As viewers don?t make a distinction, countries like England have come up with rules to deal with ambush marketers
IPL-6 started recently and so has the blitzkrieg of advertisers hoping to capture a share of consumer?s mind. Like most sporting events, IPL attracts heavy sponsorships from large corporations. Recent news indicates that IPL event sponsors will be shelling out crores of rupees to designate themselves as official and associate sponsors of the event. But sporting events like IPL are also playfields for ambush marketing. Although sporting event sponsorship offers an ideal platform for marketing purposes as the audience-reach provided by such events is colossal but the onslaught of ambush marketing may have somewhat diluted the impact of official sponsorship. The recent withdrawal of DLF?s sponsorship for IPL citing the reason that sponsorship this year did not make business sense for it provides impetus to examine if event sponsorships are truly meaningful for sponsors. Plausibly, it may be interesting to explore who is the winner in the battle between sponsors and ambushers.
The term ?ambush marketing? was first conceptualised in a Journal of Advertising Research article by Dennis Sandler and Davis Shani. Sandler and Shani defined ?ambush marketing? as a systematically planned activity of an organisation to gain recognition and benefits of being sponsor by indirectly associating itself with an event. Over the last several years, ambush marketing acquired a negative overtone and was regarded as the biggest threat for organisations looking for sponsorships at sporting events.
In the Indian context, ICC World Cup 2011 was a testament for ambush marketing success. There are multiple instances of contradictions between brands that were official sponsors of Cricket World Cup 2011 and brands that were endorsed by individual players. PepsiCo was one of the official sponsors of the event, whereas the world?s biggest cricketing star, Sachin Tendulkar, was the brand ambassador of Coca-Cola. Similar was the case with Indian cricket team captain, who had an endorsement deal with telecom firm Aircel that competed with Reliance, the official World Cup sponsor. Sony India had also signed the Indian cricket team captain as its brand ambassador, which confronted the marketing strategy of LG Electronics, the global technology partner of the World Cup. Sportswear maker Adidas launched a new campaign during the World Cup featuring Sachin Tendulkar. Similarly, Nike launched a new campaign during the same time featuring prominent Indian cricket personalities, who were members of Indian World Cup outfit. This countered the marketing campaign of Reebok, one of the sponsors of World Cup, who launched commercials featuring the Indian cricket team captain and another prominent cricketer. Tata Sky Active launched multiple commercials during the event, with cricket as their main theme. This was in direct competition with Airtel DTH, one of the associate sponsors of the cup. The advertisements of Bharti Airtel carried several elements of cricket in them, despite Reliance Communications being the official sponsor.
So, are sponsors getting bang for their buck? In a comparison of sales performance of sponsors and ambushers during the World Cup 2011, it was noticed that Reliance Communications (sponsor) suffered a dip of 11% in its net sales vis-?-vis last year. But at the same time, its rival ambusher Bharti Airtel pulled off a growth of 9% in its net sales and total income between last year and current year. However, one must recognise that the shift in sales cannot be totally attributed to advertisement campaign of the companies during the World Cup. Furthermore, past research indicates that the event sponsorship helps in creating and reinforcing association between brands and consumers. Thus, the outcome of the sponsorship or ambushing may best be gauged in terms of ?attitude towards brand? and ?brand purchase intentions?.
Consequently, a small study was undertaken at the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, to compare consumer ?attitude towards brand? and ?brand purchase intentions? before and after the event. First, one month before the ICC World Cup, 150 respondents were asked to rate the sponsor and ambusher (e.g. Coke and Pepsi, Reebok and Nike, Reliance and Airtel) on a pre-existing ?attitude towards brand? and ?brand purchase intentions? psychometric scale. Second, one month after the ICC World Cup, the same set of respondents were asked to rate the sponsor and non-sponsor (ambusher) on the ?attitude towards brand? scale and ?brand purchase intention? scale. Results indicate that consumer perception of a brand changed positively and significantly but irrespective of whether the brand was an official sponsor or ambusher. Furthermore, neither sponsorship nor ambush marketing resulted in any significant change in a consumer?s purchase intentions.
In other words, though ambush marketing carries a negative impression in the commercial circles, yet its impact on the customers is strong. From a customer?s viewpoint, differentiating between official and unofficial sponsor is akin to solving a jigsaw puzzle. For the common man, it hardly makes any difference as to who is the official sponsor and what are its rights and how ambush marketing is an unethical activity. Consumers are poorly informed about the rights of the sponsors of an event and are largely indifferent to the practice of ambush marketing.
Overall, the results of this study indicate that legalities and ethical dilemma may just be restricted to corporate boardrooms but its effect on consumer?s mind seems to be negligible. Consumers seem little concerned about which company is sponsoring or ambushing. It is the sporting event that matters, the sponsors are not considered to be more attached to an event than any other advertiser. Thus, when an ambushing company displays its hoardings near the stadiums or offers freebies inside the stadium, the customers accept it happily without being intrigued by the ethicality or morality of ambushing.
Countries like South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, China, England, Brazil and Canada either have proper legislative rules and laws for dealing with ambush marketing or they have been covered under the existing business laws. Ultimately, the organisers of events or regulators may be tasked with framing rules and regulations to safeguard the interests of the sponsors. In the meantime, sponsors will continue to be ambushed.
The author is a faculty at the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad