Coca-Cola Classic Case Study

In addition to its leading global market-share, Coca-Cola also retains the title of having the most popular individual beverage in the Nor in Coca-Cola Classic, with an 18. 6% market share (“Top 10,” 2004). Additionally, in 2003 it placed four beverages in the top 10 for individual product sales: Coke Classic (#1), Diet Coke (3), Sprite (5), and Caffeine Free Diet Coke (8) (“Top 10,” 2004). Through Research & Development (R&D) and acquisitions, Coca-Cola has also expanded its product line to include non-carbonated beverage products, including: Disdain, Faint, Fruition, Hi-C, Minute Maid, and Mr..


We Will Write a Custom Case Study Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

In 2003, Coca-Cola spent approximately $1. 9 billion on marketing and advertising. In November 2004, Coca- Cola CEO Unveiled Sidles stated that “[Marketing expenditures] would rise by $350-$400 million a year forever” (Marketplace Roundup, 2004). Pepsi-cola: The Challenger Ninth the exception of brief bankruptcy stints in 1923 and 1932, Pepsi-Cola assumed TTS place at the heels of Coca-Cola through its creation of an extensive franchise bottling network and distribution outlets (Wife, 2004). Over the years, the Pepsi-Cola company has expanded its product offerings, through R&D and acquisitions, to

Include: Diet Pepsi, Mountain Dew, Mug Root Beer, Slice, Sierra Mist, Lipton, Aquifer, and Cataracts Approaching, among others. Piccolo’s acquisition of Gathered from the Quaker Oats company in December 2000 further proved its commitment to broadening its product base as well as expanding its sponsorship connection to the sport industry, in which Gathered was already a major player.

As of 2003, Pepsi controlled 31. 8% of the market in the soft drink industry with annual sales of 3. 2 billion cases (“Top 10,” 2004). Today, the company’s flagship brand, Pepsi-cola, ranks second only to Coca-Cola Classic, with a U.

S. Market share of 1 1.

9% (“Top 10,” 2004). Similar to the Coca-Cola company, it also has four products in the top 10 on an individual product sales basis: Pepsi (#2), Mountain Dew (4), Diet Pepsi (6), and Sierra Mist (9) (“Top 10,” 2004). In 2003, Pepsi spent $1. 6 billion dollars on marketing and advertising (wry. Pepsico.

Com). Introduction It was March 31, 2003, and the Coca-Cola Classic brand management team was excited about enjoying another Major League Baseball opening day at Turner Field against the visiting Montreal Expos.

As the team drove out to Turner Field, most of the talk centered on the Atlanta Braves’ prospects tort the upcoming season. Jill S however, had her mind on football?specifically, the 2004 Super Bowl in Houston? only 10 months away. Although Coca-Cola was no longer the official soft drink sponsor of the National Football League?rival Pepsi-Cola had outbid Coca-Cola for those rights in 2002?Coca-Cola was an official team sponsor of the Houston Texans, the hosts of the upcoming Super Bowl.

Jill, the senior marketing executive on the Coca-Cola Classic brand, had recently received a memo from her boss, the Vice President of Brand Management for the Classic brand, requesting that, within two Knees, she present her recommendations for what, if any, promotional activity the company should conduct in conjunction with the 2004 Super Bowl in Houston. Jill knew that if Coca-Cola planned to conduct any such promotional activity, it would be eddied by some, including the NFG and Pepsi, as “ambush marketing. Her recommendations might not only have ethical implications for Coca-Cola, but also legal implications as well. As a local Atlanta youth choir sang the national anthem to commence the Braves’ 2003 season, Sill’s mind was elsewhere, mulling over a wide range of concerns and possible recommendations. Steve McKinley, JDK, is an assistant professor in the Department of Sport Management at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

His research interests include sport sponsorship and legal issues in sport marketing. 14 Volume 15 Number 2 2006 Sport Marketing Quarterly The “Cola Wars” The “cola wars,” which describes the on-going battle between Coca- Cola and Pepsi for supremacy in the soft drink industry, date back to the sass when Pepsin’s corporate focus became “Beat Coke” (Wife, 2004). Since then, they have battled domestically and globally for market share and sales, with a tremendous mount at stake: the soft drink industry annually produces approximately 10. 1 billion cases of soft drinks domestically, with a total U.


