Olympic Ambush Marketing Networks and Knowledge Transfer: Examining Their Impact on the Institutionalization of Anti-Ambush Marketing Legislation

Abstract

This article examines how Olympic ambush marketing stakeholder power and transfer of sponsorship, as well as ambush marketing knowledge, have influenced institutional processes leading to the institutionalization of antiambush legislation over the years. Using a qualitative case study design and network analysis, findings show the International Olympic Committee and Organizing Committees for the Olympic Games demonstrate the greatest stakeholder influence within the Olympic ambush marketing network. The power and influence resulting from the structure of Olympic ambush marketing networks was argued to impact the institutional processes of objectification and sedimentation. Various knowledge transfer tools, as well as challenges and issues faced in this area, seem to act as moderators for the relationship between network structures and the process of institutionalization.

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

“…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).…”

“…Sport properties, official sponsors, and ambushing organizations were identified by as stakeholders in ambush marketing, but individual athletes were not mentioned. Similarly, in a diagram of the actors in the Olympic ambush marketing network by Ellis et al (2016), athletes appeared on the diagram with links to local sponsors, local organizing committees of the Olympic Games, Olympic sponsors, and the International Olympic Committee, but beyond the mention of athletes in the visual figure, there was no discussion of athletes' role in ambush marketing networks. Based on the inclusion of athletes in the Olympic ambush network diagram by Ellis et al (2016), the inclusion of athletes in three of Nufer's (2016) types of ambush marketing, and instances of some athletes highlighting their personal sponsors during the Olympic Games, the authors viewed ambush marketing as an appropriate lens from which to examine athletes' behavior regarding Rule 40 during the Olympic Games.…”

“…According to the IOC (n.d.), the purpose of this rule is to prevent over-commercialization of the Olympic Games, to keep the Games' focus on athletes' performances, and to preserve the IOC's funding sources, of which a large portion is made up of sponsorship revenues from a small number of corporate partners. Rule sponsors are unable to align themselves with the Olympic brand (Ellis, Parent, & Séguin, 2016).…”

Airline Sponsorships and Sports – An Exploratory Review of Major Airline Engagement

“…As sport sponsorship has lead in the spending by type of sponsorship, much of the research is found in sports related journals. As a starting point research in the past has focused on the biggest global sporting event, the Olympics (Tripodi and Hirons, 2009;Cho;2011;Ellis, Parent and Seguin, 2016) or on sponsorship in auto racing focusing on the two major racing series, Formula One and NASCAR (DeGaris, Kwak and McDaniel, 2017;Jensen and Cobbs, 2014;Rotthoff, Depken, and Groothuis, 2014). In a recent publication, Grohs (2015) found 44 studies that focused on sponsorship and the effects on the sponsors brand image from 1995 to 2014 with the Olympics, auto racing and football (soccer)…”

Commercial rights management in post-legislative Olympic sponsorship

“…However, following the expiration of Bill C-47 Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act (2007) upon completion of the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympic Games, the COC and Canadian Olympic sponsors now operate in a post-legislative sponsorship environment. As such, the COC’s right management efforts in 2014 offer insight into sponsorship protection initiatives for sponsors and rights holders in the absence of ambush-specific legislation; the organisation has instead favoured education and corporate community engagement over legislative enforcement and interventionism (Ellis et al , 2016), a potentially valuable approach to ambush marketing prevention moving forward.…”