EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe Marketing world is ever changing. It is described as the most dynamic aspect of anykind of business. Industry experts would no doubt agree upon this fact.Marketers or strategists as we may call them today strive to come up with “out of thisworld” ideas to stay in the business or to stay in THE LIME LIGHT!Such efforts have given birth to variety of new concepts, one of which is AmbushMarketing. But, do such ideas of novelty really work?Many a time’s creative marketing strategies either create a temporary hype about theconcerned product or help in short term improvement of sales. Very few outstandingefforts have a long lasting effect on the consumer’s mind.OBJECTIVE OF THE PROJECTThe following Research study has been done on one such creative marketing strategycalled Ambush Marketing. It is a study of after effect of an Ambush, on the consumerbehavior.A co. directly attacks its rival B co. through its own ad or by stealing the show in the rivalco.’s ad. The questions that arise in our minds are: • Does this trick really work for the A co.? • Do the target audiences actually make a decision to purchase the product as a result of such an Advertisement? • Why a brand resorts to a strategy like this? • How much of the envelope can and should be pushed, without being too offensive or irrelevant? - are the important issues discussed here.SCOPE OF THE PROJECTAs “Ambush Marketing” is a new marketing concept, it was mandatory to refer tosecondary data for a better understanding. It includes how and when this practice started;the legal aspects of using this strategy and its types. Various examples from the Indianadvertising industry have been taken and an analysis of their viewership, effectivenessand fulfillment of their intended motives is done in this research study.For a better and clear understanding 4 brand Ambush advertisements are taken which are:
• HUL’s Dove vs. P&G’s Pantene – Mystery shampoo hoarding ad • Jet Airways vs. Kingfisher Airlines – Hoarding ad • Tide vs. Rin TV commercial • Coca Cola vs. Pepsi ad.The buying procedure of customers in these above mentioned product categories isstudied.LIMITATION OF THE REPORTThe project report does not go into the details of the products and branding of services. Itonly highlights the brand wars waging through advertisements among these brands.This study has a limited sample size, which is fairly enough for a learning experience.There has been a constant occurrence of Brand wars in advertising and marketing,therefore there are many examples that can be given. Although for the purpose of havinga focus on the topic and qualitative understanding, few brands from varied sectors aretaken.The case examples are from industries like fast moving consumer goods (FMCG), serviceindustry and food & Beverages industry.
LITERATURE REVIEWINTRODUCTIONMEANINGThe word "ambush" as used in the expression ambush marketing, means "an attack froma hidden position" and is derived from the old French verb embuschier, having themeaning "to place in a wood.”The term "ambush marketing" was coined by the famous marketing strategist JerryWelsh, while he was working as the manager of global marketing efforts for theAmerican Express Company in the 1980s."Ambush marketing is the planned effort by an organization to associate themselvesindirectly with an event in order to gain at least some of the recognition and benefits thatare associated with being an official sponsor.”This practice of pulling a fast one on the competition is an old one, some industry expertscall it campaign sabotage or hijack; academicians feel it is a form of guerilla marketing;while marketing consultants prefer the term Ambush marketing.It is an effort by an unauthorized party to appropriate the goodwill of an event at theexpense of another companys (usually a rivals) association with the event. It occurs attwo levels — onsite and on media. Onsite ambush marketing occurs at the event itself and the area surrounding it, including the approach roads and so on, and covers everything from refreshments, clothing, billboards, posters, stalls and so on. Media ambush marketing would occur through sponsorships of spots, scrolls, logo positions and so on, on the media used to cover the event (generally TV, radio or press). For example, LOreal hair colour ads appearing during the Lakme India Fashion Week broadcasts.Ambush marketing is clearly another tool in a brands arsenal and is a part of competitivemarketing aimed at building awareness and creating a differentiation in a competitivemarket place.The success of any sponsorship finally rests on the sponsors ability to sign a watertightcontract, fully leverage the opportunity and always stay a step ahead of competition.
The objectives of ambush marketing are twofold: 1. To get maximum returns on the marketing buck. Official sponsorship costs are forbiddingly high, even for deep-pocketed marketers, and simply unaffordable for others. 2. To undermine the branding efforts of the rivals by stealing the attention, increasing the clutter and confusing the viewers. The Pepsi hot air balloon flying above Sharjah, on the day of the Coca-Cola Cup final, is one such example.BENEFITS: • Ambush advertising helps both brands — leader and challenger — gain instant salience. It raises interest in the category and gets more people talking. • It makes ordinary content more exciting. In isolation, you wonder what’s so ‘talk-worthy’ about the individual pieces of work. • The truth is: with ambush advertising, nobody loses. Everybody wins. Both the brands and their companies get lots of free media. • The advertising agencies win because the client increases spends —more then was planned — and so more revenue! • Lots of people in the advertising and marketing companies find sudden purpose. This releases energy and creates renewed enthusiasm. The CEOs of both companies spend more time with the concerned brands’ heads who therefore get greater OTS (opportunity to see) and visibility. • The news and trade media, always looking for content, have something to write about. This is like fresh juice. They can now fill lots of columns. • Media owners are happy because of the sudden increase in media spends. • Distribution channels are thrilled — heightened conversation for both brands increases traffic to the store.As for consumers, they are enjoying all the fuss and are hopeful this will bring pricesdown — because of fierce competition.
TYPES OF AMBUSH MARKETING 1. "Direct" ambush marketing • "Predatory" ambushing: Intentional false claims to official sponsorship by a non-sponsor and/or intentional false denial by a non-sponsor concerning a market competitors official sponsorship, in each case with the intent to confuse consumers and gain market share from the competing official sponsor. • "Coattail" ambushing: The attempt by a brand to directly associate itself with a property or event by "playing up" a connection to the property/event that is legitimate but does not involve financial sponsorship. • Ambushing via trademark/likeness infringement: The intentional unauthorized use of protected intellectual property. Such properties can include the logos of teams or events, or making use of unauthorized references to tournaments, teams or athletes, words and symbols. • Ambushing "by degree": Marketing activities by an official sponsor above and beyond what has been agreed on in the sponsorship contract. For example, an "ambush by degree" of a sports event may involve a sponsors handing out free promotional T-shirts without the permission of the sports league supervising the event. That sponsor may have already covered the stadium with its signs, or the sports league or participating teams may have made an earlier agreement – perhaps even an exclusive one – to let a different sponsor hand out shirts. In either case, ambush by degree clutters the available marketing space; takes advantage of the participating teams and supervising league to a greater extent than they permitted; and dilutes the brand exposure of official sponsors, including the other promotional efforts of the ambushing company (hence the alternative term "self- ambushing").
