Ambush Marketing Unethical Trick Or Professional Tool

Ambush Marketing: Unethical Trick or Professional Tool? Essay


Marketing has been identified to be highly strengthened by advertising. Advertising creates awareness available in the market as regards a specific model. This has been there, ever since the inception of mass media and it has allowed companies to speak to an enormous share of their target market cheaply. Of the more common methods of advertising is sponsorship, which is the creation or the help of a number of socio-cultural occasions by a business so as to benefit from it as a communication platform. Over the years, this has been identified to achieve success and it has attracted other entrepreneurs who’ve devised ways of cashing in on occasions that they have nothing to do with. This has come to be acknowledged as ambush marketing, guerrilla advertising or parasite advertising (Mullin, 2007).

301 licensed writers online

Different authors and marketers have struggled with the question of whether or not ambush advertising is an unethical trick or a justified professional device. This question has been raised on the backdrop of the implications of ambush marketing to the enterprise ambushing the others, and those being ambushed. This is as a result of there are each advantages and disadvantages to be reaped from ambush advertising by both events. This essay seeks to argue that ambush advertising is actually a justified skilled tool.

Ambush advertising

Ambush marketing includes the implication by a company that it is an official sponsor of an occasion by hijacking some elements of the occasion that will give the corporate extra viewers than the actual official sponsor (Allen, 2010). Ambush advertising has been recognized to be fuelled by the high cost of sponsorship especially for huge events that are assured to give the company a huge market viewers such because the world cup. While some of the younger corporations could also be in search of market penetration by strengthening the perception of their model in the market, they may not even have entry to the assets needed to achieve this (Burton & Chadwick, 2009). While this may be seen as incorrect there are virtually no legal implications in such acts, a proven fact that has made it so rampant to a point the place sponsors to a huge event have needed to consider their rivals out there before taking up sponsorship in order to reduce on this. It is actually thought of funding or boosting the enemy by providing competitors with a platform to apply their advertising strategies to your actual clients. It will get worse sometimes where the ambush advertising is definitely accomplished by more than one firm, which then overshadows the unique sponsor fully (Kahle & Riley, 2004). The following are a few of the examples of ambush advertising.

Examples of ambush advertising

One example is where Qantas airlines featured two Australian athletes in their ads, who have been at the time collaborating in the 2000 Sydney Olympics (Johnson, et al. 2005). They greatly capitalized on the terms Sydney 2000 and Olympics, which gave them fairly some recognition especially in the Australian market. Another case is that of Mengniu, a Chinese dairy agency that flooded the market with advertisements featuring athletes in the course of the 2008 Beijing Olympics. The official sponsor of the Olympics at the time was Coca-Cola, who had invested heavily in the sporting occasion as it is usually an expensive affair. Statistics confirmed that they were identified by over 30 % of the general public inhabitants in China as in comparison with 40 p.c of the public population who recognized Coca-Cola (Johnson, 2008). The next section provides arguments presented on ambush advertising.


The examples above present that ambush advertising can actually yield good-looking results for a corporation if it is utilized proper. In the next part, there is the argument provided by these against ambush advertising.

Argument towards ambush marketing

Those who are in opposition to ambush marketing view it from the angle of the company being ambushed. They determine this as pirating of assets from another company while on the same time fixing a price to the amount spent on procuring sponsorship rights (Seguin & O’Reilly, 2008). While this may be disputed by others it’s not essentially untrue for the reason that fact stays that the company sponsoring a particular occasion, whether or not corporate or socio-cultural should benefit from the fruits of its investments and efforts. Ambush advertising denies the initial sponsor the outright limelight available in the market by hijacking and overshadowing it (Murphy, Lacznia & Laczniak, 2006).

Companies select to sponsor events with the primary purpose of promoting to a specific market and although they may be doing in order their company social responsibility, the very fact still stays that they need to acquire some market viewers and enhance on their brand profile. This is the reason that companies bid to realize major sponsorship deals and end up spending some huge cash in sponsorship as well as organizational fees (Mazodier, 2010). This is, subsequently, recognized as a significant funding under their advertising strategy and their sole aim is that it succeeds in growing their portfolio of clients whereas weakening their rivals. Ambush marketing denies them this and goes ahead to offer another company all of the credit and success of the entire occasion as a campaign (Quester, 2008). This is even worse when the company participating in ambush marketing is engaged in the same business because the sponsoring company. The subsequent section introduces the argument offered by supporters of ambush advertising.

Proponents of ambush advertising

Those who establish ambush marketing as a justified skilled tool, say that there’s nothing unethical or morally incorrect with hijacking a sponsor’s limelight. They identify that opportunities in the market are supposed to be exploited in the event that they current themselves and a public occasion is one such opportunity that can be exploited to market the enterprise (Wong, 2010). While an organization could have the unique rights as sponsor in the explicit event premises, it could not maintain such rights outside for example in the mass media. This is considered as a possibility by ambush marketers to exploit avenues that the particular sponsor might have created, but not exploited absolutely. In as much because the ambush marketer could also be seen as hijacking an unbiased event, the fact remains that if the sponsor would invest sufficient to take advantage of all the available advertising avenues, there may be no room for ambush marketing (Pitta, 2008).

