If a brand fails to win a place among the premier league of official sponsors that support the world's most prestigious sporting spectaculars, it usually holds some tactical marketing manouevres in reserve.

To maintain share of voice in the face of huge multi-million dollar media and marketing communications budgets by official, often, global sponsors requires some fancy footwork. Otherwise known as ambush or guerilla marketing this, the most anarchic form of promotions, really comes to the fore during major events.

Especially, international sporting tournaments.

Initiative, ingenuity and some genuinely superior, if usually audacious, creativity manages to squeeze non-league names back onto a consumer landscape otherwise swamped by the official brands.

But the fight for that space is getting tougher. Sports' governing bodies have recently become increasingly protective of their financial supporters. As far as they are concerned, stamping down on flagrant abusers of trademarks and such like is now only a small part of the job. Pre-emptive strikes against practically any attempts to harness popular interest suddenly seem fair game.

Well, to them at least.

Of course the most obvious and the highest profile sporting event right now is this month's FIFA World Cup 2006. Coverage will be beamed through millions of TVs across 189 countries, not to mention quite a few mobile phones. (Deutche Telekoms' T-Mobile International has won the mobile broadcast rights for seven European countries, for example.)

Swiss sports specialists, Infront Sports and Media, says the predicted cumulative audience will exceed 32 billion. That's more than 10% up on the 2002 tournament. And, reputedly, one of the largest TV audiences ever.

Switching more directly to our region, OMD the MBU for ART Sports, the official World Cup broadcaster for the region reckons that 1.2 million people in the GCC watched the 2002 tournament. Applying the extra 10% means that regional viewership should swell to 1.32 million during this month and the next.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia proudly fielding its Pepsi-sponsored national team provides an added kick.

Small wonder then that global brands are prepared to dig deep for sponsorship fees. The ITH recently reported that the 15 official partners as FIFA calls them, including Dubai's Emirates, have paid anything between $38 million to $63 million for a front row spot.

For electronics giant and official partner Philips, this is the sixth time it has supported the World Cup and its investment is significant.

The company is creating giant public viewing screens in the 12 host cities, providing 10,000 flat TV screens for the media and broadcasting this will be the first World Cup broadcast entirely in high definition semiconductors for the smart ticketing of 3.2 million plus lighting in eight of the 12 stadia. Heck. Philips Medical Systems is even throwing in HeartStart Defibrillators at some matches.

FIFA, therefore, is doing all it can to protect Philips and the other official sponsors from being upstaged by other non-affiliated brands keen to cash in on event. That FIFA is anxious to protect its investors is entirely understandable. Commendable, in fact.

But official sponsors aside, it is inevitable that such an epic-scale event attracts advertisers local brands, global names from across the board. MindshareMindshare estimates that the World Cup could generate around $ 55,911,920 in incremental advertising in the UK alone. From a global perspective ZenithOptimediaZenithOptimedia calculates that the amount spent by the world's leading brands on TV, press and outdoor could break the $1 billion barrier for the first time.

Pre-emptive Strikes
Success, however, often spawns new problems. A quick net news search on FIFA soon reveals a groundswell of negative opinion among international media and the marketing community at large. Many resent the rigorous protection policy feeling that it has, in some instances, slipped into what could be perceived as a violation of commercial freedoms. No matter how inadvertent.

A copy of a letter from FIFA Marketing & TV AG (a wholly owned subsidiary of FIFA) was passed to GMR. The letter it seems was dispatched to companies that FIFA views as possible candidates for launching rival promotions during the tournament.

It states: 'The Tournament is a private event.' A curious, descriptor, some would say, of one of the most closely followed global events on planet Earth. However, it further states:

"The Tournament is a sporting event of such magnitude that it is inevitable that certain companies will attempt to engage in activities that try to take advantage of the opportunities which arise in connection with it."

Any would-be 'opportunists' lining up for a spot of '"ambush"' or the infinitely more damning-sounding '"parasite"' marketing (the words are in double quotes within the FIFA letter) are warned of legal action.

Now, in absolute fairness to FIFA most of the censures within the letter relate mainly to a physical presence outside the stadia on match days.

In Germany. Obviously.

But, even the home crowd is not particularly happy. Some host cities with a clear wish to showcase their indigenous brands have complained that restrictions apply further afield than the stadia and stray into so called 'protected areas'. FIFA strongly denied this although it has spoken of the creation of 'controlled territories'.

And, back to the letter, in which further caution warns of activities, "which are based more conceptually around the Tournament such as media advertisements using images and indicia overtly associated with the event itself." The FIFA website elaborates on these points and more.

Such stern resolve to protect its sponsors however, did not prevent some harsh commentary from the German media. The FIFA marketing director for Germany, Gregor Lentze, recently came heavy under fire from Spiegel Online over its 'rigid sponsor protection programme.'

And it isn't only the media. Mastercard has already slapped a red card at the organisation. The credit card company is suing FIFA over its deal with arch rival Visa which is currently on the bench waiting for its glory as a 2010 sponsor.

Not all fun and games
And, it is at this point that GMR resorts to a well worn phrase which often crops up when we attempt to examine these types of issues: many of the companies official partners and other key brands across the region declined to comment. Some simply ignored repeated calls.

Official partner Adidas, however, was not one of them. A company spokesman from its German headquarters said in a written statement: "Adidas is the official partner in the World Cup and by securing this position we are also securing exclusive exposure as a sporting goods brand around these events from FIFA. Adidas fully supports

FIFA in this action, after all FIFA is a brand like any other."

A predictable stance perhaps but understandable. Adidas will not disclose budgets but it has big plans, not least for the region.