Retail value of $65 billion. Of that annual dollar total, the “cola” flavors represent close to a 70% market share, followed distantly by the lemon/lime, citrus, pepper, root beer, and orange flavored soft drinks Coffee, 2004). Given the amount at stake, the “cola wars” are fought daily between Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola on a variety of fronts, as illustrated below: New Products: There seem to be no secrets in the beverage category, with Coca-Cola and Pepsi typically releasing new products in unison.

For example, in 2003 when Coca-Cola Introduced Vanilla Coke and Sprite Re-Mix, Pepsi simultaneously countered by introducing Mountain Dew Live Wire, Pepsi Blue, and Sierra Mist (Church, 2003). Within the last dive years, both Collar and Pepsi also introduced their own brands of bottled waters (Quaffs and Disdain, respectively). More recently, responding to the low-Carr craze, within weeks of Coca-Cola’s launch of CO, Pepsi responded with Pepsi Edge (Moses, 2004).

The “cola wars” even extends to product packaging: recently, both corporations have tried to reduce costs and increase profit margins with the lease of the streamlined LA-liter bottle in attempt to phase out the 2-liter bottles. Global Expansion: The “cola wars” have also heated up on the international front. For example, India, a nation with over one billion potential customers, has become one of the latest battlegrounds. Over the past tale years, boot corporations nave battled tort the rights to use cricket stars as sponsors, to fund “Plywood” movies, and to secure online relationships (Yahoo!

India with Pepsi; Hangman with Coca-Cola). Both companies have aired commercials with high profile Indian personalities in an effort o capture this burgeoning market (Data, 2001). Likewise, as China has opened its borders to international trade, Coca-Cola and Pepsi have aggressively moved to establish themselves.

Both companies have moved aggressively to establish distribution, manufacturing, and bottling networks in China, enabling both to offset stagnant soft drink sales in the United States (Uterine, 2004).

In 2003, Houston Rockets basketball sensation Way Mining, a native of China, was at the center of ambush marketing allegations and a sub- sequent lawsuit when Coca-Cola utilized his image on packaging without his permission (Anthony, 2004). Coca-Cola alleged that it had properly secured the rights to feature Mining through its official sponsorship of the Chinese national basketball team (Anthony, 2003). The lawsuit, though settled, illustrate Just how much is a stake n global expansion for companies like Coca-Cola and Pepsi, as the profile of major U. S.

Sport leagues and its stars expand to countries like China.

U. S. -based Marketing Initiatives: The summer months always serve as a key battleground for high-profile promotional sweepstakes campaigns. For instance, in the summer of 2004, Coca-Cola launched its “Unexpected Summer” promotion centered on its tradition and in-store orchestrating, WIBNI Pepsi countered with its “Play for a Billion” promotion Macarthur, 2004). Over the past decade, the “cola wars” eave expanded into new denudes, including sponsorship deals with public schools and municipalities (Benson, 1999).

The “cola wars” have also recently entered the digital music world.

For instance, in 2004, when Coca-Cola launched www. Microcosmic in an effort to tap into tube growing on-line, tech-saws, digital media market, Pepsi immediately countered Ninth a consumer offer of 100 million songs in a co-branded promotion Witt Apple‘s tunes (Briggs, 2004). Sport Sponsorships: Sport sponsorship has become an increasingly integral part of marketing strategy for boot Coke and Pepsi.

Over tube past few decades, concurrent with tube overall rise in sport sponsorship spending, boot corporations eave aligned Tiber core brands Witt sport properties tab tube feel effectively deliver particular market segments.

