like the World Cup or the Olympics.

Features and differentiation

From the various attempts to define the following characteristics of ambush marketing can be derived:

  • Ambush marketing is the planned attempt by a company to be without acquisition of an official sponsorship associated with a sporting event, and not a spontaneous decision or occasional advertisement.
  • Ambusher and sponsor usually come from the same sector and are direct competitors.
  • Not only to attract attention in the foreground, but also the confusion of the audience regarding the connection between the sponsoring entity and the sponsor or Ambusher.
  • The Ambush measures to a shift of attention from the official sponsor of the Ambusher effect with the result that the communicative impact of the official sponsorship is affected.

A distinction is made between direct and indirect Ambush Marketing:

  • Direct (or clumsy ) Ambush marketing is the trademark or copyright infringing use of symbols, trademarks, mascot or merchandising without purchasing the appropriate license rights. This is illegal and will be prosecuted in the industrialized countries.
  • However, Indirect ambush marketing uses the legal possibilities. A distinction is made: Ambush marketing by intrusion: Here Advertising performed using your own symbols and trademarks in geographic proximity to the event (for example, in front of the stadium), and
  • Carried out in the media environment of the event ( for example, by switching of commercials in the television coverage of the event) or
  • In the context of public appeal services in the environment of the event ( for example, public viewing ) performed.
  • As the guiding principle for its own advertising campaign used (for example, playing football Surprise figures during a World Cup ) or
  • Advertise operated with participants of the events.

Competition of sponsorship contracts

The latter point is civilly demanding. With major sporting events typically there is a competition of sponsors at different levels. The athlete himself has his sponsor, the sports club, the National Sports Association and, if necessary, the international association has its own. Since the respective sponsors competitors can be (and usually are ) is to contractually regulate when and which sponsors have what rights.

Here, it often happens that the brand manufacturer X ( the sponsor of the athlete ) during a sporting event advertising on with this athlete and the brand manufacturer Y ( the sponsor of the event is ) criticized this as ambush marketing.

Manifestations and objectives

Go to the several forms of the series through, it becomes clear that the creativity seem to be no limits to generate attention. To this end, the ambush marketing activities can be broadly divided into the following categories:

  • Appearance as a presenter
  • Sponsoring a subcategory
  • Concealment of communicative actions of sponsors
  • Simultaneous marketing action with respect to the event
  • Thematic advertising through the use of photos or film footage of places or events with high sentimental value or with slogans that match the event
  • Other creative activities that do not fit into the above categories.

The objectives of ambush marketing are largely identical to those of sports sponsorship, but are to be achieved with less financial means. They are derived from the marketing or communication goals of the company and therefore referred to as derivative communication goals. With the use of sponsorship or ambush marketing, the overall effect of the communication is to be synergistically enhanced in order to achieve the existing targets of corporate communications. A distinction is made, as well as in traditional marketing, between psychological or qualitative - such as image and customer satisfaction - and economic or quantitative objectives, such as profit and sales. It is to be produced in both a positive connection with a sports event in which

  • Increasing the level of awareness,
  • Transfer a positive image dimensions and
  • A buildup of goodwill

Are in the foreground.

Practice

Examples

A striking example of ambush marketing yielded the sporting goods manufacturer Nike with the action " Go Henry Go". Nike sponsored the 80 -year-old runner Henry during his participation in the Berlin Marathon. Nike equipped the runner and encouraged the media presentation, for example by Heinrich posters along the route and its own " Heinrich newspaper" before the marathon. From the media attention for the oldest marathon participants benefited Nike, and could so with less effort to achieve a similar effect as the official marathon sponsor Adidas.

Classic Ambush marketing by intrusion was advertising a non- functioning as an official sponsor company on a Zeppelin, which circled over the Nuremberg Frankenstadium the Confederations Cup in 2005 and was also shown on TV.

A more subtle form of advertising were the contact lenses of an athlete at the 1996 Summer Olympics, with which this presented the logo of his sponsor Puma at a press conference, without that would have been Cougar official sponsor of the Olympic Games.

Countermeasures

During the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta, a telecommunications company in New Zealand switched ads in which they alluded to the Olympic rings. A New Zealand court before which the company was sued because it was not a sponsor of the Games, held that it was not supported relevant deception.

Against the background of such failures for an interest in the protection of their marketing contracts organizers and sponsors of these sought to tighten their actions against foreign brands: So, referring to the house right at the Olympic Games in Sydney 2000 Pepsi bottles were confiscated, as Coca -Cola main sponsor had. The Football Associations UEFA and FIFA demanded in the allocation of their tournaments on the host countries and to strengthen legal provisions to effectively tackle ambush marketing can:

In the 2006 World Cup in Germany, FIFA insisted on an " ad-free " (meaning free of third party advertising ) zone ( popularly called " FIFA exclusion zone " ) around the stadiums. Up to 1,000 Dutch soccer fans who had come in leather pants with a brewery logo print to a group game, were forced to take off these. " [ Y] ou can not tell people to strip off Their lederhosen and force them to watch a game in Their underpants " ("You can not just tell people that they should take off their leather pants and see a game in underpants " ), criticized the affected Bavaria brewery in their view, too broad FIFA measure. With the Football World Cup 2010 Dutch fans were even accused without brewery logo of Ambush Marketing, away from the stadium and detained by the police. " [P ] eople shouldhave the right to wear whatever theywant " Bavaria reiterated its position. "There is no branding on the dresses. And Fifa do not have a monopoly over orange. " ( " People should have the right to wear the clothes they want. On the garments no trademark was mapped. And Fifa has no monopoly on orange. " )

Criticism

Research gaps

Problems and effects that ambush marketing brings with it are still far from being sufficiently explored. For example, was either during or determine well in advance of the FIFA Football World Cup 2006 that advertising with football reference rapidly increased and the audience learned a supersaturation. Whether and how would counteract such supersaturation remains uncertain.

The effects of ambush marketing are controversial even with communication professionals. The Technical University of Chemnitz examined during the European Football Championship 2004 in Portugal, the effects of ambush marketing. It was found that only massive communication activities of official sponsors offered assurances that an official sponsor of Ambushern could settle. Conversely reached especially those Ambusher attention, which could use a close connection with the subject of football.

Legality question

Criticism also applies to the negative connotation of the term " ambush marketing ", "free riders " or " parasite marketing ": Smaller companies often have no other choice than to present themselves at the edge of events, as for larger events, only those companies which with most money can pay the high sponsorship and prevail against adversaries. By using pejorative terms such as ambush marketing both illegitimacy and a given only in very specific cases, illegality is indicated.

Ambush marketing is legally not an appropriate category. The organizers and official sponsors try with the brand and competition and house right to "protect" ambush marketing. The world football governing body FIFA has therefore can protect numerous brands: the consent of FIFA is needed even for the image of the World Cup Trophy. Even laws were created in numerous states which activities are intended to reduce the meaning of ambush marketing in the sense of the organizers.

Criticism of countermeasures

Critical measures of FIFA against alleged ambush marketing were assessed at the Football World Cup in 2006 and referred to as " nitpicking ": " In media centers not agreeable logos taped over. Journalists with the wrong manufacturer label on the laptop is threatened having to give the writing instrument. Children who are stuck in the wrong football shirt have to take off the bodice to be allowed into the stadium. " With the Football World Cup 2010 in South Africa did the comparable thereto " Beer- Babes Affair. "

Guerrilla marketing Berlin-Marathon
56257
de