• Investment World
• eWorld
• Catalyst
• Mentor
• Life
• Canvas
• Praxis
• Urban Pulse
• Brand Quest

Neha Kaushik

The raging controversy over ICC seeking to protect the official sponsors of the World Cup prompts Catalyst to examine the phenomenon of ambush marketing.

THE event: the 1996 cricket World Cup held in the sub-continent. Though Coca-Cola was the `official' sponsor of the event, Pepsi stole the limelight with its `Nothing official about it' tagline. The instance perhaps marks the most famous example of `ambush marketing' (a marketing tactic which gained prominence globally in the Eighties) in India.

The term has come into the spotlight yet again, not surprisingly again in the context of India's favourite pastime - cricket. This time, though, it is at the heart of a raging controversy, which has vexed leading cricketers to no end. Surely, there can be nothing official about ambush marketing either.

That is precisely why the International Cricket Council (ICC) has decided to introduce a clause for its future tournaments seeking to outlaw `ambush marketing' and has urged individual Boards to take up the matter with their players on a priority basis. The cricketing body's contention is that it will not be able to command major sponsorships and thus feed money back into the world game unless official sponsors are protected.

The ambush marketing protection contracts with sponsors allows the ICC to secure a $550 million commercial rights agreement for its events up to 2007. Of this, $102 million will be distributed to the boards and players in the Champions Trophy and the 2003 World Cup.

However, according to a marketing analyst, there is nothing new with what the ICC has attempted to introduce, as leading sports bodies across the world including the likes of FIFA and that governing the Olympics seek to protect the official sponsors against "being ambushed" by rivals.

For instance, in this year's football world cup, though Pepsi did dominate on television (particularly with globally popular brand ambassador David Beckham), it was Coca-Cola which was the major sponsor of the event. Meanwhile, FIFA's lawyers did crack down on Pepsi's advertising (which suggested a presumed relationship between Pepsi and the world body) in various Latin American countries.

In marketing terminology, ambush marketing refers to an effort by an unauthorised entity to attempt to benefit from an event at the expense of another company's association with the event. In the context of the current cricket controversy, it would amount to linking a promotional campaign with the event without paying the fee. In such a case an `ambush' ensures that the main sponsors exclusive association with the event gets diluted, and the sponsor is unable to get the return he expected from the investment made in the event.

Though the term is most commonly used for rivals, in certain circumstances it may be used for `non-competing' companies also. Says Ganesh Mahalingam, General Manager (Marketing), LG Electronics India, "Ambush marketing occurs when the event is hijacked by a party whose event it is not, though the specific rules vary from sport to sport. It can happen not only among competitors but also among equals." For instance, if company A and B are sponsoring an event, and A goes on an advertising blitzkrieg making it seem like the sole sponsor for the event, then B would said to have been ambushed by A.

"In the context of the current cricket controversy, we feel that it is not LG which is being ambushed so much by Samsung's advertising, as Samsung does not appear to be attempting to take advantage of the event. But Sahara (which is the official sponsor of the Indian cricket team with Team Sahara) is impacted by Samsung advertising Team Samsung," says Mahalingam.

However, adman Suhel Seth, head, Equus Red Cell, believes that ambush marketing is basically a politer word for competitive advertising. "Ambush marketing is very tactical and short term in nature. It results in quick recall, but people forget it very quickly too," he says.

Taking a leaf again from the Coke-Pepsi bag of marketing gimmicks, another clever (though on a smaller scale) example of ambush marketing came during the 1996 World Cup in the sub-continent, when Pepsi fought back against Coca-Cola - an official sponsor - by flying huge air-balloons with their logo on the edge of match venues.

Meanwhile, though LG (which has bought rights for both durables and computer peripheral companies for the ICC tournaments) for now appears to be unruffled as far as Samsung's strategy is concerned, there are indications that Samsung may advertise (using the Indian cricketers it has signed up) its mobile phones.

Such a scenario does seem to suggest that it is almost impossible to put a stop to ambush marketing. Does that mean that in the future, contracts (especially cricketing contracts) are likely to get more detailed in order to prevent ambush marketing? Seth seems to think so. "After the current controversy, future contracts are likely to be better organised. This time around, the communication gap has put the brands in disarray and the players in jeopardy. Meanwhile, in addition to the fact that contracts will be better organised, it appears likely that the players too will be organised under a body. However, similar contracts in the future will be open to legal interpretation."

Coca-Cola's Vice-President (Marketing), Shripad Nadkarni, however says that with the current clause causing so much confusion, it is unlikely that future contracts in India are likely to get more detailed to prevent ambush marketing.

Meanwhile, though the term is used most often in the context of sporting events, it is not restricted to sports alone. Seth describes an interesting example of ambush marketing, which took place some years ago. Michael Jackson, who had a multi-million dollar contract with Pepsi, was supposed to perform at a concert in Thailand, but postponed the concerts pleading illness and dehydration from the heat. Rival Coca-Cola almost instantly took a shot at Jackson by running a print ad in Bangkok which said, "Dehydrated? There's always Coke."

The next ambush marketing target, though after cricket, in India appears to be films. Thums Up (a Coca-Cola brand) has been seen aggressively promoting Bollywood movie Kaante using the film's footage, which features Amitabh Bachchan, who, incidentally is a brand ambassador for Pepsi.

Nadkarni, however, says that it is merely "a tie-up with films", and not a case of ambush marketing.

Says a marketing analyst, "Ambush marketing tends to bring out the best of creativity. It also helps to break the clutter of conventional advertising. Meanwhile, it appears that in any given situation it would be almost impossible to completely stop ambush marketing as it would amount to controlling the free flow of ideas."

As far as the ICC Knockout in September is concerned, only post-tournament will tell who actually gets ambushed.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section
An idea is born

Copyright © 2002, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line