ambush marketing
...aim that it threatens the integrity and future of these events. In particular, corporate sponsors claim that ambush marketing tactics reduce the effectiveness of their promotional efforts and event organizers are concerned that these practices will diminish their ability to retain top paying sponsors, thus jeopardizing their ability to fund these events at all. On the other hand, ambush marketers argue that it is all fair game and that we live in an open market claiming that it is up to the official sponsors to promote their sponsorships and brands and the image they want to project to the public. It is not possible to draw a clear conclusion as to whether ambush marketing is an ethical marketing tactic or not. In particular, it remains to be seen whether ambush marketing is in fact having as much of a negative impact on sponsors’ investment as its critics would have us to believe. However, what is clear is that ambush marketing has become, and will continue to be, an irritating fact of life for sports organizers. Let us examine some instances of ambush marketing in India: • A tetchy ICC demanded that Indian cricketers stop Samsung, a personal sponsor of several, from advertising in the Indian media. Samsung signed on a posse of seven Indian players for a megabucks campaign. • There is the straight fight between Hero Honda, which is a global sponsor of the Champions Trophy taking place in Sri Lanka, and which would like to run its rival TVS off the road. TVS has, according to industry experts, paid Rs 12 crore (Rs 120 million) to rope in cricketer Sachin Tendulkar as its brand ambassador for three years. • Then, there are the two soft drinks companies. Pepsi thought it had outmaneuvered Coca-Cola by paying $22 million and becoming a global sponsor of the two World Cups and the ICC tournaments. Coca - Cola that balked at the ICC's $22 million fee wasn’t planning to abandon their cricketing ambitions. Coke wasn't about to let Pepsi taste the thunder and it made sure of that by signing up Virender Sehwag as its brand ambassador. • Sahara has faced problems at the ICC tournament because South African Airways is a global sponsor. For a company that has signed on the entire team and paid Rs 100 crore (Rs 1 billion) to put its logo on their shirts that could be quite a loss. • All participants were required to sign a contract, barring them from advertising products that competed with those of the official sponsors. In India, a country where cricket is a religion, the issue assumed special significance. With the largest number of cricket lovers in the world, India also comprises a significant consumer base for multinationals worldwide. • In a setback to the organizers of the cricket world cup, Delhi High Court has declined an interim injection sought by ICC Development International, seeking a permanent injunction against Philips India. • The next ambush marketing target, after cricket, in India is films. Thums Up (a Coca-Cola brand) has been seen aggressively promoting Bollywood movie Kaante using the film's footage, which features Amitabh Bachchan, who incidentally is a brand ambassador for Pepsi. • Amul with its utterly batter-ly ambush ad on the ICC world cup Let us examine a few cases in a little more detail Philips vs IDI Philips offered to give world cup tour packages as prizes to customers purchasing its products. According to an injunction sought by IDI, an event management arm of ICC, objected to the use of the words- ‘World Cup’ in the sales promos as Philips was not an official sponsor of the world cup in South Africa. Philips had purchased travel packages from the Indian sub-agent of the official tour operator of IDI. IDI had alleged that Philips had breached the terms of the sale of the tour packages which specifically prohibited use of the same for promotion or as prizes for competitions. Philips had argued that the said terms were not conveyed till the present suit was filed. The court held that in the promos of Philips there was no likelihood of confusion in the mind of the purchasing public that Philips was in anyway associated with the event. More significantly the Delhi High Court also dismissed IDI’s argument that Philips advertisements amounted to ambush marketing for commercial gain which was defined by IDI as unauthorized use of an event by an entity not being its official sponsor. The court stated that ambush marketing is a phrase used by marketing executives only and added that opportunistic commercial exploitation of an event amounted to constitutionally protectible commercial speech and it was for the legislature to decide how far to curtail legitimate fair competition and freedom of speech. IDI’s claim that the right of publicity in the event accrued in its favour as it controlled all the intellectual property and publicity rights of the event was also turned down by the High Court. The court upheld Philips contention and observed that the right of publicity could not be extended to non living entities. It stated that there are alternative theories for protection of such events and that though an individual may acquire the right of publicity by virtue of association with an event, that does not follow in the event in question that made the individual famous nor in the organization that has brought about the event. Samsung vs ICC Samsung was caught in a bitter controversy with the International Cricket Council over its commercials. ICC alleged that Samsung – through its advertisements featuring Indian cricketers – was flouting contractual agreements with the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), amounting to devaluing the rights secured by ICC's commercial partners. Subsequently, Samsung had to withdraw all the advertisements in its 'Team Samsung' series, after ICC issued notices to the cricketers for continuing to feature in these commercials, despite the appellate body's directive. Air Sahara vs South African airways: Sahara is being seen as a competitor to official World