Download Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy. - UvA-DARE

VS.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy.
“Research on the influence of consumer knowledge about ambush marketing on the
attitude towards an ambushing organisation.”
Universiteit van Amsterdam
MSc Business Studies
Master thesis
Drs. Ing. Toon Meulemans
Rein Hendriks (5937620)
Date: 27 April 2011
"Ambush marketing implies a connection to an event for which you have not
compensated the owner. There's another word for it: stealing.”
John Bennett, Visa Senior Vice President of Marketing
"Ambush marketing is not a game. It is a deadly serious business and one that has
the potential to destroy sponsorship.
If ambush marketing is left unchecked, then the fundamental revenue base of sports
will be undermined.”
Michael Payne, IOC Marketing Director
“It is a weak-minded view that competitors have a moral obligation to step back and
allow an official sponsor to reap all the benefits from a special event:
Competitors have not only a right, but an obligation to shareholders to take
advantage of such events.”
Jerry Welsh, American Express Marketing Executive
Abstract
As a result of the growing importance and investments in sports sponsoring, the practice of ambush
marketing has augmented during the last decades. This development has become a major issue for
the sponsoring industry, since ambushing strategies are a threat to sponsoring companies and event
owners like the International Olympic Committee (IOC) or the FIFA.
Because of the growing practice of ambush marketing activities, research on this phenomenon has
increased over the last two decades. Most of this research focused on describing the effectiveness of
different ambush marketing strategies and ways to counter these strategies. Although some
researchers have investigated the level of consumer knowledge about ambush marketing, a linkage
between this level of knowledge and the influence on the brand attitude towards ambushing
companies was not found in literature.
The influence of consumers’ knowledge about ambush marketing on consumers’ attitude towards
ambushing brands was measured by means of an Internet based survey. A total of 105 respondents
filled in the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 65%. This questionnaire existed of 21
questions, measuring (1) the current level of consumers’ knowledge about ambush marketing, (2)
consumers’ attitude towards ambush marketing and (3) the influence of the level of knowledge on the
attitude towards an ambushing company and the practice of ambush marketing itself.
The results of this study show that the level of consumers’ knowledge about ambush marketing has
not increased over the years and therefore remains low. Furthermore, consumers’ attitude towards the
practice of ambush marketing is largely indifferent. Even after informing the respondent about the
negative consequences of ambush marketing for event owners and official sponsors, their attitude
towards ambush marketing remained indifferent. No relationship was found between consumers’ level
of knowledge about ambush marketing and their attitude towards the practice of ambush marketing.
The attitude of male respondents towards a brand was influenced positively, when they were informed
about the ambushing tactics of this particular brand.
As a consequence of these findings, event owners like the IOC or FIFA should stick to their legal
restrictions in order to counter ambushing strategies. Since consumers do not value ambush
marketing as immoral practice, informing the consumer about ambushing practices does not help to
make them change their mind. On the other hand, these findings encourage marketeers to continue
making use of ambushing opportunities. Consumers are still unable to distinguish official sponsors
from ambushing brands, so it is still an effective marketing strategy to associate a company or brand
with events like the FIFA World Cup of Olympic Games.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
Table of contents
1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Sponsorship .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Ambush marketing ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Research on ambush marketing ................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Relevance ..................................................................................................................................... 3 1.4.1 Academic relevance ............................................................................................................... 3 1.4.2 Managerial relevance ............................................................................................................. 3 2. Theoretical framework ..................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 History of marketing ...................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Marketing mix ............................................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Marketing communication strategies ............................................................................................ 6 2.4 Sponsorship .................................................................................................................................. 7 2.4.1 The role of sponsorship in the promotional mix ..................................................................... 7 2.4.2 Event sponsorship.................................................................................................................. 8 2.5 FIFA World Cup and Olympic Games .......................................................................................... 8 2.5.1 FIFA World Cup ..................................................................................................................... 8 2.5.2 Olympic Games...................................................................................................................... 9 2.6 Ambush marketing ...................................................................................................................... 10 2.6.1 Ambush marketing strategies............................................................................................... 10 2.6.2 Counter strategies ................................................................................................................ 11 2.7 Marketing ethics.......................................................................................................................... 13 2.8 Attitude towards a brand ............................................................................................................. 14 2.9 Hypotheses ................................................................................................................................. 15 3. Research method ........................................................................................................................... 17 3.1 Research design ......................................................................................................................... 17 3.2 Hypothesized model ................................................................................................................... 17 3.3 Questionnaire development ........................................................................................................ 18 3.3.1 Pilot testing........................................................................................................................... 18 3.3.2 Consumer knowledge about ambush marketing and sponsor rights ................................... 18 3.3.3 Consumer attitude towards ambush marketing.................................................................... 19 3.3.4 Attitude towards brands ....................................................................................................... 20 3.4 Statistical analysis ...................................................................................................................... 20 3.4.1 Schematic overview of questionnaire................................................................................... 20 3.4.2 Hypothesis testing ................................................................................................................ 21 Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
4. Results ............................................................................................................................................ 22 4.1 Data collection ............................................................................................................................ 22 4.2 Reliability assessment ................................................................................................................ 23 4.2.1 Reliability of attitude towards the practice of ambush marketing ......................................... 23 4.2.2 Reliability of attitude towards different brands ..................................................................... 24 4.3 Current knowledge about sponsor rights .................................................................................... 25 4.4 Consumer attitude towards ambush marketing .......................................................................... 27 4.5 Consumer attitude towards brands ............................................................................................. 29 4.6 Hypothesis testing ...................................................................................................................... 30 4.6.1 Hypothesis 1 ........................................................................................................................ 30 4.6.2 Hypothesis 2 ........................................................................................................................ 32 4.6.3 Hypothesis 3 ........................................................................................................................ 35 5. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 40 5.1 Summary of the findings ............................................................................................................. 40 5.1.1 Current knowledge about sponsor rights ............................................................................. 40 5.1.2 Consumer attitude towards ambush marketing.................................................................... 40 5.1.3 Influence of knowledge about ambush marketing on brand attitude .................................... 41 5.2 Managerial implications .............................................................................................................. 41 5.2.1 Informing consumers as a way to counter ambushing campaigns ...................................... 41 5.2.2 Ambush marketing as effective marketing instrument ......................................................... 42 5.3 Limitations and directions for future research ............................................................................. 42 5.3.1 Generalisability..................................................................................................................... 42 5.3.2 Measurement during event .................................................................................................. 43 5.3.3 Involvement with the event................................................................................................... 43 References .......................................................................................................................................... 44 APPENDIX A: Questionnaire ............................................................................................................. 48 APPENDIX B: SPSS Outputs ............................................................................................................. 55 Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
1. Introduction
1.1 Sponsorship
“Over the past thirty years, sponsorship has evolved from a small-scale activity in a limited number of
industrialised countries to a major global industry” (Meenaghan, 1998). Where sponsorship in the
beginning was regarded as just one among a battery of available marketing communication tools, it is
globally used by major organizations as a powerful vehicle to build brand value (Farrelly et al., 2005).
The growth and significance of sponsorship becomes clear by the worldwide annual investment in
sponsorship, which grew from US$24 billion in 2001 to US$39 billion in 2009 (IEG Sponsorship Report
2009).
Sponsorship is generally defined as “the provision of assistance either financial or in-kind to an activity
(e.g., sport, musical event, festival, fair, or within the broad definition of the Arts) by a commercial
organization for the purpose of achieving commercial objectives” (Meenaghan, 1983). While firms
enter into sponsorship arrangements with a variety of goals, the most important are ones to increase
brand awareness and to establish, strengthen, or change brand image (Gwinner, 1997). An important
field of sponsoring is the sponsoring of international sporting events, like the Olympic Games and
FIFA Soccer World Cup. By sponsoring an event or providing budget for an events broadcast, a
sponsor can generate audience awareness while simultaneously creating associations of the events
values in people’s minds (Meenaghan, 1996). Multinationals pay millions of dollars for annual sponsor
fees, via which a company obtains exclusive marketing rights for a particular event. Research by the
International Event Group (IEG) demonstrates that the six FIFA partners Adidas, Coca-Cola, Emirates,
Hyundai, Sony and Visa together paid an annual sponsor fee of US$264 dollar for the FIFA World Cup
2010 (IEG Sponsorship Report 2010).
1.2 Ambush marketing
Due to the increasing importance and investments in sponsoring, the practice of ambush marketing
has enlarged during the last decades. Sandler and Shani (1998) describe ambush marketing as “the
efforts by non-sponsoring organisations in a planned effort (campaign) to associate themselves
indirectly with an event in order to gain at least some of the recognition and benefits that are
associated with being an official sponsor”. McKelvey (1994) described it as "a company's intentional
effort to weaken or ambush its competitor's official sponsorship”.
The practice of ambush marketing was first identified during the Los Angeles Olympic Games in 1984.
For these Olympic Games, Fuji had acquired the official sponsorship rights by paying millions of
dollars of sponsor fee. In response to this strategic sponsorship, Fuji’s key competitor, Kodak,
announced itself as the proud sponsor of ABC’s broadcast of the Olympic Games and also became
sponsor of the ‘official film’ of the US track team (Crompton, 2004).
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
1
This strategy was aimed at undermining and reducing Fuji’s benefits of being associated with a major
event like the Olympic Games, and as a result many consumers incorrectly believed that Kodak was
the official sponsor of these Games.
A recent example of ambush marketing that gained global attention is the guerrilla-marketing
campaign of the Dutch brewery Bavaria during the FIFA World Cup 2010. During the match between
the Netherlands and Denmark, 36 women dressed like Danish fans, entered the football stadium. After
20 minutes the women took off their Danish clothes and showed their orange Bavaria dresses. The
whole world saw this Bavaria dress, while Budweiser was the official beer sponsor of the tournament.
During the match the Dutch women were arrested, which led to worldwide commotion and millions of
free publicity value for Bavaria (Parsons, 2010).
Since the Kodak incident in 1984, ambushing strategies have become more imaginative, complex and
expensive (Crompton, 2004). As sponsorship fees demanded by event owners increase, more
marketeers are attracted to an ambush strategy for both defensive and offensive reasons (Tripodi and
Sutherland, 2000). Among company executives there is a widespread believe that ambushing works
and therefore companies continue to invest large amounts of money in this strategy. This development
has become a major issue for the sponsoring industry, since ambushing strategies are a threat to
sponsoring companies and event owners. Official sponsors are threatened because they cannot take
full advantage of their exclusive sponsorship rights. They are therefore less willing to pay high sponsor
fees. Event owners are threatened because companies associate themselves with an event, without
paying the required fee to the event owner. This makes it hard for event owners to attract sponsors,
since they are not able to offer exclusive sponsorship rights. Without capital injection from sponsors, it
is questionable whether current major sports events can still be organized in the near future (Tripodi
and Sutherland, 2000).
1.3 Research on ambush marketing
Because of the growing importance and practice of ambush marketing activities, research on this
phenomenon has increased over the last two decades. Sandler and Shani (1989) were among the first
to discuss ambush marketing (Crow and Hoek, 2003). Their research focused on describing the
phenomenon and explaining the effects of it. Later on, Meenaghan (1994, 1996 and 1998) described
common ambush marketing strategies and examined the effectiveness of those strategies.
Meenaghan (1994), Townley et al. (1998), Crompton (2004), Lagae (2005, p. 339), Hartland and
Skinner (2005) and Pitt et al. (2010) all described common strategies to counter ambush marketing
activities and examined the effectiveness of each of these strategies. The common conclusion of
these researches was that ambush marketing activities remain hard to counter, since legal systems do
not protect official sponsors sufficiently. Therefore, event owners and official sponsors are themselves
responsible to identify and prevent potential ambushing strategies.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
2
Many researchers described the ethical aspects of ambush marketing, but little research has been
conducted to understand the consumers’ knowledge of and attitude towards this phenomenon. Shani
and Sandler (1998), Lyberger and McCarthy (2001) and Seguin et al. (2005) all found out that the
attitude of consumers towards ambush marketing is largely indifferent. Furthermore these researches
prevailed that consumers lack knowledge about the sponsorship of events and the potential of
‘ambushing sponsors’.
Although some researchers have investigated the level of consumer knowledge about ambush
marketing, a linkage between this level of knowledge and the influence on the brand attitude towards
ambushing companies was not found in literature. Therefore, the research question of this thesis is:
“To what extent does consumers’ knowledge about the effects of ambush marketing influence the
brand attitude towards an ambushing company?”
1.4 Relevance
1.4.1 Academic relevance
Previous research on ambush marketing mainly concentrated on the success or failure of ambush
marketeers versus official sponsors in terms of creating high levels of recall and recognition (Lyberger
and McCarthy, 2001). The successes of counter strategies were measured by examining industry
responses to ambush activities. Although some researchers have investigated the level of consumer
knowledge about ambush marketing, a linkage between this level of knowledge and the influence on
the brand attitude towards ambushing companies was not found in literature. Therefore, this research
will be an extension to the current literature of ambush marketing.
1.4.2 Managerial relevance
To counter ambushing activities, event owners and official sponsors lend on legal systems. Since
these legal systems have not protected official sponsors sufficiently, event owners and official
sponsors developed a range of strategies themselves to counter ambushing activities. These
strategies focused on excluding as much ambushing possibilities for non-sponsors as possible.
Therefore, only official sponsors can legally use logos and other official images of an event (Pitt et al.,
2010).
If this research indicates that consumer knowledge about the effects of ambush marketing influences
the brand image of an ambushing company, this might imply new possibilities for countering ambush
strategies. Event owners and official suppliers could spend their efforts on making consumers aware
of ambushing companies, thereby deterring companies to ambush a major event.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
3
2. Theoretical framework
2.1 History of marketing
According to the American Marketing Association (AMA), marketing is “the activity, set of institutions
and processes for creating communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for
customers, clients, partners, and society at large” (AMA, 2007). Kotler and Armstrong (2010, p. 26)
state that the aim of marketing is to create value for customers and to capture value from customers in
return.
Baines et al. (2011, p. 9) state that marketing exists as a coherent approach to business since the
early 1920s. Since the beginning of this practice, the development of marketing broadly exists of the
following four stages:
1.) 1890s – 1920s, production period: this period was characterized by a focus on physical
production and supply. There was little competition and the range of products was limited.
2.) 1920s – 1950s, sales period: during this period, marketing was characterized by a focus on
personal selling, supported by market research and advertising.
3.) 1950s – 1980s, marketing period: this phase was characterized by a more advanced focus on
the customer’s needs.
4.) 1980s – present, societal marketing period: this period was characterized by a stronger focus
on social and ethical concerns in marketing. This phase is taking place during the ‘information
revolution’ of the late twentieth century.
2.2 Marketing mix
In 1953, the American marketing professor Neil Borden developed the concept of the marketing mix: a
list of 12 elements, which a manufacturer should consider when developing marketing mix policies and
procedures (Baines et al, 2011, p.15). In 1960, Eugene McCarthy simplified the exhaustive list of
Borden to a “4P classification”, existing of the following items:
1.) Product
Baines et al. (2011, p.292) state that consumers do not just buy the simple functional aspect of a
product offer: there are other complexities involved in the purchase. Therefore, three different product
forms are described:
-
The core product: This consists of the real core benefit or service. This can be a functional
benefit in terms of what the product will enable one to do, or the emotional benefit in terms of
how the product or service will make the customer feel. An example of this is a car: it provides
transportation a means of self-expression.
-
The embodied product: This consists of the physical good or delivered service that provides
the expected benefit. It consists of factors like design, packaging, brand name and durability.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
4
-
The augmented product: This consists of the embodied product including all other factors that
are necessary to support the purchase and post-purchase activities like training, installation
and guarantees.
2.) Place
‘Place or distribution concerns how to place the optimum amount of goods and/or services before the
maximum number of a target market at the times and locations they want’ (Baines et al, 2011, p.15).
The way distribution occurs can be physical, a service or electronic. Distribution activities are a crucial
element in creating customer value. A product will provide customer value and satisfaction only if it is
available to the customer when and where it is needed, and in the appropriate quantity.
3.) Price
In marketing terms, price is considered as ‘the amount the customer has to pay or exchange to
receive a good or service’ (Baines et al, 2011, p.331). Pricing is a very complex component of the
marketing mix since it is based on both the total costs of the product or service and the customer
perceptions of price, quality and value.
