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

From the Journal of Sport Management





Review by Nicole Crivellaro in KIN 332 (Section 2)


The article chosen is about ambush marketing. It is a peer-reviewed article that goes in to great detail about the complications ambush marketing brings to companies and sporting events. It starts by defining ambush marketing in two ways. Even though each definition is different, both describe ambush marketing as a company marketing themselves or their product without consent from the event owner. This causes problems with the sponsors/advertisements that do get consent from the event owner due to a number of legal issues. To name a few, the article mentions and describes unfair competition, trademark infringement, tort of passing off, false/misleading representations, false advertising, and disclaimers. These legal issues have not stopped ambush marketing due to freedom of speech laws and consumer perceptions. To further explain, any company that has marketed their product during a sporting event without consent is not allowed to deceive the consumers. This being stated, companies have found ways to market their company/product without committing any crimes or deceiving the consumers attending the events. Thus, a new legislation was enacted and is now strongly enforced in a number of different countries. The Sydney Olympic Games was the first to establish such legislation and many have followed. New Zealand established MEMA, South Africa established the Trade Practices Act, 1976 and Merchandise Marks Amendment Act, 2002, London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act (2006), and Canada enacted Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act of 2007. Along with these legislations, the right of association addresses ambush marketing on a national level. Even with these laws, ambush marketing will always be a problem in the sports world. Sports marketers, companies, consumers, etc. are affected each day with the legal implications brought by ambush marketers and need to know how to deal with such issues.

---

Review by Vince Mullhausen in KIN 332 (Section 2)

Teresa Scassa concentrates on both sides of the issue when it comes to Ambush Marketing in her article Ambush Marketing and the Right of Association: Clamping Down on References to That Big Event With All the Athletes in a Couple of Years. Ambush Marketing broken down is an organizations effort to be associated with an event without paying legal sponsorships fees. She wrote about countries that already enacted laws against this technically legal issue, in relation to how the laws are made to actually protect the consumer as well. Finishing the article with how the Ambush Marketing laws that have been enacted infringe on personal rights and freedoms.

This creates a problem for the sports market industry on a global scale. Organizations advertise at sporting events and obtain association without paying sponsorship fees. Therefore, it creates an unfair advantage with the organizations that did pay for their advertising rights. Misleading the consumer, false advertising, and trademark infringement are some of the legal issues that can arise. However, the evidence of most Ambush Marketing cases is based on the consumer and how far the consumer was mislead, deceived, or confused. This creates many issues with prosecuting or enforcing these laws because it is very difficult to prove how far the consumer was misinformed. Despite that the laws are made to protect the consumer as well as organizations and their events. Critics of these regulations argue that they infringe on personal rights and freedoms. The new laws limit the street activity that can occur by protected events.

Ambush Marketing is a controversial and often contradicting issue. With so many factors that play into Ambush Marketing it is hard to say a concrete solution will arise anytime soon.

KIN 435 (Sport Promotion & Sales) Work JMU's Homecoming Football Game

Students from KIN 435 (Sport Promotion & Sales) assist the Athletics Marketing department during the home football game on October 3, 2011

"ESPN fires back at critics of ‘MNF’ deal’s price tag"

From the SportsBusiness Journal

Review by Natalie Heintz in KIN 332 (Section 1)

This article focuses on the concern about the amount of money that ESPN is spending on renewing their contract with Monday Night Football.  The deal is $15.2 Billion dollars over the next eight years.  That is nearly 2 billion dollars per year.   Critics went public with the concern that consumers would be the ones paying for the deal through higher cable fees.  Sean Bratches, ESPN’s executive vice president of sales and marketing, expressed the fact that they were looking to get the money for the deal through increases in their affiliate fees.  Despite the fact that these numbers seem crazy, ESPN is benefitting from the deal.  After interviews with executives from three of the biggest distributors, they said they were expecting these numbers and have said it is not of huge concern.  ESPN is going to get much more TV, broadband, and mobile content as a result of the deal.  They are going to roll out 500 new hours of NFL related programs.  This will be beneficial because those are among the highest rated programs on television.

            

This is a great marketing move for the ESPN brand and it’s family of networks.  In 2010, seventeen NFL games airing on ESPN made the top twenty most watched shows.  This goes to show that the NFL brand is important to advertisers because of its large and loyal fan base. More specifically, ‘Monday Night Football’ has become an event. It is the only NFL game playing that day, so more viewers will be watching it.  The NFL is one of the most powerful brands in America that advertisers want to be affiliated with.  Also it is a brand that will continue to increase its popularity, which is proven through fantasy football.  All of this goes to show that this deal is a smart marketing move for ESPN and will be very profitable.