The means rights to the sponsorship of a major event like the world cup, are issued are sometimes discriminatory to small firms and more so to the local or regional firms quite than international ones (CCH editors, 2007). This is as a result of the bidding for sponsorship rights includes the investment of giant sources that some firms can not afford. The policy where just one agency is issued exclusive rights to be the most important sponsor can be responsible for the ambush marketing as different firms really feel left out and even powerless in such a situation (Scaria, 2008). The solution to this may maybe be the reservation of some sponsorship alternatives to native firms or providing the sponsorship rights to totally different corporations which might be trade particular, which aren’t in any type of competition with each other. This would scale back the amount of ambush advertising that is normally experienced throughout main occasions, nevertheless it doesn’t assure that there might be no such acts entirely (Ellis, et al. 2010). The next part identifies the opinion of the public sector, which is impartial from that of the companies that do the ambushing or the ones being ambushed.

Public opinion on ambush advertising

The public, however, don’t hold a powerful opinion in regard to the corporate wars which are usually evident within the sponsorship of occasions. They benefit from the variety of choices offered by the different corporations, and do not care whoever wins or loses. This has made lawmakers reluctant to make any stringent laws that would reduce ambush advertising in the market as no one gets hurt in the course of (Abela and Murphy, 2008). Even though the businesses involved, and more so these ambushed may complain, they’re reluctant to push for the formulation of main legal guidelines since they also participate in the identical acts when they aren’t able to secure ultimate sponsorship rights. While some people might argue that ambush advertising is mistaken others may argue that it is not. The downside lies in outlining the particular weight of its advantages versus that of its disadvantages (Arnold, 2010).

Among the proposed remedies to ambush advertising is disclosure the place proponents argue that ambush marketers should disclose their intentions to the company being ambushed as well as to the market in general. This has, nonetheless, been recognized to have potential adverse effects. The first is the notion of the market towards the ambusher. Marketing is a recreation of perception where a company seeks to build a constructive perception available in the market in direction of itself (Preussa, Gemeindera and Séguin, 2008). In disclosing that it’s an ambusher, customers might concentrate on the potential loses that may be incurred within the vent particularly by the official sponsor and, subsequently, type a adverse notion of the ambushing company (Meenaghan, 1994).

The second is the unfavorable affect that the disclosure may have on the model. This is more so the place the identical company is understood to be a popular ambusher of many occasions. This may lead to market awareness, the place previously ignorant prospects might begin to discover the ambush marketing and shun any association with a specific company’s merchandise (Brenkert, 2008). Since the acceptability of ambush advertising has to be according to the moral implications that will result, the following part explores any such ethical issues which might be available in this case.

Ethical implications of ambush marketing

One of the ethical features which are manifested in ambush advertising is egoism, which dictates that morality coincides with the self-interest of an organization or a person. In this case, the ambushing firm identifies that the achievement of its goals is their ethical obligation no matter who they trample upon on the way in which. The interests of the sponsoring firm aren’t thought-about when choosing ambush advertising as a major marketing strategy (Farrelly, Quester and Greyser, 2005). Conscience, which is a set of internalized set of ethical rules which might be taught to us by various authority figures, sadly doesn’t apply within the corporate world the place those making the most important strategic choices are not those who implement them (Robin, 2011).

It is, therefore, virtually impossible for those implementing ambush advertising as a strategy not to do so since their job, which demands that they observe the orders of their superiors takes preference over any internalized ethical rules that they may maintain (Egan, 2007). The precept of prima-facie, which suggests that an obligation may be overridden by a more necessary obligation, additionally comes into play in this case. The obligation to attain organizational targets override any other personal obligations that staff may hold even if they are personal, for as long as they are part of the group that chooses to adopt ambush marketing (Saucier & Folkers, 2008).

Moral requirements do not apply in this case since there isn’t a quick harmful impact on human beings if an organization chooses to adopt ambush marketing. This is mostly used to justify the actions of such marketers since they will at all times identify the action as simply regular enterprise and nothing private. Ethical relativism additionally applies on this case, because it dictates that what is right is set what the actual society or business says is definitely right or mistaken. In this case, whereas a few of the firms that are ambushed would possibly identify ambush advertising as an unethical trick they are additionally open to the opinion of adopting it if they ever discover themselves able where they really need to advertise to a market that has already been monopolized by one sponsor (Smith, 2008).