4.) Promotion
Promotion, nowadays called marketing communications, is used to communicate elements of an
organization’s offering to a target audience. This offer might refer to a product, a service or the
organization itself as it tries to build its reputation (Baines et al, 2011, p.369). Marketing
communication activities, often referred to as campaigns, involve the delivery of messages to target
audiences through various communication tools and media. These different tools and media are
described in the next chapter.
Although this 4P framework was developed in 1960, managers still use it extensively when devising
their product plans (Baines et al, 2011, p. 16). In order to illustrate how marketing needed to market
services differently, in 1981 Booms and Bitner added another three Ps into the marketing mix (Baines
et al, 2011, p. 19). These three Ps involved:
-
Physical evidence: This refers to the environment in which the service is delivered and any
tangible goods that facilitate the performance and communication of the service. Physical
evidence is important since customers use tangible evidence to assess the quality of service
provided (Rafiq and Ahmed, 1995).
-
Process: This relates to the procedure, mechanism and flow of activities by which services are
used (Rafiq and Ahmed, 1995).
-
People: This refers to all customer service personnel, interacting with the customer. The way
this personnel interacts with customers and how satisfied customers are as a result, is of
strategic importance for organisations (Baines et al, 2011, p.19).
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
5
2.3 Marketing communication strategies
Promotion, one of the elements of the marketing mix and nowadays called marketing communications,
is used to communicate elements of an organization’s offering to a target audience (Baines et al,
2011, p. 369). Marketing communications provides the means by which brands and organisations are
presented to their audiences (Fill, 2005, p.9).
According to Fill (2005, p.21) there are five principal marketing communication tools:
1.) Advertising
“Advertising is a non-personal form of mass communication that offers a high degree of control for
those responsible for the design and delivery of advertising messages” (Fill, 2005, p.21). The role of
advertising in the promotional plan is important, since it can influence audiences by informing or
reminding them of the existence of a brand. Furthermore it helps an organisation to differentiate itself
from competitors in the market (Fill, 2005, p.508).
2.) Sales promotion
“Sales promotion comprises various marketing techniques, which are often used tactically to provide
added value to an offering, with the aim of accelerating sales and gathering marketing information”
(Fill, 2005, p.21). The main task of sales promotions however is to encourage the target audience to
buy a certain product (Fill, 2005, p.635).
3.) Personal selling
“Personal selling is traditionally perceived as an interpersonal communication tool that involves faceto-face activities undertaken by individuals, often representing an organisation” (Fill, 2005, p.22).
Personal selling is very important when there is a high level of relationship complexity. Such
complexity may be associated either with the physical characteristics of the product, or with the
environment in which the negotiations are taking place (Fill, 2005, p.767).
4.) Public relations
“Public relations is a management activity that attempts to shape the attitudes and opinions held by an
organisation’s stakeholders” (Fill, 2005, p.679), or put in other words: it is the management of
relationships between organisations and their stakeholders. In order to do this, organisations formulate
and execute an action programme to develop mutual goodwill and understanding.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
6
5.) Direct marketing
“Direct marketing seeks to target individual customers with the intention of delivering personalised
messages and building a relationship with them based upon their responses to the direct
communications (Fill, 2005, p.23). Of all tools of the marketing mix, direct marketing has grown most
over the last years. The two main reasons for the growth of direct marketing are (1) the growth of
information technology and (2) the changing market context: due to the fragmentation of the media
and audiences, finely tuned segmentation and communication devices are required (Fill, 2005, p.740).
2.4 Sponsorship
According to Fill (2005, p.713) the development of sponsorship as a communication tool has been
spectacular since the early 1990s. Fill (2005, p.712) defines sponsorship as a “commercial activity,
whereby one party permits another an opportunity to exploit an association with a target audience in
return for funds, services or resources”. Organisations use sponsorship activities in various ways to
generate awareness and brand associations. Moreover, it is used to distinguish themselves from
commercial messages of competitors, since it provides the following opportunities (Fill, 2005, p.713):
1.) Exposure to particular audiences that each event attracts in order to convey simple
awareness-based brand messages.
2.) It suggests that there is an association between the sponsored and the sponsor.
3.) It allows members of the target audience to perceive the sponsor indirectly through a third
party. In this way, negative effects associated with traditional mass media and direct
persuasion are diffused.
4.) It provides sponsors with the opportunity to blend a variety of tools in the promotional mix.
2.4.1 The role of sponsorship in the promotional mix
As mentioned above, sponsorship provides sponsors with the opportunity to blend a variety of tools in
the promotional mix. Fill (2005, p.727) states that sponsorship can be aligned with advertising, sales
promotion and public relations. Since awareness is regarded as the principal objective of using
sponsorship, advertising seems to be an important part of sponsorship. There are many examples of
organisations advertising with their sponsorship. An example of this is a recent commercial of Ford
UK, showing their 17 years of UEFA Champions League sponsorship on both television and their
official website (Ford, 2011).
Besides advertisement, sponsorship can be linked to public relations, since the sponsored (such as a
football team) can be adjudged to perform the role of opinion former (Fill, 2005, p.727). Therefore
messages are communicated to the target audience with the support of significant participants
supporting the sponsor. According to Lagae (2005, p.74) sponsorship is also an instrument of
corporate communication. During sports events, goodwill is created among press and opinion leaders,
and strong business relationships are built.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
7
2.4.2 Event sponsorship
An important area of sponsoring is the sponsoring of international sporting events like the Olympic
Games and FIFA Soccer World Cup. According to Fill (2005, p.719) sports is the leading type of
sponsorship for the following reasons: (1) sport attracts large audiences at both the event and through
the media, (2) sports provides an opportunity to identify and reach large numbers of people sharing
particular characteristics, (3) visibility opportunities for the sponsor are high in sporting events like the
Olympic Games or the FIFA World Cup.
The role of event sponsorship has changed considerably over the years. Gwinner (1997) stated that
until the beginning of the 1990s, the majority of organisations have viewed event sponsorship as an
obligation to the community: “Sponsorships had been placed on a level somewhere between
charitable donations and public relation opportunities”. Nowadays, sponsorships have not only
become more sophisticated, but most organisations are expecting a reasonable return on their
investments in the form of increased sales (Gwinner, 1997).
Tripodi and Sutherland (2000) stated that the Olympic Games with its huge audience is the premier
place for companies to showcase their brands. Jacques Rogge, chairman of the IOC, highlights this
statement by mentioning that the 11 major sponsors of the IOC are altogether responsible for $1
billion total sponsor revenues for the coming four years.
2.5 FIFA World Cup and Olympic Games
This research focuses on the effects of ambush marketing activities around the FIFA World Cup and
the Olympic Games. Therefore a description of both events is given.
2.5.1 FIFA World Cup
The FIFA World Cup is an international association football competition contested by the senior men's
national teams of the members of Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), the sport's
global governing body. The tournament occurs in a different country every four years since the
inaugural tournament in 1930.
Nowadays, the FIFA World Cup is one of the largest sporting events in the world, in terms of
spectators and organising costs. The final between Italy and France on the ninth of June 2006 in
Berlin generated an audience of 715.1 million television spectators. The matches of the FIFA World
Cup 2006 in Germany were broadcasted in 214 countries (FIFA, 2006). Sponsor fees was the most
important source of marketing revenue. The FIFA Official Partner program generated approximately
31% of all marketing revenues (Madrigal et al., 2005). Research by the International Event Group
(IEG) showed that the six FIFA partners Adidas, Coca-Cola, Emirates, Hyundai, Sony and Visa
together paid an annual sponsor fee of US$264 dollar for the FIFA World Cup 2010 (IEG Sponsorship
Report 2010).
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
8
2.5.2 Olympic Games
The Olympic Games are a major international event featuring summer and winter sports, in which
thousands of athletes participate in a variety of competitions. The Games are currently held every two
years, with Summer and Winter Olympic Games alternating, although they occur every four years
within their respective seasonal games. The first Olympic Games organised by the International
Olympic Committee was hosted in Athens in 1896. These Games brought 14 nations and 241 athletes
who competed in 43 sports events (IOC, 2010).
Nowadays, the Olympic Games have grown out to about 10,500 competitors from 204 countries at the
2008 Summer Olympics. According to Jacques Rogge, Chairman of the IOC, approximately 3.9 billion
people tuned in to watch parts of the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens (Madrigal et al., 2005).
Madrigal et al. (2005) stated that the core values or equities underlying the Olympic brand include (1)
hope for a better world through involvement with sport, (2) the inspiration to achieve personal dreams
through the lessons of athletes’ sacrifice, striving and determination, (3) friendship and fair play and
(4) joy in the effort of doing one’s best.
As in the case of the FIFA World Cup, sponsor fees are an important source of income for the IOC.
For the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens, 32% of all marketing revenues were generated from
sponsorship. Eleven of the world’s most prominent brands were Official Partner of the 2004 Olympic
Games in Athens, including Coca-Cola, Samsung, McDonald’s and Kodak, each paying approximately
65 million US dollar (Amis and Cornwell, 2005).
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
9
2.6 Ambush marketing
As sponsorship fees demanded by event owners increased over the years, more marketeers found
the price demanded to be outside the reach of their budgets. Therefore companies that could not
afford, or chose not to pay for these sponsor fees, were forced to look for alternative ways in order to
be associated with events like the Olympic Games or the FIFA World Cup. Ambush marketing is one
of the alternatives, and has grown out to a mature business, which has been a serious concern to both
event owners and official sponsors (Meenaghan, 1994).
Ambush marketing activities can occur around all kind of events (O'Sullivan & Murphy, 1998).
However, current literature mainly focuses on the ambushing strategies concerning the Olympic
Games or the FIFA World Cup. Since ambushing strategies concerning these events were most
obvious and gained most attention in both literature and the news, this research will only focus on
ambush activities around these two events.
2.6.1 Ambush marketing strategies
Meenaghan (1996), Tripodi and Sutherland (2000) and Crompton (2004) identified a variety of legal
ambush marketing strategies, which can be used by companies in order to create association with a
sports event in the minds of consumers:
1.) Sponsorship of the broadcast of an event
This occurs when television rights holders offer non-sponsors the right to be ‘a proud sponsor of the,
for example, FIFA World Cup 2010 broadcast’. The sponsor pays a rights fee to the broadcasting
company, and not to the FIFA. This rights fee is likely to cost far less than sponsoring the event itself.
The sponsor expects that consumers are unable to recognize this difference.
2.) Purchasing advertising time in and around event broadcasts
For the FIFA World Cup 2010, Adidas was the official partner of this global event. However, Nike had
endorsement contracts with the national teams of The Netherlands, Portugal and Brazil. During the
breaks of the matches, Nike showed commercials with these national teams. Furthermore, Nike
backed this “Write the Future” campaign with a major poster campaign. Research, conducted by the
Nielsen Company in 2010, demonstrated that this campaign resulted them in being linked to the
tournament more than any of the official sponsors.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
10
3.) Sponsoring persons instead of a team or an event
At the Sydney Olympic Games in 2000, Ian Thorpe dominated the swimming events in his home
country. The official clothing supplier for the Australian Olympic Team was Nike, but Thorpe was
sponsored by Adidas. At the medal presentations, Thorpe draped his towel over the Nike logo on his
official team tracksuit. By doing this, Thorpe prevented to appear with a Nike tracksuit in the global
media (Kendall and Curthoys, 2001). During the FIFA World Cup 2010, Nike sponsored several star
players, like Cristiano Ronaldo from Portugal and Wayne Rooney from England, while Adidas was the
official supplier.
4.) Purchasing advertising space at locations that are in close proximity to the event venue
During the FIFA World Cup 1998, Nike built a football village near the World Cup’s main stadium in
Paris. In this village, players of several national teams showed up to talk with supporters and press.
5.) Thematic advertising and implied allusion
One of the exclusive rights which sponsors derive from their sponsor fees, are the themes, symbols
and images associated with the event. It is illegal for non-sponsors to use any of these symbols in
their communication. However, advertisements and campaigns can be developed in such a way to
give the impression that the company is officially related to the event. During the Olympic Winter
Games in Vancouver in 2010, the Dutch energy company Essent sponsored the Dutch speed skater
Sven Kramer. In their advertisements, Essent wishes Kramer lots of success during the Games.
Furthermore, the company spoke about “Svencouver”, which implied a direct link to the hosting city of
the Olympic Games (van Ringelestijn, 2009).
6.) Other ambush marketing strategies
Ambushers can use other creative ambush marketing strategies to suggest involvement with a sports
event such as: (1) advertisements wishing a team or player good luck, (2) giving away licensed
souvenirs and free tickets to a sports event and (3) accidental ambush (created inadvertently by an
event owner not being aware of the potential of third parties to innocently introduce competition).
2.6.2 Counter strategies
Although the practice of ambush marketing is sometimes regarded as being unethical, immoral and
illegal, in most cases the ambushing marketing campaigns are not illegal by law. Some major
ambushers even employ teams of lawyers themselves, in order to understand how far they can stretch
the association without overstepping legal boundaries (Farrelly et al., 2005). According to Hartland
and Skinner (2005) and Pitt et al. (2010) there currently are very few legal precedents with regard to
ambush marketing, since ambush marketeers operate in a ‘grey zone’.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
11
Event owners, like the IOC or FIFA, do not own Olympic athletes, so there will always be space left for
ambushing activities. Furthermore Pitt et al. (2010) show that companies being ambushed should not
undertake too much legal action against ambushing companies, since in most cases this will lead to a
negative attitude towards the ambushed company itself.
Because governments and legal systems do not protect event organisers and official sponsors
sufficiently against ambush marketing activities, these parties themselves have developed a range of
counter strategies to diminish the effects of it. Meenaghan (1994) and Lagae (2005) proposed a
number of tactics in order to block ambush activities, which are considered to be a more efficient
approach than taking legal action against ambushers:
1.) Using unique logos and brand names for official sponsors
A clear exclusivity plan for partners makes it very difficult for ambushers to break the association
between sponsor and sport. By means of the Olympic Insignia Protection Act 1987, the use of the
Olympic rings and associated trademarks are protected. The FIFA tries to protect official sponsors via
the FIFA Rights Protection Programme, and ensures that only official suppliers can make use of
images of the official emblem, the official mascot and the FIFA World Cup trophy.
2.) Making clear exclusivity agreements
For the FIFA World Cup 2006 in Germany, MasterCard was one of the official sponsors. As part of its
exclusivity agreement, the company became the official credit card for this event. As a result, people
could only purchase tickets for this event with MasterCard, when they wished to pay by credit card
(Hartland & Skinner, 2005).
3.) Forming a sponsor’s protection committee directed by competent sports lawyers
Major event organisations like the IOC and the FIFA have developed their own protection
programmes, in order to guarantee the integrity of rights granted to the event sponsors. The IOC
composed a list of guidelines, which cities have to take into consideration when applying for being the
host city of the Olympic Games. Furthermore, the IOC developed special ‘hit squads’, which are used
to control ambush marketing activities at all Olympic venues (Meenaghan, 1996).
4.) Sponsoring both the event and its broadcast
Event owners offer official sponsors the possibility to sponsor both the event and its broadcast. This
prevents the ambushing strategy of sponsoring the broadcast of an event. Because an event owner
does not own all promotional opportunities, a sponsor always has to identify all other potential ways of
competitive promotion and close them off (Meenaghan, 1996).
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
12
2.7 Marketing ethics
According to Fill (2010, p.88) ethical considerations are an inseparable part of real-life marketing
communications. Paying attention to ethical matters is of crucial importance for organisations
conducting their marketing communications: if a company communicates in a way that others find
unethical, it might have negative consequences which can outweigh any functional benefits. Most
familiar ethical concerns include misleading or false advertising (Fill, 2005, p.89). Misrepresentation in
advertising is likely to be rejected by codes of practice, if not by actual regulations (Fill, 2005, p.96).
The American Marketing Association’s statement of ethics states that organisations are responsible
themselves to avoid false, misleading and deceptive promotion. The norms mentioned in this
statement are “established standards of conduct that are expected and maintained by society or
professional organisations” (AMA, 2011). In the next section the ethical concerns related to the
practice of ambush marketing are discussed.
According to Tripodi and Sutherland (2000), ambush marketing depreciates the value of official
sponsorship by reducing the benefits of it. Therefore ambush marketeers pose a serious threat to the
future of sports sponsorship and, as a result, to major sports events in general.
Because of the importance of ambush marketing practice, its ethical aspect has been discussed
extensively. Among sport property owners and official sponsors, the consensus is that it is unethical,
immoral and sometimes illegal (Crompton, 2004). John Bennett, former Visa’s senior vice president of
marketing, once explained: "Ambush marketing implies a connection to an event for which you have
not compensated the owner. There's another word for it: stealing" (O’Sullivan and Murphy, 1998).
Michael Payne, Marketing Director of the IOC, stated that "ambush marketing is not a game. It is a
deadly serious business and one that has the potential to destroy sponsorship. If ambush marketing is
left unchecked, then the fundamental revenue base of sport will be undermined” (Meenaghan, 1994).
Those who engage in ambushing resent the suggestion that it is unethical and state that such
accusations represent ‘self-serving pleading’. They consider it to be creative and healthy business
practice, and an appropriate alternative if the sponsorship-asking price is not within reach of their
promotional budget (Tripodi and Sutherland, 2000). Jerry Welsh, former marketing executive at
American Express, stated that it is a “weak-minded view that competitors have a moral obligation to
step back and allow an official sponsor to reap all the benefits from a special event”. Furthermore he
stated that competitors had “not only a right, but an obligation to shareholders to take advantage of
such events” (Meenaghan, 1996).
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
13
Research on how consumers view the practice of ambush marketing is consistent in terms of
consumer knowledge and personal opinion. Research conducted by Shani and Sandler (1998) on the
Atlanta Olympic Games in 1996 showed that consumers are unconcerned to the practice of ambush
marketing. Only half of the consumers surveyed felt that ambush marketing was unethical and a lesser
number were annoyed by it. Lyberger and McCarthy (2001) examined the perceptions of consumers
regarding the practice of ambush marketing around the 1998 NFL Superbowl competition. They found
out that consumers show a lack of knowledge about the sponsorship of an event. Besides this, they
also showed that consumers seem to be indifferent to the practice of ambush marketing. Research of
Seguin et al. (2005) on the Olympic Games, found out that 88% of the respondents were unaware of
any company trying to represent itself as an official sponsor. Only half of the consumers agreed that “it
was not fair for companies to associate themselves with the Olympics without being an Olympic
sponsor”.
2.8 Attitude towards a brand
Official sponsors and ambushing companies associate themselves with major events in order to
increase brand awareness and to establish, strengthen, or change brand image (Gwinner, 1997).
When a brand becomes associated with an event, some of the associations linked with the event (e.g.
youthful, sophisticated) become linked in memory with the brand (Keller, 1993).
According to Keller (1993) the attitude towards a brand is a component of brand image. Brand image
has been defined as "perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in
memory”. Brand attitudes are defined as “consumers' overall evaluations of a brand” and are important
since they often form the basis for consumer behaviour like brand choice or purchase intentions.
Fill (2005, p.136) states that attitudes are hypothetical constructs. They are learned through past
experiences and serve as a link between thoughts and behaviour. Attitudes can relate to a product
itself, to mass media communications and to information supplied by opinion makers. Classical
psychological theory considers attitudes to consist of three components: (1) cognitive or learn
component, (2) affective or feeling component and (3) conative or action component.
Figure 1: Brand attitude
Cognitive
Affective
Conative
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
14
Cognitive component
The cognitive component refers to the level of knowledge and beliefs held by individuals about a
product or the beliefs about specific attributes of the offering. It represents the learning aspect of
attitude formation. For this research, the impact of the level of knowledge about ambush marketing on
brand attitude will be examined.
Affective component
The affective component is concerned with feelings, sentiments, moods and emotions about a
product. By referring to the feelings held about a product (e.g. good, bad, pleasant, unpleasant) an
evaluation is made about the object. For this research, the feelings held about the brands Bavaria,
Nike and Kodak will be examined.
Conative component
The conative component refers to the individual’s intention to behave in a certain way. This
component refers to observable behaviour. For this research, the purchase intentions of respondents
will be examined.
2.9 Hypotheses
As previously mentioned, research in the field of ambush marketing has shown that consumers have a
lack of knowledge about sponsorship rights and the practice of ambush marketing. Although this
research is somehow outdated, there is no reason to assume that the level of consumers’ knowledge
concerning ambush marketing or sponsorship rights has increased over the past 10 years. This leads
to the first hypothesis:
H1: Consumers’ knowledge about ambush marketing / sponsor rights is low.
Furthermore previous research prevailed that consumers seem to be largely unconcerned and
indifferent to the practice of ambush marketing. It can be argued that this attitude of consumers
towards the practice of ambush marketing is caused by the lack of knowledge. Most consumers do not
exactly know which rights official sponsors have, and therefore they are unable to distinguish official
sponsors from ambushing companies. If consumers know which consequences the practice of
ambush marketing has for event owners and official sponsors, they might consider the practice of
ambush marketing differently. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H2: A higher degree of knowledge about ambush marketing influences the attitude towards the
practice of ambush marketing.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
15
The formation of consumers’ attitude towards a brand consists of a cognitive, affective and conative
component (Fill, 2005, p.136). Since consumers do not fully understand the rights that official
sponsors have, the cognitive component hardly affects the consumers’ attitude towards the brand of
an ambushing company. If consumers are informed about the consequences of the practice of
ambush marketing for event owners and official sponsors, this might influence the attitude towards the
practice ambush marketing. This increased knowledge concerning ambush marketing might in turn
affect the consumers’ attitude towards the brand of an ambushing company. This leads to the
following hypothesis:
H3: The attitude towards ambush marketing affects the attitude towards the brand of an ambushing
company
In the next chapter the method of hypotheses testing is described. It is expected that the knowledge of
consumers concerning ambush marketing and sponsorship rights remains low. This lack of knowledge
is the main reason of the indifferent attitude towards the practice of ambush marketing.
If the consequences of the practice of ambush marketing are indicated, the attitude towards the
practice of ambush marketing might be affected. This is turn might affect the consumers’ attitude
towards the brand of an ambushing company.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
16
3. Research method
3.1 Research design
The purpose of this research is to examine to what extent consumer knowledge about sponsor rights
influences consumers’ attitude towards ambush marketing in general and ambushing brands in
particular. Therefore, this study can be considered to be an explanatory study. In this explanatory
study the emphasis is on the explanation of the relationship between different variables, namely (1)
the level of consumer knowledge of ambush marketing, (2) the attitude towards ambush marketing
and (3) the attitude towards ambushing companies.
For this research an Internet based survey was used. Saunders et al. (2007) define a survey as ‘a
research strategy that involves the structured collection of data from a sizeable population’. The data
collected conducting a survey can be used to suggest possible reasons for relationships between
variables. Since data is collected from a sizeable population, it is possible to generate findings that are
representative for a whole population. This research was conducted in order to generate findings that
are generalisable to the Dutch consumer market. A survey is the appropriate research strategy
allowing this.
3.2 Hypothesized model
On the basis of the theoretical framework a scheme has been developed that will be hypothesized.
Following this framework, the following variables will be added: CURRENT KNOWLEDGE (hypothesis
1), ATTITUDE TOWARDS AMBUSH MARKETING (hypothesis 2) and BRAND ATTITUDE
(hypothesis 3). The hypothesized model as described above is visualized in the illustration below.
Figure 2: Hypothesized model
Knowledge about
ambush marketing
H2
Attitude towards
H2
ambush marketing
Brand attitude
Attitude towards
ambush marketing
H3
Brand attitude
Information about ambush
marketing and specific cases
Nike
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
17
3.3 Questionnaire development
In order to test the hypothesized model, a questionnaire was developed. This questionnaire consisted
of 21 items concerning consumers’ knowledge about sponsorship rights, consumers’ attitude towards
ambush marketing and consumers’ attitude towards the brands Bavaria, Nike and Kodak. The final
version of the questionnaire can be found in appendix A.
Most of the questions used a Likert scale ranging from 1 (“strongly agree”) to 7 (“strongly disagree”).
The Likert scale is a widely used rating scale that requires respondents to indicate how strongly they
agree with a statement or series of statements (Saunders et al., 2007). The advantages of Likert-type
scales are that they are easy to construct and administer, and respondents are familiar with them. This
makes Likert-type scales suitable for Internet surveys.
To determine the consumers’ attitude towards the brands Bavaria, Nike and Kodak, semantic
differential rating scales were used. Respondents were asked to rate a single object or idea on a
series of bipolar rating scales. These types of rating scales are often used in consumer research, in
order to determine underlying attitudes of consumers towards a brand (Saunders et al., 2007).
3.3.1 Pilot testing
Before publishing the questionnaire online, a pilot test was conducted among five respondents. The
purpose of the pilot test was to refine the questionnaire so that respondents will have no problems in
answering the questions and there will be no problems in recording the data (Saunders et al., 2007).
Some changes were made to the first version of the questionnaire, like rephrasing some questions for
the sake of clarity. The respondents of the pilot-test were similar to those who were included in the
final survey.
3.3.2 Consumer knowledge about ambush marketing and sponsor rights
Both Shani and Sandler (1998) and Lyberger and McCarthy (2001) investigated the influence of
consumer knowledge of sponsorship rights on consumers’ attitude towards the practice of ambush
marketing. Both researches showed that consumers have a lack of knowledge about the sponsorship
of events and the potential of ‘ambushing sponsors’. According to both research reports, this lack of
knowledge was the cause of the largely indifferent attitude of consumers towards ambush marketing.
For this research, consumer knowledge about ambush marketing and sponsor rights has been
examined by a combination of the questionnaires of Shani and Sandler (1998) and Lyberger and
McCarthy (2001). Respondents were asked to confirm or deny the six statements mentioned below.
The number of correct responses indicates the current knowledge of consumers concerning sponsor
rights.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
18
Statement
Comment
Any company can use the official logo of the Olympic Games or the
“False” is the correct response
FIFA World Cup.
An Official Sponsor of a team joining the Olympic Games or FIFA
“False” is the correct response
World Cup, has the right to use the official logo of these events.
During the telecast of the Olympic Games or FIFA World Cup only
“False” is the correct response
commercials of Official Sponsors can be shown.
Companies using the official logo of the Olympic Game or the FIFA
“True” is the correct response
World Cup in their advertising, provide additional support to the
event owners for the use of that logo.
Companies that are Official Sponsors of the Olympic Games or the
“False” is the correct response
FIFA World Cup provide a higher level of support than companies
that are Official Partners.
Some companies try to present themselves as Official Sponsors
“True” is the correct response
without paying the fee to be Official Sponsor.
3.3.3 Consumer attitude towards ambush marketing
Given its interest in the phenomenon, the IOC has undertaken several studies of attitudes towards
ambush marketing (IOC, 1997). The results suggested that respondents do not hold companies
ambushing Olympic sponsors in high regard. The IOC showed strong support for the suggestion that
only Olympic sponsors should be allowed to use Olympic messages.
Besides the research conducted by the IOC, Shani and Sandler (1998) and Lyberger and McCarthy
(2001) investigated consumers’ attitude towards the practice of ambush marketing. For this research,
consumers’ attitude towards ambush marketing has been examined by a combination of the
questionnaires of the IOC, Shani and Sandler (1998) and Lyberger and McCarthy (2001).
Respondents were asked to answer four questions. Each of the questions used a Likert scale ranging
from 1 (“strongly agree”) to 7 (“strongly disagree”).
Statement
Strongly agree –
Strongly disagree
Only Official Sponsors of the Olympic Games or FIFA World Cup should be
able to mention these events in their advertising.
It is fair for companies to associate with the Olympic Games or FIFA World
Cup, without being Official Sponsor.
Non-Sponsors of the Olympic Games or the FIFA World Cup should not lead
consumers to believe that they are sponsors of these events.
The practice of associating with the Olympic Games or FIFA World Cup,
without being an Official Sponsor, is unethical.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
19
3.3.4 Attitude towards brands
In order to examine the influence of consumer knowledge of sponsor rights on consumers’ attitude
towards ambush marketing activities, examples of Bavaria, Nike and Kodak were used. First of all,
consumers’ attitude towards these three brands was measured using a semantic differential rating
scale, consisting of seven scale items. To measure attitudes toward the brands, the scale developed
by Peracchio and Meyers-Levy (1994) was used. In order to examine the effects of ambush marketing
during the Olympic Games of 2008, Pitt et al. (2010) also used this scale to measure a consumer’s
evaluation of a brand. The scale consists of seven 7-point semantic differential scale items. Low
scores on each scale suggest that the respondent has a positive evaluation of a particular product or
brand to which they have been exposed.
3.4 Statistical analysis
3.4.1 Schematic overview of questionnaire
The questionnaire used for this thesis consists of three constructs: (1) consumers’ knowledge of
ambush marketing, (2) consumers’ attitude towards the practice of ambush marketing and (3)
consumers’ attitude towards brands. The way every construct is measured, is described above. Figure
3 provides a schematic overview of the different steps of the questionnaire.
Figure 3: Schematic overview of questionnaire
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5
Consumers’
Consumers’
Consumers’
Consumers’
Consumers’
knowledge of
attitude
attitude towards
attitude towards
attitude
AM
towards AM
brands
brands
towards AM
Information about
ambush marketing
First of all, the current level of consumers’ knowledge of ambush marketing was measured by posing
six questions. After that, the consumers’ attitude towards the practice of ambush marketing was
measured by four questions regarding the ethical aspect of ambush marketing. Next, the consumers’
attitude towards the brands Bavaria, Nike and Kodak were measured.
After measuring the respondent’s attitude towards the brands Bavaria, Nike and Kodak, respondents
were asked to read a small text containing explanation about ambush marketing. Furthermore,
examples of ambush marketing campaigns of each of the three brands were given. The text about
ambush marketing and the three examples of Bavaria, Nike and Kodak can be found in appendix A.
By providing this text, the knowledge of participants regarding the phenomenon of ambush marketing
was enlarged.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
20
The consumers’ attitude towards ambushing organisations and ambush marketing in general was
measured another time in order to generate findings about the effect of informing the respondent.
3.4.2 Hypothesis testing
In order to test the three hypotheses, several statistical analyses are conducted. Before testing the
hypotheses, the reliability of the three constructs is measured the reliability coefficient, or Cronbach’s
Alpha. This is defined as the average of all possible split-half reliability coefficients resulting from
different ways of splitting the scale items (Bryman and Cramer, 2009, p.76). The coefficient ranges in
value from 0 to 1, and the nearer the result is to 1, the more internally reliable is the scale. The rule of
thumb is that a result of 0.6 or less indicates unsatisfactory internal consistency reliability (Malhotra &
Birks, 2003).
H1: Consumers’ knowledge about ambush marketing / sponsor rights is low.
The level of consumers’ knowledge about ambush marketing and sponsor rights has been
investigated by Shani & Sandler (1998) and Lyberger & McCarthy (2001). The findings of their
researches are compared to the findings of this research, in order to determine whether the level of
consumer knowledge about ambush marketing has changed over the past decade.
H2: A higher degree of knowledge about ambush marketing influences the attitude towards the
practice of ambush marketing.
In order to find out whether the attitude towards the practice of ambush marketing has changed
significantly as a result of the information that was provided, a paired sample T-test is conducted. This
test compares the means of the same participants in two conditions or at two points in time (Bryman
and Cramer, 2009, p.186). The advantage of using the same participants is that the amount of error
deriving from differences between participants is reduced (Bryman and Cramer, 2009, p.187).
The influence of the level of consumers’ knowledge about ambush marketing on the attitude towards
the practice of ambush marketing is determined by a one-way ANOVA test between the variables
CURRENT KNOWLEDGE and ATTITUDE TOWARDS AMBUSH MARKETING BEFORE.
H3: The attitude towards ambush marketing affects the attitude towards the brand of an ambushing
company
In order to find out whether the attitude towards the brands Bavaria, Nike and Kodak have changed
significantly as a result of the information that was provided, again a paired sample T-test is
conducted.
The influence of the level of consumers’ attitude towards ambush marketing on the attitude towards
the ambushing brands Bavaria, Nike and Kodak is determined by a one-way ANOVA test between the
variables ATTITUDE TOWARDS AMBUSH MARKETING BEFORE and DIFFERENCE BRAND
ATTITUDE.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
21
4. Results
In this chapter, the findings of the empirical research are presented. The data provided by the
questionnaires were analysed using the statistical software application Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS).
4.1 Data collection
The sample in this study consists of Dutch consumers. Therefore, a total of 160 Dutch consumers
were approached to fill in the questionnaire. Of these 160 persons, 105 persons filled in the
questionnaire completely, resulting in a response rate of 65%. The table below provides an overview
of the characteristics of the respondents.
Table 1: Description of respondents
Man
Women
Total
35% (N = 37)
65% (N = 68)
100% (N = 105)
20-25
24% (N = 25)
42% (N = 44)
65,7% (N = 69)
26-30
8,5% (N = 9)
11,5% (N = 12)
20% (N = 21)
51-55
0% (N = 0)
0,9% (N = 1)
0,95% (N = 1)
56-60
0,9% (N = 1)
1,8% (N = 2)
2,8% (N = 3)
61-65
1,8% (N = 2)
2,8% (N = 3)
4,7% (N = 5)
VMBO
0% (N = 0)
0,9% (N = 1)
0,95% (N = 1)
HAVO
1,8% (N = 2)
0% (N = 0)
1,9% (N = 2)
VWO
0,9% (N = 1)
6,5% (N = 7)
7,6% (N = 8)
MBO
0,9% (N = 1)
2,8% (N = 3)
3,8% (N = 4)
HBO
9,5% (N = 10)
9,5% (N = 10)
19% (N = 20)
UNIVERSITY
21,9% (N = 23)
44,7% (N = 47)
66,6% (N = 70)
Gender
Age
Education
The respondents varied in age between 20 and 65 years old. The large majority (65,7%) of the
respondents was between 20 and 25 years old. Furthermore a large portion of the respondents was
female (65%) and had an academic degree (66,6%). The survey was conducted online using the
service of the Dutch website www.thesistools.com.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
22
4.2 Reliability assessment
It is generally accepted that when a concept has been defined, the measurement should be reliable.
Reliability of a measure refers to its consistency (Bryman and Cramer, 2009, p.76).
Prior to testing the hypotheses, reliability analyses were performed on the following constructs: (1) the
attitude towards the practice of ambush marketing before being informed about the phenomenon and
the effects of it, (2) the attitude towards ambush marketing after being informed, (3) the attitude
towards the brands Bavaria, Nike and Kodak before being informed about their ambush campaigns,
(4) the attitude towards these brands after being informed about the ambush campaigns.
4.2.1 Reliability of attitude towards the practice of ambush marketing
The attitude of consumers towards the practice of ambush marketing was measured using four
questions regarding the ethical aspect of the practice of ambush marketing. The table below shows a
Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of 0.653 for the attitude towards ambush marketing before being
informed about the phenomenon and the effects of it.
Table 2: Reliability analysis of attitude towards ambush marketing
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
,653
N of Items
4
Item-Total Statistics
ONLY_SPONSOR_
Scale Mean if
Scale Variance
Corrected Item-
Cronbach's Alpha
Item Deleted
if Item Deleted
Total Correlation
if Item Deleted
9,0381
10,152
,434
,596
10,0000
12,404
,403
,606
10,9429
13,170
,341
,643
9,3048
10,829
,587
,482
ADVERTISEMENT
FAIR_WITHOUT_
SPONSOR
NO_SPONSOR_NO
_BELIEVE
NO_SPONSOR_
UNETHIC
The coefficient of 0.653 indicates that the measure of attitude towards ambush marketing prior to
being informed about the phenomenon is reliable. Furthermore the results of the reliability analysis
indicated that the scale reliability would be reduced if one of the items were removed.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
23
The attitude of consumers towards the practice of ambush marketing was measured another time,
after informing respondents about the phenomenon and specific cases of ambush marketing. The
table below shows a Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of 0,741 for this measure. This points out that the
internal reliability of the four constructs was increased by informing respondents about the
phenomenon of ambush marketing. Again, no items had to be removed in order to increase the
reliability of the scale.
Table 3: Reliability analysis of attitude towards ambush marketing after informing the respondent
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
,741
N of Items
4
Item-Total Statistics
ONLY_SPONSOR_
Scale Mean if
Scale Variance
Corrected Item-
Cronbach's Alpha
Item Deleted
if Item Deleted
Total Correlation
if Item Deleted
9,7048
12,037
,557
,669
10,2571
14,212
,436
,734
10,8857
13,545
,518
,690
10,1810
12,977
,638
,627
ADVERTISEMENT_2
FAIR_WITHOUT_
SPONSOR_2
NO_SPONSOR_NO_
BELIEVE_2
NO_SPONSOR_
UNETHIC_2
4.2.2 Reliability of attitude towards different brands
For this research, the influence of knowledge about ambush marketing on attitude towards a brand is
measured. Therefore, three examples of brands (Bavaria, Nike and Kodak) using ambush marketing
campaigns were given. In order to measure the effect of knowledge on the consumers’ attitude
towards these brands, the attitude towards these brands was measured twice: once before informing
the consumer and once after being informed. The attitude towards the brands was measured using
seven 7-point semantic differential scale items. Table 4 below demonstrates the Cronbach Alpha
coefficients of the attitude towards the three brands before and after being informed about ambush
marketing.
Table 4: Reliability of attitude towards brands
Brand
Cronbach’s Alpha before
Cronbach’s Alpha after
Number of items
Bavaria
0,895
0,904
7
Nike
0,916
0,951
7
Kodak
0,895
0,936
7
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
24
The reliability analyses for the attitude towards the different brands revealed that all measures had an
alpha coefficient exceeding 0,7. This indicates that all measures were highly internally reliable.
Furthermore, none of the items had to be deleted in order to increase the reliability of the scale. The
reliability statistics of every single brand can be found in appendix B.
4.3 Current knowledge about sponsor rights
To determine consumers’ level of knowledge regarding ambush marketing, six questions relating to
the rights of sponsors of the FIFA World Cup or Olympic Games were posed.
Table 5 shows that only a reasonable portion (61%) of the total responses was correct. Ninety-two
percent of the respondents recognized that the logos of the FIFA World Cup and the Olympic Games
are official logos that may be used only with permission of the organizing bodies FIFA and IOC.
However, only one third (34%) of the respondents indicated correctly that being an official sponsor of a
participating team does not mean that you have the right to use the official logo of an event.
Table 5: Sponsor knowledge among respondents
Statement
Correct
Correct response
responses
Any company can use the official logo of the Olympic
92%
“False” is the correct
Games or the FIFA World Cup.
N = 97
response
An Official Sponsor of a team joining the Olympic Games or
34%
“False” is the correct
FIFA World Cup, has the right to use the official logo of
N = 36
response
During the telecast of the Olympic Games or FIFA World
41%
“False” is the correct
Cup only commercials of Official Sponsors can be shown.
N = 44
response
Companies using the official logo of the Olympic Game or
91%
“True” is the correct
the FIFA World Cup in their advertising, provide additional
N = 96
response
Companies that are Official Sponsors of the Olympic
50%
“False” is the correct
Games or the FIFA World Cup provide a higher level of
N = 53
response
Some companies try to present themselves as Official
55%
“True” is the correct
Sponsors without paying the fee to be Official Sponsor.
N = 58
response
Overall
61%
these events.
support to the event owners for the use of that logo.
support than companies that are Official Partners.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
25
According to Meenaghan (1996), a common used ambushing strategy is the purchase of advertising
time in and around event broadcasts. The appropriateness of this strategy is confirmed by the results
of this questionnaire: Only 41% of the sample responded correctly when asked about broadcasting
rights associated with sponsorship. More than half of the respondents (59%) incorrectly believed that
whoever purchased advertising time during the broadcast of the FIFA World Cup or the Olympic
Games is an official sponsor.
A large majority of the respondents (91%) realised that companies using the logo of the FIFA World
Cup or Olympic Games provide additional support to the organising bodies of these events. However,
only half of the respondents (50%) answered correctly when asked about the level of support provided
by Official Sponsors and Official Partners. Finally, a small majority of the respondents (55%)
recognised that companies do attempt the practice of ambushing at major events like the FIFA World
Cup or the Olympic Games.
Although a moderate level of knowledge about sponsor rights was identified, the difference in the
correctly answered questions was remarkable, ranging from 92% to only 34%. These numbers seem
to indicate that significant confusion exists among consumers regarding the rights that official
sponsors of major events have. Table 6 below shows percentages of correctly answered questions.
Only four respondents (3,8% of sample) answered all six questions about ambush marketing correctly,
whereas 11,4% of the respondents was able to only answer two questions correctly. None of the
respondents answered 5 questions or more incorrectly.
Table 6: Knowledge about ambush marketing among respondents
Number of correctly
answered questions
Frequency
Percentage
Cumulative Percent
6
4
3,8%
3,8%
7
16
15,2%
19,0%
8
37
35,2%
54,3%
9
36
34,3%
88,6%
10
12
11,4%
100,0%
Total
105
100,0%
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
26
4.4 Consumer attitude towards ambush marketing
In order to determine consumers’ attitude towards the practice of ambush marketing, four questions
relating to the ethical aspect of ambush marketing were posed. This attitude was measured twice:
once before informing the participant about the phenomenon and specific ambush campaigns, and
once after the participant was informed.
Table 7 below presents the mean scores, standard deviations and percentages of responses to items
used to measure consumer attitudes towards the practice of ambush marketing. Agreement with an
item (those participants responding with a 1, 2 or 3) indicated a belief in ethical sponsorship practices.
Table 7: Attitude towards ambush marketing before being informed
Statement
Only Official Sponsors of the Olympic
Mean
Standard
Level of agreement
(1-7)
deviation
with statement (%)
4.05
1,82
46%
Games or FIFA World Cup should be
(N = 48)
able to mention these events in their
advertising.
It is fair for companies to associate with
3.09
the Olympic Games or FIFA World Cup,
(reverse coded)
1,43
20%
(N = 21)
without being Official Sponsor.
Non-Sponsors of the Olympic Games or
2.15
1,39
the FIFA World Cup should not lead
85,7%
(N = 90)
consumers to believe that they are
sponsors of these events.
The practice of associating with the
3.79
Olympic Games or FIFA World Cup,
1,45
44,8%
(N = 47)
without being an Official Sponsor, is
unethical.
Total
3,27
49%
The results indicate that Dutch consumers are quite indifferent to the practice of ambush marketing.
More than 55% of the respondents do not feel strongly that ambush marketing is unethical. About 54%
does not agree with the statement that only official sponsors of the Olympic Games or FIFA World
Cup should be able to mention these events in their advertising.
On the other hand, participants agreed strongly with the statements 2 and 3. Only 20% of the
respondents feel it is fair for companies to associate with the Olympic Games or FIFA World Cup,
without being official sponsor. About 86% of the respondents agreed with the statement that NonSponsors of the Olympic Games or the FIFA World Cup should not lead consumers to believe that
they are sponsors of these events.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
27
Table 8 presents the mean scores, standard deviations and percentages of responses to items used
to measure consumer attitudes towards the practice of ambush marketing after being informed about
the phenomenon.
Table 8: Attitude towards ambush marketing after being informed
Statement
Only Official Sponsors of the Olympic
Mean
Standard
Level of agreement
(1-7)
deviation
with statement (%)
3.97
1,71
46,7%
Games or FIFA World Cup should be
(N = 49)
able to mention these events in their
advertising.
It is fair for companies to associate with
3.41
the Olympic Games or FIFA World Cup,
(reverse coded)
1,53
30,5%
(N = 32)
without being Official Sponsor.
Non-Sponsors of the Olympic Games or
2.79
1,51
the FIFA World Cup should not lead
73,3%
(N = 77)
consumers to believe that they are
sponsors of these events.
The practice of associating with the
3.50
1,42
Olympic Games or FIFA World Cup,
56,2%
(N = 59)
without being an Official Sponsor, is
unethical.
Total
3,42
54,25%
The results indicate that, after being informed about the phenomenon of ambush marketing and
specific ambush marketing campaigns, Dutch consumers are more indifferent to the practice of
ambush marketing than before.
Although a larger percentage (56,2% instead of 44,8%) of the respondents does feel that ambush
marketing is unethical, less participants agreed strongly with the statements 2 and 3. After being
informed about ambush marketing, only 69,5% of the respondents thought it is unfair when companies
try to associate with the Olympic Games or FIFA World Cup, without being an official sponsor. The
percentage of respondents agreeing with the statement that non-sponsors of the Olympic Games or
the FIFA World Cup should not lead consumers to believe that they are sponsors of these events,
declined from 85,7% to 73,3%. The mean attitude towards the practice of ambush marketing
increased from 3.27 to 3.42, indicating that respondents perceive the practice of ambush marketing
less unethical than before the were informed about the phenomenon.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
28
4.5 Consumer attitude towards brands
In order to measure the effect of knowledge about ambush marketing on the consumers’ attitude
towards different brands, the attitude towards the brands Bavaria, Nike and Kodak were measured
twice. The coefficient of brand attitude ranges in value from 1 to 7, and the nearer the result is to 1, the
more positive is the consumers’ attitude towards a given brand. The table below shows the average
attitudes towards the three brands before being informed about their ambush campaigns. The
statistics of consumer attitude towards every single brand can be found in appendix B.
Table 9: Attitude towards brands before being informed
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Attitude towards Bavaria
1,71
6,28
3,26
Attitude towards Nike
1,00
4,85
2,64
Attitude towards Kodak
1,00
6,00
3,62
The results indicate that consumers’ have the most positive attitude towards the brand Nike. With a
score of 3.62, Kodak consumers seem to have a slightly negative attitude towards the brand Kodak.
Bavaria scores in the middle of these two brands: with a score of 3.26, the attitude of consumers’
towards Bavaria seems to be quite indifferent.
Table 10 shows the average attitudes towards the three brands after being informed about their
ambush campaigns. The statistics of consumer attitude towards every single brand can be found in
appendix B.
Table 10: Attitude towards brands after being informed
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Attitude towards Bavaria
1,00
5,42
2,97
Attitude towards Nike
1,00
6,14
2,67
Attitude towards Kodak
1,00
6,00
3,58
The results indicate that consumers, after being informed about specific ambush marketing
campaigns, still have the most positive attitude towards the brand Nike (2,67) and the most negative
attitude towards Kodak (3,58). Although people have the most positive attitude towards Nike, the
attitude towards Bavaria became more positive due to the information that was provided to the
respondents. The mean attitude towards Bavaria increased from 3,26 to 2,97.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
29
4.6 Hypothesis testing
4.6.1 Hypothesis 1
H1: Consumers’ knowledge about ambush marketing / sponsor rights is low.
In 1998 and 2001, respectively Shani & Sandler and Lyberger & McCarthy investigated the level of
consumers’ knowledge about ambush marketing and sponsor rights. The findings of their results were
almost similar: the overall percentages of correct responses were 63% and 62%. For this research,
respondents answered 61% of the questions about sponsor rights correctly. Furthermore the results of
the three surveys show that most of the consumers know that only official sponsors can use the official
logo of the Olympic Games or the FIFA World Cup, and that companies using the official logo of the
Olympic Game or the FIFA World Cup in their advertising, provide additional support to the event
owners for the use of that logo. Confusion among respondents exists with respect to broadcasting
rights, the difference between Official Sponsors and Official Partners and the existence of ambush
marketing in general. Table 11 demonstrates the different percentages of the three researches.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
30
Table 11: Level of consumer knowledge
Statement
Any company can use the official logo
Correct
Correct responses
Correct responses
responses
Shani & Sandler
Lyberger & McCarthy
92%
86,5%
83%
34%
-
44%
41%
66,4%
60%
91%
-
78%
50%
37%
66%
55%
64,5%
53%
61%
63%
62%
of the Olympic Games or the FIFA
World Cup.
An Official Sponsor of a team joining
the Olympic Games or FIFA World
Cup, has the right to use the official
logo of these events.
During the telecast of the Olympic
Games or FIFA World Cup only
commercials of Official Sponsors can
be shown.
Companies using the official logo of
the Olympic Game or the FIFA World
Cup
in
their
advertising,
provide
additional support to the event owners
for the use of that logo.
Companies that are Official Sponsors
of the Olympic Games or the FIFA
World Cup provide a higher level of
support
than
companies
that
are
Official Partners.
Some
companies
themselves
as
try
Official
to
present
Sponsors
without paying the fee to be Official
Sponsor.
