The London 2012 Olympics: Brought to you by... CoverGirl??

This week the IOC announced a new sponsorship agreement with international conglomerate Procter & Gamble, a ten year pact which will see P&G join the IOC's TOP sponsorship programme for the 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2020 Games. As well as being amongst the biggest and longest sponsorship agreements in Olympic history, the P&G sponsorship is intriguing on a number of levels.

First and foremost, Procter & Gamble as a parent company own a portfolio of over 40 brands internationally. Whilst the rights allocated to P&G have not been made widely available and known, it will be extremely interesting to see what allowances the company have secured from a marketing perspective, and how the company intends to leverage the IOC affiliation from a marketing perspective. One of the key issues Olympic officials have encountered in recent years (and in some ways, created for themselves), has been the proliferation of marketing clutter surrounding the Games. Ambush marketing, despite their best efforts, continues to grow internationally, and show no sign of abating. Moreover, the growing number of official sponsorship opportunities available with the Games (the 2008 Beijing Olympics boasted no less than 63 official corporate partners are various levels), has further complicated the sponsorship environment around the Olympics, and added further complexity to an already difficult industry. How an added 22 officially associated brands - should P&G have the rights - will only compound an already crowded market.

Second, over the past two summers P&G, and specifically chips brand Pringles, one of the key brands expected to benefit from the Olympic sponsorship, have become rather prominent and ambitious ambush marketers. Their campaigns around the 2009 Wimbledon Championships and 2010 FIFA World Cup were much celebrated within the ambush community, and seen by many as a signal of intent. How P&G, Pringles, and the IOC now manage that reputation and brand image should prove worth monitoring.



P&G have been involved with the Olympic Games in the past, specifically in sponsoring the US Olympic Committee, so certainly the foundations exist for a successful partnership. Moreover, few companies boast the international portfolio and awareness as P&G, which bodes well for their own marketing efforts and sponsorship activation. However, in adding another 40+ official brands to the Olympic stable, including a recognized and growing ambush marketer, the challenge has been set...

A Question... Part II

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...

A question...

I've kept pretty quiet about the Bavaria ambush at this month's World Cup - between the hundreds of the stories already out there on the subject, the misinformation and misdirection put out there but those in the know, and claiming to be in the know, and wanting to see how everything played out prior to commenting, I thought it best to bite my lip and see what more the Finals may have in store for us.

However, one thing about the Bavaria case which has interested me since it first made news, but hasn't yet received any major coverage, is the impact the media circus surrounding Bavaria's ambush, and FIFA and the South African government's subsequent legal action, has had on Budweiser's sponsorship?

As nearly every media report on the Bavaria ambush made mention, Budweiser is the official beer sponsor of the World Cup, and they've paid a massive amount of money for those rights. But what impact has the added exposure in the media, and constant affirmation of Budweiser's official status, had on their ROI? Moreover, would such a study reveal an unintentional impact of ambush marketing not previously suggested in the academic world? Past thought and opinion - particularly the opinion held by those within the major sports federations and commercial rights holders - has been that ambush marketing has a parasitic effect on sponsors, that it devalues their association and their investment by confusing consumers and distracting from the official sponsors who fund these mega-events.

If as I suspect, however, Budweiser's sponsorship has ultimately benefitted from the added media coverage, exposure, and identification in the media, could this Bavaria promotion not ultimately have benefitted the Anheuser-Busch brand in some way? How many who witnessed or have followed the Bavaria story confused the Dutch company as official sponsors? While the campaign certainly distracted from Budweiser's sponsorship, the media has ensured that their association has remained in the spotlight.

It would be interesting to know the impact of such campaigns when dealt with in this way. The media coverage benefitted both Bavaria and Budweiser ultimately, providing exposure above and beyond what either company had bargained for. Due to the heavy-handed way in which South African government handle ambush marketing, Bavaria equally emerged as a sympathetic figure in the press, and the women arrested as victims of the law. Certainly there's more than meets the eye to this story...

Halfpipe Dreams...

Anyone out there know the rules about logos and brand names on snowboards at the Olympics?

With all of the fury surrounding ambush marketing, and the measures the IOC have put in place over the years in an effort to protect their sponsors, one couldn't help but notice the subtle marketing in play during yesterday's men's halfpipe competition. The Olympics have rules regarding the allowable size of trademarks and corporate logos, regulations which have extended as far as forbidding Team Canada's use of its traditional Hockey Canada logo, and restricting the size and visibility of equipment manufacturers' marks.

So it seems strange, then, that every snowboarder to take the hill yesterday made no secret of their sponsors, with names like Burton and Bataleon seemingly underlying every descent.