The principle of the veil of ignorance suggests that individuals of their original position know nothing about themselves personally or about what their individual state of affairs shall be once the rules are chosen and the veil is lifted. This means that a move to disclose ambushing intentions could be avoided with none moral penalties being suffered (Ghani and Tajasom, 2010). This also means that the fact that the public population doesn’t know that a particular company is an ambusher, signifies that no ethical obligations are hooked up to such an ambusher.

The other instructed resolution, the place organizers may choose to allocate sponsorship rights to many firms, is supported by utilitarianism, which means that actions chosen should produce essentially the most pleasure or happiness for the best number of people or affected individuals.


This essay has recognized that the query of whether or not ambush marketing is an unethical trick or a justified skilled tool can be answered by figuring out the moral penalties of such actions. Since there are not any personal penalties, trade practices have extra time adopted ambush advertising and adjusted to its results. This essay has proven that that is evidenced by the fact that corporations that have beforehand complained that this is unethical, have discovered themselves also adopting it (Lam, 2008). This concludes that it’s a justified professional device that may be utilized by anybody in the market.

This essay is, nevertheless, restricted to the ethical implications of ambush marketing, which makes it inapplicable in situations that warrant the identification of economic or authorized implications. It can be, subsequently, advisable for future studies to be carried out on the monetary and authorized implications of ambush advertising.

Reference List

Abela, A, and Murphy, P. 2008. Marketing with integrity: ethics and the service- dominant logic for advertising. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 36(1). Pp 39-53.

Allen, S. 2010. How to Be Successful at Sponsorship Sales. London: Trafford Publishing.

Arnold, C. 2010. Ethical Marketing and The New Consumer. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Brenkert, G., G. 2008. Marketing ethics. New York: Blackwell Pub.

Burton, N, and Chadwick, S. 2009. Ambush advertising in sport: An analysis of sponsorship protection means and counter-ambush measures. Journal of Sponsorship. 2(four). Pp 303-315.

CCH editors. 2007. Sales and Marketing Law in New Zealand. Wellington: CCH New Zealand Limited.

Egan, J. 2007. Marketing communications. Upper Saddle River: Cengage Learning.

Ellis, D. et al. 2010. Framing ambush marketing as a authorized concern: An Olympic perspective. Sport Management Review. 14(three). Pp 297-308.

Farrelly, F, Quester, P, and Greyser, S. 2005. Defending the Co-Branding Benefits of Sponsorship B2B Partnerships: The Case of Ambush Marketing. Journal of Advertising Research. 45(three). Pp 339-348.

Ghani, K, and Tajasom, A. 2010. Marketing Ethics. London: Lambert Academic Publishing.

Johnson, M., J. et al. 2005. Sports Marketing. Sydney: Cengage Learning.

Johnson, P. 2008. Ambush advertising: a sensible information to defending the model of a sporting occasion. New York: Sweet & Maxwell.

Kahle, R, and Riley, C. 2004. Sports Marketing and the Psychology of Marketing Communication. London: Routledge.

Lam, C. 2008. Legal Aspects of Marketing and Eventmanagement. New York : GRIN Verlag.

Mazodier, M. 2010. Ambush Marketing Disclosure Impact on Attitudes Toward the Ambusher’s Brand. Research and Applications in Marketing. 25(2). Pp 51-sixty seven.

Meenaghan, T. 1994. Point of View: Ambush Marketing: Immoral or Imaginative

Mullin, B., J. 2007. Sport advertising, Volume thirteen. New York: Human Kinetics.

Murphy, P, Lacznia, E, and Laczniak, G. 2006. Marketing ethics: cases and readings. New York: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Pitta, L. 2008. Event sponsorship and ambush advertising: Lessons from the Beijing Olympics. Business Horizons. fifty three(three). Pp 281-290.

Practice? Journal of Advertising Research. 34(5). Pp 299-311.

Preussa, H, Gemeindera, K, and Séguin, B. 2008. Ambush Marketing in China: Counterbalancing Olympic Sponsorship Efforts. Asian Business & Management. 7. Pp 243–263.

Quester, P., G. 2008. The effectiveness of ambush marketing: A conceptual framework. Revue Francaise du Marketing. 217(2/5). Pp 64-seventy five.

Robin, G. 2011. Football, Europe et rules. New York: Presses Univ. Septentrion.

Saucier, R, and Folkers, K. 2008. Marketing Ethics. London: Edwin Mellen Press.

Scaria, A., G. 2008. Ambush marketing: recreation inside a sport. London: Oxford University Press.

Seguin, B, and O’Reilly, N. 2008. The Olympic model, ambush marketing and clutter. JournalInternational Journal of Sport Management and Marketing. Volume 4(1). Pp 62-eighty four.

Smith, A. 2008. Introduction to sport marketing. London: Routledge.

Wong, G., M. 2010. Essentials of sports regulation. New York: ABC-CLIO.





Type Essay Pages 7 Words 2246 Subjects

Language ?? English

Unfortunately, your browser is just too old to work on this web site.