2. "Indirect" ambush marketing• Ambushing "by association": The use of imagery or terminology not protected by intellectual-property laws to create an illusion that an organization has links to a sporting event or property — This form differs from direct "coattail" ambushing in that there exists no legitimate connection between the event/property and from direct ambush by infringement in that the sponsored event/property has no property rights in the images and/or words that create the illusion.• Values-based ambushing: Tailoring by a non-sponsor of its marketing practices to appeal to the same values or involve the same themes as do the event and/or its promotion, such that audiences attracted to the event or its marketing will likewise be attracted to the non-sponsors marketing — Essentially a reversal from "push" to "pull" of the causal processes through which direct "coattail ambushers" create sponsor/event-unapproved mental association with their products, this form of ambushing differs from "ambushing by association" in that the ambushing business begins by observing the events promotional scheme and drawing inferences as to its existing thematic content, as opposed to observing the events audience and creating new thematic content in hopes that consumers will associate the event with the thematic content created.• Ambushing "by distraction": Setting up a promotional presence at or near an event, albeit without making specific reference to the event itself, its imagery, or its themes, in order to take advantage of the general publics attention toward the event and the audience members awareness of their surroundings — This form of ambush amounts to "free riding" upon the positive externality that the event creates for the surrounding area by "anchoring" public and individual attention there; see also "Saturation ambushing" under "Incidental" ambush marketing.• "Insurgent" ambushing: The use of surprise street-style promotions (blitz marketing) at an event or near enough to it that the ambushing business can identify and target audience members — The "active" version of "passive" ambushing by distraction, insurgent ambushing not only takes advantage of positive externalities but creates negative externalities by intruding upon
attendees experiences of the event and detracting from those experiences quality (cf. the distinction in biology between commensalism and parasitism). • "Parallel property" ambushing: The creation or sponsorship of an event or property that bears qualitative similarity to the ambush target and competes with it for the publics attention — An application of "ambushing by distraction" in which the ambusher-marketed product is the event/property itself, parallel- property ambushing does not intrude upon the experience of audience members (who remain free to attend whichever event or patronize whichever property they deem more attractive), but it does divert audience dollars and attendance figures from the preexisting event/property, interfering with the efforts of that events/propertys financial backers to recover their largely fixed production costs.3."Incidental" ambush marketing • Unintentional ambushing: It is possible for media coverage to make passing mention of, e.g., the manufacturer of an athletes equipment/clothing or the provider of a service used by the events technical staff or in-person audience. Although in most cases most members of an events mass-media audience will not infer that the mentioned business is an official sponsor of the event, such that the mention is harmless "free publicity" for the non-sponsoring business, it is possible that some broadcast-audience members will at some point draw some inference of official sponsorship. • "Saturation" ambushing: "Saturation ambushers" increase their broadcast-media advertising and marketing at the time of an event but make no reference to the event itself and avoid any associative imagery or suggestion — Essentially a form of "ambushing by distraction" attenuated by the absence of advertisers physical proximity to the event and their resulting lack of contact with in-person audience members, saturation ambushing merely capitalizes on the increased broadcast media attention and television audiences surrounding the event.
THE TIMELY PROCESS OF AMBUSH MARKETING:A question of whenSabotage can take place at absolutely any point in a brands campaign cycle; but expertsagree that the teaser phase is when a brand is most vulnerable to attack.There are three key "occasions" when sabotage is likely to take place: • The first is the teaser phase of a campaign, which is equivalent to giving competition "advance notice"; so that a competing brand can step in prepared and do its job. • The second situation is akin to "bleeding with a glass jaw" in boxing parlance. Just as in boxing, a glass jaw is a chin that practically begs to be punched severely; a brand might open itself up for attack by providing gaps that a competing brand can fill in. For instance, a bizarre claim made by brand X can have brand Y jumping in to convey how it is better. "Here, youre just asking to be hammered, by providing an opening that begs to be filled in on how XYZ is better than I am," shrugs Halve. While teasers only give a time gap for sabotage, this is like a disguised invitation to be hit by the competition. • The third scenario is simply a creative way to steal someones thunder. For instance, Pepsis Nothing official about it was a statement on Coca-Colas Official sponsor of the Cricket World Cup years ago. It was a way of turning a competitors bragging to rubble.But of all these cases, teaser campaigns are obviously more vulnerable than others --particularly when they are about intrigue, and not central to the campaign to follow. Onthe other hand, if the teaser is just the prequel to a strong, well thought-out, long-termposition, it is quite safe.An example: When Maharashtra Times tried to hijack DNAs outdoor teasers, not muchhappened; DNAs hoarding of people with taped-up mouths was merely the openingsalvo of a strong Speak Up, its in your DNA juggernaut. MT wasted some money; DNAwent on to become the launch of the year.
DECODING SABOTAGE: THE WHY OF ITWhy Ambush Marketing? : 1. More Business.A brand takes open swipes at its competitor in such abrasive ways for the reason ofgetting instant attentionSabotage usually happens when brands stop talking to consumers and start talking to eachother, experts feel; and it may not be in the interest of either brand, if the objective is allwrong. Most of the time, this is just an opportunity to show off how clever a brand is,with the target group being the competing brand/agency. It becomes about one-upmanship. Also the potential target consumer base which is exposed to the marketingpractice of competing brand gets to know about the brand which carries out the ambush. 2. Less capital invested with high returns. • The brand doesn’t have to invest in media time, the advertisement film making costs are saved, there is no use of celebrity endorser, and a lot of time is also saved. • Not every hijack attempt works in favour of the cheeky brand. Often, the hijacked brand also gets the benefit of the hijackers media budgets. The primary objective of a hijack is often entertainment, at the cost of being persuasive enough to sell your product. • Advertisers often forget that they are not in the business of advertising only to entertain; every marketers primary objective is to get people to buy their product. 3. Making a Brand statement.Typically, the brand that faces eyeball to eyeball competition goes the sabotage way themost. Furthermore, categories that enjoy just two big players as adversaries are happiestdoing this.It is interesting to note that market leaders usually stay away from acknowledgingcompetition. Would it perhaps be logical to conclude that a challenger brand is mostoften seen sabotaging a market leaders communication efforts? Not really. Brandingexperts feel it is not a challenger brand that sabotages, it is the challenger mentality inany brand that does so -- the panga lena hai attitude. Its akin to the Shah Rukh Khan
versus Aamir Khan debate. Shah Rukh knows hes the numero uno, but still likes tobehave like a challenger, and attacks Aamir all the time.Sabotage is obviously a short-term strategy, a pit stop, and there may not be anythingwrong with that. It is said that the really good ones make a statement about their ownbrand -- taking a swipe at competition is the icing on the cake.The Pepsi-Michael Jackson world tour incident, a few years ago, is an example of asabotage that had its roots in a sound strategy. As is known, the tour was cancelledhalfway, leaving millions of fans disappointed globally. Coca-Cola was quick to step inwith the line, Dehydrated? Time for a Coke. Consumers loved it, because it came fromwhat Coke stands for as a refreshment drink.Others feel that if a brand attacks a competitors inherent brand values, it can work. Forinstance, when Thums Up said Grow up to Thums Up, it was attacking Pepsi where ithurt -- its inherent sweet taste, and the vulnerability of its kiddy-consumers to beingcalled kiddies. But when the attack is purely on a competitors ad, research finding afterfinding indicates consumers dont understand or appreciate such efforts.
HISTORY OF AMBUSH MARKETINGAmbush marketing was first witnessed in 1984 Olympics, in the international market;and the 1996 Cricket World Cup which highlighted the concept in India. RISE OF THE PSEUDO-SPONSORS IN 1980’sAmbush marketing has polarised opinion over the 25 years of its existence. Derided bysome as a parasitic practice that devalues both the brand of a sports property and theofficial sponsorship associations it has in place, it is lauded by others as creativeopportunism that fuels interest in the sports property it is piggy-backing. What is withoutquestion, however, is that the practice has created some of sport’s most commerciallymemorable moments.Ambush marketing as a concept first came to light at the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics.Those Games, which generated a surplus of some US$250 million, were deemed anoverwhelming success. They were the first to be funded entirely privately. In order forthis to happen, the organisers of the Games and the International Olympic Committee(IOC) themselves had implemented a restructuring of their sponsorship platform in theearly 1980s. Prior to the 1984 Games, any number of sponsors had been allowed to tiethemselves to the Olympics on an ‘official’ basis. This policy came to a head at the 1976Montreal Olympics when there were 628 ‘official’ sponsors. As a paper by Chadwick’sdepartment at Coventry University (‘Ambush marketing in sport: An assessment ofimplications and management strategies’) testifies, although this policy provided financefor the Games, it “also meant the dilution of the Olympic brand, and smaller impact for,and awareness of, official sponsors.”The plan in place for the 1984 Games saw product categorisation and sponsor exclusivityimplemented for the first time. Although the concept was designed to, and indeedsucceeded in, raising revenue for the Olympics by providing greater value for thesponsors, it also opened the door to ambush marketers seeking to capitalise on the event,as they were no longer able to do so legitimately.Of course, it is now often difficult to differentiate between ambush marketing andguerrilla or parasitic marketing, or even simply genuinely creative marketing.Chadwick’s department at Coventry has come up with the following definition: ‘Ambush
marketing is a form of strategic marketing which is designed to capitalise upon theawareness, attention, goodwill, and other benefits, generated by having an associationwith an event or property, without an official or direct connection to that event orproperty.’Historically, most ambush marketing has taken place around significant sporting events,utilising a wide variety of media including television commercials, on-locationpromotions, and outdoor media all designed to link a brand to an event in the absence ofan official connection, or to confuse the message of a rival brand with officialsponsorship status. As such, the widely accepted term of ‘ambush marketing’ might be alittle misleading. Perhaps ‘pseudo-sponsorship’ would fit better. AMERICAN EXPRESS vs. VISA CAMPAIGN WARIndeed, ambush marketing campaigns have tended to be fought between two rival giantsin any given industry. Often the rivalries are deep-rooted and the marketing wars long-lasting. One such sustained campaign was the war waged by American Expressthroughout the late 1980s and 1990s to combat Visa’s status as exclusive Olympicmarketing partner.According to Michael Payne, who fought a sustained reactive and proactive war againstthe ambushers in his role as marketing director at the International Olympic Committeefrom 1988 to 2002, “Amex never recovered from losing the Olympic rights to Visa afterthe 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games. American Express may do nicely in most places,”Payne says in his illuminating book ‘Olympic Turnaround’, “but not at the Olympics.”American Express’ ambushing activities in the late eighties in particular incurred thewrath of the IOC and ensured that the company fell foul of one of the unforgiving ‘nameand shame’ campaigns that characterised anti-ambushing action in the period.Amex began its boundary-pushing campaign in 1986.Launched a promotional campaign in Asia ahead of the Seoul Olympics in 1988. In ablatant case of misrepresentation, the company began offering Olympic medallions fromthe ‘Olympic Heritage Committee’ in Switzerland. Of course, the company neglected toreveal that such an organisation in fact existed not in Switzerland, but in the minds of theAmex marketing men.
