Columbia Southern University Ambush Marketing Case Study Instructions For this assignment, you will read a case and answer a series of questions concernin

Columbia Southern University Ambush Marketing Case Study Instructions

For this assignment, you will read a case and answer a series of questions concerning an analysis of ethical considerations governing marketing practices, as leaders are responsible for such endeavors. Begin by reading the following case, which is ATTACHED BELOW.

Then, draft a two-page paper by addressing each of the following items:

In your own words, how would you describe “ambush marketing”? Include two examples with your description.
What are the advantages and disadvantages (risks and consequences) of ambush marketing?
What was Bavaria Beer hoping to achieve through its ambush marketing tactics?
Would you consider Bavaria Beer’s ambush marketing an unethical practice or simply a competitive strategy? Explain.
Can ambush marketing be both intentional and unintentional? Explain.
As a leader of an organization, would you allow the practice of ambush marketing? Explain.

Be sure to demonstrate a clear analysis as you address each question. Use APA style to format your assignment. Use APA Style to cite your sources. CASE STUDIES
Ambush Marketing Case Study:
successfully leveraging high-profile
events to raise brand profile
Understanding how and why brands look to ambush events
Reference Code: CSCM0326
Publication Date: July 2010
DATAMONITOR VIEW
CATALYST
Dutch alcohol brand Bavaria Beer sparked a major debate in marketing circles as a result of its attempted ambush of
official sponsor Budweiser during the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa. While some within the industry have criticized
the strategy for its perceived unfairness and insincerity, others are praising its creativity and effectiveness. This case study
investigates the concept of ambush marketing by focusing on the recent World Cup example, but also reflects on how
select companies that have historically used it effectively or ineffectively.
SUMMARY
•
Bavaria Beer’s ambush of Budweiser during the early stages of the 2010 FIFA World Cup was initially thought to
be largely unsuccessful in that it was spotted by event organizers, who removed and punished the participants.
However, the subsequent media interest and criticism of FIFA’s handling of the situation resulted in Bavaria Beer
receiving a tremendous boost in profile around the world, transforming the move into a big success.
•
Global-scale sporting events are often the prize target for ambushers. The sheer money that is involved in such
events makes them highly lucrative to be affiliated with. Over time, organizers have become savvier to the
attempts of ambushers to generate buzz without paying for official sponsorship deals. However, there have still
been recent examples of creative ways of circumnavigating restrictions.
•
Although ambush marketing leads to positive outcomes when successfully executed, the perceived lack of ethics
that surround the practice, certainly in some circles, makes it a risky strategy. Ambushes can lead to bad
publicity, alienation among powerful bodies, and are sometimes subject to aggressive counter-measures which
can potentially damage the brand image severely. The risk/reward conundrum means that companies must
consider all the possible outcomes (both positive and negative) before embracing these tactics.
Ambush Marketing Case Study: successfully leveraging high-profile events to raise brand profile
© Datamonitor. This brief is a licensed product and is not to be photocopied
CSCM0326/ Published 07/2010
Page 1
Ambush Marketing Case Study
ANALYSIS
What is ambush marketing?
When embracing ambush marketing a brand attempts to attach itself to an event without paying official sponsorship rights.
Certain requirements must be adhered to (usually the avoidance of using specific terms and slogans in marketing), but if
executed correctly the practice is entirely legal. However, ambush marketing poses certain ethical and moral questions
which could potentially have a negative effect on a company or brand’s image/reputation.
Figure 1 outlines a definition of ambush marketing, as well as a comparison with similar—and sometimes confused—
marketing approaches (guerilla and host-parasite marketing). All have their associated advantages and disadvantages, but
it is ambush marketing which provides the focus for this particular case study.
Figure 1:
Definitions of ambush, guerilla and host-parasite marketing
Type of marketing
Amb ush
Gueril la
H ost-p arasite
Definition
A de li berate attempt by an organ iza tio n to a ssocia te itse lf with a n
eve nt (often a sp orting event) in order t o gain some of the bene fits
asso ciated with bei ng an off icial sponsor wi thou t in curri ng th e costs o f
sp onsorship. For example by a dve rt ising during broa dcasts of th e
eve nt.
The strate gy of targe ting sm all a nd speciali zed cu sto me r groups in
su ch a way that bigg er companies wil l no t fi nd it worthwh ile to
re taliate .
Where one b usine ss uses an other t o gen erate sales throu gh a
re ferral/re ferral fee rel ationshi p.
