Ambush marketing and the Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act: a national sponsor perspective

Ellis, Dana; Patry, Philippe; Séguin, Benoît; O', Norm; Reilly, N.A.

doi:10.1504/ijsmm.2019.099783

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Internal communications between the COC and National Sport Organisations evidenced consistent dialogue between sponsorship stakeholders describing the rights allowances and restrictions under the new legislation, in an effort to limit NSO-sponsor ambush activations around the Games. Ellis, Gauthier and Séguin (2011) argued that the OPMA served as a useful educational tool for the federations and their commercial partners; the authors rightly suggested that the key to ambush legislative effectiveness may be as a tool to facilitate communication with sponsorship stakeholders regarding their rights and allowances, as well as those areas restricted to official Olympic sponsors, rather than in the strict enforcement of the law.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most recently, ambush scholars have explored the value of educating consumers, commercial partners and potential ambush marketers, as to the rights owned and controlled by events and properties around major events and the opportunities and risks available to non-sponsors in activating around sports properties. Ellis, Gauthier and Séguin (2011) highlighted the value of ambush legislation as a communications tool for events in establishing and relating their intellectual property rights. Koenigstorfer and Uhrich (2017) likewise explored that further the proactive role public relations tactics may play in sponsorship protection, proposing the use of “counter-ambush communications”, comprising of the traditional “name and shame” ethical tactics of the 1990s and more importantly, educational and humour-based responses on the part of rights holders and sponsors.…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Commercial rights management in post-legislative Olympic sponsorship

Burton

Bradish

2019

SBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the development of preventative counter-ambush marketing initiatives and rights protection strategies, providing an historical view of rights management and the International Olympic Committee’s sponsorship protection initiatives through ambush marketing’s formative years. Design/methodology/approach In examining the antecedents and implications of the Canadian Olympic Committee’s (COC) forward-thinking approach to ambush marketing protection, and to explore the development of preventative counter-ambush initiatives, an historical examination of IOC and COC policies and protocols regarding ambushing and sponsorship protection over a 30-year period was undertaken, informing the development of a proposed model of proactive commercial rights management. Findings The findings indicate that a progressive shift in the counter-ambush activities of major commercial rights holders may be underway: increasingly, the COC has stressed education and communication as key components of their commercial rights protection strategy, in lieu of enforcing the legal protection provided them by the Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act of 2007. The resultant commercial rights management model proposed reflects this proactive approach, and illustrates the need for events and sponsorship stakeholders to Anticipate, (Re)Act and Advocate. Originality/value The study offers a contemporary perspective into counter-ambush strategies within the context of the COC’s brand protection measures and industry practice. The proactive approach to commercial rights management explored represents a significant step in ambush marketing prevention on the part of the COC.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Commercial rights management in post-legislative Olympic sponsorship

Burton

Bradish

2019

SBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The term "ambush marketing" was first introduced during the 1984 Summer Olympic Games in Los Angeles when non-Olympic sponsor Kodak attempted to combat official Olympic sponsor and rival company Fuji by developing a highly visible presence via sponsorships of ABC's television broadcast of the Games and the U.S. track and field team (McKelvey, 2014;Meenaghan, 1994). Much of the ambush marketing literature has focused on ambushing efforts at the Olympic Games given its prevalence at that event (e.g., Ellis, Patry, Séguin, & O'Reilly, 2019;Ellis et al, 2016;Grady, 2016a;Macintosh et al, 2012). In order to host the Olympic Games, the IOC requires host cities to develop anti-ambush legislation as part of their effort to protect the Olympic brand (Séguin & Scassa, 2014).…”

Section: Ambush Marketingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Athletes as ambush marketers? An examination of Rule 40 and athletes’ social media use during the 2016 Rio Olympic Games

Geurin

McNary

2020

European Sport Management Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research question: Ambush marketing is utilized at all major sporting events, and Rule 40 of the Olympic Charter is designed to prevent ambush marketing tactics during the Olympic Games, restricting what content athletes can post on social media about non-Olympic sponsors. Utilizing ambush marketing as a framework to guide our examination of athletes' adherence to Rule 40, the purpose of this study was to examine Olympic athletes' social media posts from the 2016 Olympic Games to determine whether athletes violated Rule 40 and therefore engaged in ambush marketing.Research methods: Using content analysis, this study examined 100 randomly selected U.S.Olympic athletes' social media posts on Instagram for a six-week time period before, during, and after the 2016 Rio Olympic Games. Frequencies, chi square, and independent samples ttests were calculated with SPSS25.Results and Findings: Significant differences in posting behaviors existed during the three time periods, and over 19% of all posts during the blackout period violated Rule 40, indicating a form of ambush marketing by the athletes. Additionally, athletes appeared to miss opportunities to highlight their personal sponsors and build their athlete brand after the Games.Implications: Athletes play a role in the Olympic ambush marketing network, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and Rule 40 enforcement issues were apparent, leading to questions about its feasibility. Athletes' brand-building efforts should extend to the time period after the Olympic Games, as they have the ability to highlight sponsors in their posts to a greater degree during this timeframe.

show abstract

Cities through the lens of Stakeholder Theory: A literature review

Beck

Storópoli

2021

Cities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ambush marketing and the Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act: a national sponsor perspective

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Commercial rights management in post-legislative Olympic sponsorship

Commercial rights management in post-legislative Olympic sponsorship

Athletes as ambush marketers? An examination of Rule 40 and athletes’ social media use during the 2016 Rio Olympic Games

Cities through the lens of Stakeholder Theory: A literature review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About