The IOC advised American Express to withdraw their campaign immediately, otherwise,full page ads would be taken out in each of the territories concerned informing the publicof the bogus nature of Amex’ campaign and the company’s deceptive methods.Furthermore, the IOC then promised that Olympic athletes and sports ministers would bewheeled out across the very same territories to deride American Express, denouncingtheir activities as highly damaging to grass roots support of sport while at the same timecutting up American Express cards for a selection of the world’s media.Within hours American Express claimed the whole thing to be a terriblemisunderstanding. Nevertheless, it didn’t put a stop to the company’s attacks on Visa.Just months after having its ambushing wrists slapped by the IOC, American Express wasback to its opportunistic best. As a warm-up to the 1988 Seoul Olympics, the SouthKorean capital hosted the 1986 Asian Games. American Express took pictures from theopening ceremony of the 1986 event and doctored them to look like the Olympic openingceremony for a poster campaign whose message was ‘Amex welcomes you to Seoul.’Jerry Walsh, the American Express head of marketing who had lost the Olympic rights in1984, was adamant that ambush marketing not only had a place in sport, but thatcorporations had a duty to their shareholders to engage in it. Why should IOC allow anofficial sponsor to reap all the benefits from a special event.Hostilities between Visa, the IOC and American Express rumbled on into 1992 and theBarcelona Olympics. As Payne describes, Amex was becoming increasingly infuriated bythe IOC-backed Visa persisting with comparative advertising campaigns. In the US,Payne says, Visa’s tagline was ‘the Olympics don’t take American Express’, with imagesof ticket windows being slammed shut in the faces of American Express card holders.The US$20 million they had paid to the IOC for their official sponsorship ensured theyreceived no complaints from the governing body about this campaign. This time,however, American Express responded with more style, pointing out in its own adcampaigns that ‘to visit Spain, you don’t need a visa.’This is perhaps one of the finest examples of successful ambush marketing. With norecourse to the law, proof of a violation of intellectual property rights being very hard topin down in this instance, Visa was forced to accept the campaign as legitimate, as, ofcourse, American Express insisted it was. Visa was left to rely on the property owner, the
IOC, to provide more protection of its rights in the future. In the case of Visa versusAmerican Express, the IOC, led by Payne, stepped in to negotiate a truce between thewarring credit card giants. American Express agreed to halt its ambushing efforts if Visastepped down its comparative advertising campaigns. The truce, however, didn’t last forlong. The marketing strength of an Olympic association, however illegitimate, was toostrong a draw for the maverick Amex, and the ambush campaigns were back for theLillehammer winter Olympics in 1994. ‘American Express – Norway 1994’, ran theambiguous proclamations of the Amex ads. Consequently the IOC allowed Visa torestart, with a new rapacity, its comparative ads. By 1996, American Express had finallyaccepted it had lost the battle and has since refrained from any further ambush activitysurrounding the Olympics. AMBUSH BY NIKE IN THE 1990’sNike’s ambushing of Euro ’96 and World Cup ‘98 was not the first time the Americangiant had courted controversy through such ambush campaigns. Indeed, throughout theeighties and nineties, the company’s marketing men courted the image of Nike as the badboy of sportswear. The 1996 Atlanta Olympics provided a huge platform for thesportswear company to show its marketing muscle, and it wasn’t about to let the fact thatReebok held the official Olympic sportswear sponsorship get in the way of that. Nikewent on the attack immediately, constructing a Nike outlet store just outside the athletes’village in Atlanta. The signage was very prominent and the site remained highly visiblethroughout the coverage of the Games, becoming a visitor attraction around the venue inthe process.Furthermore, Nike began to undercut Olympic ideals with clever modifications ofOlympic slogans in a series of advertising campaigns. ‘We don’t sell dreams, we sellshoes,’ read one of the ads, ‘Faster, Higher, Stronger, Badder,’ read another. An eight-page advertising spread in Sports Illustrated rammed home Nike’s message for theGames: ‘If you can’t stand the heat, get out of Atlanta,’ it said, and ‘If you’re not here towin, you’re a tourist.’The IOC at the time took the fight to the sportswear giant. It simply pointed out to theMedia that the feedback they were getting from athletes and spectators indicated that the
campaign was backfiring. Athletes were very proud to be at the Olympics and likely to beuncomfortable when their shoe sponsor says they have failed unless they win a goldmedal. In fact, by thumbing its nose at the IOC, Nike was crossing the very fine linebetween having an impact and biting the hand that creates tomorrow’s heroes.The press began to turn on Nike, deriding the company for trashing Olympic ideals. IOCorganised an urgent meeting with Nike (who had also initiated a move to smugglepromotional signs into the stadium with spectators). The meeting did not get off to a goodstart; it later turned out to become unprofessionally violent.It was then planned to threaten Nike with the hardest IOC counter-ambushing action theworld had ever seen. A plan was put in place to round up a series of silver medallistsfrom the Games for a worldwide press conference to let them express their views onNike. Secret discussions were held with Brad Hunt, the agent of Nike’s star athlete of theGames, 400 and 200 metres runner Michael Johnson, to see whether Johnson would bewilling to stand up and speak out against Nike. Hunt and Johnson perhaps were open tothe idea. The final feather in the IOC’s threat-making cap was the decision to bancompletely any form of Nike branding from all sports equipment at the Games and towithdraw all accreditation for any Nike personnel, making it impossible for them to lookafter their athletes.Unsurprisingly, Nike eventually desisted, reining in the aggressive stunts of its PR teamand toning down its remaining advertising. Later when Reebok reneged on its contractualpartnership with the Sydney organisers a few months before the 2000 Games, Nikeshowed it was an Olympic convert.Nevertheless, Nike’s aggressive and unofficial marketing campaigns during the AtlantaOlympics had stung the IOC and moved them to launch an ambush campaign of theirown, the first ever global brand marketing campaign it had undertaken. It was called‘Celebrate Humanity’ and one of the ads featured bantam weight Bulgarian weightlifterYoto Yotov hoisting a gigantic barbell over his head at the Barcelona Games.