Source: Datamonitor analysis, adapted from the Chartered Institute of Marketing
DATAMONITOR
Although the terms sound like they have negative connotations, they are all legitimate marketing practices which can be
extremely effective. It is ambush marketing though that requires the most attention, both from a legal standpoint and to
ensure that it works effectively.
According to Prof. Simon Chadwick and Andrew Burton (published in the Center for the International Business of Sport,
2009) there are several different types of ambush marketing which fall under two distinct groupings, as summarized by
Figure 2 below. The ‘direct ambush’ activities are closer to being (or, in some cases, are actually) illegal. They are generally
the more forceful and impactful forms of marketing but carry the most risk as well. This demonstrates how there are a large
number of subtleties when it comes to ambush marketing. Although there are more ways of carrying out an indirect
ambush, they are generally less effective in terms of being noticed. Distractive ambushing, for example, relies on
consumers drawing a parallel with something completely unrelated, which is far from guaranteed. Other types, such as
incidental or unintentional ambushes are relatively rare and cannot be relied upon to generate publicity given this fact.
Direct ambushes, on the other hand, carry more risk but can also be considerably more rewarding.
Ambush Marketing Case Study: successfully leveraging high-profile events to raise brand profile
© Datamonitor. This brief is a licensed product and is not to be photocopied
CSCM0326/ Published 07/2010
Page 2
Ambush Marketing Case Study
Figure 2:
There are several different types of ambush marketing, which can either be classified as direct or
indirect
DIRECT AMBUSH ACTIVITIES
INDIRECT AMBUSHES
Predatory Ambushing – intentionally attacking
a rival’s official sponsorship in an effort to gain
market share and to confuse consumers as to
who the official sponsor is
Associative Ambushing – the use of imagery or
terminology to create an allusion that an
organization has links to a sporting event or
property
Coattail Ambushing – the attempt by a brand to
directly associate itself with a property or event
by using a legitimate link other than becoming an
official sponsor of the property or event.
Distractive Ambushing – setting up a
promotional presence at or near an event without
making specific reference to the event itself
Property Infringement – the intentional
unauthorized use of protected intellectual
property
Self-Ambushing – marketing activities by an
official sponsor above and beyond what has
been agreed on in the sponsorship contract
Values Ambushing – the use of an event or
property’s central value or theme to imply an
association with the property in the mind of the
consumer
Insurgent Ambushing – the use of surprise
street-style promotions at or near an event
Parallel Property Ambushing – the creation or
sponsorship of an event or property that is
somehow related to the ambush target and
competes with it for the public’s attention
Incidental Ambushing – when consumers think
that a brand is a sponsor or is associated with an
event or property without any attempt on the
brand’s part to establish such a connection
Unintentional Ambushing – sometimes media
coverage will mention equipment or clothing
used by an athlete, or a company that is
providing a service in support of an event
Saturation Ambushing – saturation ambushers
increase their advertising and marketing at the
time of an event, but make no reference to the
event itself and avoid any associative imagery or
suggestion
Source: adapted from Chadwick and Burton, MIT Sloan
DATAMONITOR
Bavaria Beer’s ambush at the 2010 FIFA World Cup sparked a renewed debate about the
relative merits and morals of ambush marketing
On June 14 2010, Bavaria Beer was accused of initiating an ambush during the FIFA World Cup soccer match between
Denmark and the brand’s home country of the Netherlands. Mid-way through the game, 36 female members of the crowd
were ejected by FIFA security (FIFA is the governing body of world soccer), with the FIFA citing “a clear ambush marketing
activity by a Dutch brewery company”. The crowd members were all models, dressed in identical orange dresses which
were part of a gift pack offered by Bavaria Beer. Although the company had made efforts to ensure that the dresses were
Ambush Marketing Case Study: successfully leveraging high-profile events to raise brand profile
© Datamonitor. This brief is a licensed product and is not to be photocopied
CSCM0326/ Published 07/2010
Page 3
Ambush Marketing Case Study
recognized in association with the beer (Sylvia van der Vaart, wife of the prominent Dutch soccer star Rafael, was
approached to model the dress to raise brand awareness) the ambush itself was likely to be low-key until the ensuing
controversy elevated the stunt to an issue reported worldwide across all media platforms.
FIFA was criticized for its handling of the situation, going so far as to arrest two of the participants for their role in
orchestrating the ambush. Many felt that the punishment was too severe, but FIFA insisted with some justification that it
was going to necessary lengths possible to protect the interests of its official sponsors. Ironically, the heavy-handedness of
the actions taken by FIFA has probably guaranteed the brand far more exposure than if they had allowed the ambush to
continue unpunished. As far as organizing bodies are concerned, this highlights the importance of judging the
appropriateness of a response. Successful ambushes are by their very nature difficult to defend against, so there must be a
high degree of consideration regarding how the media and general public will respond to the defense.