Cup sponsor, the South African airlines, SAS. The ICC advertising clause on ambush marketing prohibits the use of Sahara logo on a player's jersey. In the Champion's Trophy played, Sahara had opted to use the name of its chairman Subrato, instead of Sahara, but that was not to the taste of ICC, which struck down the name change on the grounds that the Sahara logo was still present in the new design. Speaking to ET, Sahara chairman Subrato Roy's son Sushanto Roy said, "We are toying with opting for the Amby Valley logo, if Sahara logo can't be used in the World Cup." He added that ad campaigns around the "Amby Valley" concept was being designed and may be used if such a need came up. He, however, said that the group was not using the World Cup as a big-time advertising opportunity. Thums UP vs Pepsi A blockbuster was hitting the screen, with all the attendant song, dance and scandal. Kaante stars Amitabh Bachchan, Sanjay Dutt, Sunil Shetty, Kumar Gaurav, Lucky Ali and Mahesh Manjrekar — and Thums Up. Coke's paid Sanjay Gupta, the film's producer, to feature the cola in some scenes — rumours put the figure at Rs 4 crore, but Coca-Cola, as well as the producer, say it isn't so — and it's also airing promos for the film that incorporate the Thums Up brand. To add a little twist to the plot: Amitabh Bachchan is already very, very visible as a brand ambassador for rival Pepsi. He showed up lost and thirsty, desperately in search of a cola, and he's been getting heavy exposure along with Sachin Tendulkar in this summer's new ad. Pepsi was not too pleased to see him hijacked. Said sanjay Joshi, CEO, Alliance Media Entertainment, the exclusive brand consultant to Bachchan, “It was a kind of embarrassing situation for him as he was caught in this war between Coca-Cola and Pepsi, when he's actually just an actor in the film. He was caught completely off-guard and has requested the director to remove his solo shots from the ad.” Going by the promos of Kaante that were running on air, one would have thought that Thums Up had roped in six stars to endorse the product. But it was actually a clever piece of ‘ambush marketing', and very much a part of Sanjay Gupta's marketing plan — it gets him an audience he'd otherwise find difficult to reach. “We take the brand where otherwise it is not possible for them to go, in the form of in-film placements. On the other hand, the brand is taking us to platforms and advertising avenues which were not affordable to us. With the help of Thums Up, we can take the film on sports channels and news channels where Hindi films are not generally publicized.” The ad showed actual footage from the film interspersed with product shots of Thums Up. The 20-second TVC gave the viewer a taste of the ‘male essence' of both the movie and the drink. “We've gone in for the tie-up as both the brands — Thums Up and Kaante — have a similar masculine attitude and both brands would benefit from the synergy,” said a Coca-Cola official. Said Sanjay Bhutiani, general manager, Leo Burnett, “Kaante is the brand here, not Thums Up.” Apart from three promotional campaigns, the film's premiere will carry through the bank-robbery theme: theatres in select cities will be decked out like a bank. The idea for the co-branding effort was hatched almost two years ago. “While shooting, I used to tell my artists that they would be seeing that sequence as an advertising campaign. When they see their film promoted well and getting brand associations, they feel happy. Bachchan did express his concern but that's because Pepsi expressed concern,” said Gupta. Hero Honda vs TVS On the other side of the fence from Hero Honda sit two companies using Tendulkar as a figurehead. TVS scooters and Fiat have also said they will not air the master batsman's advertisements for the stipulated 17-day moratorium. TVS Motor is one of the many companies that may have to review its agreement with Tendulkar if the master blaster agrees to the ICC's diktat of not endorsing any product from companies other than the global partners for a month before and after an ICC tournament. This, the ICC says has been done to safeguard the interest of its global partners against ambush marketing. TVS is in direct competition with one of the official global partners of ICC, Hero Honda. Samsung vs BCCI Team SAMSUNG campaign was surfaced on TV channels involving a group of seven celebrity cricketers endorsing the entire array of Samsung products. The seven cricketers who are part of 'Team Samsung' and will be seen in the company's advertising campaigns included Rahul Dravid, V Sehwag, Anil Kumble, Harbhajan Singh, Javagal Srinath, Dinesh Mongia and Ajay Ratra. Except Srinath, all the others were part of the Indian team that had refused to sign on the dotted line on the ICC diktat. Some of the Samsung products like TV sets and washing machines were in direct competition to the similar products of another official global partner of ICC, LG India. 'Team Samsung' signals the strengthening of Samsung's association with cricket, which until now had been confined to the ESPN Star Sports Cricket Ratings and in-stadium ground panel advertising during cricket matches. “We plan to take our association with cricket much beyond the World Cup," R Zutshi, V-P sales, Samsung India, said in an official statement. Let us now see the world famous ambush marketing cases: Pepsi vs Coke A South African businessman, Arthur Williamson, claimed to have been "browbeaten, humiliated, assaulted and summarily ejected" from Centurion Park on Tuesday last week for drinking a can of Coke. He also said he had had his other cans confiscated. This would be absurd even if it had been unforeseen. Sadly, it has been fizzing up for months. It is the perversely logical outcome of the International Cricket Council's fierce determination to provide "essential protection" for its tournament sponsors against "ambush marketing". This led to a stand-off before the World Cup between the ICC and players of several nations, including