The Other Side Of The Current Ambush Marketing Debate
Posted: 2/16/2010 2:59:14 PM by
Lesa Ukman | with 0 comments
With the Vancouver Games underway, the IOC and USOC are hoping to create a backlash against ambush marketing.
Hmmm…just because their efforts didn’t work in the ’80s, ’90s or ’00s doesn’t mean our collective sense of social justice won’t kick in on behalf of the mega brands sponsoring in 2010. Don’t you know lots of people whose horror over Haiti, concern for friends and family out of work, etc. pales in comparison to our moral outrage at Verizon Wireless—sponsor of U.S. Speedskating—for stealing thunder from poor little USOC sponsor AT&T?
Here are some facts:
1) An Olympic partnership is not ambush-proof. The IOC’s TOP package does not extend to the International Federations, the National Governing Bodies, Olympic athletes or advertising on Games broadcasts (though TOP sponsors do receive first rights to buy ad time in their category).
2) Sponsors of TOP and the National Olympic Committees such as the USOC do not have the moral high ground. Partners of the NGBs, IFs and athletes also provide critical support to the “Olympic family” and have the right to promote their support, albeit without using the Olympic rings, Olympic Games or NOC marks.
3) It would be harder to ambush Olympic sponsors if the IOC and USOC put awareness-building assets to work for their sponsors.
Check out the USOC Web site (TeamUSA.org) for example. Other than AT&T and 24 Hour Fitness, no partners make the home page. A link on the page takes you to a listing of 47 companies under the “Our Family of Sponsors” label, including partners, sponsors, suppliers, official outfitter, licensees and broadcast partner.
No editorial explaining how long a company has been a supporter or what their support means, nothing about promotions sponsors are running for fans, no statement from the sponsor. Fledgling nonprofits with tiny staffs do a better job of educating supporters than the USOC does.
4) Perhaps because it is counterintuitive, this next fact has never been mentioned in two decades of debate over ambush marketing: Every time the USOC and IOC attack ambush marketers, they dilute the value of their brand to sponsors, because research reveals fan support for sponsors is greatest when they believe that without the sponsors the property would go away. The more heavy handed, commercially driven and powerful the Olympic movement appears, the less consumers believe in the need to support its sponsors.
This is not to say that the IOC, USOC, VANOC and others should not go after companies that are actually infringing on Olympic rights and trademarks, but rather that attacks on marketing that does not cross a legal line can backfire.
5) IOC messages on behalf of sponsors should be tied to what fans care about—great competition, level playing field, etc., and not commercial squabbles. The AT&T brand is diminished, not enhanced when associated with Olympic executives complaining about Verizon Wireless.
We are in an era when customers are in control and the rules of marketing have changed. Great sponsorships are grounded in connectivity, collaboration and enhance the audience experience. Build in benefits for them, no strings attached. Amplify their voice, not yours, and earn their appreciation.
6) The IOC position on ambush marketing is intentionally manipulative. IOC marketing chair Gerhard Heiberg recently told reporters that "ultimately, companies which try to create the false impression that they are an official partner of the Olympic Games, or create a false association with the Olympic Games, are cheating Olympic athletes.”
Not true. Verizon Wireless does in fact support Olympic athletes and is not illegally using Olympic marks.
7) Be on the side of right and you’ll never go wrong.
Full disclosure #1: We love TOP. Since the game-changing introduction of the worldwide Olympic platform, we have been an advocate of its value proposition. Indeed, TOP validated the sponsorship business because most all of its benefits are intangibles. Visa’s use of TOP showed that televised signage and 30-second spots were not the only way to drive business
Full disclosure #2: Late last year, IEG Sponsorship Consulting was part of a three-agency team pitching the IOC on a solution for streamlining, customizing and enhancing its presentation to potential sponsors. Our proposed work involved rethinking the rights and benefits to enhance the value offering. This had not been requested in the IOC’s RFP and we were not hired, although the IOC is moving forward with the two agencies we worked with and their parts of the proposal. It was a long shot; the need to change when your current value offer is working so well and you have sponsors signed through 2020 is a tough sell.
Read more blog posts
Filed under: servicing, ambush marketing