Reference no: EM132315453

Ambushed!

Do you remember which athletic shoe company sponsored the 2012 London Olympics? If you remember Nike, you're right in line with 37 percent of U.S. consumers who identified Nike as a sponsor at the time rather than 24 percent who identified Adidas, who actually was the official sponsor and who paid about 40 million British pounds for the privilege.

The reason may be that Nike developed an extraordinarily creative "ambush" marketing program around the Olympics that hijacked buzz from the official sponsors. Like many other spectators, you probably remember the eye-catching neon yellow VOLT shoes that more than 400 runners and other athletes wore during Olympic events, at Nike's behest, attracting considerable attention and publicity. Just before the Olympics opened, Nike also launched a lush TV ad called "Find Your Greatness" that featured exciting amateur athletic events in different Londons all over the world from London, Ohio to London, Nigeria.

The ad immediately went viral, with viewership eclipsing Adidas' competing ad in just a week. Nike employed similar tactics to ambush buzz from official World Cup sponsors-including Adidas-in 2010. The shoe may be on the other foot in 2016, when Nike will be an official sponsor of the Rio Olympics, which Adidas will not sponsor. Host countries and host cities of major event routinely enact anti-ambush marketing laws, but creative marketers can routinely subvert them (for instance by not mentioning London, England or London 2012 in their ads). Ambush marketing has become a quite controversial topic, with arguments both for and against it. Key points:

In favor of am u s Ii marketing:

• Done within the bounds of the law, ambush marketing represents highly creative marketing promotion.

• Ambush marketing increases consumer choices, rather than limiting choices to the products (and prices) provided by official event sponsors.

Against ambush marketing:

• By its very nature, ambush marketing is deceptive, creating a false association between a brand and an event.

• The ambush marketer is essentially stealing buzz from the official sponsors of events, who paid richly for their sponsorship rights. Regardless of how creative the execution, stealing is unethical.

Question

• As a businessperson, could you support ambush marketing? Provide the rationale for your answer. If you do not support ambush marketing, what do you think are appropriate consequences for ambush marketers?