Is Ambush Marketing Good or Bad?

Ambush marketing is when a company takes advantage of when one competing company pays to become the official sponsor of an event. They do so by cleverly connecting itself with the event without having to pay a single penny for the sponsorship fee. Now is this ethical?  

For those on the working end of an ambush marketing campaign, an ongoing question is one of ethics. I feel torn about whether or not ambush marketing is ethical for multiple reasons. Ambush marketing, is undeniably effective as it is harmful, attracting consumers at the expense of competitors. Brand Channel implied that ambush marketing is diminishing the attraction of sponsoring an event for future brands. If other companies are benefiting from one company that pays for the sponsorship fees to market their brand, why should another company in the future want to pay for those fees? What is it that drives that company to decide to be a sponsor if they know ambush marketing is inevitable? They could wait for another company to sponsor the event and do the exact same thing; market their brand during the Olympics without paying for the sponsorship fees.

In Brand Channel, they iterate that in most cases, ambush marketing attracts the most attention for “heavyweight brands with massive resources”, such as Nike, Adidas and Reebok or Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Nike is notoriously known to embracing ambush marketing. For example, Nike has used ambush marketing multiple times in various cases. One instance invlved footwear; according to Business Insider and Brand Channel; they have ambushed “Converse in Los Angeles in 1984; Reebok in Atlanta in 1996; Adidas on just about every continent in every two or four year competition”. Back in 1996, Nike ambushed Atlanta Olympics saving $ 50 million that would have cost an official sponsorship.  Nike’s billboards covered the city, and they handed out banners with their logos at competitions. Nike’s marketing did well and for most times, outshines the official sponsors.

 I feel that it is more unethical for larger companies to use this type of marketing than smaller businesses.  In Sports Daily Business, small businesses are getting punished for showing their support and celebration for their country hosting the game.  Even if they are showing their crafted displays supporting the Olympics, Olympic officers view it as ambush marketing even if it is unintentional. These small businesses have no real commercial threat to Olympic sponsors, especially to larger companies like Adidas for Cocoa-Cola. Instead, they are only presenting their local pride and excitement about hosting the Games.

Even though there are different sides to ambush marketing, I feel that overall it is ethical. It’s a clever way for companies to promote their brands during such a highly appraised event, such as the Olympics.These companies should focus on making good advertising instead of focusing on spending the most money. Nike was clever to save money by not spending a lot and creating well liked advertising. Also, because the Olympics comes every 4 years a so, I feel that any company or business should have the right to use the Olympics to promote themselves. There is so much pride; enthusiasm and respect for the Olympics that I feel everyone should have the equal right to share their excitement. By cracking down on strict rules on marketing campaigns and displays during the Olympics only tarnishes the Olympic Brand. Also the companies that are paying to become sponsors,  they should feel pride in what they are doing and should not be intimidated by competing brands if they are putting their best foot forward.  Like said in the Sponsorship; if a company is expecting a competitor to ambush an event, they should be prepared to put in the same type of creative thinking and exert more effort to outshine their potential competitor.