Figure 3:
Bavaria Beer hired models to wear clothing identifiable with the brand at a World Cup soccer game
Source: Datamonitor analysis
DATAMONITOR
This was not the first time Bavaria Beer ambushed the FIFA World Cup. In June 2006, the brand gave out free branded
orange lederhosen to around 1,000 Dutch fans to wear at a game between the Netherlands and Ivory Coast. The fans were
not allowed into the stadium wearing the lederhosen, and instead were forced to watch in their underwear. The fact that
ambushes have occurred at consecutive events heightens anticipation about what the brand might do next time (in 2014,
when the World Cup is to be held in Brazil). This kind of elevated interest/anticipation in a brands’ activities give it a
stronger platform to generate added exposure (and possibly sales), which only serves to highlight the attraction of
embracing ambush marketing.
Ambush Marketing Case Study: successfully leveraging high-profile events to raise brand profile
© Datamonitor. This brief is a licensed product and is not to be photocopied
CSCM0326/ Published 07/2010
Page 4
Ambush Marketing Case Study
Ambushing is an enticing option to companies given its potential to be extremely effective
at a far lower cost than paying for official endorsement privileges
The primary goal of ambush marketing is to increase brand awareness. Unlike guerilla marketing, where careful placement
usually has only a modest effect on brand awareness, the large-scale targets of ambush marketers facilitate opportunities
to expose a brand to a wide (global) audience.
Major sporting events such as the Olympic Games and FIFA World Cup are billion dollar occasions. According to
sponsorship experts IEG, the 2010 FIFA World Cup will generate circa $1.6bn in sponsorship revenue. Major sponsors
such as Adidas and Visa have paid around $350m to be official affiliates, while Sony has also signed a deal worth in
excess of $300m. Such enormous figures emphasize how potentially lucrative effective marketing can be when associated
with such popular attractions. It is therefore inevitable that these types of events are most at risk of ambush when the
rewards can be so great.
Beer sales peak during a World Cup due to the communal element of viewing games and the fact that soccer mostly
appeals to the male demographic (which tends to favor beer as its choice of alcoholic beverage). It is therefore easy to see
why Bavaria Beer has attempted to ambush its rivals on this stage. Highlighting this, UK supermarket chain ASDA reported
that it expected a 37% increase in beer sales during the month-long tournament. The first match involving England saw 12
million pints of beer sold, according to the British Beer and Pub Association. UK Retailer Marks & Spencer announced that
sales of its own-brand beer had doubled during a World Cup promotion. Meanwhile, in the home nation of South Africa,
SABMiller’s beer sales exceeded expectations, selling 130,000 hectoliters more than it could expect during a normal JuneJuly sales period. This was 30,000 hectoliters more than anticipated, equating to an additional 44m 340ml beers. Japanese
brewer Kirin anticipated a 4% increase in total sales as a result of the competition, while South Korean retailers GS25 and
Bokwang Family Mart have both reported a doubling of sales following the participation of their team.
Figure 4 below showcases the influence of branding in the alcoholic drinks industry. When asked as part of Datamonitor’s
2009 consumer survey, global respondents ranked ‘brand name’ second, behind only ‘price’ in terms of perceived influence
on product choice. In total, two-fifths (40%) of consumers worldwide felt that brand name had either a ‘high’ or ‘very high’
influence on their alcohol consumption choices, while a further 39% stated it had a ‘medium’ amount of influence.
Interestingly, in the immediate aftermath of the ambush, the brand’s website Bavaria.com, which was little-visited outside of
its core markets, was the fifth most visited beer website according to Experian Hitwise.
