Ambush Marketing and the 2012 London Olympics!

Ambush marketing is a form of unfair marketing, which has been described by the companies being affected by it as ‘parasite marketing’, while those engaged in it would characterize and justify it as ‘clever marketing’. It is a form of marketing that is seen more when big world events like the Olympics and FIFA World Cup occur. Basically, a company that hasn’t paid any money to be an official event sponsor get an association with that event and gets more ‘buzz’ then the actual sponsor of the event that ended up paying a large sum of money to have their name associated with the event. Although it may be hard to prove legally if a company engaged in ambush marketing tactics on purpose in order to draw attention away from the official sponsor, it is easier to classify it as a form of unethical marketing.

Ambush marketing affects the interests of official sponsors and it also causes confusion to consumers and fans when making an association towards the event. This is evident in a recent study regarding the 2012 London Olympics. According to new research recently conducted by digital agency Jam from December 1 – February 7, Nike a non-Olympic sponsor, is “dominating conversations on the internet, with 7.7% of the conversations about the Olympics associated with the brand.” On the other hand “Adidas is only pulling in 0.49% of conversations, despite a reported US$158M sponsorship deal to be the official Olympic Sponsor.” Nike has been notoriously known for its ambush marketing campaigns at these large events. They have done this by using their Nike sponsored athletes in cleverly positioned ad campaigns geared around the large events. In order to make their “Make it Count “ campaign, which is geared towards attracting interest off of Adidas for the upcoming Olympics in London, they have used Nike sponsored athletes of British heritage, such as cyclist Mark Cavendish. According to the article, Nike hasn’t broken any Olympic rules with its campaign although the campaign ‘has clearly resonated with the public as being aligned with the Olympics.

So is this a case where Nike is being clever with their ambush marketing or is Adidas simply not doing enough to generate buzz around the Olympics and their brand? According to the research while Nike was first on the list, followed by official sponsors HSBC (0.68%), Coca-Cola, and British Airways, all ahead of fifth place Adidas.

This brings us to the question of whether ambush marketing should be allowed, considering its unethical marketing nature and possible legal boundaries it can cross? Depending upon the facts and circumstances of the particular marketing campaign and depending on also whether the sports event is protected by a special law in order to host the event, it may be possible for the title sponsor being affected by ambush marketing to seek legal assistance in dealing with this. However, as the article noted, although it may be unethical Nike isn’t breaking any laws, so in this case Adidas may simply have to increase its marketing efforts in order to have the public associate their brand with the Olympics.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZZPXOzh8Ck

http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/news/1117275/Non-sponsor-Nike-brand-associated-Olympics/

Roburt Sallie, the 6'5 Guard from Memphis who was a shining star in the 2009 NCAA tournament scoring 35 points in 36 minutes by going 10 for 15 at the 3 point line has diminished his rather bright future for what he thought was larger future.  Sallie has been playing ball in Spain to chase his dream as a professional basketball player in the NBA.  Unfortunately, Sallie was cut from his team in early December after testing positive for doping.  

According to the FIBA rules and regulations, players are selected at random to complete a drug screening, before the test they are to list all types of medications, vitamins, foreign substances that they put into their bodies. On November 18, his team won the ENIAC Knet & Rioja, 83-75, with 5 points in his 20 minutes of play. After a celebratory party Sallie was randomly chosen to take a drug test.  Prior to Sallie's testing he listed he had been taking multi-vitamins, and a male enhancement pill - but he was unsure of the name.  As a result Sallie was cut from the team for not following the anti-doping policy and taking "Extenze". 
Sallie did an interview with Gary Parrish of CBSSports.com to straighten out what must be a really hard situation for him. Sallie said he did not take penis enlargement pills, as the team claimed, but rather sexual potency pills. He was drug-tested in November, and as part of it, he was asked about anything he might have taken. Sallie said he wrote down that he took "a male enhancement pill," saying "it's something I've tried, it's my personal business, and I'm proud to say I did it." 

Professional Cycling Sees More Woes

In the matter of 3 days two of professional cycling's greats, Lance Armstrong and Alberto Contador, received court decisions that effect both of their careers. As many may remember, Alberto Contador was the overall winner of the 2010 Tour de France. This was the third time the rider had won the Tour, and many revered him as the next great cycling legend. After the Tour de France ended he received news that he had tested positive for clenbuterol (a muscle building stimulant). He had, and still does maintain, that he had ingested this chemical from tainted meat. While farmers do use this chemical to fatten livestock, there is not concrete evidence that this would show up in a drug test if the meat was raised and eaten in Europe. 

The Spanish Cycling Federation heard his case first, and cleared him of any wrongdoing. Contador returned to cycling and went on to win the Giro de Italia in 2011 and finish 5^th in the Tour de France. The World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) and the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) then appealed the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) claiming that he should receive a full ban. A full ban in cycling is a two year ban and a requirement that an athlete must forfeit any races competed in during the time in question.

This week the CAS ruled with WADA and the UCI claiming that Contador was guilty of doping. This is the statement they released:

“The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has rendered its decision in the arbitration between the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) & the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) and the Spanish cyclist Alberto Contador & the Spanish Cycling Federation (RFEC): the CAS has partially upheld the appeals filed by WADA and the UCI and has found Alberto Contador guilty of a doping offence.

“As a consequence, Alberto Contador is sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility starting retroactively on 25 January 2011, minus the period of the provisional suspension served in 2010-2011 (5 months and 19 days). The suspension should therefore come to an end on 5 August 2012.”

Contador can and most likely will return to racing at the end of this summer, but may always have an asterisk next to his name like so many already have because of performance enhancing drugs.

In a similar case, Lance Armstrong was being investigated by federal prosecutor for the use of performance enhancing drugs in the late 1990's and early 2000's. This investigation was sparked when a former Tour winner, Floyd Landis, claimed that Armstrong "masterminded" the use of PED's on the U.S. Postal Service Cycling Team. This statement came after Landis was stripped of his tour title for doping.

In addition, last summer, Armstrong's former teammate, Tyler Hamilton, went on 60 minutes and told his side of the story:

Although no criminal charges will stem from this investigation, the U.S. Anti Doping Agency stated that they will continue to investigate the sport of cycling to eliminate these issues.

No matter what each court decision stated about either rider, the true test of an athlete's credibility is revealed in the court of the public. They dismissed charges against Lance, but does that mean everyone thinks he is innocent? And when Contador returns to racing and wins a race, many people out there will say that he must be doping again. These issues in sport also raise the question of whether or not we should be spending tax payer money to investigate these issues? Fifty years from now when these athletes are almost forgotten, their records and achievements will always be tainted with the issues they had with the legal system.