Overall
On the basis of these figures, both Shani & Sandler and Lyberger & McCarthy concluded that
consumers’ knowledge about ambush marketing and sponsor rights is low. According to both
researches, the practice of ambush marketing still exists because of this lack of knowledge and
confusion about sponsors and their contribution to the sponsored event. This research does not
provide any reason to claim that the level of consumers’ knowledge about sponsor rights has
increased over time. Therefore, hypothesis 1 is accepted: Consumers’ knowledge about ambush
marketing and sponsor rights remains low.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
31
4.6.2 Hypothesis 2
H2: A higher degree of knowledge about ambush marketing influences the attitude towards the
practice of ambush marketing.
In order to test whether the level of consumer knowledge about ambush marketing influences the
consumers’ attitude towards the practice of ambush marketing, a one-way ANOVA test was conducted
between the variables KNOWLEDGE and ATTITUDE. Since the significance of this test is much larger
than α = 0.05, the results show that the level of consumer knowledge does not influence the attitude
towards ambush marketing at all.
Table 12: ANOVA test KNOWLEDGE and ATTITUDE
ANOVA
ATTITUDE_TOTAL
Sum of Squares
Between Groups
df
Mean Square
40,334
4
10,083
Within Groups
1888,714
100
18,887
Total
1929,048
104
F
,534
Sig.
,711
The influence of consumer knowledge about ambush marketing on the attitude towards ambush
marketing was additionally tested by comparing the attitudes towards ambush marketing before and
after informing the respondents. Table 13 shows the different values of consumers’ attitude towards
ambush marketing before and after being informed.
Table 13: Consumers’ attitude towards ambush marketing before and after informing the respondent
Minimum
Attitude towards ambush
Maximum
Mean
1,00
6,00
3,27
1,00
6,00
3,42
marketing before information
Attitude towards ambush
marketing after information
Difference in attitude towards
-0,15
ambush marketing
The results of this comparison indicate that, due to the information about ambush marketing that was
given, the attitude of consumers towards the practice of ambush marketing was barely influenced.
Consumers regard the practice of ambush marketing a little more unethical. The total attitude towards
ambush marketing increased from 3,27 to 3,42.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
32
In order to find out whether the attitude towards the practice of ambush marketing has changed
significantly as a result of the information that was provided, a paired sample T-test is conducted
between the subjects ATTITUDE TOWARDS AMBUSH MARKETING BEFORE and ATTITUDE
TOWARDS AMBUSH MARKETING AFTER.
Table 14: Correlation between variables
Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 ATTITUDE_TOTAL & ATTITUDE_TOTAL_2
105
,629 ,000
Table 15: Paired sample T-test of difference in attitude towards ambush marketing
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Mean
Pair 1 ATTITUDE1
-,58095
Std.
Std. Error
Deviation
Mean
3,86747
Interval of the
Sig.
Difference
(2-
Lower
,37743 -1,32940
Upper
t
df
,16750 -1,539 104
tailed)
,127
ATTITUDE2
Table 14 demonstrates that there is a significant positive correlation (0.629, α = 0.000) between the
attitude towards ambush marketing before and after being informed. However, table 15 indicates that
the significance value is approaching significance (α = 0.127), but it is not a significant difference. This
means there is no significant difference between the attitude towards ambush marketing before and
after being informed.
In order to find out whether the influence of information about ambush marketing on the attitude
towards ambush marketing differs among consumers, three one-way ANOVA tests were conducted
between the following subjects: (1) GENDER and DIFFERENCE IN ATTITUDE, (2) AGE and
DIFFERENCE IN ATTITUDE and (3) EDUCATION and DIFFERENCE IN ATTITUDE.
Table 16: Results of ANOVA tests (dependent variable: Difference in attitude towards ambush marketing)
Independent variable
Dependent variable
Significance
Gender
Difference in attitude
0,331
Age
Difference in attitude
0,012
Education
Difference in attitude
0,698
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
33
The results of these tests show that “age” is the only factor influencing the attitude towards ambush
marketing significantly (α = 0,012). Remarkably, information about the phenomenon of ambush
marketing does not seem to influence the attitude towards ambush marketing of respondents with an
age between 20 and 25 years old (mean difference of only 0,029). However, due to the information
about ambush marketing, respondents with an age between 26 and 30 years regard the practice of
ambush marketing more unethical: the information lead to a negative difference of 0,509.
Respondents with an age between 56 and 60 years seem to be most sensitive for information about
ambush marketing: this lead to a negative difference of 1,3325. In contrast, due to the information
about ambush marketing, respondents with an age between 61 and 65 years old regard the practice of
ambush marketing more ethical.
Table 17: Difference in attitude towards ambush marketing per group of age
Age
Mean difference attitude
towards ambush marketing
20 – 25
0,00725
26 – 30
-0,509
56 – 60
-1,3325
61 – 65
0,5
The goal of this section is to test whether the level of consumer knowledge about ambush marketing
influences the attitude towards the practice of ambush marketing. The results of both the ANOVA test
and the comparison of the attitudes towards ambush marketing before and after informing the
respondent, show that a higher degree of knowledge about ambush marketing does not influence the
attitude towards the practice of ambush marketing. Therefore, hypothesis 2 is rejected: A higher
degree of knowledge about ambush marketing does not influence the attitude towards the practice of
ambush marketing.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
34
4.6.3 Hypothesis 3
H3: The attitude towards ambush marketing affects the attitude towards the brand of an ambushing
company.
In order to find out whether the attitude towards the ambushing brands Bavaria, Nike and Kodak has
changed significantly as a result of the information that was provided, a paired sample T-test is
conducted between the subjects ATTITUDE TOWARDS BRAND BEFORE and ATTITUDE
TOWARDS BRAND AFTER.
Table 18: Correlation between variables
Paired Samples Correlations
N
Pair 1
MEAN_BA_BAVARIA_BEFORE &
Correlation Sig.
105
,667 ,000
105
,757 ,000
105
,489 ,000
MEAN_BA_BAVARIA_AFTER
Pair 2
MEAN_BA_NIKE_BEFORE &
MEAN_BA_NIKE_AFTER
Pair 3
MEAN_BA_KODAK_BEFORE &
MEAN_BA_KODAK_AFTER
Table 19: Paired sample T-test of difference in attitude towards ambush marketing
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Mean
Pair 1 MEAN_BAVARIA
Std.
Std.
Interval of the
Deviatio
Error
Difference
n
Mean
Lower
2,00952 5,27785
,51507
-,20952 4,80123
,46855 -1,13868
Upper
Sig. (2t
df
,98813 3,03092 3,901 104
tailed)
,000
BEFORE –
MEAN
BAVARIA_AFTER
Pair 2 MEAN_NIKE
,71963 -,447 104
,656
BEFORE
MEAN _NIKE_
AFTER
Pair 3 MEAN_KODAK_
,31429 6,57108
,64127
-,95738 1,58595
,490 104
,625
BEFORE MEAN_KODAK_
AFTER
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
35
Table 18 showes that there is a significant positive correlation (0.629, 0.757 and 0.489, α = 0.000)
between the attitude towards the brands Bavaria, Nike and Kodak before and after being informed.
Table 19 indicates that the significance value is only significant (α = 0.000) for the brand Bavaria. This
means there is no significant difference between the attitude towards Nike and Kodak before and after
being informed. The information that was given to the participants significantly influenced the attitude
towards Bavaria positively.
In order to test whether the attitude towards ambush marketing influences the attitude towards brands
practicing ambushing tactics, a one-way ANOVA test was conducted between the subjects ATTITUDE
BEFORE and DIFFERENCE BRAND ATTITUDE. The attitude towards the brands Bavaria, Nike and
Kodak were measured twice. The table below gives an overview of the differences in attitudes towards
the brands Bavaria, Nike and Kodak.
Table 20: Difference in attitude towards brands due to being informed
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Difference attitude towards Bavaria
-1,28
4,14
0,287
Difference attitude towards Nike
-2,00
1,42
-0,030
Difference attitude towards Kodak
-2,28
3,00
0,045
As was already mentioned in paragraph 4.5, the attitude towards both Bavaria and Kodak were
influenced positively due to the information about the ambushing campaigns of these brands. The
attitude towards Nike was influenced slightly negatively (difference of -0,030). The three tables below
provide the results of the ANOVA tests of every single brand.
Table 21: Influence of attitude towards ambush marketing on brand attitude Bavaria
ANOVA
DIFFERENCE_BAVARIA_BA
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
Between Groups
1135,687
19
59,773
Within Groups
1761,304
85
20,721
Total
2896,990
104
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
F
2,885
Sig.
,000
36
Table 22: Influence of attitude towards ambush marketing on brand attitude Nike
ANOVA
DIFFERENCE_NIKE_BA
Sum of Squares
Between Groups
df
Mean Square
636,764
19
33,514
Within Groups
1760,626
85
20,713
Total
2397,390
104
F
1,618
Sig.
,070
Table 23: Influence of attitude towards ambush marketing on brand attitude Kodak
ANOVA
DIFFERENCE_KODAK_BA
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
Between Groups
1368,190
19
72,010
Within Groups
3122,439
85
36,735
Total
4490,629
104
F
1,960
Sig.
,019
The results of these tests indicate that the attitudes towards the brands Bavaria and Kodak are
influenced significantly by the attitude of consumers towards ambush marketing (α = 0,000 and α =
0,019). However, if a closer look is taken on these figures, it can be concluded that no conclusions
can be drawn concerning the influence of attitude towards ambush marketing on brand attitude. The
relationship between the attitude towards ambush marketing and brand attitudes can be explained by
the large number of different attitudes towards ambush marketing (ranging from 7 to 24). This large
number of different attitudes causes lot of different scores. However, there is no relationship between
the attitude towards ambush marketing and the difference in brand attitude.
In order to find out whether the difference in brand attitudes differs among groups of respondents,
one-way ANOVA tests are conducted between the difference in attitudes towards a brand and
respectively age, gender and education. These tests provide the following results:
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
37
Table 24: One-way ANOVA Age – Difference in attitude towards brands
ANOVA
Sum of Squares
DIFFERENCE_ Between Groups
BAVARIA_BA
4
37,534
Within Groups
2746,855
100
27,469
Total
2896,990
104
329,872
4
82,468
Within Groups
2067,519
100
20,675
Total
2397,390
104
218,745
4
54,686
Within Groups
4271,884
100
42,719
Total
4490,629
104
DIFFERENCE_ Between Groups
KODAK_BA
Mean Square
150,136
DIFFERENCE_ Between Groups
NIKE_BA
df
F
Sig.
1,366
,251
3,989
,055
1,280
,283
F
Sig.
Table 25: One-way ANOVA Gender – Difference in attitude towards brands
ANOVA
Sum of Squares
DIFFERENCE_ Between Groups
BAVARIA_BA
1
65,601
Within Groups
2831,389
103
27,489
Total
2896,990
104
154,030
1
154,030
Within Groups
2243,360
103
21,780
Total
2397,390
104
403,847
1
403,847
Within Groups
4086,782
103
39,677
Total
4490,629
104
DIFFERENCE_ Between Groups
KODAK_BA
Mean Square
65,601
DIFFERENCE_ Between Groups
NIKE_BA
df
2,386
,025
7,072
,009
10,178
,002
Table 26: One-way ANOVA Education – Difference in attitude towards brands
ANOVA
Sum of Squares
DIFFERENCE_ Between Groups
BAVARIA_BA
5
32,198
Within Groups
2736,000
99
27,636
Total
2896,990
104
54,415
5
10,883
Within Groups
2342,975
99
23,666
Total
2397,390
104
159,132
5
31,826
Within Groups
4331,496
99
43,752
Total
4490,629
104
DIFFERENCE_ Between Groups
KODAK_BA
Mean Square
160,990
DIFFERENCE_ Between Groups
NIKE_BA
df
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
F
Sig.
1,165
,332
,460
,805
,727
,604
38
The results of the three ANOVA tests show that differences in attitudes towards brands, due to
information about ambush campaigns, differ significantly between male and female respondents (α =
0.025, α = 0.009 and α = 0.002). The table below shows the differences in attitude towards the brands
Bavaria, Nike and Kodak between male and female respondents.
Table 27: Mean differences in attitudes towards brands
Gender
Mean difference attitude
Mean difference attitude
Mean difference attitude
towards Bavaria
towards Nike
towards Kodak
Male
0,440
0,205
0,425
Female
0,203
-0,158
-0,162
The results show that information about a brand’s ambushing tactics does influence the brand attitude
of male respondents positively. Due to the information concerning ambushing campaigns of the
brands Bavaria, Nike and Kodak the attitude of male respondents towards these brands became more
positive (respectively 0.440, 0.205 and 0.425).
The results of female respondents are less consistent: due to the information about ambushing
campaigns, the attitude of female respondents towards Bavaria was influenced positively (0.203).
Although the attitude of female respondents was influenced positively, it was influenced less positively
compared to the attitude of male respondents. Furthermore, the attitude of female respondents
towards the brands Nike and Kodak was influenced negatively (-0.158 and -0.162).
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
39
5. Conclusion
5.1 Summary of the findings
5.1.1 Current knowledge about sponsor rights
This research indicated that the level of consumer knowledge about ambush marketing and sponsor
rights has not changed over the years and therefore remains low. The large majority of the
respondents do know that the logos of the FIFA World Cup and the Olympic Games are official logos
that may be used only with permission of the organizing bodies FIFA and IOC. Furthermore, most of
the respondents were aware of the fact that companies using the logo of the FIFA World Cup or
Olympic Games provide additional support to the organising bodies of these events.
However, the results showed that significant confusion among consumers exists regarding
broadcasting rights and the rights that official sponsors of major events have. More than half of the
respondents incorrectly believe that being an official sponsor of a participating team means that you
have the right to use the official logo of that particular event. The importance of advertising time during
the broadcast of the FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games was underlined once more: most
respondents believe that whoever purchased advertising time during the broadcast of the FIFA World
Cup or the Olympic Games is an official sponsor. Another remarkable finding was the fact that, even
after the commotion in the Dutch press about Bavaria and its “Dutch Dress”, more than half of the
respondents do not seem to know about the existence of the practice of ambush marketing.
5.1.2 Consumer attitude towards ambush marketing
The results of this research indicate that Dutch consumers are quite indifferent to the practice of
ambush marketing. More than half of the respondents do not feel strongly that ambush marketing is
unethical and do not agree that only official sponsors of the Olympic Games or FIFA World Cup
should be able to mention these events in their advertising. On the other hand, respondents feel it is
unfair for companies to associate with the Olympic Games or FIFA World Cup, without being official
sponsor.
After being informed about the phenomenon of ambush marketing and specific ambush marketing
campaigns, Dutch consumers seemed to be even more indifferent to the practice of ambush
marketing than before. This indicates that the level of knowledge about ambush marketing does not or
hardly influence consumers’ attitude towards ambush marketing.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
40
5.1.3 Influence of knowledge about ambush marketing on brand attitude
After being informed about ambush campaigns of specific brands, the attitude of male respondents
towards these brands was influenced positively. The attitude of female respondents towards Bavaria
was influenced positively, whereas the attitude towards the brands Nike and Kodak was influenced
negatively due to the information about these campaigns. This indicates that female consumers do not
have a strong consistent attitude towards ambush marketing: the influence of information about
ambush marketing on the brand attitude depends on the brand itself and the specific ambushing
campaign.
5.2 Managerial implications
This research was conducted to find out to what extent consumers’ knowledge about the effects of
ambush marketing does influence consumers’ brand attitude towards ambushing companies. The
results of this research are useful for both organising bodies like the IOC and FIFA, in their search for
strategies to counter ambushing campaigns, and marketeers in their search for effective marketing
strategies.
The results of this research were threefold: (1) the level of consumer knowledge about ambush
marketing and sponsor rights has not changed over the years and therefore remains low, (2) Dutch
consumers are indifferent to the practice of ambush marketing and (3) the attitude of male Dutch
consumers towards ambushing brands is influenced positively when they are informed about this
ambushing campaign. The implications for both event owners and marketeers will be given below.
5.2.1 Informing consumers as a way to counter ambushing campaigns
Since governments and legal systems do not protect event organisers and official sponsors sufficiently
against ambush marketing activities, these parties themselves have developed a range of counter
strategies like the use of unique logos and brand names, clear exclusivity agreements and protection
committees (Meenaghan,1994 and Lagae, 2005, p.339).