Similarly P&G-owned Gillette, which has been a sponsor since 1972, told GMR: "As an official sponsor of the World Cup we are appreciative of FIFA's efforts to guarantee exclusivity for the official partners and protect the rights of those who give their support to the event and who contribute significantly to its success.

"Parasite marketing not only undermines the integrity of the World Cup and its marketing programme but also puts the interests of the worldwide football community at stake," says Ahmed El Mahdy, brand manager, Razors & Blades, P&G, AP.

But, we are far from Germany. Many companies across the GCC have plans to harness the excitement and passion that will permeate our lives for the next month. And, there is absolutely no suggestion from GMR that these initiatives will in any way contravene neither prescribed guidelines nor ethical norms.

The furore surrounding FIFA, however, points to some serious and immediate considerations. With sporting facilities development and the attendant marketing opportunities racing across the GCC at present, sponsor protection (aside from standard intellectual property rights) versus commercial freedom is now a pressing issue demanding clear resolution.

New Dawn/Dawn Raids
FIFA is not alone. Other sporting bodies are assuming a stronger defensive position in the face of guerilla marketing.

Dubai-based International Cricket Council (ICC) is one. It is currently preparing for the ICC Cricket World Cup 2007 in the West Indies. Leaving nothing to chance, the organisation has successfully negotiated a wide ranging piece of Sunset Legislation with CARICOM (Caribbean Community and Common Market). The law is so called because it usually covers the period immediately before and during the event Brian Murgatroyd, ICC manager media & communications told GMR.

The legislation, currently en route through the nine parliaments of the host islands, is designed specifically to secure a legal framework for the Cricket World Cup including security, venue control and the protection of intellectual property. It will also make ambush marketing a criminal offence.

The statement adds: "Ambush marketing is where people try to poach on the goodwill of an event, either by pretending or suggesting that they are in some way officially connected with it.

"What this law will do is make ambush marketing both a criminal offence and a civil wrong." Similar legislation was initiated by the ICC during the last cricket world cup in South Africa, 2003.

Murgatroyd told GMR: "The benefit...is that it makes ambush marketing a criminal offence and that helps because it saves the ICC money from having to pursue the matter through the courts ourselves. That money can be distributed, instead, to our members for the betterment of the game... Injunctions, by contrast, can be good but can also take time. If legislation is in place then the onus is on the local trading standards and law enforcement agencies to enforce it."

He adds: "We never say to those companies who are not our commercial partners that they cannot promote cricket; what we say is that they cannot promote or associate themselves with our cricket without our permission."

Again no one denies the validity of trade market protection and the like. Qatar has passed a raft of protective laws for the Asian Games for example according to Donal Kilalea, CEO executive vice president, Promoseven Sports Marketing. It's the encroachment upon commercial freedoms that causes concern.

In London, for instance, the ink had barely dried on the city's winning bid for the 2012 Olympics when the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (LOCOG) began petitioning for protective legislation.

The London Olympics Bill which is currently vaulting its way through the UK parliament and is based on laws enacted for the Sydney Olympics is creating a right known as the London Olympic Association Right.

London-based entertainments and media lawyers Harbottle & Lewis says this refers to: "uses in relation to goods or services any visual or verbal representation (of any kind) in a manner likely to create in the public mind an association between the London Olympics and the goods or services or the person who provides the goods or services."

This IP right has been widely interpreted as prohibiting the use of general words and phrases such as 'games' or 'gold' in advertising by anyone other than official sponsors. "Come to London in 2012" is another example.

Such has been the outcry citing unreasonable restrictions that the UK's Department for Culture Media and Sport has been forced to issue a factsheet on its website called Restrictions on the Use of Olympic Words.

Here it specifies that such words when used 'in certain combinations by unauthorized (sic) persons may be used as evidence of infringement of the association right."

Similarly a German court has challenged FIFA's attempts to trademark the words 'Football World Cup 2006'.

It's hard to see where the line in the sand can be drawn. Is it right and fitting than normal every day words can be trademarked and reserved for use only by named organisations? Can the zones around sports arenas be extended and defined to preclude any competitive outdoor activities? Must the protection of sponsor rights necessarily bar all other commercial activity during a period of sustained and intense consumer interest? Especially, if that opportunity only presents itself once every four years?

From the other side however, if an organization is spending millions in sponsorship and thus enabling the events should their needs not take priority?

The answers, of course, are far from conclusive. What is certain, however, is that if they are to score against the official partners those in the firing line the ambush marketers will have to employ some very inventive moves.

Or, a very good lawyer.

"The legal position of ambush marketing practices is still pretty unclear," says Mark Hill, managing partner of therightslawyers, specialist in sports, media and entertainment.

"Some things are pretty clear, for example the use of a registered trade mark, logo, slogan, the copying of any artistic work protected by copyright or maybe misleading the public by calling themselves official sponsors would all be pretty straight infringement actions.

"Ambush marketing campaigns do not, in most cases, use third parties' trade marks or designs though in many cases they manage to get around the law.

"The sports marketing industry in the UAE and in the rest of the GCC is on the verge of a pretty large explosion.

"With the kind of activity that we are beginning to see in the sports industry in countries like the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, it is probably about time that this issue goes on top of the agenda for governments in this region.

"Bluntly, the laws that are currently available in most countries to official sponsors and event organisers to stop ambush marketing are simply not adequate.

"Traditional laws relating to trade marks, copyright, unfair competition, trade practices and so on can be pretty ineffective against the creativity of ambush marketers these days.

"And this can't be good for either side. Grey areas always cause problems."

© Gulf Marketing Review 2006

 

Community Comments (0) - Comment on this article

The opinions of the authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect Zawya. Read our Comment Policy.

 

 

 

close x

Loading ...

 

close x

Loading ...