Boot corporations annually rank among tube top 50 in sports advertising spending. In 2003, tube Pepsi-Cola beverage division spent an estimated $77 million (ranking 10) and Coca-Cola spent an estimated $64 million (ranking 17) (Top 50, 2004). Appendix A lists tube major involvements of boot corporations within tube area of sport sponsorships. As cabals be seen in greater detail, arguably no U. S.

Sport property provides more fertile ground for tube “cola wars” tuba tube National Football League. Overview of NFG sponsorship program Two events cabbaged tube course of professional sports in tube sass.

Tube first event Nas CBS signing on in 1956 to televise NFG games. Tube second occurred at Yankee Stadium on December 28, 1958, Webb, in tabling fashion, tube underdog Baltimore Colts beat tube New York Giants, 23-17, for tube NFG Sponsorship before an estimated television audience Illume 15 Number 2 2006 Sport Marketing Quarterly 115 of 45 million people. Based upon the growing popularity of the NFG as a television property, in 1962 the NFG renewed its broadcast arrangement with CBS, for a then- exorbitant $4.

65 million annually (Misses, 1998).

With each subsequent television negotiation, the NFG achieved monumental increases in television rights fees, reflecting the fact that the Super Bowl is the top rated sports telecast every year. In 1998, the NFG entered into eight-year television rights deals with BBC, Fox, CBS, and ESP. totaling $17. 6 billion, representing an average annual value of $2. Billion {By the Numbers, 2004).

In addition, in 2004 Direct extended its Sunday Ticket package contract through 2010 at a total five-year cost of $3. 5 billion (Bernstein, 2004).

In 1963, to further capitalize on its growing popularity, the NFG, through a representation agreement with its member franchises known as the NFG Trust Agreement, created a division whose main purpose was to generate income as a method of underwriting the league’s charitable programs (this division within NFG was officially named NFG Properties, or “NEFF,” in 1982). The premise of the NFG Trust Agreement was that all venues generated through broadcasting, hissing, and sponsorship would be shared equally among all the NFG teams.

It was not until the sass that the NFG began to fully realize the potential for additional revenues through licensing and corporate sponsorship.

Corporations today are willing to invest tens of millions of dollars on a multi-year basis to gain an association with the NFG and access to its fan base, and the escalating cost of these sponsorship deals suggests that an NFG sponsorship creates numerous benefits for the corporations. Table 1 identifies the Neff’s 2003 official sponsors.

Historically, an official sponsorship deal with the NFG granted the sponsor the rights to utilize not only leagued NFG trademarks, but also the individual trademarks of all of the NFG teams in their advertising and promotional campaigns. However, in the mid sass, a small coalition of owners led by Jerry Jones of the Dallas Cowboys began to challenge the NFG to release the local marketing rights back to the individual teams. In an attempt to force this issue on the NEFF, Jones embarked on a series of highly- publicized sponsorship signings that made companies like Pepsi, Nikkei, American Express, AT&T, and Dry.

Pepper official sponsors of the Dallas Cowboys stadium (a clever maneuver designed to associate these companies with the Dallas Cowboys Nile not violating the legal provisions of the team’s agreement with NEFF) (“NFG, Cowboys owner,” 1996). Table / 2003 NFG sponsors Company (brand) Brayer Pharmaceuticals Corp.. Campbell Soup Co. Canon USA, Inc. Castro North America, Inc. Coors Brewing Co. Direct, Inc. Faded Corp..

Frito-Lay North America Catered/ Tropical (Catered) Catered/Tropical (Tropical) General Motors Corp.. (Cadillac) B s NC (Oscar Mayer) Masterstroke MBA America Bank Motorola Inc.

News America Pepsi-Cola North America (Pepsi) Southwest Airlines Co.