All strategies mentioned above focus on fencing off rights of official sponsors. Currently, there are no
counter strategies that are focused on the consumer. The fact that the level of consumer knowledge
regarding sponsor rights has remained low over the years and the fact that the attitude of consumers
towards ambush marketing seems to remain largely indifferent, indicate that event organisers and
official sponsors should stick to legal restraints in order to counter ambushing strategies. Consumers
are still not able to recognise the difference between official and ambushing sponsors, so it will cost a
large amount of time and money to inform them. Even if consumers do recognise the practice of
ambush marketing of a specific brand, in most cases their attitude towards this brand is influenced
positively.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
41
5.2.2 Ambush marketing as effective marketing instrument
There are many examples of ambushing campaigns supporting the argument that ambush marketing
can be an effective instrument to influence the brand attitude of consumers. The results of this
research confirm this statement once more. First of all, the level of consumer knowledge regarding
ambush marketing is low and confusion exists regarding broadcasting rights of official sponsors. Most
consumers incorrectly believe that sponsors of a participating team are also sponsors of the event.
Furthermore, consumers do not seem to be able to distinguish official sponsors from other advertisers
during the broadcast of the event. Both findings indicate that existing ambushing strategies are still
effective: by sponsoring a team instead of an event, the sponsor of this team will be associated as
official sponsor of the event. The effect of this strategy is optimized when the sponsorship is backed
with a television campaign. By advertising during the broadcast of the event, consumers will associate
the brand as official sponsor of the event.
Another important and remarkable finding of this research, is the fact that the attitude of male
respondents towards ambushing brands is influenced positively when they are informed about the
specific campaign. This indicates that, in order to be effective, male consumers should be informed
about the ambushing aspect of a specific campaign. A marginal comment regarding this statement
has to be made: Since ambushing brands do not present themselves as “unofficial sponsor”,
consumers can not always be informed about the ambushing aspect of a campaign. However,
sometimes there is an opportunity to do so. An example of this is the “Dutch Dress” of Bavaria during
the FIFA World Cup 2010 in South Africa. Due to the arrest of the Dutch girls wearing the orange
dresses in the stadium, this campaign gained global attention whereby consumers where informed
about the ambushing aspect.
5.3 Limitations and directions for future research
5.3.1 Generalisability
There are some limitations to the present study. The first concern relates to the generalisability of the
research findings. Since this research was conducted among Dutch consumers, the research findings
are not generalisable to other nationalities. It might however be interesting to find out whether there
are differences between nationalities with regard to their attitude towards ambush marketing, since
ambush marketing occurs at an international level. In order to generate findings that are generalisable,
research should be conducted among different nationalities.
Another restriction to the generalisability of the research findings relates to the number of events. For
this research only examples of the FIFA World Cup and Olympic Games were used. There are
however examples of ambushing campaigns during events like the Formula 1 racing competition the
Rugby World Cup. In order to generate research findings that are generalisable to all kind of sports
events, a larger number of different sports events should be part of the research.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
42
5.3.2 Measurement during event
For this research, respondents filled in the questionnaire between January and February of 2011. The
examples of ambush marketing during the FIFA World Cup and Olympic Games, that were described
in the questionnaire, date back to 2010, 2006 and even 1984. It can be argued that results are
different when research is conducted during one of these events. Consumers might be more aware of
sponsorship during the event and their attitude might therefore be less indifferent.
Another advantage of conducting research to the effects of ambush marketing during the event itself,
is the fact that it can be investigated whether consumers are able to distinguish official sponsors from
ambushing brands. This enables the researcher to examine the effectiveness of different ambushing
campaigns.
5.3.3 Involvement with the event
This research indicates that the attitude of consumers towards the practice of ambush marketing is
largely indifferent. An interesting issue relating to the attitude of consumers towards the practice of
ambush marketing is the influence of involvement with a certain event. It can be argued that
involvement with a certain event does influence one’s attitude towards ambush marketing around this
event. In order to find out whether involvement with an event does influence consumers’ attitude
towards ambush marketing and the influence on brand attitude, involvement should be measured and
included in the research.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
43
References
Articles
Crow, D. and Hoek, J. (2003). Ambush Marketing: A Critical Review and Some Practical Advice.
Marketing Bulletin, 14, pp. 1-14.
Crompton, J.L. (2004). Sponsorship Ambushing in Sport. Managing Leisure, 9, pp. 1-12.
Farrelly, F., Quester, P. and Greyser, S.A. (2005). Defending the Co- Branding Benefits of
Sponsorship B2B Partnerships: The Case of Ambush Marketing. Journal of Advertising Research,
45 (3), pp. 339-348.
Gwinner, K. (1997). A model of image creation and image transfer in event sponsorship. International
Marketing Review, 14 (3), pp. 145-158.
Hartland, T. and Skinner, H. (2005). What is being done to deter ambush marketing? Are these
attempts working? International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 6 (4), pp. 231-241.
Keller, K.L. (1993). Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity.
Journal of Marketing, 57, pp. 1-22.
Kendall, C. and Curthoys, J. (2001). Ambush Marketing and the Sydney 2000 Games Protection Act:
A Retrospective. Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, 8 (2), pp. 1-29.
Lyberger, M. and McCarthy, L. (2001). An Assessment of Consumer Knowledge of, Interest in, and
Perceptions of Ambush Marketing Strategies. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 10 (3), pp. 130-137.
Madrigal, R., Bee, C. and LaBarge, M. (2005). Using the Olympics and FIFA World Cup to Enhance
Global Brand Equity. Global Sports Sponsorship, pp. 179 -190.
Martin, E. and Polivka, A. E. (1995). Diagnostics for redesigning survey questionnaires – measuring
work in the current population survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 59 (4), pp. 547-564.
McKelvey, S. (1994). Sans Legal Restraint, No Stopping Brash, Creative Ambush Marketeers.
Brandweek, 35 (24), p. 20.
Meenaghan, T. (1983). Commercial sponsorship, European Journal of Marketing, 7 (7), pp. 5-73.
Meenaghan, T. (1994). Point of View: Ambush marketing – Immoral or Imaginative Practice? Journal
of Advertising Research, 34 (3), pp. 77-88.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
44
Meenaghan, T. (1996). Ambush marketing: A Threat to Corporate Sponsorship. Sloan Management
Review, pp. 103-113.
Meenaghan, T. (1998). Ambush marketing: Corporate strategy and consumer reaction. Psychology
and Marketing, 15 (4), pp. 305-322.
O’Sullivan, P. and Murphy, P. (1998). Ambush Marketing: The Ethical Issues. Psychology and
Marketing, 15 (4), pp. 349–366.
Pitt, L., Parent, M., Berthon, P. and Steyn, P.G. (2010). Event Sponsorship and Ambush Marketing:
Lessons from the Beijing Olympics. Business Horizons, 53, pp. 281-290.
Rafiq, M. and Ahmed, P.K. (1995). Using the 7Ps as a Generic Marketing Mix: An Exploratory Survey
of UK and European Marketing Academics. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 13 (9), pp. 4-15.
Seguin, B., Lyberger, M., O’Reilly, N. and McCarthy, L. (2005). Internationalising Ambush Marketing:
A Comparative Study. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 6 (4), pp. 216-230.
Sandler, D.M. and Shani, D. (1989). Olympic Sponsorship vs “ambush” marketing: Who gets the gold?
Journal of Advertising Research, 29, pp. 9-14.
Shani, D. and Sandler, D.M. (1998). Ambush marketing: Is confusion to blame for the flickering of the
flame? Psychology and Marketing, 15 (4), pp. 367-383.
Townley, S., Harrington, D. and Couchman, N. (1998). The Legal and Practical Prevention of Ambush
Marketing in Sports. Psychology & Marketing, 15 (4), pp. 333–348.
Tripodi, J.A. and Sutherland, M. (2000). Ambush marketing – ‘An Olympic event’. The Journal of
Brand Management, 7 (6), pp. 412-422.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
45
Books
st
Amis, J. and Cornwell, T.B. (2005). Global sports sponsorship. Berg, 1 edition.
Baines, P., Fill, C. and Page, K. (2011). Marketing. Oxford University Press, 2
nd
edition.
Bryman, A. and Cramer, D. (2009). Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS 14, 15 & 16. A Guide for
Social Scientists. Routledge.
Fill, C. (2005). Marketing Communications: Engagements, Strategies and Practice. Prentice Hall, 4
th
edition.
th
Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. (2010). Principles of Marketing. Pearson, 13 edition.
Lagae, W. (2005). Sports Sponsorship and Marketing Communications – A European Perspective.
Prentice Hall: FT.
rd
Malhotra, N.K. and Birks, D.F. (2003). Marketing Research: An Applied Approach. 3 edition. Harlow:
Prentice Hall/Pearson Education.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2007). Research Methods for Business Students. Harlow:
Prentice Hall/Pearson Education.
Websites
IEG Sponsorship Report 2009. (2009). IEG. Retrieved September 25, 2010 from
www.sponsorship.com
IEG Sponsorship Report 2010. (2010). IEG. Retrieved September 25, 2010 from
www.sponsorship.com
FIFA. (2010). Retrieved October 13, 2011 from
www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/marketing/marketing/rightsprotection/index.html
"2006 FIFA World Cup broadcast wider, longer and farther than ever before". FIFA. Retrieved October
13, 2010 from www.fifa.com
Ford. (2010). Retrieved April 10, 2011 from www.ford.co.uk/Sports-and-Activities/
UEFAChampionsLeague
“Nike ambushes official world cup sponsors”. The Nielsen Company. Retrieved November 6, 2010,
from blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/nike-ambushes-official-world-cup-sponsors/
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
46
Parsons, R. (2010, June 10). “FIFA hits back at Bavaria after ambush marketing stunt”. Marketing
Week. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from www.marketingweek.co.uk/news/fifa-hits-back-at-bavariaafter-ambush-marketing-stunt/3014780.article
Ringelestijn, van, T. (2009, March 6). “Sportkoepel verbiedt reclames Svencouver”. Retrieved
November 6, 2010 from webwereld.nl/nieuws/56456/sportkoepel-verbiedt-reclames-svencouvernl.html
“Sponsors in rij voor Olympische Spelen”. (2010, 29 July). Retrieved October 6, 2010 from
www.rtl.nl/(/financien/rtlz/nieuws/)/components/financien/rtlz/2010/weken_2010/30/0729_1415_spons
ors_in_de_rij_voor_olympische_spelen.xml
“Statement of Ethics”. American Marketing Association. Retrieved on April 10, 2011 from
www.marketingpower.com/AboutAMA/Pages/StatementofEthics.aspx
“The IOC in four dimensions”. IOC. Retrieved on October 7, 2010 from http://www.olympic.org/ioc
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
47
APPENDIX A: Questionnaire
Beste deelnemer,
Alvast bedankt dat je wilt meewerken aan mijn onderzoek! Deze vragenlijst is onderdeel van mijn
scriptie ter afronding van de master Business Studies aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Hiervoor
onderzoek ik de effecten van ambush marketing. Wat dit precies is, wordt tijdens de enquête
uitgelegd.
Groeten, Rein Hendriks
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------De volgende 6 vragen worden gesteld om jouw kennis van sponsoring te meten. Het is de
bedoeling dat je de vraag leest en direct daarna antwoordt. Het gaat namelijk om jouw eerste
ingeving.
1.) Het officiële logo van de Olympische Spelen of de FIFA World Cup mag door ieder bedrijf of merk
gebruikt worden.
O Waar
O Onwaar
2.) Een officiële sponsor van een team dat deelneemt aan de Olympische Spelen of de FIFA World
Cup, heeft het recht om het officiële logo van deze evenementen te gebruiken.
O Waar
O Onwaar
3.) Tijdens uitzendingen van de Olympische Spelen of de FIFA World Cup mogen alléén commercials
van officiële sponsors van deze evenementen worden uitgezonden.
O Waar
O Onwaar
4.) Bedrijven die het officiële logo van de Olympische Spelen of de FIFA World Cup in hun reclameuiting gebruiken, betalen het IOC of de FIFA voor het gebruik van dit logo.
O Waar
O Onwaar
5.) Bedrijven die Officieel Sponsor van de Olympische Spelen of de FIFA World Cup zijn, betalen een
groter bedrag aan sponsorrechten dan bedrijven die Officieel Partner zijn.
O Waar
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
48
O Onwaar
6.) Sommige bedrijven presenteren zich als officiële sponsor van de Olympische Spelen of de FIFA
World Cup, zonder dat zij hiervoor sponsorrechten aan het IOC of de FIFA betalen.
O Waar
O Onwaar
De volgende 5 vragen gaan over jouw mening ten aanzien van sponsoring. Het is de bedoeling
dat je de vraag leest en direct daarna antwoordt. Het gaat om jouw mening, geen antwoord is
goed of fout.
7.) Alléén bedrijven die de Olympische Spelen of de FIFA World Cup sponsoren, zouden in hun
advertenties iets over deze evenementen mogen vermelden.
Helemaal mee eens O O O O O O O Helemaal mee oneens
8.) Het is eerlijk dat bedrijven zich met de Olympische Spelen of de FIFA World Cup associëren,
zonder dat zij deze evenementen sponsoren.
Helemaal mee eens O O O O O O O Helemaal mee oneens
9.) Bedrijven die geen sponsor van de Olympische Spelen of de FIFA World Cup zijn, zouden
consumenten niet mogen laten geloven dat zij deze evenementen sponsoren.
Helemaal mee eens O O O O O O O Helemaal mee oneens
10.) Een bedrijf dat geen officiële sponsor is van de Olympische Spelen of de FIFA World Cup, en zich
wel met deze evenementen associeert, is onethisch bezig.
Helemaal mee eens O O O O O O O Helemaal mee oneens
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
49
Op deze pagina wordt jouw houding ten aanzien van de merken Bavaria, Nike en Kodak
gemeten. Geef a.u.b. aan wat voor jou het meest van toepassing is. Het gaat om jouw eerste
ingeving, geen antwoord is goed of fout.
11.) Bavaria
Zeer goed
OOOOOOO
Zeer slecht
Zeer onderscheidend
OOOOOOO
Zeer algemeen
Zeer positief
OOOOOOO
Zeer negatief
Hou ik heel erg van
OOOOOOO
Hou ik helemaal niet van
Zeer aantrekkelijk
OOOOOOO
Zeer onaantrekkelijk
Zeer interessant
OOOOOOO
Zeer saai
Zeer sterk
OOOOOOO
Zeer zwak
Zeer goed
OOOOOOO
Zeer slecht
Zeer onderscheidend
OOOOOOO
Zeer algemeen
Zeer positief
OOOOOOO
Zeer negatief
Hou ik heel erg van
OOOOOOO
Hou ik helemaal niet van
Zeer aantrekkelijk
OOOOOOO
Zeer onaantrekkelijk
Zeer interessant
OOOOOOO
Zeer saai
Zeer sterk
OOOOOOO
Zeer zwak
Zeer goed
OOOOOOO
Zeer slecht
Zeer onderscheidend
OOOOOOO
Zeer algemeen
Zeer positief
OOOOOOO
Zeer negatief
Hou ik heel erg van
OOOOOOO
Hou ik helemaal niet van
Zeer aantrekkelijk
OOOOOOO
Zeer onaantrekkelijk
Zeer interessant
OOOOOOO
Zeer saai
Zeer sterk
OOOOOOO
Zeer zwak
12.) Nike
13.) Kodak
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
50
Middels deze scriptie wil ik de houding van consumenten ten aanzien van “ambush marketing”
meten. Hierna volgt een uitleg over het begrip “ambush marketing”. Ik wil je vragen deze uitleg
aandachtig door te lezen. Daarna volgen 3 voorbeelden van ambush marketing acties van
Bavaria, Nike en Kodak. Dit alles zal maximaal 5 minuten in beslag nemen.
Sponsoring
Bekende merken (zoals Gillette, Adidas en Coca-Cola) sponsoren internationale sportevenementen
zoals de Olympische Spelen en de FIFA World Cup, onder andere om hun naamsbekendheid te
vergroten
en
geassocieerd
te
worden
met
deze
evenementen.
In
ruil
voor
exclusieve
marketingrechten (zoals het gebruik van het officiële logo, het plaatsen reclameborden etc.) betalen
deze bedrijven miljoenen euro’s aan de organisatoren van deze evenementen (het IOC of de FIFA).