Australia, who were asked to put on ice personal deals with sponsors who conflicted with the tournament's officials sponsors. India's participation was secured only at the 11th hour. The chronicle of arch rivalry between cold drink giants Coca Cola and Pepsi is replete with examples of ambush marketing. FIFA, football's global governing body, took offence to an advertising campaign by Pepsi in Argentina. In the outcome, an Argentine court banned Pepsi's TV and press ads that suggested a "presumed sponsorship relationship". In fact, it was Coca Cola that was the official sponsor for the event. The offending ads had the words "Tokyo 2002" alongside famous footballers and other soccer imagery, and these were associated with the Pepsi logo. Patrick Magyar, the chief executive of FIFA Marketing, had said, "FIFA regrets that Pepsi employs these below-the-belt tactics that harm the FIFA World Cup - they should know better." The battle in Argentina was just one among several that Magyar fought in South America. But Pepsi still dominated television with the help of their brand ambassador David Beckham. In India, a poll of 8,000 Internet users done by AC Nielsen after the 2002 World Cup revealed that 13.1 per cent of the respondents recognized Pepsi as an official sponsor. Who can forget the 1996 cricket World Cup when Coke paid an emperor's ransom for the right to call itself the "official" sponsor? Rival Pepsi promptly waylaid Coke with a most memorable blitz based on the catch-line "Nothing official about it". Olympics 1992 Official Olympic sponsors of the 1992 Summer Olympic Games were forced to compete against ambush market competitors in a bullfight of marketing strategies. Advertisers with the strongest television presence during the Olympic Summer Games were the ones who were remembered among a stampede of sponsors, according to a study by Performance Research of 1,000 Olympic fans nationwide interviewed before and after the Games. When asked to recall official Olympic sponsors, 42% of the post television audience recalled Coca-Cola, while pre-event testing revealed 28% of those respondents intending to watch Olympic coverage noted Coca-Cola's involvement. Also, receiving impressive returns were athletic shoe rivals Reebok, jumping from 9% to 32% and U.S. Track and Field sponsor Nike, improving from 13% to 25%. Visa's level took a slight decline in unaided recall from 8% to 1% and the U.S. Postal Service delivered similar returns (5% to 1%). When asked to recall advertisements and promotions during the Olympic broadcast, Coca-Cola didn't loose its fizzle from pre-testing (20%) to post-testing (32%). Keeping up the pace, Reebok promotions were recalled by 13% of the pre-test respondents and by 15% among the post-test audience. Advertiser recognition diminished slightly from pre to post testing for McDonald's (18%/12%), Nike (15%/11%), and M&M/Mars (8%/4%). American Express charged toward Visa's official status (46%/55%) with over one-fifth (21%) of the pre-wave respondents, and more than one-third (33%) of post-wave respondents mistakenly crediting American Express as the Official Olympic credit card. With its barrage of television commercials featuring Magic Johnson, Pepsi was successful in convincing 15% of the pre-wave audience and 8% of the post-wave audience that Pepsi had Official Olympic status. Both MCI and Sprint made an impact on viewers' perceptions of the telecommunication companies most associated with the Olympics. MCI rung in with 12% pre-test and 23% post-test audience, while Sprint collected 9% pre-test and 12% post-test respondents. However, AT&T had a stronghold on the position and collected almost two-thirds (63%) of the pre-wave and more than one-half (52%) of the post wave recognition as Official Olympic sponsor. Nike vs addidas Some of the most infamous ambushes in the last decade involved sports-goods companies. At the 1992 Barcelona Olympics, Nike sponsored a media conference of the US basketball team despite Reebok being the official sponsor for the games. Nike's man Michael Jordan, while accepting the gold medal for basketball, covered up the Reebok logo on his kit. At the next Olympics at Atlanta, Nike struck again by handing out flags to the spectators. Millions of viewers saw the Nike trademark swooshing about in the excitement of the games. Nike also opened a large complex next door to the main Atlanta stadium. A survey after the Olympics showed that more than 60 per cent of respondents believed Nike was an official sponsor, thus upstaging Reebok, which had paid US$40 million to be the official sponsor. Nike then ambushed Adidas, the official sponsor, at the 1998 football World Cup in France. Nike cashed in on the soccer mania with a huge advertising campaign that predominantly made use of its sponsorship of the Brazilian team. In return, Adidas 'torpedoed' Nike at the 2000 Sydney Olympics. Nike was the official clothing supplier while Adidas sponsored the swimming super-hero, Ian Thorpe. At medal presentation, Thorpe (accidentally?) draped his towel over the Nike logo on his official team tracksuit. Thus Nike was nowhere in the famous photograph that was seen by multitudes of people in Australia and all over the world. Nike struck back at the 2002 Boston Marathon, a mega event by any reckoning. As the Adidas sponsored runners came off the course under full glare of the cameras, they were treated to spray painted 'swooshes' that honoured the day of the event but did not mention the race itself. Nike’s ambush of the 1996 Atlanta Olympics is still seen as the ambush of all ambushes. Saving the US$ 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 Committee’s credibility and spooked other organizations such as FIFA into adopting more assertive anti-ambushing strategies. The result of all of Nike’s 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, Nike’s 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." National hockey league vs Pepsi Cola Among the first common law decisions directly related to a...