AMBUSH AT FIFA WORLD CUPThe 2006 Fifa World Cup in Germany will live long in the memory of many soccer fans.An unmitigated success, the tournament drew praise from all quarters for the Germanhosts, the competing teams and the global coverage. Yet while Italy will always beremembered as the champions of the tournament, it was the Dutch team that providedperhaps the most memorable off-field moment of that year’s World Cup.As the Netherlands prepared for their second game of the tournament, against the IvoryCoast, tens of thousands of Dutch supporters were making their way from theirneighbouring country to Stuttgart where the game was to take place during the lateafternoon of Friday 16th June at the Gottlieb-Daimler-Stadion.Among the revelling Dutch visitors were a group of marketers from the (confusinglynamed) Dutch brewery Bavaria Beer. Armed with around 120,000 pairs of orangelederhosen emblazoned with the Bavaria brand, the marketers prepared to ambush one ofFifa’s biggest sponsors for the tournament, Anheuser-Busch’s Budweiser brand.The Dutch supporters, renowned for their crowd mentality, donned the amusingpromotional trousers in their thousands. Fifa officials, having been alerted to thesituation, issued orders for security people on the ground to strip the Dutch supporters ofthe offending articles. This they did, leaving hundreds of Dutch fans to watch the game innothing but their underwear. The world’s media, obviously, ran riot with the story, evensuggesting Fifa’s heavy-handed approach to protecting its official sponsor infringed onhuman rights.The next day, in the aftermath of the Netherlands’ 2-1 victory over their Africanadversaries, Fifa’s director of communications, Markus Siegler, explained to the world’spress that the governing body was alert to the kind of ambush marketing Bavaria hadattempted. it seemed like an organised attempt to conduct a mass ambush publicitycampaign was taking place.Peter Swinkels, the man behind Bavaria’s campaign, lodged an official complaint withFifa, claiming it was “absolutely ridiculous” and “far too extreme” to order the fans totake off their orange branded lederhosen.
No doubt with a glint in his marketing eye, Swinkels then went on to express his hopethat the fans had remembered to wear orange underwear, adding a denial that the trouserswere an ambush, describing them instead as a Dutch nod to German culture.Despite Swinkel’s denials, the incident is now renowned as one of the most effectivepieces of ambush marketing in sporting history – and that despite the ploy’s apparentfailure.Clearly the ambush failed because they didn’t get into the stadium. But in another sense itworked perfectly because suddenly everyone across the world was talking about it. Othercountries never heard of the Bavaria Beer company and now they had, so even though itfailed the fact it was so brazen resulted in many people across the world getting to hearabout the brand.” OLYMPICS IN BEIJINGThe real ambush at the Beijing Games took place between perennial rivals PepsiCo andCoca-Cola. Coca-Cola’s official Olympic investment ran, and still runs, into the hundredsof millions. Gatorade, a Pepsi subsidiary, ran a widespread television spot featuringChinese athletes counting down to 2008. The ad concluded with a group of children in alarge Olympic-training style centre playing table tennis, counting down to 2012 and2016.During the 1996 World Cup, although Coca Cola was the official sponsor of thetournament, Pepsi ambushed the campaign by coming up with the tagline “nothingofficial about it”.India as a nation thrives on cricket as its staple sport. To tackle the issue of direct ambushmarketing in cricket tournaments, the ICC and BCCI came up with an agreement for theplayers in the year 2003, whereby the players were prohibited from appearing inadvertisements for companies which were competitors for the sponsoring company.However, the contract just became the focus of a controversy and did not see the light ofthe day.In the examples described above, the ambushed company cannot avail of any specificlegal remedy. The advertising campaign can only be considered an unfair trade practice,the remedy for enforcement of which is not very clear.
Ambush advertising can be trapped in the legal web by legislations like The Trade MarkAct, 1999 or The Copyright Act, 1957 when it is direct. However, the two examplesdescribed above, use the indirect ambush which cannot be trapped under any specificlegislation and it leaves the underdog brand in a tight spot. Thus, the need of the presenthour is for the Indian government to provide for some specific legislation which lay downa prescribed behavior for advertisements.
LEGAL ACTIONS AGAINST AMBUSH MARKETINGAre laws against ambush advertising needed? – is the question that many industry expertshave pondered upon. They have come up with several strong points which analyze boththe yes and no sides of the argument.Yes points No pointsLeads to anti-competitive results: - The Incorrect. What companies can afford toworld cup is a colossal marketing sponsor the world cup and all teams withinopportunity. For that very reason, sponsors that world cup? Companies that own apay colossal amounts of money to be a part large proportion of the market share. Whatof the advertising in the world cup. will the advertising do for them? It willAmbush advertising is a way in which increase their market share. How can thecompanies can gain the benefits of the huge growth of already large companies be citedmarketing opportunity without paying the as good for competition? In reality thisprice. This will lead to anti competitive could blow many smaller competitors outresults on the market. These companies of the water. The end result is that thewould be receiving an unfair advantage. consumer gets a bad deal as the largerNot only over those who also are not companies are able to charge what theyallowed to advertise being linked to the want for whatever quality of product theyworld cup, but also those who paid the want.hefty cost associated with it.Decreases FIFA’s revenue: - F.I.F.A runs Not in the slightest would football decreasethe world cup. They own the rights in in quality should Fifa lose out on a bit ofselling the marketing opportunities sponsorship money. In fact, if the footballcontained within. If we did not have laws players were not so concerned with moneyagainst such ambush marketing, companies perhaps they would play football better aswould not pay such a premium for their opposed to concentrating on brandingadvertising space alongside the world cup themselves. The whole idea of this showsbranding. In the end this would result in how far football is a corporate event. It maypoorer pitches, poorer management of the be better should there not be so muchfootball fixtures and would generally money involved in the sponsorship of thedisintegrate the entertainment value of world cup. Therefore, we should abolishfootball. Given these results, we should these rules against ambush advertising.
keep these laws against ambushadvertising.Ambush advertising can lead to wasting But surely there is more of a waste oftaxpayer’s money: - Not only does this money going into policing such trivialambush advertising affect the World Cup – misdemeanours. Not only did the law havethe London 2012 Olympics will also be to be created; something which takes a vasttargeted. £9.3 billion is the new budget for amount of time by numerous individualsthe Olympics in London. What the who all have to be paid. After this, the lawGovernment cannot attain through then needs to be policed. This will be oncesponsorship deals and advertisements, they by the police and then followed up by thewill gain from the tax payer. Given the courts. This whole process is timepublic purse debt. Given that all areas of consuming, and the time is consumed bythe public sector will receive budget cuts. individuals who charge high prices for theirWe should be pushing to get as much time. There is no evidence to suggest thatmoney out of corporate sponsors as the rules on ambush marketing save taxpossible. We will not be able to do this if payer’s money more than they cost.these companies thought that ambushadvertising was allowed; that anothercompany could gain the advertising spacefor free.Creativity should be rewarded? Not in the Creativity should be rewarded: - Inslightest. A wrong doing is a wrong doing. advertising it is the most creative ideas thatBy obviating the advertisement laws these stand out. This creativity and ingeniousnesscompanies are in fact stealing from the should be rewarded. Looking at the mostWorld Cup and its brand. We would not successful marketing campaigns we haveallow thieves to get away with their the classic gorilla advert for Cadbury’s.criminality just because they had a creative Completely unrelated to the chocolateapproach to their thievery, and the same brand but yet so well executed thatshould go for companies that use ambush everyone remembered it. Compare this toadvertising. the menial banners and ‘sponsoring the World Cup’ advertising that we have seen around the World Cup stadiums. Snore. Is
it any wonder more people are paying attention to the orange dresses for a Danish beer than the benign advertising efforts of Budweiser? We should not protect the unimaginative.But surely the fun is in the obviating of the It adds to the fun: - We should not makelaw! It would be no fun if everyone were these sporting events so serious. It is forallowed to ambush advertises. In that case, this reason that trouble arises. People takewe would become so used to it that we these things far too seriously. We all enjoywould barely notice it. The same goes for the silliness of streakers/(stripper-rejects)the example of streakers; if this were and we all enjoy the surprising andallowed and accepted in the sporting world, inventive way in which companies try tomany people would do it, and we would ambush the marketing for their productbecome irritated by it. In fact, range. It adds to the fun and excitement oflegalising/legalizing such conduct would the world cup, and this is what we shoulddetract from the enjoyment of the game. encourage. We should not have laws whichTherefore we should keep the law where it curtail the enjoyment of the world cup.is to aid everyone’s enjoyment of thesporting event and the occasional mishaps. CASE no.1Marketers and ad agencies often resort to hijacking or sabotaging a competitorscampaign, the Pantene-Dove example being a recent case in point.