Staples Visa USA Category Pharmaceutical Soup Cameras and Equipment Motor Oil Beer Satellite Television Worldwide Delivery Service Salty Snack Sports Beverage (Isotonic) Juice Car and Passenger Truck Computer Hardware Processed Meats/Pickles Chocolate and Mono-chocolate Confectionery Team-Identified Credit Cards Wireless religiousness’s Equipment Super Bowl Free Standing Inserts Soft Drinks Airline Office Supply Retailer Payment Systems Services partner Since 2003 1998 1984 1991 2002 1994 2000 2000 1983 2002 2001 2003 1983 2002 1995 1999 1979 2002 1997 1996 1995

Source: By the Numbers 2004 (2004). Sportiveness Journal, 6(36), 22. 116 Volume 15 Number 2 2006 Sport Marketing Quarterly In response to Jones’ renegade efforts, in 1995 the NFG sued Jones and the Dallas Cowboys for violating the Trust Agreement the club signed in 1982 authorizing the NFG to negotiate commercial uses of the team’s name, helmet, uniform, and slogans I”NFG, Cowboys owner,” 1996). The NFG also voiced concern that Jones’ actions in signing sponsorship deals with competitors of NFG official sponsors, including Coca- Cola, constituted ambush marketing (“NFG, Cowboys owner,” 1996).

The case was eventually settled out of court, with the NFG recognizing Jones’ right to sell sponsorships to the Dallas Cowboys stadium. However, in 2002, spurred by the continued lobbying of Jones and newer owners such as Washington’s Daniel Snyder, the NFG agreed to cede local marketing rights back to the individual teams, creating the opportunity for individual teams to sell its trademark rights to whomever they Choose, including competitors of NFG official league-wide sponsors (Lepton, 2002).

Capitalizing on this policy change, competitors of official NFG sponsors began to aggressively pursue individual team sponsorship rights.

One of those companies was Mastered, which went from no NFG team deals in 2002 to 25 NFG team deals by 2004, leaving Visa with the seven remaining NFG teams despite its position as the Neff’s “official credit card. ” advertising in and around the Super Bowl telecast, 2) presence in and around the denude of the Super Bowl, 3) consumer promotions tying into the event, which typically offer football-themed merchandise in proof purchase offers or trips and tickets as sweepstakes prizes, and 4) congratulatory messages.

Purchase of Advertising Time in ND Around the Event: The purchase of advertising in and around a sporting event telecast is one of the most common and popular tactics of ambush marketing :McKinley, 1992; Meghan, 1996; McCauley & Sutton, 1999). This tactic was also deemed to be the most effective form of ambush marketing in a survey designed to assess the attitudes and opinions of senior marketing executives of corporations actively engaged in sport sponsorship (McKinley & Gladden, 2003).

Given its unparalleled worldwide audience, telecasts to the Super Bowl nave historically provided fertile ground for ambush marketers.

Throughout the sass, for example, Enhancer-Busch conducted a series of highly-publicized “Bud Bowl” commercials that aired during Super Bowl telecasts, serving to ambush Miller Briefing’s position as the Neff’s official beer sponsor of the Super Bowl.

The “Bud Bowl” campaign featured its main beers, Budweiser and Bud Light (the bottles personified as football players), competing in a fantasy football game for the mythic “Bud Bowl Championship. ” Throughout the Super Bowl telecasts the commercials provided highlights of the “game. ” Corporations seeking to gain an association with the Super Bowl have also resorted to purchasing advertising on local affiliate stations, thus ambushing competitors who have secured exclusive category advertising rights Nothing the national telecast of the Super Bowl.

Presence in and Around the Event venue Another popular form of ambush marketing is for non-sponsors to secure a presence in and around the sporting event venue. In the early days of ambush marketing, companies would employ blimps and airplanes with trailing banners to ambush a major sporting event, but event owners have successfully closed this ambush avenue by working closely with the Federal Aviation Administration and with cost cities to enact air traffic restrictions during such events.

Other popular ambush marketing avenues have included: securing strategically placed billboards; erecting tents and inflatable’s in high-traffic locations; and distributing literature and samples to consumers attending the event. These types of activities are all designed to gain an implied association with the event. However, as found in the survey by McKinley and Gladden (2003), securing signage near or around the event venue, as well as Neat is Ambush Market?

