Ambush Marketing and the Right of Association: Clamping Down on References to That Big Event with All the Athletes in a Couple of Years

Abstract

Ambush marketing activities—such as advertisements that obliquely reference a major event—have frustrated major sport event organizers and sponsors for years. Nevertheless, these activities, so long as they stopped short of trademark infringement or false advertising, have been perfectly legal. In the last decade, major sport event organizers such as the International Olympic Committee and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association have pressured national governments to pass legislation prohibiting ambush marketing as a condition of a successful bid to host an event. Such legislation has already been enacted in the United Kingdom, Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand, and the statutes in these jurisdictions reveal an emerging right of association. In this paper, the author surveys the evolution of this right and its key features. She offers a critique of this right, and argues that the need for it has never been properly established, and that the legislation is overly broad, does not reflect an appropriate balancing of interests, and may infringe upon the freedom of expression.

What Drives Ambush Marketer Misidentification?

“…Such criteria need to be researched and may include, for example, expected responses to ambush marketing by event organizers and actual sponsors. McKelvey and Grady (2008), for example, argue that event organizers' proactive and almost aggressive approach to onsite policing of venues may deter ambush marketers from advertising in the sur roundings, while many ambushing opportunities remain in the domain of supporting event participants (Scassa, 2011) and event-themed advertising campaigns (Kelly, Cornwell, Coote, & McAlister, 2012).…”

“…Only a small proportion of ambush marketing activities are prohibited by law (Scassa, 2011). The majority of strategies reflect the various publicity opportunities generated by an event (Meenaghan, 1994) and may be regarded as forms of guerilla marketing.…”

“…With only a few companies acquiring sponsorship rights, many others have begun incorporating the event into their marketing campaigns, although not official event sponsors (Scassa, 2011). This practice is called ambush marketing and refers to "the deliberate attempt, by a non-sponsor firm, to falsely suggest an association with an event... for the purpose of deriving a commercial benefit from that association, without incurring the costs of the acquisition of sponsorship rights in relation to that event" (Mazodier, Quester, & Chandon, 2012, p. 194).…”

Si̇nsi̇ Veya Uyanik Pazarlama(?); Kavramsal Çerçeve Ve Örnek Olaylar

“…Kaya (2010) [4]. Genel olarak tanımlar farklılaşsa da şu ortak noktalarda buluşmuşlardır [8,9] Literatürde 'ambush' yerine 'parasite' yani Türkçe olarak parazit teriminin kullanıldığına da rastlanılmaktadır [10,11,12]. Ancak İnal ve Baysal (2006) parazit kelimesinin parazit rekabet kavramıyla birlikte, haksız rekabet hukukunda kullanılmasından dolayı parazit pazarlama kavramının sadece haksız rekabet teşkil eden, yani hukuka aykırı bir fiili ifade ettiğini söylemişlerdir [11].…”

Si̇nsi̇ (Tuzak) Pazarlamanin Marka Farkindaliği Ve Tüketi̇ci̇ Davranişlari Üzeri̇ne Etki̇si̇: 2010 Fiba Dünya Şampi̇yonasi Örneği̇

“…2015;Lyberger ve McCarthy, 2001;Portlock ve Rose, 2009;Seguin vd., 2005;Shani ve Sandler, 1998). Örneğin Çin'de (Preuss vd., 2008), Hindistan'da (Kalamadi, 2012;Seth, 2010) Pazarlama yazınında sinsi pazarlamanın hukuki ve etik yönleriyle sponsor markaların korunması konuları da ayrıca incelenmiştir (Bhattacharjee ve Rao, 2006;Crow ve Hoek, 2003;Dickson vd, 2015;McKelvey ve Grady, 2008;Scassa, 2011;Vigar-Ellis vd, 2011). Konunun etik ve yasal sonuçları hem sponsorlar hem de tüketiciler açısından önemlidir.…”