In past Olympic Games, it has been commonplace for alpine skiers to remove a ski and show off their sponsor to the camera while awaiting their results. In televised competitions, this ritual emerged over the past twenty years as an accepted and almost celebrated part of skiing, based on the willingness of broadcasters to show off each skier's gear. This year, however, there's been much less attention on the skis at the finish line than would be expected. Either broadcasters and organizers are getting wise to the marketability of winter sports, or the skiing community is taking a stand against ambushing. Which seems more likely?

Finally, this post would be incomplete without giving mention to snowboarding's golden boy Shaun White, whose performance yesterday in the halfpipe competition drew a line under just how far this sport has come in recent years, and how big an impact he has had. Snowboarding, while a popular adventure and counter-culture sport for decades, is finally expanding into the mainstream, and the advances being achieved across the competitive arena are amazing. White's emergence and talent have been a driving force behind snowboarding's rise, and both he and the sport are now reaping the rewards.

In The News...

As the rules of the game change, companies must do more to recognize the various forms of ambushing. With a clearer understanding, organizers and sponsors stand a much better chance of protecting their investment. With this in mind, we propose the following updated breakdown of ambushing, including its strategies and the threats to sponsors, rights-holders and event organizers.

Check out Business Insight's new piece on ambush marketing by Professor Simon Chadwick and I, our most recent work on ambush marketing here at CIBS...

Ambushed! Sponsors pay a lot to link their brands to sporting events. Then there are those who get those links for nothing.

The article highlights a new typology of ambush marketing, and a new way of looking at and understanding the methods and strategies employed by ambush marketers. With the Vancouver Games fast approaching, and the 2010 FIFA World Cup just around the corner, it should be interesting to see what new strategies may emerge, and which tactics take the most prominent roles in 2010...

Let the Games Begin...

The marketing circus that surrounds the Olympic Games started months ago in anticipation of the Vancouver Games. Several brands across Canada have already been called out in the media over perceived ambush marketing campaigns, including Roots, Lululemon, Sony, and countless others.

This week, we can add a new name to the list: Subway.



While Olympic organizers and partners, including market rival and Olympic TOP sponsor McDonald's, will surely take a less gracious view of Subway's rather innovative and suggestive use of star American athlete Michael Phelps in their advertising, it is hard not to appreciate the ingenuity behind the campaign.

Expect to see many more examples of brands entering the Olympic marketing fray around the world over the coming weeks. While the Winter Olympics traditionally attract less interest and fewer ambush marketing efforts as compared to the Summer Games, the opportunities presented by the North American market, the incredible focus Canada-wide on the Olympic hockey teams' fortunes, and the competitive balance across winter sports nations that has emerged in recent years, should make this February an attractive prospect for sport marketers.

A New Look...

Hockey Canada today unveiled their new uniforms for the upcoming 2010 Vancouver Olympics, in response to a crackdown on jersey and equipment regulations by the International Olympic Committee, the Vancouver organizers, and a minor disagreement between Hockey Canada and the Canadian Olympic Committee.




The controversy over Team Canada's uniforms came of regulations limiting the allowable size and dimensions of governing body and manufacturer logos on Olympic competition-wear. The previous jerseys featured Hockey Canada's iconic logo prominently on the chest, an infringement of Olympic rules for which the COC had to apply for an exception. Having secured such protection from the regulations in previous Olympic years, Hockey Canada had originally approached the 2010 Games hoping to continue to market Canadian hockey using their logo, and reap the same financial rewards as in previous years from Hockey Canada shirt sales.

Instead, the COC refused to file the application, resulting in a dispute between the two governing bodies, and the need for Hockey Canada to design and have approved a new shirt for the men's and women's teams to wear this winter.

Behind all of the regulations and disputes within this story has been the underlining efforts of the IOC and VANOC to curtail ambush marketing, and prevent organizations such as Hockey Canada (as well as manufacturers like Nike or adidas) from gaining undue commercial benefits through unofficial Olympic involvement. Those watching last summer's Beijing Games may have noticed that a number of prominent organizations and countries had altered or missing logos from their uniforms, most notable the Argentine football team.



Hopefully the shirt design revealed today will appease Olympic organizers and those fearing ambush marketing, whilst also providing Hockey Canada the funding and added marketing that Olympic participation has traditionally provided.

Of course, the biggest contributor to Hockey Canada's revenues this year will likely be as a result of on-ice success, something 33 million fans North of the 49th will be anxiously hoping for...

Ambush Marketing? Or yet another example of ingenious marketing around sporting events?

Here's a new story coming out of Western Canada as preparations for the 2010 Olympics enter the home stretch...

Business makes Canadian shoe to appeal to athletes
By Rachel Brady, CTVOlympics.ca Posted Thursday, July 30, 2009 10:13 AM ET

A Calgary business envisioned a Canadian-themed running shoe that would appeal to Canada's patriotic athletes and sports fans. With an Olympic Games coming to Vancouver and Whistler in 2010, it was time to kick the business plan into action.