As the popularity of the NFG has increased, so too has the number of companies seeking to align themselves with the league without actually securing the official sponsorship rights. This tactic, known as ambush marketing, has been defined as “a company’s intentional efforts to weaken?or ambush?its competitor’s ‘official sponsorship. ‘ It does this by engaging in promotions and advertising that trade off the event or property’s goodwill and reputation, and that seek to confuse the buying public as to which companies really hold official sponsorship rights” (McKinley, AAA, p. 0).

Further literature on ambush marketing has suggested that, beyond his narrow and more pejorative definition, ambush marketing can be more broadly defined to describe “a whole variety of wholly legitimate and morally correct methods of intruding upon public consciousness surrounding an event” (Meghan, 1994, p. 79). Thus, for instance, even a company that purchases generic (non-football themed) advertising within a Super Bowl telecast could, as a competitor of an NFG official sponsor, be construed as an “ambush marketer” regardless of the company’s motives or intentions.

The country’s premier sporting event, the Super Bowl, has long been nee of the key battlefields in ambush marketing. Over the years, a broad range of tactics have been utilized, including: 1) the purchase of Illume 15 Number 2 2006 Sport Marketing Quarterly 117 sampling and promotional literature distribution, were deemed by corporate sport marketers to be among the least effective ambush marketing tactics. In-venue ambushing can also involve a direct conflict between an official league sponsor and a nonsmoker.

In 1995, tube New England Patriots became the first team to crack Coca- Cola’s monopoly on local NFG team agreements, signing Pepsi to an official pensioners that included in-stadium pouring rights. This deal was soon followed by leery Jones’ high-profile signing of Pepsi to be the official sponsor of the Dallas Cowboys’ stadium, as discussed above (Voluntarily, 2001). Conducting Consumer Promotions Another popular avenue of ambush marketing is to conduct consumer promotions that associate the ambush marketer with popular sporting events.

Such promotions typically are offered at retail locations and are supported by point-of-sale displays that feature visuals “themed” to the particular sporting event and that utilize words that generically refer to the sporting event. For instance, a company intent on associating itself with the Super Bowl may run an in-store promotion offering consumers a free football in exchange for proofs-of-purchase and/or inviting consumers to enter to win “a trip for 2 for the Big Game.

While purposely avoiding the use of any registered trademarks, the displays are intended to lure consumers through an implied association with the Super Bowl. Companies are also finding increasingly creative ways to associate themselves with events like the Super Bowl, Introit specifically offering Super Bowl trips. For instance, companies have provided consumers the opportunity to win trips to “Big Game”-themed parties in attractive locations such as Lass Vegas or the Playboy mansion.

Increasingly, these types of promotions are also being offered on-line, providing further challenges to sport organizations in identifying and addressing such consumer promotions. Congratulatory Messages In an attempt to create an association with a particular event, companies will often create advertisements offering “congratulations” to the “inning team or certain players.

For instance, only days after the 2003 Super Bowl, he Milk Counsel, although not an official sponsor of the NFG, ran a full-page advertisement in USA TODAY featuring the game’s two Maps in their “Got Milk? Moustache campaign. This tactic is one of the most indirect forms of ambush marketing, and because of the one-time nature of the advertisement and First Amendment concerns, it is one of the most legally protected methods of associating Ninth a sporting vent, especially if the “congratulations” message is not tied directly to the sale of a product or service. The Effectiveness of Ambush Marketing The effectiveness of ambush marketing has been the subject of numerous research studies which, with sometimes conflicting results, have focused on consumer perceptions.

The majority of research has focused on the success or failure of ambush marketing in terms of levels of recall and recognition of ambush marketers versus “official sponsors” (McDaniel & Kinney, 1998; McDaniel & Kinney, 1996; Performance Research Inc. , 1992; Shania & Sandier, 1998). Research studies have also found consumer confusion regarding the classification of sponsors (McDaniel & Kinney, 1998; Sandier Shania, 1993, 1989; Stellar, 1993).