Ambush Marketing
Vanwege de grote belangstelling voor deze evenementen, maken veel bedrijven tijdens de
Olympische Spelen of de FIFA World Cup reclame met dit evenement als thema. Hiervoor betalen zij
geen rechten aan de organisatoren. Op die manier proberen zij een graantje mee te pikken van de
hype rondom dit evenement. Deze vorm van marketing wordt ook wel “ambush marketing" genoemd.
Ambush marketing wordt als volgt omschreven: “Een geplande marketingcampagne van een bedrijf
rondom een groot evenement, met als doel zich met dit evenement te associëren en de voordelen van
een officiële sponsor te verzwakken”.
Ethische aspecten
Het ethische aspect van ambush marketing is uitgebreid bediscussieerd. Tegenstanders, zoals
officiële sponsors en organisatoren (IOC en FIFA), stellen dat ambush marketing onethisch en soms
illegaal is. Volgens hen willen steeds minder bedrijven dergelijke evenementen sponsoren, doordat
consumenten het verschil niet meer kunnen herkennen tussen een officiële sponsor en een nepsponsor. Hierdoor wordt het volgens hen in de toekomst onmogelijk evenementen als de Olympische
Spelen en de FIFA World Cup te organiseren. John Bennett, Senior Vice President of Marketing van
Visa, zei het volgende over deze vorm van marketing: “Ambush marketing betekent dat je je
associeert met een evenement, waarvoor je de organisator niet hebt betaald. Er is een ander woord
voor: stelen.”
Voorstanders van ambush marketing stellen dat deze vorm van reclame een slimme en creatieve
manier van reclame maken is. Volgens hen is het een goed alternatief wanneer de hoge
sponsorbedragen, die de FIFA of het IOC vragen, niet binnen het budget passen. Jerry Welsh,
voormalig marketing directeur van American Express, stelde zelfs dat bedrijven “niet alleen het recht,
maar de morele verplichting hebben om de voordelen van deze evenementen te benutten”.
Op de volgende pagina staan drie bekende voorbeelden van ambush marketing acties kort
beschreven.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
51
Voorbeeld 1: FIFA WK 2010 - Bavaria
Tijdens het WK Voetbal 2010 in Zuid-Afrika was Budweiser de officiële biersponsor. De Nederlandse
bierbrouwer Bavaria kreeg wereldwijde aandacht door een marketingactie tijdens het WK:
voorafgaand aan dit toernooi kregen consumenten een gratis oranje jurkje bij aankoop van 6 blikjes
Bavaria. Tijdens de wedstrijd Nederland – Denemarken zaten, in opdracht van Bavaria, 36 vrouwen
verkleed als Deense fans in het stadion. Na 20 minuten trokken ze hun Deense kleding uit, en
toonden hun oranje jurkjes van Bavaria. Na deze actie werden de Nederlandse vrouwen gearresteerd
en gingen deze beelden de hele wereld over. Dit leidde tot veel publiciteit voor Bavaria.
14.) Vul a.u.b. na het lezen van bovenstaande info nogmaals uw mening over Bavaria in.
Zeer goed
OOOOOOO
Zeer slecht
Zeer onderscheidend
OOOOOOO
Zeer algemeen
Zeer positief
OOOOOOO
Zeer negatief
Hou ik heel erg van
OOOOOOO
Hou ik helemaal niet van
Zeer aantrekkelijk
OOOOOOO
Zeer onaantrekkelijk
Zeer interessant
OOOOOOO
Zeer saai
Zeer sterk
OOOOOOO
Zeer zwak
Voorbeeld 2: FIFA WK 2010 - Nike
Tijdens het WK Voetbal 2010 in Zuid-Afrika was Adidas de officiele partner van dit evenement. Nike
had echter een sponsorcontract met de nationale teams van Nederland, Portugal en Brazilie. Tijdens
de reclameblokken van de wedstrijden toonde Nike wereldwijd reclamespots met spelers van deze
nationale teams. Deze campagne werd ondersteund met de “Write the Future” poster campagne.
Onderzoek, uitgevoerd door onderzoeksbureau Nielsen, toonde aan dat Nike meer met het WK werd
geassocieerd dan welke officië le sponsor dan ook.
15.) Vul a.u.b. na het lezen van bovenstaande info nogmaals uw mening over Nike in.
Zeer goed
OOOOOOO
Zeer slecht
Zeer onderscheidend
OOOOOOO
Zeer algemeen
Zeer positief
OOOOOOO
Zeer negatief
Hou ik heel erg van
OOOOOOO
Hou ik helemaal niet van
Zeer aantrekkelijk
OOOOOOO
Zeer onaantrekkelijk
Zeer interessant
OOOOOOO
Zeer saai
Zeer sterk
OOOOOOO
Zeer zwak
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
52
Voorbeeld 3: Olympische Spelen 1984 – Kodak
Tijdens de Olympische Spelen van 1984 in Los Angeles had Fuji de officiële sponsorrechten
verworven. In reactie op deze strategische zet van Fuji presenteerde concurrent Kodak zich als de
“trotse sponsor van de uitzendingen van de Olympische Spelen”. Daarnaast sponsorde Kodak de
officiële film van de Amerikaanse sprintploeg. Deze strategie van Kodak was gericht op het
verminderen van de voordelen die Fuji had als officiele sponsor. Als gevolg hiervan dachten veel
mensen onterecht dat Kodak de officiële sponsor van de Olympische Spelen was.
16.) Vul a.u.b. na het lezen van bovenstaande info nogmaals uw mening over Kodak in.
Zeer goed
OOOOOOO
Zeer slecht
Zeer onderscheidend
OOOOOOO
Zeer algemeen
Zeer positief
OOOOOOO
Zeer negatief
Hou ik heel erg van
OOOOOOO
Hou ik helemaal niet van
Zeer aantrekkelijk
OOOOOOO
Zeer onaantrekkelijk
Zeer interessant
OOOOOOO
Zeer saai
Zeer sterk
OOOOOOO
Zeer zwak
Nu volgen nogmaals 5 vragen om jouw mening ten aanzien van ambush marketing te meten.
Daarna is de enquête afgelopen.
17.) Alléén bedrijven die de Olympische Spelen of de FIFA World Cup sponsoren, zouden in hun
advertenties iets over deze evenementen mogen vermelden.
Helemaal mee eens O O O O O O O Helemaal mee oneens
18.) Het is eerlijk dat bedrijven zich met de Olympische Spelen of de FIFA World Cup associëren,
zonder dat zij deze evenementen sponsoren.
Helemaal mee eens O O O O O O O Helemaal mee oneens
19.) Ik vind dat bedrijven die zich associëren met de Olympische Spelen of de FIFA World Cup,
zonder hiervoor sponsorrechten te betalen, slim handelen.
Helemaal mee eens O O O O O O O Helemaal mee oneens
20.) Bedrijven die geen sponsor van de Olympische Spelen of de FIFA World Cup zijn, zouden
consumenten niet mogen laten geloven dat zij deze evenementen sponsoren.
Helemaal mee eens O O O O O O O Helemaal mee oneens
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
53
21.) Een bedrijf dat geen officiele sponsor is van de Olympische Spelen of de FIFA World Cup, en zich
wel met deze evenementen associeert, is onethisch bezig.
Helemaal mee eens O O O O O O O Helemaal mee oneens
Wat is je geslacht?
O Man
O Vrouw
Wat is je leeftijd?
O <19
O 46-50
O 20-25
O 51-55
O 26-30
O 56-60
O 31-35
O 61-65
O 36-40
O >65
O 40-45
Wat is je hoogst behaalde opleidingsniveau?
O Geen
O VWO
O Basisschool
O MBO
O VMBO
O HBO
O HAVO
O Universiteit
Wat is je nationaliteit?
O Nederlandse
O Italiaanse
O Engelse
O Spaanse
O Amerikaanse
O Chinese
O Duitse
O Overig
O Franse
Dank je wel voor het invullen van deze enquête! Weet je iemand die deze enquête in wil vullen en dit
nog niet gedaan heeft? Doe mij een groot plezier, en stuur de volgende link dan a.u.b. naar hem of
haar door: www.thesistools.com/web/?id=170256. Alvast bedankt!
Groeten, Rein Hendriks
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
54
APPENDIX B: SPSS Outputs
1. Reliability analyses
1.1 Attitude towards ambush marketing before reading information
Case Processing Summary
N
Cases
Valid
Excluded
105
100,0
0
,0
105
100,0
a
Total
%
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in
the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
,653
4
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if
Scale Variance
Corrected Item-
Cronbach's Alpha
Item Deleted
if Item Deleted
Total Correlation
if Item Deleted
ONLY_SPONSOR_
9,0381
10,152
,434
,596
10,0000
12,404
,403
,606
10,9429
13,170
,341
,643
9,3048
10,829
,587
,482
ADVERTISEMENT
FAIR_WITHOUT_
SPONSOR
NO_SPONSOR_NO
_BELIEVE
NO_SPONSOR_
UNETHIC
1.2 Attitude towards ambush marketing after reading information
Case Processing Summary
N
Cases
Valid
Excluded
Total
a
%
105
100,0
0
,0
105
100,0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in
the procedure.
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
55
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
,741
4
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if
Scale Variance
Corrected Item-
Cronbach's Alpha
Item Deleted
if Item Deleted
Total Correlation
if Item Deleted
ONLY_SPONSOR_
9,7048
12,037
,557
,669
10,2571
14,212
,436
,734
10,8857
13,545
,518
,690
10,1810
12,977
,638
,627
ADVERTISEMENT_2
FAIR_WITHOUT_
SPONSOR_2
NO_SPONSOR_NO_
BELIEVE_2
NO_SPONSOR_
UNETHIC_2
1.3 Brand attitude towards Bavaria before reading information
Case Processing Summary
N
Cases
Valid
Excluded
Total
%
105
100,0
0
,0
105
100,0
a
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in
the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
,895
N of Items
7
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
56
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if
Scale Variance
Corrected Item-
Cronbach's Alpha
Item Deleted
if Item Deleted
Total Correlation
if Item Deleted
BAV_GOOD_BAD
19,8286
29,816
,790
,870
BAV_DISTINCTIVE
19,6095
31,106
,600
,891
BAV_POSITIVE
19,7333
31,024
,756
,875
BAV_LIKE_DISLIKE
19,2571
27,654
,652
,893
BAV_ATTRACTIVE
19,3619
29,387
,789
,869
BAV_INTERESTING
19,2762
31,798
,640
,886
BAV_STRONG_WEAK
19,7333
30,467
,736
,876
1.4 Reliability brand attitude towards Nike before reading information
Case Processing Summary
N
Cases
Valid
Excluded
105
100,0
0
,0
105
100,0
a
Total
%
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in
the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
,916
7
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Scale Variance
Corrected Item-
Cronbach's Alpha
Item Deleted
if Item Deleted
Total Correlation
if Item Deleted
NIKE_GOOD_BAD
16,0476
28,527
,800
,897
NIKE_DISTINCTIVE
16,0190
30,596
,535
,925
NIKE_POSITIVE
15,8381
27,368
,858
,890
NIKE_LIKE_DISLIKE
15,4000
28,165
,740
,903
NIKE_ATTRACTIVE
15,7048
27,883
,790
,898
NIKE_INTERESTING
15,6571
29,362
,735
,904
NIKE_STRONG_WEAK
16,2476
28,688
,753
,902
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
57
1.5 Reliability brand attitude towards Kodak before reading information
Case Processing Summary
N
Cases
Valid
Excluded
105
100,0
0
,0
105
100,0
a
Total
%
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in
the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
,895
7
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if
Scale Variance
Corrected Item-
Cronbach's Alpha
Item Deleted
if Item Deleted
Total Correlation
if Item Deleted
KODAK_GOOD_BAD
22,3905
27,971
,674
,881
KODAK_DISTINCTIVE
21,4667
27,597
,635
,887
KODAK_POSITIVE
22,0762
29,475
,693
,881
KODAK_LIKE_DISLIKE
21,5143
29,291
,664
,883
KODAK_ATTRACTIVE
21,5048
27,060
,800
,867
KODAK_INTERESTING
21,6000
27,069
,719
,876
KODAK_STRONG_WEAK
21,9048
25,741
,721
,877
1.6 Reliability brand attitude towards Bavaria after reading information
Case Processing Summary
N
Cases
Valid
Excluded
Total
%
105
100,0
0
,0
105
100,0
a
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in
the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
,904
N of Items
7
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
58
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if
Scale Variance
Corrected Item-
Cronbach's Alpha
Item Deleted
if Item Deleted
Total Correlation
if Item Deleted
BAV_GOOD_BAD_2
17,7333
31,755
,775
,883
BAV_DISTINCTIVE_2
18,2857
32,225
,718
,889
BAV_POSITIVE_2
17,3905
32,298
,735
,888
BAV_LIKE_DISLIKE_2
17,5143
30,695
,716
,891
BAV_ATTRACTIVE_2
17,6381
31,118
,811
,879
BAV_INTERESTING_2
18,0762
34,033
,636
,898
BAV_STRONG_WEAK_2
18,1048
33,229
,626
,900
1.7 Reliability brand attitude towards Nike after reading information
Case Processing Summary
N
Cases
Valid
Excluded
105
100,0
0
,0
105
100,0
a
Total
%
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in
the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
,951
7
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if
Scale Variance
Corrected Item-
Cronbach's Alpha
Item Deleted
if Item Deleted
Total Correlation
if Item Deleted
NIKE_GOOD_BAD_2
16,0286
39,278
,872
,941
NIKE_DISTINCTIVE_2
16,2762
41,010
,777
,948
NIKE_POSITIVE_2
15,8857
37,660
,888
,939
NIKE_LIKE_DISLIKE_2
15,6857
36,506
,902
,938
NIKE_ATTRACTIVE_2
15,9048
37,799
,894
,938
NIKE_INTERESTING_2
16,1143
42,525
,741
,951
NIKE_STRONG_WEAK_2
16,2762
39,125
,779
,948
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
59
1.8 Reliability brand attitude towards Kodak after reading information
Case Processing Summary
N
Cases
Valid
Excluded
105
100,0
0
,0
105
100,0
a
Total
%
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in
the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
,936
7
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if
Scale Variance
Corrected Item-
Cronbach's Alpha
Item Deleted
if Item Deleted
Total Correlation
if Item Deleted
KODAK_GOOD_BAD_2
21,7048
34,672
,824
,923
KODAK_DISTINCTIVE_2
21,7238
33,240
,809
,925
KODAK_POSITIVE_2
21,4095
34,417
,840
,921
KODAK_LIKE_DISLIKE_2
21,2762
35,586
,805
,925
KODAK_ATTRACTIVE_2
21,4095
35,283
,803
,925
KODAK_INTERESTING_2
21,5238
35,636
,711
,933
KODAK_STRONG_WEAK_2
21,5238
34,521
,764
,929
2. Consumer attitude towards brands
2.1 Mean attitudes before and after being informed
Descriptive Statistics
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
MEAN_BA_BAVARIA_BEFORE
105
12,00
44,00
22,8000
6,35398
MEAN_BA_BAVARIA_AFTER
105
7,00
38,00
20,7905
6,56725
MEAN_BA_NIKE_BEFORE
105
7,00
34,00
18,4857
6,20191
MEAN_BA_NIKE_AFTER
105
7,00
43,00
18,6952
7,26838
MEAN_BA_KODAK_BEFORE
105
7,00
42,00
25,4095
6,09176
MEAN_BA_KODAK_AFTER
105
7,00
42,00
25,0952
6,84235
Valid N (listwise)
105
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
60
2.2 Differences in brand attitudes towards brands
Descriptive Statistics
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
BAVARIA_DIFFERENCE_BA
105
-9,00
29,00
2,0095
5,27785
NIKE_DIFFERENCE_BA
105
-14,00
10,00
-,2095
4,80123
KODAK_DIFFERENCE_BA
105
-16,00
21,00
,3143
6,57108
Valid N (listwise)
105
3. Hypotheses testing
3.1 One-way ANOVA Total knowledge - Attitude towards ambush marketing
ANOVA
ATTITUDE_TOTAL
Sum of Squares
Between Groups
df
Mean Square
F
40,334
4
10,083
Within Groups
1888,714
100
18,887
Total
1929,048
104
Sig.
