This article investigates the effectiveness of ambush marketing in terms of ambush marketer misidentification in the context of sports events. Grounded in associative network models and memory reconstruction heuristics, an empirical study examines how different ambush marketing strategies as well as event, ambush marketer, official sponsor, and individual consumer characteristics can result in ambush marketer misidentification. A descriptive survey collects data on consumers' knowledge and perceived misleading potential of four ambush marketing strategies. Finally, three experiments aim to determine the effectiveness of these strategies and the aforementioned drivers in terms of actual ambush marketer misidentification. The results from the experiments are contrasted with the findings from the survey study. Findings are discussed with emphasis on implications for researchers, ambush marketers, official sponsors, and event organizers.
Sport sponsorship is an important marketing communication tool, and stakes in sponsorship deals are high. Therefore, sponsors strive to ensure that their investments are effective and protected from competitors—that is, ambusher marketers’ attacks. Still, little is known about how ambush marketing affects sponsor identification and misidentification of ambushers as sponsors. This study investigates levels of sponsor and ambusher identification in three experimental settings, controlling for the presence/absence of an ambusher, communication modality, and response formats. A field study in the context of a large sports event demonstrates the external validity of the findings. The results provide evidence of a nondestructive interference of ambush marketing, indicating that ambush marketing does not necessarily harm sponsor identification. Misidentification of nonsponsors as sponsors occurs because of the indirect link established between the event and the company through ambush marketing, but not as a consequence of other communication activities by a competitor with no link to the event. Finally, a combined sponsor–ambusher perspective indicates that sponsors do not necessarily have a consistent “official sponsor” advantage over ambushers. Findings are discussed with emphasis on implications for sponsors, ambushers, and marketing researchers.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.