Not too long ago, Indian consumers were baffled by the tussle on outdoor hoardings thatscreamed for their attention. First, a shampoo brand, claiming to be the leader in itsspace, launched an outdoor campaign that said, A Mystery Shampoo 80 per cent womensay is better than anything else. This was Procter & Gamble brand Pantenes extensiveteaser campaign, which was supposed to be a precursor to its new, revamped avatar.Competing Hindustan Unilever shampoo brand, Dove seized the opportunity to take apot-shot, with massive hoardings of its own claiming, There is no mystery; Dove is theNo. 1 shampoo. Often, one found these hoardings strategically placed near Pantenesmystery shampoo ones. While the marketing managers applauds HULs clever attempt atplaying spoiler to P&Gs Pantene re-launch ambitions, industry observers have mixedopinions on how consumers received thecampaign.The consumer is often left confused, and maystill not know why to buy your brand.According to a survey done by chlorophyll,women didnt get the Dove-Pantene saga at all;nor did they fully comprehend the play on theword mystery. The logic is simple: If one wereto take a pot-shot at a long-term propertyassociated with a brand, such as a claim likeone-fourth moisturizing cream, or even Nikes tagline Just do it, at least the effort has achance of being understood. Whether it works or not is another debate.But if you attack something as obscure as a mystery shampoo and being number one,which the consumer might not so strongly associate with any of those two brands, then itdoesnt work. • Earlier a commercial for HUL’s Clinic All Clear Shampoo had spoofed P&G’s Head & Shoulders. HUL’s ad showed Bollywood actress, Bipasha Basu, searching for a girl with zero dandruff. The girl with dandruff mentions the name of her shampoo, making a muted reference to Head & Shoulders. These are just a few examples of the numerous comparative advertising campaigns in India.
• The Zee-Bhaskar combine Diligent Media Corporation taking The Times of India Group to court because the latters campaign for Maharashtra Times had sabotaged the Grey Tape launch campaign for Diligents newspaper, Daily News & Analysis (DNA); Dainik Bhaskars teaser campaign for its launch in Ranchi being hijacked by Hindustan. • MICROSOFT – APPLE: - Some years back, Microsoft launched a campaign to advertise its online features under the punch line, “Where do you want to go tomorrow?” Apple attacked this campaign through its new ad, “Where do you want to go today?” – Thus suggesting that the consumer think about today rather than tomorrow. They both used web advertising extensively to virtually and subtly slap each other in the face. CASE no.2 HUL vs. P&GProcter & Gamble (P&G) and Hindustan Unilever (HUL), the two major producers ofconsumer goods, have been involved in comparative advertising for a long time now.Though earlier, the comparison was subtle or in the form of market price comparisons,now they have come out in the open, taking the ad war to a different level.For television viewers, it was hard to miss the now infamous Rin commercial, which wasunleashed on Indian television screens on February 25, 2010. Perhaps bombardmentwould be a better word: the high-voltage TVC was supported by a media plan that
included primetime slots across all major GECs and news channels, in an effort to delivermaximum impact over the long weekend. ABOUT THE T.V. COMMERCIAL:The ad shows two mothers waiting at a bus stop for their children, who are returningfrom school. They spot each others shopping baskets - one womans basket sports apacket of Rin, while the other has purchased Tide Naturals. The Tide lady looks proudlyat her purchase and brags about Tides khushboo aur safedi bhi offering (fragrancecombined with whiteness). The Rin lady simply smiles.When the school bus rounds the corner and drops off the two children, the Tide ladysboy is wearing a visibly dull shirt, while behind him emerges a boy clad in a spotlesswhite shirt, who runs past the shocked Tide lady, over to his Rin mother. To make thingscheekier, the boy asks his mother, Aunty chaunk kyun gayi? (Why is aunty soshocked?), where the word chaunk could easily be a reference to Tides punch line,Chaunk gaye?The voiceover concludes that Rin is behtar or superior to Tide, when it comes towhiteness, and at a chaunkane wala price of Rs 25, at that. A super, Issued in the interestof Rin users, completes the commercial.To make comparisons with competition involves discretion in execution, such as air-brushing or pixelating a competitors brand name/pack shot, and most definitely, keepingaway from referring to rival brand names. With this ad, however, Rin seems to havebroken every rule in the book. But what may seem like a publicity stunt to some, is, in allprobability, a well-thought out strategy on the part of Rins makers, Hindustan Unilever(HUL).It started when HUL’ s Rin, filed a court case against P&G’s Tide Natural for claimingthat it contained natural ingredients like sandalwood and lemon, though it was a syntheticdetergent. Apart from the court case, HUL also launched a nation-wide ad campaignwhich blatantly claimed that Rin is better than Tide as it offers more whiteness (“behtarsafedi”).Subsequently Tide took HUL to court and the ad was withdrawn. But this ad was sostrategically launched on TV channels that it coincided with a long weekend,guaranteeing enough visibility among consumers. Even after the ad was withdrawn, the
HUL spokesperson re-iterated that the advertisement was based on independentlaboratory tests based on international protocols and proved that Rin offers superiorwhiteness. CASEno.3Examples are aplenty. the sky wars, where Jet Airways put up a hoarding announcing itschanged avatar; while Kingfisher jumped at the opportunity to put a hoarding above thatone, declaring, We made them change.On the first day only the Jet Airway’s hoarding was placed on the busy street of Mumbai.After a day Kingfisher placed its cheeky take on the hoarding by placing itself above theJet hoarding.GoAir wouldn’t want to stay behind in the race, so it made its presence felt by placing itshoarding above that of kingfishers.
Further the opportunity was exploited by Indian railways intending to put down the entireAirline industry itself.Finally, BEST bus association takes up the responsibility to put an end to this advertisingmadness by saying through yet another hoarding (placed above everything else), “Ab buskaro – warna plane hoarding se crash ho jayega!!”
CASE no.4 Coca-Cola vs. PepsiAnd of course, the usual Pepsi- Coca-Cola jibes and the Nike-adidas wars."There was no question of any opportunity being created by Coke, nor were there teasersfor Pepsi to pick on; but this was simply irreverence on Pepsis part, which made theword official sound stupid," says an advertisers perspective.The Pepsi-Coke ad war is one of the oldest examples of Ambush advertising. It started inthe 1980s when Pepsi launched its ad showing consumers preferring Pepsi over CocaCola in a blind taste test. The next major send-up came in 1996, when Pepsi introducedits punch line “Nothing Official about It” after Coca Cola was declared the officialsponsor of the Cricket World Cup that year.This war continued through subsequent take-offs on Mountain Dew, Sprite and ThumpsUp – by both brands. The virtual war had been very prominent since 2003 after theaggressive ads of Mountain Dew and Thumps Up. PepsiCo launched a TV ad featuringRanbir Kapoor, Deepika Padukone and Shah Rukh Khan enacting a comic scene aroundan alien. Coca Cola launched its parody on Pepsi through Sprite’s “Seedhi Baat, NoBakwaas” punch line, featuring the look-alikes of the three actors seen in the Pepsiadvertisement.