Calgary triathlon store Tri it Multisport learned of an Australian-themed shoe that quickly sold out in that nation, and thought perhaps the same could be done in Canada. Their research showed no company had ever produced a Canadian-themed running shoe.

Zoot, the maker of that Australian shoe, and a popular name in triathlon sporting goods, designed and manufactured the special Canadian shoe. Tri it Multisport calls it the Zoonie, and is now marketing it with the slogan "the new Canadian currency in speed."

Jordan Brydon, Canada's top Canadian tri-athlete under 23 and a hopeful for the 2012 London Summer Olympic Games, works at the store and helped Zoot design the shoe. The challenge was making it appeal to not just elite runners, but athletes from many sports who want a dry-land training shoe or a comfortable walking shoe.

"We wanted to do something cool and patriotic to support them in their training," said Brydon, who has already worn the shoe on race day. "Myself, I travel to different countries all the time, and wearing a shoe like that is like wearing a Canadian jersey."

But the Calgary business faced a challenge with their strategy since there are strict rules against using any Olympic branding or "ambush marketing". So Tri it Multisport went big on the simply Canadian motif.

The Zoonie is a sleek, white runner adorned with bold, red maple leaves. Weighing just seven ounces, compared to the regular 13 ounces of an average running shoe, Brydon calls it ideal for speed and agility training since lighter shoes allow more reps of an exercise. They put holes in the bottom for drainage - for athletes who pour water over themselves during workouts.

Canadian Olympic hockey gold-medallist Gillian Ferrari and teammate Tessa Bonhomme are among a handful of 2010 Olympic hopefuls who are wearing the Zoonies. They were shopping for heart rate monitors at Tri it Multisport when the store's owner, Brian Del Castilho, showed them the shoes.

"He said 'we're so proud of our Canadian athletes'," said Ferrari who wore the shoes to a recent photo shoot in Calgary with CTVOlympics.ca. "He was like 'I want you guys to wear these with pride and, you know, your feet carry the heart and pride of Canada.'"

Tri it Multisport is strategizing to get the limited-edition shoe on more high-profile Canadian athletes, a task that has proven tough for a company that typically specializes in serving runners and triathletes.

"Most of our circle is triathlon and summer sports Olympians," said Brydon. "We want to get into the winter sport circle too."

So far, the company has sold about 150 pairs of Zoonies. Showing off the shoes at Ironman Canada in Penticton, B.C. in August kicks off the efforts they plan to promote the shoes to Canada's circles of athletes.

"We wanted to put our name on the market as being the only store in Canada where you can get this shoe," said Del Castilho. "We're marketing to two groups: athletes and people who just want to show they're Canadian. Ideally speaking, to me, this would be one of those things people would want to wear at the Olympics."

The shoe retails for $184.99 (triathlon racing shoes typically range from between $150 - $220, says Del Castilho) at Tri It Multisport in Calgary or on their website, www.tri-it.ca.

Does taking a Canadian-only theme absolve the shoes and the brand from ambush marketing entirely? Not mentioning the Olympics saves the Zoonies from infringing upon the anti-ambushing legislation in place, but is there any doubt of the brand's aim to capitalize on the Olympics? IOC, VANOC, you may well have just opened the door to ambushers - 2010 will be a year of patriotic marketing in Canada, and the precedent is set.

Ambush Marketing Crackdown in South Africa...

Two companies have been found guilty of ambush marketing in South Africa, it was reported this week, after the official South African national team shirt and popular name for the team, Bafana Bafana, were used in advertisements for non-sponsors Hyundai and MTN.

From Kickoff.com:

Safa wins ambush marketing cases

Posted: 2009-07-27 15:19

Safa has stepped up its efforts to protect their sponsorship rights from ambush marketing.
Safa has won two cases at the Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa (ASA). This after two companies, MTN and Hyundai, were found to be at fault following their usage of Safa and Bafana Bafana brands while they are not sponsors or suppliers to the association and the senior men’s national team.

In the first case, Hyundai made an advertisement that depicted a Bafana player wearing an official national team jersey – which was viewed as a clear case of ambush marketing. The company has since withdrawn the advertisement and has vowed not to produce another one in future without Safa’s consent.

In the second matter, ASA ruled that MTN has implied in their advertisement that there is a connection between the company and Bafana. MTN had an advertisement which was headed ‘Turning young men into Bafana Bafana’, and was only referring to a competition which they sponsor and had nothing to do with the national team.

By the use of the words Bafana Bafana, MTN implied that they are an official sponsor of the national team, which is not the case.

Safa CEO Raymond Hack is content with both rulings, saying: “Our commercial department is closely monitoring ambush marketing practices, and we won’t hesitate to institute legal proceedings against anyone who embark on such unethical practices.

