I wanted to cover a couple of topics on the Olympic sponsorship and
ambush marketing lastnight. After a 2-hour exam and then
talking about the presentation next week, we ran out of time.
I felt it was more important to ensure that you're comfortable with
what's expected from your presentations than to spend time on a new
topic. I am glad that we have this medium for any unfinished businesses.
I hope it's clear to you that the group discussion where I go around
each group and spend some time together is another major
part of our learning experience. By addressing your group-specific
questions and issues, I am hoping that you familiarize yourselves with how
an effective brainstorming takes shape and also practice applying the concepts
we learned in class to a real-life topic.
As I mentioned briefly in class, I care about your success beyond the classroom
boundaries and the constant application of classroom materials to real-world
situations will certainly contribute towards that goal, I believe.
I am attaching three files on this blog: (1) An overview of ambush marketing
(2) the legal perspective of it, and then (3) a real Coke ambush case that took place
last fall. The second article really provides an excellent
background picture of the Olympic marketing as well.
I've worked for two companies
that really share contrasting philosophies on the global sponsorship.
Coke is the epitome of "doing things by the book", if you will, paying
sponsorship dollars to become the official sponsor of the Olympics or the
FIFA World Cup, and to work creatively within the sponsor parameters.
Nike, on the other hand, has long been a firm believer that spending
millions of dollars on sponsorship fees was a waste of money and that they could
outsmart and outdistance the competition by investing that money on
elite teams, athletes and ambush marketing. Phil Knight believes that
the sponsorship game is won and lost on the pitch - associating the Swoosh
with jaw-dropping performances and heart-moving stories of the athletes instead.
Nike's emphasis on the authenticity and respect for the game is probably
what drove its incredible growth in the early years. They managed to make
strong statements about their creativity through a number of ambush antics as well.
Surely, it also invites debates about their ethical orientation, but
the majority of its core target don't seem to care...
The last Powerpoint brings up an interesting ambush tactic by Pepsi in China.
In an attempt to weaken Coke's Olympic sponsorship in Beijing, Pepsi China
folks have come up with RED can packaging - which is as scandalous
and unthinkable in the beverage industry as Coke's tampering with its
traditional Red and White logo inside the stadiums.
The file will show you how Coke tries to counter this move
and in my opinion, it's a battle of "Dare vs. Red". "Daring" Chinese consumers
to participate in the new Red Movement is Pepsi's gig, while Coke
focuses NOT on the notion of "Daring" but on the authenticity of "Red"
in order to fend off Pepsi's ambush attack. It's an interesting chess-game
and the one that you will see in the real, marketing war-rooms
ALL THE TIME.
Please ensure that you download these files and take some time digesting
the contents. I would ask you to share your thoughts on these topics actively
on the blog before next week. Otherwise, we would have to do it in class
after all the presentations due next week which will be a physical challenge, I assure you :-)
Enjoy the topic. Thanks.







Recent Comments