COCA COLA DURING THE INDIAN PREMIER LEAGUE’S CRICKET SEASON-IIConsider this. Both PepsiCo’s ‘Youngistaan’ brand ambassadors — Virender Sehwag,captain of Delhi Daredevils, and Ishant Sharma, member of Kolkata Knight Riders(KKR) — have been formally present at various promotional activities for arch-rivalCoca-Cola India, simply because Coca-Cola is the associate sponsor and the officialpouring partner for both Delhi Daredevils and Kolkata Knight Riders.Sehwag, for instance, attended a special send-off ceremony for Delhi Daredevilsorganised by Coca-Cola India. At the event, Sehwag, along with Coke brand ambassadorGautam Gambhir, unveiled a limited edition bottle of Coca-Cola for IPL. The campaignwill run till the end of the IPL season and will involve merchandising opportunities aswell.Coca-Cola is also making the most of its sponsorship by associating Shah Rukh Khan andteam KKR with its clear lime brand, Sprite. A TV campaign for Sprite featuring threeKKR players — Sourav Ganguly, Ajit Agarkar and Murli Karthik — besides Shah Rukh,has also been launched. The creative utilisation of Shah Rukh has been good in terms ofthe Sprite and KKR association.Further, Ishaant Sharma (another Pepsico ‘Youngistaan’ brand ambassador) from KKRwill now be spotted on Sprite’s limited edition bottles and hoardings, along with SauravGanguly and Shah Rukh Khan (both, incidentally, are ex-Pepsi brand ambassadors).‘Sprite Kolkata Knight Riders’ limited edition bottles will have the insignia of keyplayers of the KKR team.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:Hypothesis statement:-There is a significant impact of Ambush marketing tactics on the buying behavior andattitude of the consumer.Research objective:- • To study the impact of ambush marketing practice on the consumer’s behavior. • To analyze whether ambush advertisements have a negative or positive effect on consumer’s minds and their purchase decisions. • To study changing attitude, preferences of customers in the dynamic marketing environment.Research Design:-In this Research, exploratory method or consumer survey method is used. The reason touse exploratory method is that it helps to develop concepts more clearly, establishpriorities and improve the final research design. It helps to get a new perspective towardsthe marketing strategies i.e. from the point of view of the end consumer. The 4 caseexamples mentioned in the report are tested for their viewership. This is done in order toobserve whether the target customer gets what exactly the advertiser is trying tocommunicate.Data Collection:-Both primary and secondary data are used. Secondary data is used to study the existingmarket situation and general information about the issue at hand. As the concept emergedin the international market first, secondary data has been used to understand theinternational aspect. Primary research survey through questionnaire, interview for expertopinion from advertising professionals.Sample size:- • Population location – Mumbai, • Number of respondents – 155, • The sample population majorly consisted of young respondents like, college going students, young corporate professionals, business men and women and middle-aged government employees.
Sampling method:-SRS i.e. simple random sampling method is used. The respondents were chosen onrandom basis. The method used here is, those people who represent the entire targetmarket i.e. people who are aware of the advertising tactics happening around, people whoare brand conscious and who pay attention to advertisements in any media. Thereforeyoung population has been chosen as sample population.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS:GENDER CHART Gender No. % Male 74 47% Female 81 52%INCOME LEVEL CHART Income level No. % 1Lac- 3 Lac 31 20% 3 Lac- 5Lac 20 10% Above 5 Lac 15 13% No Income 90 58% Occupation No. % Government service 10 6%OCCUPATION CHART Corporate sector 23 15% Business 16 10%The demographics of the sample population are asper the target audience for the concerned type of Students 95 61% Others 11 7%
marketing strategy. Brand war or Ambush is something which is extensively followed bythe young generation, who are exposed to various entertainment media the most. Hencethey recognize the existence of brand wars and also watch advertisements.The sample has almost equal number of male and female respondents. This ensures thatthere is no bias in the opinions.The occupation chart shows that the target audience of Ambush marketing can be fromstudents and corporate sector professionals. These are apparently the categories whoseconsumption of branded products is comparatively high than the other categories. APPLICATION OF Z-TEST Table 1 One-Sample Statistics N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error MeanPreference of popular brands 156 2.22 1.067 .085Viewership of HUL vs. P&G 156 2.31 .920 .074adBrand wars grab attention 154 1.99 .867 .070Hijacking helps Brand recall 154 2.58 .969 .078Hijacking an ad is offensive 155 2.55 .962 .077Brands fight instead of 156 2.29 1.101 .088promotingRin vs. Tide ad is not Ethical 155 2.43 1.348 .108Right to take legal action 156 2.22 1.049 .084Impact of Jet vs. Kingfisher ad 156 3.12 1.215 .097on purchase decision
QUESTION1:Do you prefer buying popular branded products over unknown brands? Preference of popular No. % brands Strongly Agree 39 25% Agree 73 47% Neutral 22 14% Disagree 15 10% Strongly Disagree 6 4%A total of 72% of the respondents buy popular brands. This shows how the brands havepenetrated the market. Although the sample population consists of large number ofstudents, their purchasing power is high. Therefore it can be inferred that income leveldoes not have direct effect on purchasing power, as we can observe that 58% of thesample population lies under the No Income category (refer income level chart). Preference of popular brands Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative PercentValid 1 39 24.7 25.0 25.0 2 73 46.2 46.8 71.8 3 22 13.9 14.1 85.9 4 15 9.5 9.6 95.5 5 7 4.4 4.5 100.0 Total 156 98.7 100.0Missing System 2 1.3Total 158 100.0Application of Z-testNull hypothesis: the sample population prefers popular brands over unbranded products.
Assuming µo = 2,µm = 2.22, Standard error (S.E) = 0.085 (from table 1)Probability at 95% level of confidence = 0.05, Z value = 1.96Therefore, Z = µm-µo/S.EZ = 2.22-2/0.085 = 2.59;The Z value is greater than the table value of Z = 1.96. Therefore the null hypothesis isaccepted.QUESTION2:If you follow media advertising, then which type of advertisement appeals to you? Type of advertisement No. % Emotional 21 13% Social message 52 33% Youth oriented 57 37% Provocative/ Aggressive 20 13% Humorous 57 37%People may select more than one checkbox, so percentages may add up to more than100%.One tends to expect that today’s youth is a fan of provocative/ aggressive advertisingmethod, given the exposure to sensuality and violence they have got today. But, theresearch findings show that along with youth oriented and humorous advertising, theyalso have a preference for social message ads. From this fact we can infer that the
strategy of playing a spoil sport against competition may be considered as anti-social bytoday’s youth.QUESTION3:Your purchase is influenced by which of the following Advertisement factors? Advertising Medium No. % Print Ads 20 13% T.V. Media Ads 86 55% Hoardings/ Billboards 18 12% Word of Mouth publicity 78 50% Others 8 5%People may select more than one checkbox, so percentages may add up to more than100%.It is a household fact that TVs are on almost for 20 hours a day. Therefore by default,television medium is the no.1 factor to an impact through advertisements. The second
best preferred medium is a slight surprise which is word of mouth publicity. This can beexplained by the rapidly increasing social network. Due to which people stay connectedwith each other and exchange ideas every minute.QUESTION4:Have you seen such Ad campaign hoardings, where an outdoor campaign that said, AMystery Shampoo 80 per cent women say is better than anything else’ was P&G brandPantenes extensive teaser campaign, which was a precursor to its new avatar. CompetingHUL shampoo brand Dove hijacked the campaign with massive hoardings of its ownclaiming, There is no mystery; Dove is the No.1 shampoo. These hoardings strategicallyplaced near Pantenes mystery shampoo ones. Viewership of HUL vs. P&G No. % ad Strongly Agree 28 18% Agree 71 46% Neutral 40 26% Disagree 15 10% Strongly Disagree 2 1%
Viewership of HUL vs. P&G ad Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent PercentValid 1 28 17.7 17.9 17.9 2 71 44.9 45.5 63.5 3 40 25.3 25.6 89.1 4 15 9.5 9.6 98.7 5 2 1.3 1.3 100.0 Total 156 98.7 100.0Missing System 2 1.3Total 158 100.0Application of Z-testNull hypothesis: there is a significant amount of sample population that have seen theadvertisement.Assuming µo = 2,µm = 2.31, Standard error (S.E) = 0.074 (from table 1)Probability at 95% level of confidence = 0.05, Z value = 1.96Therefore, Z = µm-µo/S.EZ =2.31-2/0.074; = 4.20The Z value is greater than the table value of Z = 1.96. Therefore the null hypothesis isaccepted. Also we can infer that people often notice the billboards put up on highways.These are strategically placed near traffic signals so that people read and observe theentire billboard while waiting in traffic.QUESTION5:What does such an act of ambush by a Brand tell you about the brand?
