An Assessment of Consumer Knowledge of,Interest in,and Perceptions of Ambush Marketing Strategies

Abstract

The development of sponsorship as a form of corporate communication has resulted in an exponential growth in the investment needed to be associated with major sport events. The strategy of ambushing corporate rivals as official sponsors of events has seen an increase as well. This study examined the perceptions of consumers regarding the practice of ambush marketing around the 1998 NFL Super Bowl. Additionally, it sought to determine the level of consumer knowledge regarding sponsorship rights, and perceptions of consumers regarding the practice of ambushing in general. Data collected from a random sample of 486 subjects suggested a lack of knowledge about sponsorship of the event and considerable apathy toward the practice of ambushing. Results indicated that this lack of knowledge is not dependent upon the level of interest in the event; thus, the results would appear to have repercussions for sponsors, as even the most involved fans are unclear about sponsorship levels and their entitlements.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams

(1997, November 28). Ladies night, NFL launches national campaign tailor-made for growing number of die-hard female fans: Game winning a crowd. Akron Beacon Journal, pp. A1, A4.

Bayless (1988, February 8). Ambush marketing is becoming popular event at Olympic Games. The Wall Street Journal, p. B1.

Cunningham

M. A.

, & Taylor

S. F.

(1995). Event marketing: State of the industry and research agenda. Festival Management and Event Tourism, 2, 123–37.

Garrett

(1996, July 21). Stick'em up— and outwit the sponsor. Observer Business, p. 16.

Huey

, Farrell

, & Goldman

(1996, July 22). Best shots. Adweek, 33(30), 36–38.

IEG Sponsorship Report (2000, December 18). IEG Forecast: Sponsorship spending growth will slow in 2001. IEG Sponsorship Report, 19(24), 1–5.

McDaniel

, & Kinney

(1998). The implications of recency and gender effects in consumer response to ambush marketing. Psychology and Marketing, 15(4), 385–403.

McDaniel

, & Kinney

(1996). Strategic implications of attitude-toward-the-ad in leveraging event sponsorships. Journal of Sport Management, 10(3), 250–261.

McKelvey, (1994). Sans legal restraint, no stopping brash, creates marketers. Brandweek, 35(16), 20.

10.

Meenaghan

(1998). Ambush marketing: Corporate strategy and consumer reaction. Pyschology and Marketing, 15(4), 305–322.

11.

Meenaghan

(1996). Ambush Market-ing—a threat to corporate sponsorship. Sloan Management Review, 38(1), 103–113.

12.

Meenaghan

(1994). Ambush marketing—immoral or imaginative practice. Journal of Advertising Research, 34(5), 77–88.

13.

Mullin

, Hardy

, & Sutton

W. A.

(1999). Sport marketing. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

14.

NFL v. Governor of Delaware, 435 F. Supp. 1372 1977.

15.

Payne

(1998). Ambush marketing: The undeserved advantage. Psychology and Marketing, 15(4), 323–331.

16.

Reich

R. S.

(1996, August 5). Newest sanctioned Olympic event: The ambush. Brandweek 37(32).

17.

Sandler

, & Shani

(1998). Ambush marketing: Is confusion to blame for flickering of the flame? Psychology and Marketing, 15(4), 367–383.

18.

Sandler

, & Shani

(1993). Sponsorship and the Olympic games: The consumer perspective. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 2(3), 38–43.

19.

Sandler

, & Shani

(1992, December). Sponsorship—an empirical investigation of consumer attitudes. Paper presented at ESO-MAR Sponsorship Research Seminar, in conjunction with Sponsorship Europe ‘92, Monte Carlo.

20.

Sandler

, & Shani

(1989). Olympic sponsorship vs. “ambush” marketing: Who gets the gold? Journal of Advertising Research, 29(4), 9–14.

21.

Stotlar

(1993). Sponsorship and the Olympic winter games. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 29(1), 35–43.