Background and Objective of the study
Sponsorship has been in a state of constant expansion over the past decades, and as sponsorship has grown, so too has the practice of ambush marketing. The term ambush marketing is commonly used to describe activities of nonsponsors that aim to generate the positive effects of sponsorship without an official affiliation with the sponsored property. Ambush marketing is used most often (and commented by the media) around major events, such as Olympic Games and World Championships. Both sponsorship rights holders and sponsors are eager to find ways to make the opportunity to exploit the commercial potential associated with sponsored properties as exclusive to the sponsors as possible. To this end, several counterambushing strategies (e.g., the continual expansion of rights holder sponsorship programs, legislation, on-site and media policing) that aim to prevent or limit ambushing opportunities have been implemented over the past years to protect the rights of official sponsors. While previous research has focused on prevention and looked at the possibilities that rights holders have to ensure exclusivity to sponsors, this research focuses on reaction and looks into how sponsors may respond to ambush marketing. One central tool to achieve this is counterambush marketing communications, that is, a public response to ambushing that aims to enhance the own brand and (directly or indirectly) denounce the ambushing brand.
Design and results
Three experimental studies using both real and fictitious brands as well as different event settings indicate that a humorous counterad (vs. naming and shaming and consumer education counterads) results in more favorable consumer evaluations of the countermessage. The studies also show that perceptions of the advertising tactic’s appropriateness mediate these effects and that a humorous counterad is only advantageous when consumers hold positive (vs. negative) attitudes toward the practice of ambush marketing. In addition, comparing the three types of counterads with a common sponsorship leveraging ad suggests that a humorous counterad and simply ignoring the ambusher produce equal perceptions of tactical appropriateness and similar positive indirect effects on consumer attitudes toward the ad. Also, humorous counterads exert a direct positive effect on attitude toward the ad, compared to the other two types of counterads and compared to a sponsorship leveraging ad.
Implications
The studies thus provide implications for how sponsors can respond to ambushers. Sponsors can directly and indirectly (via perceived tactical appropriateness) increase consumer attitudes toward the counterad by using humorous content. Thus, sponsors should consider the use of humor when raising their voice against ambushers and be careful with using both naming and shaming and educational counterads in these situations.
Contact
Chair of Sport & Health Management
Prof. Dr. Jörg Königstorfer
Secretary: Mirjam Eggers
Uptown München Campus D
Georg-Brauchle-Ring 60/62
80992 Munich
Phone: +49.89.289.24559
Fax +49.89.289.24642
info.mgt@sg.tum.de