With 1 billion people tuning into the opening ceremony of the Rugby World Cup, sponsorship revenue is a vital part of the sporting event. Therefore, protecting the sponsors Heineken, Emirates, Microsoft and Range Rover from guerrilla marketing is a vital element of major sports event.
In the past two decades, ambush marketing, where a brand establishes an unauthorised association with the event has become one of the most significant problems facing rights, holders and sponsors of major sporting events.
Examples of ambush marketing that occurred at previous world cups include, a Tongan player changing his name by deed poll to Paddy Power in order to promote the national team’s sponsorship by the bookmaker. The IRB did not accept the name change and, following this, the Tongan squad members dyed their hair bright green before the team’s match against England. In the end, the dye was removed prior to kick-off.
Another example was at the soccer World Cup in South Africa, 36 orange-clad Dutch women were removed from Holland’s game with Denmark and arrested under legislation relating to merchandise marks. They were accused of an ambush campaign to promote Dutch brewer Bavaria’s Orange beer. Anheuser-Busch’s Budweiser was the official beer for the tournament.
Aside from advertising revenue I was surprised to find out that although organisers are aiming to make 269 million dollars from 1.36million tickets sales, New Zealand will incur a direct loss from hosting the event, Therefore the benefits will have to be indirect such as short and long-term boosts to the tourism industry or a lift in national confidence after the horrific damage that was cased due to the recent earthquake.
New Zealand will record a direct loss from the event, estimated at $40 million dollars which will be shared equally between the Government and the New Zealand Rugby Union. The projected deficit does not include capital costs associated with the rebuilding and refurbishment of stadiums and other non-operational costs.
Great insight into the business of organising an event that will be watched globally by almost a billion people. For those companies that engage in ambush marketing like bavaria and paddy power, yes it does seem cheeky but so many column inches are given to it that I think it ends up proving that at times even bad publicity can be good publicity. Both brands actions were crticised but both brands already associated themselves with cheeky boundary pushing advertising so I don't think they were adversely affected. It will be interesting to see if any guerilla advertising takes place during the WRC, my money's on Fosters.
ReplyDeleteOne guerrilla group that has been creating a bit of a stir surrounding the RWC is a group of Maori men who have performed the Haka at various public locations over the past few days. Although they are not a commercial brand or organisation, it has been commented that it is a form of marketing for brand New Zealand. One location in particular that gathered a crowd was the Queen St. intersection - you can watch the video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Dc0Gf5Ql1U&NR=1
ReplyDeleteA very interesting blog post indeed, I was particularly shocked by the Paddy Power incident, even though it is what we have become acustomed to as Paddy Power are becoming well known for their risky marketing strategies. I really do feel that it is a shame that smaller teams such as Tonga who have only a fraction of the resources to that of wealthier nations are exploited in this manner. It is very demeaning to think that while the team represented a whole nation, they were reduced to making a mockery of themselves and their nation by attempting to die their hair green.
ReplyDelete