Shania and Sandier (1998) found that consumers’ attitudes toward ambush marketing were largely indifferent and linked to their levels at knowledge to an event.

More recently, Lubberly and c a y (2001) concluded that there existed confusion and a lack of knowledge regarding sponsorship of the Super Bowl that was unaffected by levels of interest in sport, in the NFG, or in the event itself Their study further found that consumers are less aware of ambush tactics being employed at the Super Bowl than those being employed at the Olympic Games, and that there is “a broad lack of awareness of levels of sponsorship and of the entitlements associated with those levels” (p. 6). Finally, results of their study demonstrated that a significant number of respondents did not oppose ambush marketing practices and that consumers were not “disgruntled” by companies that engage in ambush marketing and that there seems to be “a general acceptance of the practice” (p. 137). The effectiveness of ambush marketing has also been assessed through a survey of corporate decision makers (McKinley ; Gladden, 2003).

Their study found that almost 90% of the respondents agreed that effective ambush marketing can confuse consumers into thinking a non-sponsor is actually a sponsor, ND that nearly three-quarters of the respondents agreed that the average consumer does not differentiate between official sponsors and ambushers. The survey also found that, on the whole, executives felt that sport properties were ineffective in dealing with ambush marketing threats. For instance, almost 70% of the respondents agreed that while properties often imply they will combat ambush marketing at the time of contracting, they seem powerless to do so when it occurs.

Furthermore, a majority of executives agreed with the notion that properties are either too lazy or ambivalent to address the ambush marketing concerns of its corporate sponsors y?«level ; Gladden, 2003). 118 Volume 15 Number 2 2006 Sport Marketing Quarterly cease its promotional activity. For instance, the NFG is reported to send out “dozens of cease-and-desist letters annually to companies that engage in trademark infringement” (p.

D’). However, given the gray areas that surround the legalities of ambush marketing, U. S. Repressions sports leagues have historically been reluctant to bring lawsuits, primarily because ambush marketers are Legal Landscape of Ambush Marketing savvy and knowledgeable enough to avoid blatantly The debate over ambush marketing is further cloud- infringing on registered trademarks. As a result, there De by questions regarding its legality, particularly given exists no decided U. S.

Case law based directly upon an the intangible nature of ambush marketing typically ambush marketing scenario, absent an outright case of manifested through promotion and advertising trademark infringement {Host Communications v. McKinley, Bibb). According to U. S. Law, there are Kellogg Company, 1994) or a contractual dispute that several legal recourses that a sport organization can involved the licensing of official sponsor rights in contact to prevent ambush marketing.

First, if an ambush- flitting categories {Mastered v. Sprint, 1994). Inning company uses a trademarked name, symbol, or One of the reasons that professional sport leagues logo of the event, the organization can sue for trademark been reluctant to bring suit against ambush mark infringement. Under the Lankan Act, an esters is the fear of an adverse court ruling.

Such was ambushing company using a mark that is Jokily to the case in 1 2, when a Canadian court upheld the cause consumer confusion with respect to the corporeality of ambush racketing NIL v.

Pepsi Cola rate affiliation can be held liable for damages. Absent Canada (McKinley, 1992). In 1990, the National blatant trademark infringement, however, the Lankan Hockey League (“NIL”) sued Pepsi-Cola Canada Act requires that the organization demonstrate, most (“Pepsi”) in a Canadian court in the first-ever litigation through the use of consumer surveys, that there Zion specifically addressing ambush marketing.

The is not only a likelihood of confusion, but that concave provided a textbook illustration of ambush marauders have actually been confused as to which competing in action. Pepsi did not utilize any NIL registrar is the official sponsor. Tired trademarks in its promotional and advertising materials.

Instead, the company utilized city names A second legal remedy is to sue ambushers for false representing NIL playoff participants and game endorsement.

