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/