Ambush Marketing – An Olympic Guide

Thursday 5 April 2012

To the everyday sports fan the term “ambush marketing” is more than likely an alien concept. However, to an internationally recognised brand who has just spent millions of pounds tying down an official sponsorship deal for this summer’s Olympic Games it is a dreaded thought, and all too real a threat.

To put it briefly, ambush marketing is a hugely cut price method of advertising, whereby a company attempts to profit from the goodwill, reputation and popularity of an event, such as the Olympics, by creating association with it, despite a lack of authorization or consent. This is normally actioned by the tactical placement of a company’s logo in an environment recognised as being official.

Corporate sponsors of London 2012 have every right to be concerned by ambush marketing – the Olympics historically are its favoured stomping ground. In 1996, at the Atlanta games, British sprinter Linford Christie conducted the press conference preceding the Mens 100m final wearing contact lenses embossed with the logo of his own personal sponsor, Puma, despite the games officially being sponsored by competitor Reebok. More recently the final torch bearer for the Beijing games in 2008, former Chinese Olympian Li Ning left $50m official sponsors of the games Adidas in a state of shock when he arrived wearing clothes manufactured by competing sportswear brand “Li Ning”, of whom he was the owner.

The effect of these underhanded tactics? Millions and millions of pounds are wasted by corporations whose official affiliation goes unnoticed. Did people pay attention to the advertised boards bearing the Adidas and Reebok logos? No, they were too busy paying attention to Christie’s contact lenses.

It’s not only the Adidas’ of this world who live in fear of being “ambushed”. The implementation of the Olympic Symbol Etc (Protection) Act 1995 and the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 shows how seriously the host organisers of the games are taking unauthorized affiliation and profit by corporate ambushers. The legislations consequences are that the use of any Olympic symbol or slogan, or attempt to draw association with London 2012 is strictly prohibited, constituting an infringement of the various intellectual property rights currently afforded to  both the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the London Organizing Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (LOCOG) as a separate entity.

How far the Olympic legal team will be willing to go to enforce these acts remains to be seen.

Would, for example, an action be brought against a sportswear company that produced football shirts bearing the British Olympic team’s badge? Unless that company was the official provider, namely Adidas, it is more than likely.

However, would the same course of action be taken against a small village primary school advertising its annual sports day as a mini-Olympics? Whilst it would be legally justified, one would like to think not…