Inference of Ambush Ads No. %Ambush is an opportunity to show off how clever a brand is 29 18%Brands have stopped talking to consumers and started talking to each other 26 17%It is a publicity stunt 45 29%Trying to acquire rival brand’s market share 59 38%The brand wants to improve sales 30 19%People may select more than one checkbox, so percentages may add up to more than100%.59 responses say that Ambush is used to acquire rival brand’s market share and 45 agreethat it’s only for publicity. This proves that it is all about literal cut throat competition.Advertising has gone beyond the realm of information about the product, awareness andincrease in sales.QUESTION6:Do you think brand wars and sabotage (like Coke vs. Pepsi ad campaign fight) are onlyfor the purpose of grabbing instant attention? Brand wars grab attention No. % Strongly Agree 45 29% Agree 78 50% Neutral 21 13% Disagree 10 6% Strongly Disagree 1 1%
Brand wars grab attention Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent PercentValid 1 45 28.5 29.2 29.2 2 77 48.7 50.0 79.2 3 21 13.3 13.6 92.9 4 10 6.3 6.5 99.4 5 1 .6 .6 100.0 Total 154 97.5 100.0Missing System 4 2.5Total 158 100.0Application of Z-testNull hypothesis: the advertisements depicting brand wars are only for the purpose ofgrabbing viewer’s attention.Assuming µo = 2,µm = 1.99, Standard error (S.E) =0.070 (from table 1)Probability at 95% level of confidence = 0.05, Z value = 1.96Therefore, Z = µm-µo/S.EZ = 1.99-2/0.070; = -0.143The Z value is not equal to and doesn’t exceed the table value of Z = 1.96. Therefore thenull hypothesis is rejected.QUESTION7:Hijacking or sabotaging a competitors campaign helps the brand in getting high brandrecall. Hijacking helps Brand recall No. % Strongly Agree 19 12% Agree 58 37% Neutral 50 32% Disagree 25 16% Strongly Disagree 3 2%
Hijacking helps Brand recall Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent PercentValid 1 19 12.0 12.3 12.3 2 58 36.7 37.7 50.0 3 49 31.0 31.8 81.8 4 25 15.8 16.2 98.1 5 3 1.9 1.9 100.0 Total 154 97.5 100.0Missing System 4 2.5Total 158 100.0Application of Z-testNull hypothesis: there is a significant increase in brand recall due to the practice ofAmbush Marketing.Assuming µo = 2,µm =2.58, Standard error (S.E) =0.078 (from table 1)Probability at 95% level of confidence = 0.05, Z value = 1.96Therefore, Z = µm-µo/S.EZ = 2.58-2/0.078; = 7.44The Z value is greater than the table value of Z = 1.96. Therefore the null hypothesis isaccepted. The situation is similar to that of a public fighting scene. Whenever there’s aroad accident, people gather around the spot and remember to narrate the accident to theirfriends. Same is with ambush ads consumer’s attention is fixed on the ad and if itsinteresting they recall the ad in near future too.QUESTION8:Hijacking competitor’s ad campaign is being too offensive. Hijacking an ad is offensive No. % Strongly Agree 16 10% Agree 68 43% Neutral 48 31% Disagree 18 11% Strongly Disagree 6 4%
Hijacking an ad is offensive Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative PercentValid 1 16 10.1 10.3 10.3 2 68 43.0 43.9 54.2 3 47 29.7 30.3 84.5 4 18 11.4 11.6 96.1 5 6 3.8 3.9 100.0 Total 155 98.1 100.0Missing System 3 1.9Total 158 100.0Application of Z-testNull hypothesis: the sample population agrees that hijacking competitor’s ad is anoffensive trick.Assuming µo = 2,µm =2.55, Standard error (S.E) =0.077 (from table 1)Probability at 95% level of confidence = 0.05, Z value = 1.96Therefore, Z = µm-µo/S.EZ = 2.55-2/0.077; = 7.14The Z value is greater than the table value of Z = 1.96. Therefore the null hypothesis isaccepted.QUESTION9:The practice of Ambush marketing stress’s more on the fight between 2 brands ratherthan highlighting the product/ brand related information.
Brands fight instead of promoting No. % Strongly AgreeBrands fight instead of promoting 38 24% Agree 69 44% Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Neutral 24 15% Percent Disagree 19 12%Valid Strongly Disagree 1 38 24.1 7 4% 24.4 24.4 2 68 43.0 43.6 67.9 3 24 15.2 15.4 83.3 4 19 12.0 12.2 95.5 5 7 4.4 4.5 100.0 Total 156 98.7 100.0Missing System 2 1.3Total 158 100.0Application of Z-testNull hypothesis: the sample population is of the opinion that brands fight instead ofpromoting their products in Ambush advertisements.Assuming µo = 2,µm =2.58, Standard error (S.E) =0.078 (from table 1)Probability at 95% level of confidence = 0.05, Z value = 1.96Therefore, Z = µm-µo/S.EZ = 2.29-2/0.088; = 3.30The Z value is greater than the table value of Z = 1.96. Therefore the null hypothesis isaccepted. The marketers have failed to make an impact on consumer’s mind by pulling afast one on competitors because consumers look away from such ads thinking the brandsare only fighting and there is nothing to know about the product from the ad.QUESTION10:
Many competing brands attack each other directly through advertisements. For e.g. thelatest offensive Rin TV commercial claiming to be better than Tide by not just namingbut showing the competitive product - ‘Tide se kahin behatar safedi de Rin’. Is thispractice ethical and should have limits set? Rin vs. Tide ad is not Ethical No. % Strongly Agree 48 31% Agree Rin vs. Tide ad is 45 Ethical not 29% Neutral Frequency Percent23 Valid Percent 15% Cumulative Disagree 22 14% Percent Strongly Disagree 17 11%Valid 1 49 31.0 31.6 31.6 2 45 28.5 29.0 60.6 3 23 14.6 14.8 75.5 4 21 13.3 13.5 89.0 5 17 10.8 11.0 100.0 Total 155 98.1 100.0Missing System 3 1.9Total 158 100.0Application of Z-testNull hypothesis: the sample population agrees that ads such as Rin vs. Tide ad are notethical in nature.Assuming µo = 2,µm =2.43, Standard error (S.E) =0.108 (from table 1)Probability at 95% level of confidence = 0.05, Z value = 1.96Therefore, Z = µm-µo/S.EZ = 2.43-2/0.108; = 3.98
The Z value is greater than the table value of Z = 1.96. Therefore the null hypothesis isaccepted.QUESTION11:The rival brand which is attacked in the ambush should have the right to take a legalaction against the hijacker brand? Right to take legal action No. % Strongly Agree 42 27% Agree 63 40% Neutral 32 20% Disagree 15 10% Strongly Disagree 5 3% Right to take legal action Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent PercentValid 1 42 26.6 26.9 26.9 2 63 39.9 40.4 67.3 3 31 19.6 19.9 87.2 4 15 9.5 9.6 96.8 5 5 3.2 3.2 100.0 Total 156 98.7 100.0Missing System 2 1.3Total 158 100.0Application of Z-test
Null hypothesis: the sample population is of the opinion that the ambushed brand has theright to take legal action against the hijacker brand.Assuming µo = 2,µm =2.22, Standard error (S.E) =0.084 (from table 1)Probability at 95% level of confidence = 0.05, Z value = 1.96Therefore, Z = µm-µo/S.EZ = 2.22-2/0.084; = 2.62The Z value is greater than the table value of Z = 1.96. Therefore the null hypothesis isaccepted. The consumers analyse this practice on moral grounds and say that anambushed brand should get justice by taking a legal action against the hijacker.QUESTION12:There was a Advertisement war, where Jet Airways put up a hoarding announcing itschanged avatar – “We have changed”; while Kingfisher jumped at the opportunity to puta hoarding above that one, declaring, We made them change. – Does such brand ambushor fights have an impact on your purchase if you are a user of one of the brands in fight? Impact of Jet vs. Kingfisher ad on purchase decision No. % Strongly Agree 17 11% Agree 33 21% Neutral 43 27% Disagree 42 27% Strongly Disagree 22 14%
Impact of Jet vs. Kingfisher ad on purchase decision Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent PercentValid 1 17 10.8 10.9 10.9 2 33 20.9 21.2 32.1 3 42 26.6 26.9 59.0 4 42 26.6 26.9 85.9 5 22 13.9 14.1 100.0 Total 156 98.7 100.0Missing System 2 1.3Total 158 100.0Application of Z-testNull hypothesis: the ambush marketing done by kingfisher on jet airways affectsconsumer’s purchase decision.Assuming µo = 3,µm =3.12, Standard error (S.E) =0.097 (from table 1)Probability at 95% level of confidence = 0.05, Z value = 1.96Therefore, Z = µm-µo/S.EZ = 3.12-3/0.097; = 1.24The Z value does not exceed the table value of Z = 1.96. Therefore the null hypothesis isrejected.From this result we can infer that the majority of population does not get affected byambush practice. Their purchase decision is not dependent on the fact that whether theirown brand is doing it or not.This is the most crucial part of the research. The crux of all the matter at hand is whetherthis marketing strategy actually results in consumers going out and purchasing thefamously controversial product. Would anyone switch to a brand which pulls cleverpotshots at competitors? Would the user of kingfisher (as the case here) proudlyrecommend the brand to a friend considering the act of ambush? 41% of the respondentsdisagree with this point.
