Ambush Marketing & the London Olympics 14th February, 2011

With the upcoming London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, brands have joined in the big race to bag top sponsorship slots. The London 2012 Games is expected to attract an unprecedented number of visitors and a worldwide viewership, hence the attraction for sponsors is evident.

However, there are brands that cannot afford an association with an event of this magnitude, as well as those that can, but choose not to. This brings us to the issue of guerrilla or ambush marketing.

A legal sponsorship involves purchasing rights to the use of a property for promotional purposes. Ambushing refers to using a property without a right in a way that deflects attention from the main sponsor, or creating an association with a person, an event or a team without the right to do so. Here, a brand takes advantage of a highly publicised event without paying any sponsorship fees. Regarded by many as immoral, this cost-effective and strategically valuable marketing technique continues to attract big brands and master-marketers.

Some interesting ambush marketing strategies by brands during past Olympic Games include:

• Reebok was the Official Sponsor of the games in 1996, while Nike purchased billboard spaces in close proximity of the venue and handed out team flags with Nike’s logos on them to spectators, ensuring their visibility both on and off camera. Nike thus clearly stole the limelight and sabotaged Reebok’s sponsorship goals, without having to pay for the rights to do so.
• In 2008, Li Ning, China’s sport-star was chosen to light the Olympic Torch, which he did so while wearing  shoes from a sportswear line that he had founded with the official sponsors Adidas standing on the sidelines. The publicity that followed this stint got Li-Ning’s brand more coverage than the lighting of the torch itself.
• During the Sydney Olympic Games in 2000, Official Sponsor Ansett Air’s major competitor, Quantas Airlines increased advertising under their slogan ‘The Spirit of Australia’, which was very similar to the Olympic Game’s slogan “Share the spirit”.  
• During the 1994 Winter Olympics in Lillehammer, Norway, American Express launched a campaign that stated, “If you’re travelling to Lillehammer, you’ll need a passport, but you don’t need a Visa”. This was due in response to Official Sponsor Visa’s claims that American Express was not accepted as credit card at the Olympic Village.  It will be interesting to see what else they come up with for the London Olympics.

The London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act have introduced the London Olympics Association Right (LOAR) which provides LOCOG with the exclusive right to authorise persons to use and exploit any visual or verbal representation (of any kind) which is likely to create, in the public mind, an association between the London Olympics and goods or services, or a person who provides goods or services.

Furthermore the Act sets out a variety of words such as “games”, “2012”, “Two Thousand and Twelve” and “twenty twelve” which must not be used in combination with any of the following words, “gold”, “silver”, “bronze”, “London”, “medals”, “sponsor” or “summer” in an unauthorised manner which will be likely to suggest to members of the public that there is an association with the London Olympics.

Official Sponsors and commercial partners can therefore be granted exclusive rights by LOCOG under the Act to associate themselves with the games.

However, with increased restrictions comes increased use of creative marketing techniques in order to win market share through competitive brands.  It will be interesting to see both how LOCOG will manage this and even more interesting to see how competitive brands will try and overcome it.