,534
,711
3.2 Attitude towards ambush marketing before reading
Statistics
ATTITUDE_TOTAL
N
Valid
105
105
0
0
13,0952
13,6762
Missing
Mean
ATTITUDE_TOTAL_2
Descriptive Statistics
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
ATTITUDE_TOTAL
105
4,00
24,00
13,0952
4,30680
ATTITUDE_TOTAL_2
105
4,00
24,00
13,6762
4,64612
Valid N (listwise)
105
3.3 Overview correctly answered questions about ambush marketing
Statistics
KNOWLEDGE_TOTAL
N
Valid
Missing
Mean
105
0
8,3429
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
61
KNOWLEDGE_TOTAL
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
6,00
4
3,8
3,8
3,8
7,00
16
15,2
15,2
19,0
8,00
37
35,2
35,2
54,3
9,00
36
34,3
34,3
88,6
10,00
12
11,4
11,4
100,0
Total
105
100,0
100,0
3.4 ANOVA Difference brand attitudes – attitude towards ambush marketing
ANOVA
DIFFERENCE_BAVARIA_BA
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
Between Groups
1135,687
19
59,773
Within Groups
1761,304
85
20,721
Total
2896,990
104
F
2,885
Sig.
,000
ANOVA
DIFFERENCE_NIKE_BA
Sum of Squares
Between Groups
df
Mean Square
636,764
19
33,514
Within Groups
1760,626
85
20,713
Total
2397,390
104
F
1,618
Sig.
,070
ANOVA
DIFFERENCE_KODAK_BA
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
Between Groups
1368,190
19
72,010
Within Groups
3122,439
85
36,735
Total
4490,629
104
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
F
1,960
Sig.
,019
62
3.5 ANOVA Exploring statistics Difference brand attitude Kodak – Attitude towards ambush
marketing
Descriptives
a,b,c,d,e
ATTITUDE_TOTAL
DIFFERENCE 7,00
_KODAK_BA
Statistic
Mean
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
1,2000
Lower Bound
-5,8458
Upper Bound
8,2458
5% Trimmed Mean
-1,0000
Variance
32,200
Std. Deviation
5,67450
Minimum
-6,00
Maximum
7,00
Range
13,00
Interquartile Range
10,50
Skewness
-,010
,913
-1,975
2,000
-1,7500
1,43614
Kurtosis
Mean
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
Lower Bound
-5,1459
Upper Bound
1,6459
5% Trimmed Mean
-1,7778
Median
-2,0000
Variance
16,500
Std. Deviation
9,00
2,53772
1,2778
Median
8,00
Std. Error
4,06202
Minimum
-6,00
Maximum
3,00
Range
9,00
Interquartile Range
7,75
Skewness
,032
,752
Kurtosis
-2,586
1,481
Mean
-,5000
1,65831
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
-5,7775
for Mean
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
63
Upper Bound
4,7775
5% Trimmed Mean
-,4444
Median
,0000
Variance
11,000
Std. Deviation
3,31662
Minimum
-5,00
Maximum
3,00
Range
8,00
Interquartile Range
6,00
Skewness
-,877
1,014
Kurtosis
1,934
2,619
3,2727
2,21191
10,00 Mean
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
Lower Bound
-1,6557
Upper Bound
8,2012
5% Trimmed Mean
3,1919
Median
,0000
Variance
53,818
Std. Deviation
7,33609
Minimum
-7,00
Maximum
15,00
Range
22,00
Interquartile Range
15,00
Skewness
Kurtosis
11,00 Mean
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
5% Trimmed Mean
Median
Variance
Std. Deviation
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
,576
,661
-,970
1,279
1,3333
,66667
Lower Bound
-1,5351
Upper Bound
4,2018
.
2,0000
1,333
1,15470
64
Minimum
,00
Maximum
2,00
Range
2,00
Interquartile Range
.
Skewness
-1,732
Kurtosis
.
12,00 Mean
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
.
-4,3333
Upper Bound
3,0294
-4,6481
Median
-7,0000
Variance
91,750
Std. Deviation
9,57862
Minimum
-16,00
Maximum
13,00
Range
29,00
Interquartile Range
14,50
Skewness
Kurtosis
13,00 Mean
for Mean
,459
,717
-,345
1,400
4,0000
1,34840
Lower Bound
1,0322
Upper Bound
6,9678
5% Trimmed Mean
3,7778
Median
5,0000
Variance
21,818
Std. Deviation
4,67099
Minimum
-2,00
Maximum
14,00
Range
16,00
Interquartile Range
7,75
Skewness
,655
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
3,19287
Lower Bound -11,6961
5% Trimmed Mean
95% Confidence Interval
1,225
,637
65
Kurtosis
14,00 Mean
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
,344
1,232
-1,7143
,64418
Lower Bound
-3,2905
Upper Bound
-,1380
5% Trimmed Mean
-1,6825
Median
-1,0000
Variance
2,905
Std. Deviation
1,70434
Minimum
-4,00
Maximum
,00
Range
4,00
Interquartile Range
4,00
Skewness
Kurtosis
15,00 Mean
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
-,618
,794
-1,396
1,587
-,0714
1,65571
Lower Bound
-3,6484
Upper Bound
3,5055
5% Trimmed Mean
-,1349
Median
-,5000
Variance
38,379
Std. Deviation
6,19509
Minimum
-9,00
Maximum
10,00
Range
19,00
Interquartile Range
8,00
Skewness
-,008
,597
Kurtosis
-,680
1,154
2,3000
2,64176
16,00 Mean
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
5% Trimmed Mean
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
Lower Bound
-3,6761
Upper Bound
8,2761
1,8889
66
Median
,5000
Variance
69,789
Std. Deviation
8,35397
Minimum
-9,00
Maximum
21,00
Range
30,00
Interquartile Range
10,75
Skewness
1,184
,687
Kurtosis
2,111
1,334
-4,6667
3,33333
17,00 Mean
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
Lower Bound -19,0088
Upper Bound
5% Trimmed Mean
9,6755
.
Median
-8,0000
Variance
33,333
Std. Deviation
5,77350
Minimum
-8,00
Maximum
2,00
Range
10,00
Interquartile Range
.
Skewness
1,732
Kurtosis
.
18,00 Mean
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
5% Trimmed Mean
Median
Variance
Std. Deviation
.
-3,6667
2,33333
Lower Bound -13,7062
Upper Bound
6,3729
.
-3,0000
16,333
4,04145
Minimum
-8,00
Maximum
,00
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
1,225
67
Range
8,00
Interquartile Range
.
Skewness
-,722
Kurtosis
.
19,00 Mean
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
1,225
.
-7,5000
4,50000
Lower Bound -64,6779
Upper Bound
5% Trimmed Mean
49,6779
.
Median
-7,5000
Variance
40,500
Std. Deviation
6,36396
Minimum
-12,00
Maximum
-3,00
Range
9,00
Interquartile Range
.
Skewness
.
.
Kurtosis
.
.
20,00 Mean
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
5% Trimmed Mean
,0000
Lower Bound
-6,5724
Upper Bound
6,5724
.
Median
-1,0000
Variance
7,000
Std. Deviation
2,64575
Minimum
-2,00
Maximum
3,00
Range
5,00
Interquartile Range
.
Skewness
Kurtosis
22,00 Mean
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
1,52753
1,458
.
1,225
.
6,0000
2,30940
68
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
Lower Bound
-3,9366
Upper Bound
15,9366
5% Trimmed Mean
.
Median
6,0000
Variance
16,000
Std. Deviation
4,00000
Minimum
2,00
Maximum
10,00
Range
8,00
Interquartile Range
.
Skewness
,000
Kurtosis
.
1,225
.
a. DIFFERENCE_KODAK_BA is constant when ATTITUDE_TOTAL = 4,00. It has been
omitted.
b. DIFFERENCE_KODAK_BA is constant when ATTITUDE_TOTAL = 5,00. It has been
omitted.
c. DIFFERENCE_KODAK_BA is constant when ATTITUDE_TOTAL = 6,00. It has been
omitted.
d. DIFFERENCE_KODAK_BA is constant when ATTITUDE_TOTAL = 23,00. It has been
omitted.
e. DIFFERENCE_KODAK_BA is constant when ATTITUDE_TOTAL = 24,00. It has been
omitted.
3.6 ANOVA Difference Brand attitude – Age
ANOVA
DIFFERENCE_ATTITUDE
Sum of Squares
Between Groups
df
Mean Square
14,276
1
14,276
Within Groups
1541,286
103
14,964
Total
1555,562
104
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
F
,954
Sig.
,331
69
3.7 ANOVA Difference Brand attitude – Gender
ANOVA
DIFFERENCE_ATTITUDE
Sum of Squares
Between Groups
df
Mean Square
F
185,990
4
46,498
Within Groups
1369,572
100
13,696
Total
1555,562
104
3,395
Sig.
,012
3.8 ANOVA Difference Brand attitude – Education
ANOVA
DIFFERENCE_ATTITUDE
Sum of Squares
Between Groups
df
Mean Square
F
45,926
5
9,185
Within Groups
1509,636
99
15,249
Total
1555,562
104
,602
Sig.
,698
3.9 ANOVA Age – Difference in attitude towards brands
ANOVA
Sum of Squares
DIFFERENCE_ Between Groups
BAVARIA_BA
4
37,534
Within Groups
2746,855
100
27,469
Total
2896,990
104
329,872
4
82,468
Within Groups
2067,519
100
20,675
Total
2397,390
104
218,745
4
54,686
Within Groups
4271,884
100
42,719
Total
4490,629
104
DIFFERENCE_ Between Groups
KODAK_BA
Mean Square
150,136
DIFFERENCE_ Between Groups
NIKE_BA
df
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
F
Sig.
1,366
,251
3,989
,055
1,280
,283
70
3.10 ANOVA Gender – Difference in attitude towards brands
ANOVA
Sum of Squares
DIFFERENCE_ Between Groups
BAVARIA_BA
1
65,601
Within Groups
2831,389
103
27,489
Total
2896,990
104
154,030
1
154,030
Within Groups
2243,360
103
21,780
Total
2397,390
104
403,847
1
403,847
Within Groups
4086,782
103
39,677
Total
4490,629
104
DIFFERENCE_ Between Groups
KODAK_BA
Mean Square
65,601
DIFFERENCE_ Between Groups
NIKE_BA
df
F
Sig.
2,386
,025
7,072
,009
10,178
,002
3.11 ANOVA Education – Difference in attitude towards brands
ANOVA
Sum of Squares
DIFFERENCE_ Between Groups
BAVARIA_BA
5
32,198
Within Groups
2736,000
99
27,636
Total
2896,990
104
54,415
5
10,883
Within Groups
2342,975
99
23,666
Total
2397,390
104
159,132
5
31,826
Within Groups
4331,496
99
43,752
Total
4490,629
104
DIFFERENCE_ Between Groups
KODAK_BA
Mean Square
160,990
DIFFERENCE_ Between Groups
NIKE_BA
df
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
F
Sig.
1,165
,332
,460
,805
,727
,604
71
3.12 Descriptive statistics ANOVA Gender – Difference in attitude towards Bavaria
Descriptives
GENDER
DIFFERENCE_ 1,00
Mean
BAVARIA_BA
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
Statistic
3,0811
Lower Bound
1,0846
Upper Bound
5,0775
5% Trimmed Mean
2,5495
Median
2,0000
Variance
35,854
Std. Deviation
,98440
5,98785
Minimum
-5,00
Maximum
29,00
Range
34,00
Interquartile Range
2,00
Std. Error
6,50
Skewness
2,305
,388
Kurtosis
8,863
,759
1,4265
,58151
Mean
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
Lower Bound
,2658
Upper Bound
2,5872
5% Trimmed Mean
1,3366
Median
1,0000
Variance
22,995
Std. Deviation
4,79526
Minimum
-9,00
Maximum
14,00
Range
23,00
Interquartile Range
6,00
Skewness
,251
,291
Kurtosis
,317
,574
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
72
3.13 Descriptive statistics ANOVA Gender – Difference in attitude towards Nike
Descriptives
GENDER
DIFFERENCE_ 1,00
Mean
NIKE_BA
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
Statistic
1,4324
Lower Bound
,1091
Upper Bound
2,7557
5% Trimmed Mean
,65248
1,5105
Median
,0000
Variance
15,752
Std. Deviation
3,96891
Minimum
-8,00
Maximum
9,00
Range
17,00
Interquartile Range
6,50
Skewness
,080
,388
-,221
,759
-1,1029
,60657
Kurtosis
2,00
Std. Error
Mean
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
5% Trimmed Mean
Median
Variance
Std. Deviation
Lower Bound
-2,3137
Upper Bound
,1078
-,8595
-1,0000
25,019
5,00191
Minimum
-14,00
Maximum
10,00
Range
24,00
Interquartile Range
Skewness
Kurtosis
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
5,00
-,726
,291
,796
,574
73
3.14 Descriptive statistics ANOVA Gender – Difference in attitude towards Kodak
Descriptives
GENDER
DIFFERENCE_ 1,00
Mean
KODAK_BA
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
Statistic
2,9730
Lower Bound
,9094
Upper Bound
5,0365
5% Trimmed Mean
2,7598
Median
3,0000
Variance
38,305
Std. Deviation
2,00
Std. Error
1,01748
6,18909
Minimum
-8,00
Maximum
21,00
Range
29,00
Interquartile Range
8,50
Skewness
,506
,388
Kurtosis
,751
,759
-1,1324
,77093
Mean
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
Lower Bound
-2,6711
Upper Bound
,4064
5% Trimmed Mean
-1,2222
Median
-1,0000
Variance
Std. Deviation
40,415
6,35728
Minimum
-16,00
Maximum
15,00
Range
31,00
Interquartile Range
7,00
Skewness
,131
,291
Kurtosis
,590
,574
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
74
3.15 Paired sample T-test attitude towards ambush marketing
Paired Samples Statistics
Mean
Pair 1 ATTITUDE_TOTAL
ATTITUDE_TOTAL_2
N
Std.
Std. Error
Deviation
Mean
13,0952 105
4,30680
,42030
13,6762 105
4,64612
,45342
Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 ATTITUDE_TOTAL & ATTITUDE_TOTAL_2
105
,629 ,000
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Mean
Pair 1 ATTITUDE1
-,58095
Std.
Std. Error
Deviation
Mean
3,86747
Interval of the
Sig.
Difference
(2-
Lower
Upper
,37743 -1,32940
t
df
,16750 -1,539 104
tailed)
,127
ATTITUDE2
3.16 Paired sample T-test attitude towards ambush marketing
Paired Samples Statistics
Mean
Pair 1
Pair 2
N
Std.
Std. Error
Deviation
Mean
MEAN_BA_BAVARIA_BEFORE
22,8000 105
6,35398
,62009
MEAN_BA_BAVARIA_AFTER
20,7905 105
6,56725
,64090
MEAN_BA_NIKE_
18,4857 105
6,20191
,60524
18,6952 105
7,26838
,70932
MEAN_BA_KODAK_BEFORE
25,4095 105
6,09176
,59449
MEAN_BA_KODAK_AFTER
25,0952 105
6,84235
,66775
BEFORE
MEAN_BA_NIKE_
AFTER
Pair 3
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
75
Paired Samples Correlations
N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1
MEAN_BA_BAVARIA_BEFORE & MEAN_BA_BAVARIA_AFTER
105
,667 ,000
Pair 2
MEAN_BA_NIKE_BEFORE & MEAN_BA_NIKE_AFTER
105
,757 ,000
Pair 3
MEAN_BA_KODAK_BEFORE & MEAN_BA_KODAK_AFTER
105
,489 ,000
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Mean
Pair 1 MEAN_BAVARIA
Std.
Interval of the
Std.
Error
Difference
Deviation
Mean
Lower
Upper
2,00952
5,27785
,51507
-,20952
4,80123
,46855 -1,13868
,31429
6,57108
,64127 -,95738 1,58595
Sig. (2t
df
,98813 3,03092 3,901 104
tailed)
,000
BEFORE –
MEAN
BAVARIA_AFTER
Pair 2 MEAN_NIKE
,71963 -,447 104
,656
BEFORE
MEAN _NIKE_
AFTER
Pair 3 MEAN_KODAK_
,490 104
,625
BEFORE MEAN_KODAK_
AFTER
Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy
76