So, if Ambush has got nothing to do with the actual sales, if it cannot convert thepotential customer into a loyal customer for its brand, then it is not worth putting theethical image of a brand at stake for mocking the competition.
CONCLUSIONWith the increasing focus on capitalism and commercialization, there has been a steeprise in the growth of the advertising industry. Due to the increase in competition, everybrand today is trying to attract the maximum number of consumers through advertising.Today, advertising per hour has reached to 18-19 minutes on radio and 14-17 minutes ontelevision.According to Kalle Lasn, an international critic of advertising, “it (advertising) is themost prevalent and toxic of mental pollutants. From the moment your radio alarm soundsin the morning to the wee hours of late-night TV micro jolts of commercial pollutionflood into your brain everyday.” However, Ambush advertising is undoubtedly anecessary evil for media, business, the economy, consumers and capitalist businessmen.Healthy competition is necessary in a capitalist society, and hence Ambush advertising iswelcome. But the way it functions these days, it has been reduced to a dirty game ofmockery between brands and hardly affects the informed consumers’ choices. Today, adagencies, in order to project their clients as the most superior, often parody thecommercials of their competitors, leading to virtual wars in the advertising industry.Do people really care about such comparisons? Do such ads help us to make better, moreinformed choices? Not likely so. The Indian consumer is getting more aware these days,and such ads are just a matter of amusement for the consumer.Such ads don’t serve the consumers’ interests at all and on a larger platform, we don’treally care about such underhand tactics. If a brand is good, it will be successfulirrespective of its ad campaign. And if it’s bad and the company insecure, then even boldcomparative ads won’t do anything for the brand.There is a difference between informing the consumer and degrading your competitor’simage. This kind of Sabotage advertising hardly affects the sale of the products; theymerely send out an unethical message and amuse the audience. A good commercialshould just show the qualities of its products, rather that mocking others and leave it tothe consumer to choose from the myriad options on offer.
RECOMMENDATIONS:• Countering Ambush Marketing:• Control media advertising.• Control placement of hoardings and booths.• Stop the players from promoting the ambushers brand.• Learn how to ambush• Leverage the sponsorship• Limit nonsponsors’ ability to advertise• Establish control over advertising during event broadcast• Make a time-buy• Limit broadcasters’ ability to sell time• Prohibit virtual advertising• Limit participants’ ability to endorse brands of nonsponsors• Educate consumers• Provide positive PR for sponsors• Provide negative PR to shame ambushers• Surveillance programs• Limit number of sponsorships to a manageable number• Prohibit pass-along strategy• Incorporate sponsor’s name• Legal restriction
ANNEXURES: QUESTIONNAIRE The Impact of Ambush Marketing on Consumer BehaviorMeaning of AMBUSH MARKETING: Ambush marketing is the planned effort by anorganization to attack directly or indirectly the rival brand in order to gain at least someof the recognition and benefits. The practice of pulling a fast one on the competition is anold one -- some call it campaign sabotage or hijack; it is also a form of guerrillamarketing; marketing consultants prefer the term ambush marketing. Marketers and adagencies often resort to hijacking or sabotaging a competitors campaign. • Name • Age • GenderMaleFemale • Income Level1Lac- 3 Lac3 Lac- 5LacAbove 5 LacNo Income • OccupationGovernment serviceCorporate sectorBusinessStudentOthers 1. Do you prefer buying popular branded products over unknown brands? Strongly Agree Agree
NeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree 2. If you follow media advertising, then which type of advertisement appeals to you?EmotionalSocial messageYouth orientedProvocative/ AggressiveHumorous 3. Your purchase is influenced by which of the following Advertisement factors?Print AdsT.V. Media AdsHoardings/ BillboardsWord of Mouth publicityOthers 4. Have you seen such Ad campaign hoardings, where an outdoor campaign that said, A Mystery Shampoo 80 per cent women say is better than anything else’ was P&G brand Pantenes extensive teaser campaign, which was a precursor to its new avatar. Competing HUL shampoo brand Dove hijacked the campaign with massive hoardings of its own claiming, There is no mystery; Dove is the No.1 shampoo. These hoardings strategically placed near Pantenes mystery shampoo ones.Strongly AgreeAgreeNeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree
5. What does such an act of ambush by a Brand tell you about the brand?Ambush is an opportunity to show off how clever a brand isBrands have stopped talking to consumers and started talking to each otherIt is a publicity stuntTrying to acquire rival brand’s market shareThe brand wants to improve sales 6. Do you think brand wars and sabotage (like Coke vs. Pepsi ad campaign fight) are only for the purpose of grabbing instant attention?Strongly AgreeAgreeNeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree 7. Hijacking or sabotaging a competitors campaign helps the brand in getting high brand recall.Strongly AgreeAgreeNeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree 8. Hijacking competitor’s ad campaign is being too offensiveStrongly AgreeAgreeNeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree
9. The practice of Ambush marketing stress’s more on the fight between 2 brands rather than highlighting the product/ brand related information.Strongly AgreeAgreeNeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree 10. Many competing brands attack each other directly through advertisements. For e.g. the latest offensive Rin TV commercial claiming to be better than Tide by not just naming but showing the competitive product - ‘Tide se kahin behatar safedi de Rin’. Is this practice ethical and should have limits set?Strongly AgreeAgreeNeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree 11. The rival brand which is attacked in the ambush should have the right to take a legal action against the hijacker brand?Strongly AgreeAgreeNeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree 12. There was a Advertisement war, where Jet Airways put up a hoarding announcing its changed avatar – “We have changed”; while Kingfisher jumped at the opportunity to put a hoarding above that one, declaring, We made them change. – Does such brand ambush or fights have an impact on your purchase if you are a user of one of the brands in fight?
Strongly AgreeAgreeNeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree BIBLIOGRAPHY & WEBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY• Economics and consumer behavior - by Angus Deaton, John Muellbauer• Marketing Management – by Philip Kotler• Market Research – by C R Kothari• ICAFI’s Marketing Mastermind WEBLIOGRAPHY • http://www.sportspromedia.com/notes_and_insights/rise_of_the_pseudo- sponsors_a_history_of_ambush_marketing/ • www.afaqs.com • http://www.marketing-interactive.com/news/12576 • http://brandthinkmarketingdo.com/?p=985 • http://trak.in/Tags/Business/kingfisher-airlines-gives-huge-boing-order- king-of-good-times-vijay-mallya-has-done-it-again/ • http://www.legalcity.net/Index.cfm? fuseaction=MAGAZINE.article&ArticleID=7631391 • http://businesstoday.intoday.in/bt/story/evolved-marketing-for-an- evolved-consumer/1/5368.html