Ambush Marketing Case Study: successfully leveraging high-profile events to raise brand profile
© Datamonitor. This brief is a licensed product and is not to be photocopied
CSCM0326/ Published 07/2010
Page 5
Ambush Marketing Case Study
Figure 4:
The importance of strong branding is highlighted by the influence that it carries when consumers
are purchasing alcoholic beverages
42%
40%
High or very high influence
38%
30%
18%
17%
gi
ng
Pa
ck
a
Ha
b
it
y
ics
/s
us
Et
h
C
ta
in
ab
ilit
ie
nc
e
on
ve
n
ea
lth
H
Pr
ic
d
11%
Br
an
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
e
% of respondents
Please tell us how much influence the following factors have in your alcoholic beverage
choice (global response)
Source: Datamonitor Consumer Survey, April/May 2009
DATAMONITOR
However, consumers are expressing advertising fatigue and ambush marketing can
exacerbate this
Companies must also bear in mind that consumers are becoming increasingly fatigued with, and skeptical regarding, what
is often perceived as too much advertising. Quite simply, many companies relentlessly push brands across multiple
channels/touchpoints and this can frustrate consumers, as illustrated by Datamonitor consumer survey fieldwork in recent
years. Figure 5 below shows how consumers in a selection of major markets view the sheer quantity of advertising. In each
country, more than two-thirds of respondents agreed on some level with the statement “there is too much advertising
today”. Generally speaking, consumers are more likely to ‘strongly agree’ than ‘tend to agree’, especially in 2008. In 2010,
consumers across all markets have been slightly less likely to agree with the statement, and there has also been an
apparent softening of attitudes. While this does suggest that advertisers are becoming more discreet, the results arguably
reflect a society that is no longer surprised by the amount of advertising it is exposed to and has grown more accustomed
to it. Nevertheless, it is still the majority of individuals in a given country that are expressing negative sentiment towards the
amount of advertising they are exposed too. Given that ambush marketing is criticized for being more insincere, this
negative sentiment could be exacerbated by a poorly executed ambush. After all, a majority of consumers believe they are
already over-exposed to commercial messages even before companies attempt to ambush a form of advertising that is
already generally perceived to be credible.
Other research highlights there is at least a reasonable degree of trust in brand sponsorships. In April 2009, Nielsen
revealed that 64% of global respondents either ’somewhat’ or ‘completely’ trusted this type of advertising/marketing.
Ambush Marketing Case Study: successfully leveraging high-profile events to raise brand profile
© Datamonitor. This brief is a licensed product and is not to be photocopied
CSCM0326/ Published 07/2010
Page 6
Ambush Marketing Case Study
Figure 5:
An overwhelming majority of citizens across countries and territories believe that there is too
much advertising today, although the intensity of this perception has declined since 2008
QUESTION: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? There is
too much advertising today
100%
Strongly agree
Tend to agree
% of respondents
90%
80%
24%
31%
70%
60%
38%
32%
37%
39%
41%
50%
27%
36%
38%
38%
36%
40%
41%
40%
66%
30%
55%
20%
40%
50%
34%
53%
50%
41%
40%
34%
35%
36%
25%
10%
28%
0%
2008 2010 2008 2010 2008 2010 2008 2010 2008 2010 2008 2010 2008 2010
Australia
Brazil
China
France
Germany
Source: Datamonitor Consumer Surveys, August 2008 & July 2010
UK
US
DATAMONITOR
Nike has made a habit of successfully ambushing rivals during major sporting events
Sports manufacturer Nike has developed a reputation as the most effective creator of ambush marketing, certainly among
high-profile brands. Most famously, the company was said to have ambushed Reebok during the 1996 Olympic Games in
Atlanta. With sponsorship costs for the games at approximately $50m, Nike chose not to spend on becoming a legitimate
endorser and instead concentrated on generating brand exposure in other ways. Billboards around the city of Atlanta were
blanketed and a ‘Nike Village’ was constructed outside the athletes’ ‘Olympic Village’.
Other examples of Nike seeking to usurp official sponsors include convincing superstar basketball player Michael Jordan to
cover his Reebok logo when accepting an Olympic gold medal, and the creation of elaborate television advertisements to
accompany major sporting events. Figure 6 shows some examples of the company’s ambush of the 2008 Beijing Olympics.
The sports bag contains a logo reminiscent of an ‘8’, while the host city name implies association with the event without
specifically mentioning it. The advertising campaign, entitled ‘Courage’, showed a number of athletes with inspirational
slogans including “everything you need is already inside”. The company often rolls out extravagant television advertising
campaigns to coincide with major sporting events, often leaving consumers feeling as though they are actually connected
to the event itself.
This type of ambushing is often successful for Nike. According to the Nielsen Company, which measures how much brands
are being discussed online, Nike garnered the highest share of online FIFA World Cup “buzz” before the 2010 tournament
Ambush Marketing Case Study: successfully leveraging high-profile events to raise brand profile
© Datamonitor. This brief is a licensed product and is not to be photocopied
CSCM0326/ Published 07/2010
Page 7
Ambush Marketing Case Study
(when looking at English language messages). The 30.2% accumulated by the brand more than doubled the share of the
second-placed brand and FIFA World Cup official partner, Adidas (14.4%). To contextualize this achievement, the nexthighest non-affiliated competitor was alcoholic drinks brand Carlsberg, with a 3.9% share. H…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment