I can’t really think of a better way to assign a description to Ambush marketing… I mean, the overriding opinion of this “marketing method” is something along the lines of sneaky, conniving, unfair, selfish, and disrespectful… scandalous. But on the other hand, for an ambush marketing effort to really make people mad, you can’t argue that it must have been reasonably effective, well thought out, somewhat “under the radar,” in essence… brilliant. I have found myself somewhat intrigued by this topic recently, and thought if I am, certainly there’s a few of you out there that are too. I think what intrigues me about it is that while the overriding opinion seems to be negative, that’s just not how everyone feels; and I suppose at the end of the day, it just depends on which role you played in the middle of the “attack.” So why don’t we peel back the onion a bit on the actual act of ambush marketing, paint an unbiased picture of what it accomplishes, and to whom, and then point out a few cases as examples.
According to Wikipedia, the actual definition of Ambush Marketing is the following: “a marketing campaign that takes place around an event but does not involve payment of a sponsorship fee to the event. For 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. Those other brands then find ways to promote themselves in connection with the same event, without paying the sponsorship fee and without breaking any laws.” Now that this makes more sense to those of you who are less familiar with the term and the practice, hopefully that clears up what we’re talking about here. Now, the truth is that the majority of these cases are affiliated with major sports events; as I was conducting a search for examples, most everything I saw was affiliated with the Olympics or the World Cup. But don’t be fooled, this can happen anywhere or anytime a brand wants to be seen or affiliated with a property. They are typically large, however, because the risk has to be worth the effort and they must be able to get in front of a large number of their target audience that can ultimately impact their bottom line as a result. The time and effort and planning involved in activating such an effort has to be worth the gain, and that means a large enough impact at a large enough event.
So why scandalous? Some of you know exactly why it’s scandalous especially if you’ve been touched by it before. Some feel these brands masquerade as a partner when they haven't paid their dues. It’s needless to say that to invest in a major sponsorship deal is no small thing for a corporate brand. Significant time in meetings, contract negotiations, activation efforts and planning went into this partnership, and it’s a relationship that has been invested in. When another brand tries to reap the rewards of an affiliation, it can take away from the efforts the official sponsor made; especially if the sponsorship agreement was for exclusivity. A perfect example of this is seen in the 1984 Olympics betweem Kodak and Fujifilm when Kodak became the official film of the U.S. track team and sponsored ABC’s broadcast of the games. When a brand pays for exclusivity, they don’t like their toes stepped on. The value of the affiliation is lessened, which is also why properties might not like it either. If they are going to charge a certain amount for a right that they are unable to protect, it makes for a tougher sale in the years to come. In addition, the experience of the brand is altered and can make it tough to gain as a long term sponsor in the future if they have concerns about the value of the partnership.
Now, on the flipside, it’s also really pretty brilliant. Ambush marketers understand the fact that sponsorship is really about an overall experience of the audience. It’s not just the event itself, but everything that touches the experience of those involved, making it better. If they think of a creative way to support that audience, therefore adding value to the experience they have affiliated with the event, the property might appreciate that as well. The more the attendees enjoy the experience, the more valuable the sponsorship gets in the future for sponsor affiliation. Now, if there’s room for improvement that can be a good reason to attract a sponsor too – to address a need; but that’s a whole different blog topic! In addition, if a brand activates an effort that one of the other official sponsors didn’t think of, then clearly there’s opportunity for a better creative effort. Sometimes the effort is more annoying than others – if a sponsor hands out accessories, collateral, or t-shirts at an event with their logo all over it, for the purpose of being all over walking billboards called the audience, it’s tough to prevent. Or if they buy up all the local signage in billboards or advertising space and somehow affiliate it physically near or mentally affiliate with the event, this is also typically legal and tough to protect against. A great example of a high level arguable ambush marketer would be the more recent Olympic case of Subway stepping on McDonalds toes. Check out this article to read the inside scoop on what happened and what the reactions were.
The long and short of it is this: business is business. If a brand can market effectively, you can’t blame them for wanting to build the brand. Now in the same token, part of positive brand building is based on integrity, and relationship building, so if you burn bridges with future potential partners, or become seen as a scandalous marketer, are you really doing your brand any favors? Food for thought. This is one post I’d really like to hear some personal insights from. What has your experience been with ambush marketing – good, bad and ugly, we want to hear it. Educate our viewers with your stories and insights.