Ambush Marketing A Critical Analysis

From the past five decades, sponsorships growth occurred for two main reasons: first,
researchers have claimed it could break through clutter that affected advertising; this made it
an increasingly attractive alternative to mass media advertising. Second, event owners
became more sophisticated at developing packages that enabled them to obtain higher returns
from their events. For example, strategies that developed different levels of sponsorship and
that promised exclusivity within each level enabled the IOC to make a profit of over $US 200
million on the 1984 Olympic Games. These were also the first Olympics to operate with no
public money.

Event owners and official sponsors, in various occasions, have campaigned vigorously
against a practice they refer to as ambush marketing. By this, they have referred to a
variety of activities undertaken by rivals of the official sponsor that could confuse the public
as to the real sponsor. However, their arguments rest on ethical assumptions that have no
standing in court; in fact, the case law to date indicates that many alleged instances of
ambushing are quite legitimate. This paper examines a range of activities classified as
ambushing and argues that marketers need to consider ambushing in legal terms as either
passing off or breach of trademarks. In addition, we suggest more explicit documentation of
the rights available to official sponsors, so they are better able to anticipate competitors
likely actions.

This paper will include a critical analysis of the practice, Ambush Marketing; discuss various
aspects contributing towards the increasing number of such incidences; analyse the legal
provisions available to curb such immoral practices; and will include opinion of the author,
on how to deal with these ambush marketers, in present day scenario.

Santosh Reddy
2014054, Sem VII