If 2009 was the year of the cutback, 2010 may very well be the year of the ambush. There are many properties, and deep pocketed sponsors, that are out to make sure that doesn't happen. Nevertheless, marketers continue to look for clever and cost-efficient ways to tie-in to major events like the World Cup and Olympics, while properties are seeking to vigorously defend their sponsors (and their value proposition) in a tighter spending environment. Good timing for Nicholas Burton and Simon Chadwick, who have been studying ambush marketing at Coventry University Business School in England. Burton and Chadwick recently looked at 350 potential ambush examples in an ongoing effort to define the practice, identify the ramifications of it and explore practical solutions for preventing it. It...
New Research on the Art of the Ambush
This article is limited to registered SponsorPitch members. Sign-up for your free SponsorPitch account to read the full article and many others like it.
This is always a student favorite for discussion in my Sponsorships course.
Interestingly, their opinions run about 2-to-1 in favor of ambush marketing as a clever, legal, if not ethical tactic, much like the poll above.
Not to straddle the fence, but I think that an ethical line does exist in this debate. I don't see anything wrong with generating inferred image transference tactics. For instance, if Coors is an official NFL sponsor, I don't see a problem with Miller Lite running football-based commercials during NFL telecasts, or even using an NFL-related personality, or signing on as sponsors for individual teams (league deal permitting).
I think the ethical line is crossed when various physical elements are involved and/or compromised. For instance, I don't see a problem if billboards and/or other spaces AROUND the event/facility are utilized. After all, if the sponsoring brand and sponsored property weren't smart enough to utilize them, they're fair game. HOWEVER, for example, sending fans INTO the event/facility armed with paraphernalia of a non-sponsor crosses that ethical line to me.
The bottom line is this, though: the property and the sponsor must activate, integrate, and execute with precision and perfection. Otherwise, they're sitting ducks for ambush, and they'd have no one to blame but themselves. But to do that and to create the synergy to facilitate it, they've first got to be on the same page with terminology, objectives, and measurements. The slightest gap could be all the leverage a competing brand needs. And to me, that's a pretty solid argument for (non-execution) standardization.