How do sponsors feel about the ambush marketing protecting measures being enacted and utilized by commercial rights holders and event organizers/local governments?
Obviously, as ambush marketing has emerged and grown, and as increasingly the media has become aware of major instances of ambush and attention surrounding such campaigns have grown, sponsors and rights holders have worked in tandem to combat ambushers and protect sponsors better.
But how do sponsors feel when such measures are enacted and put to use? Is it to the benefit of sponsors for rights holders to pursue legal action against offending brands? Would Budweiser have looked fondly on a prolonged court battle between FIFA and Bavaria? How would the public perceive Budweiser should the women accused by FIFA of ambushing been sentenced to jail time? Already those aware of the legislation in place for the London Olympics have protested against the counter-ambush measures in place, as did Vancouver citizens and businesses in regards to the Vancouver Games legislation. South Africa's own protection is regarded as one of the strictest and most draconian in the world, offering sponsors and rights holders swift action and harsh penalties for those found guilty. But for whose benefit?
While protecting sponsors and the investment made by official partners into major sporting events such as the Olympics and the World Cup is of the utmost importance in the current marketing environment, one has to wonder how favourably consumers would have perceived a strict sentence against the Bavaria Dutch Dress girls.
Thankfully we may never know the true extent of such legislation's impact on consumer opinion. Nevertheless, consumer reaction to both ambush marketing and counter-ambush marketing strategies remains both an intriguing and contentious area worthy of our attention, and perhaps further study...
No comments:
Post a Comment