“Our national team is sponsored by Absa and Castle, and as a responsible association we will protect the rights of all our sponsors. Companies that want any association with Safa must do it procedurally by contacting us.”

While these cases may be seen as proof of the value and importance of anti-ambush marketing legislation, ultimately Hyundai and MTN both should have been aware of the dangers of using controlled and protected words/materials as they did. Even under normal intellectual property rights protection, both companies' advertisements knowingly infringed upon the rights of the South African football association and the national team, making the ASA's decision easy.

This has been a promising summer from an ambush marketing perspective in South Africa. Few major stories emerged from June's Confederations Cup, and this week's decision regarding the actions of Hyundai and MTN is not the first of its kind this year. While we should expect ambushing stories to increase as next summer approaches, and can count on prospective ambushers to be more ambitious and aware in preparing for the upcoming World Cup, FIFA's sponsors, and the South African organizers of next summer's event, may find themselves cautiously optimistic at this early stage. Only time will tell if such optimism is warranted...

Ambush Marketing Legislation: Why?

A press release put out not long ago by the UK's Chartered Institute of Marketing stated that in a recent survey of business, 43% of respondents stated they had "no understanding" of the legislation put in place for the 2012 Olympics. A further 43% stated that their understanding was "very poor" or "poor".

The 2006 London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act details the legal and governmental framework surrounding the upcoming London Games. More specifically, concerning the CIM, the act outlines the measures in place to protect against and prevent ambush marketing (the International Olympic Committee have sought protective legislation against ambushing from hosts since the 2000 Sydney Games, the first to formally introduce such measures).

Ambush marketing, defined as "a form of associative marketing, utilized by an organization to capitalize upon the awareness, attention, goodwill, and other benefits generated by having an association with an event or property, without that organization having an official or direct connection to that event or property", has become one of the biggest stories surrounding major sporting events over the past twenty-five years (Check out the CIBS working paper series here for more information on ambush marketing, and the work we've been doing at CIBS).

What's frustrating about the legislation being enacted, and the controversy surrounding anti-ambush legislation, is not necessarily the confusion surrounding the rights of non-sponsors, or the powers given to LOCOG and the government in 'protecting' sponsors. What frustrates most is the lack of accountability on the part of most Olympic sponsors that has driven this need for legal protection. In most countries where anti-ambush marketing legislation has been enacted, it has served as a reinforcement of existing intellectual property rights laws, and in cases, with specific reference to protecting the Olympic marks. However, a look at past incidents of ambushing reveals that the vast majority of cases of high-profile ambush marketing in sport avoid the use of protected marks and symbols, and thus should by and large be safe from anti-ambush legislation. Instead, most ambushers use innovative imagery and association, suggesting a connection to the event, without expressly linking their brand to the event.

For the London Games, the legislation put in place is aimed to protect against the use of trademarked and copyrighted words and symbols, such as the words 'gold', 'silver', and 'bronze', as well as the more obvious 'London 2012', 'London Games', 'London Olympics', the Olympic Rings logo, and so on. Given the amount of money committed by sponsors, and the importance of sponsorship money to fund events such as the Olympics, protecting sponsorship investment is obviously important. It is my contention, though, that sponsors must first protect themselves, before concerning themselves with the legal measures in place to protect them.

Take, for example, these two ads from the past year - the first, a television ad from official London Olympic sponsor Lloyds TSB bank; the second, from non-sponsor (and famed ambush marketer) Nike.

Lloyds, in order to become an Olympic sponsor, pledged a reported £80 million in 2007, and yet throughout their subsequent marketing activities, have struggled to leverage their association adequately, and seldom make reference to the Games or their connection to the event beyond including the London Games logo at the end. Nike, by contrast, despite having no official link to the Games and having made no financial investment to date, make indirect yet implicit reference to Olympics in London throughout their 'I'll Be Ready' campaign, leaving little doubt of their interest in the upcoming Olympics.

Ambush marketing legislation has been enacted to combat ambushers and protect sponsors, and yet in these two cases, such legislative action does little to benefit either the organizers or the sponsors. Tanning salons in London, advertising for customers to "Get bronzed in 2012", can expect cease and desist notices, but major players such as Nike, brands who may legitimately and logically be confused for sponsors, are unlikely to fall foul of such regulations. Rather, such legislation has in fact tarnished the image of organizations in the past, and threatens to undermine the values of events such as the Olympic Games. Early in ambush marketing's history, questions were raised over the ethics of ambush marketing, and the morality of embarking on an ambushing campaign. However, in recent years, and in light of counter-ambush strategies being employed (including legislation, marketing clean zones around stadia, and on-site policing of fans), this ethical focus has shifted. The question today is - how far will the restrictions on non-sponsors, local businesses, ambitious marketers, and spectators, go? Expect and interesting public relations battle over ambushing before the Games are all said and done...