* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Ambush marketing: An indefensible marketing strategy. - UvA-DARE
Brand ambassador wikipedia , lookup
Elaboration likelihood model wikipedia , lookup
Brand loyalty wikipedia , lookup
Product planning wikipedia , lookup
Brand equity wikipedia , lookup
Consumer behaviour wikipedia , lookup
Social media marketing wikipedia , lookup
Bayesian inference in marketing wikipedia , lookup
Affiliate marketing wikipedia , lookup
Food marketing wikipedia , lookup
Marketing communications wikipedia , lookup
Marketing channel wikipedia , lookup
Target audience wikipedia , lookup
Neuromarketing wikipedia , lookup
Multi-level marketing wikipedia , lookup
Marketing research wikipedia , lookup
Target market wikipedia , lookup
Sports marketing wikipedia , lookup
Digital marketing wikipedia , lookup
Marketing strategy wikipedia , lookup
Integrated marketing communications wikipedia , lookup
Guerrilla marketing wikipedia , lookup
Viral marketing wikipedia , lookup
Marketing plan wikipedia , lookup
Youth marketing wikipedia , lookup
Direct marketing wikipedia , lookup
Advertising campaign wikipedia , lookup
Multicultural marketing wikipedia , lookup
Marketing mix modeling wikipedia , lookup
Global marketing wikipedia , lookup
Green marketing wikipedia , lookup
Street marketing wikipedia , lookup
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