This legal claim, which can be brought beers printed under bottle caps and on scratch-off game under the Lankan Act or under state unfair competitor’s as part of its “Pro Hockey Playoff Pool” promotion statutes, enables the sport organization to argue that the ambusher is trading off of the goodwill ASCII- Zion offering consumers various cocky-related prizes. Dated with an event?goodwill that has been built up by Pepsi also sponsored the league’s telecasts of the Stanley Cup playoffs throughout Canada and featured the organization, over time, through a tremendous hockey imagery as Nell as hockey legend Don Cherry investment of resources. O advertise the promotion. To allay potential conscious marketing campaigns, however, are most often conducted by marketers who are save. “y’ enough to summer confusion as to its association with the NIL, Pepsi utilized disclaimer language, stating in advertised latent trademark infringement, instead preferring and promotional materials that its promotion was ring to more subtly imply or evoke a false relationship “neither associated with nor sponsored by the National with the sport property in the minds of consumers.

Hockey League or any of its member team or other Vane sport organizations are confronted by affiliates” (p. 7). Despite the Nil’s claims that Pepsi ambush marketing campaigns, especially those that had engaged in misappropriation and unfair psychoanalytically threaten their official sponsors, they ay Zion (referred to under Canadian laws as the tort of react by publicly denouncing the actions of the “passing of), or alternatively, that Pepsi had unlawfulness’s company.

As NFG spokesman Brian lye interfered with the Nil’s business associations, the McCarthy publicly stated prior to the 2004 Super court found in favor of Pepsi, holding that, inter alai, it Bowl, in addressing ambush marketing activities by several beer companies, “Ambush marketing is a trans- had used disclaimers sufficient to alleviate any consumer confusion. Arena attempt to cash in on the passions of our fans” (Murphy, 2003, p. D’).

When sport organizations As stated earlier, one of the most popular forms of believe that they have valid legal grounds, they issue ambush marketing is the offering of tickets for special cease-and-desist letters to potential infringes, threatens in consumer sweepstakes.

This tactic was challenging potential legal action if the company refuses to longed in by the National Collegiate Athletic Volume 15 Number 2 2006 Sport Marketing Quarterly 119 arms research study, coupled Witt research studies involving consumer attitudes toward ambush marketing, suggests significant hurdles for sport organizations guarding the prospects of educating the general public with respect to the official sponsors of the event and the potential negative impact of ambush marketing upon the value of official sponsorship programs.

Association (NCAA), which, in 2002, sued Coors Brewing Company for tie unauthorized use of NCAA Final Four tickets in a consumer promotion. The NCAA argued TIA Coors’ use of Final Four tickets constituted a breach of contract based on the ticket back language that resembles that on the back of TTL special event tickets including Super Boot tickets: “[U]notes specifically authorized in advance by the NCAA, this ticket may not be offered in a commercial promotion or as a prize in a sweepstakes or contest” (McKinley, 2003).

Although this case had the potential to become a seminar U. S.

Case on the testifies of ambush marketing, it was settled out of court in Apart 2003 (McKinley, 2003). Ethical Considerations of Ambush Marketing Entity the practice of ambush marketing has been widely debated, particularity around premier sporting events suit as the Atomics, World Cup and Super Boot, the answer to whether it is an “immoral or imaginative practice may wet tie in the eye of the betrothed” (Meghan, 99th, p. 5).

For instance, sport property owners and their official sponsors typicality regard as immoral or unethical any activity by a nonsmoker that wittingly or unwittingly intrudes upon the property’s and/or sponsors’ rights, thus potentiality detracting from the official sponsor’s “executive” association with the sport property. On tie other hand, such activity engaged in by non-sponsors is typicality perceived and defended as nothing more than a part of the ‘Norman ‘cut and thrust’ of business activity based on a strong economic localization” (p.

5). Tie diverse positions taken by two tending sport marketing executives further serve to testatrix the ethical issues surrounding ambush marketing. Former American Express marketing executive leery Whets, the architect betting his company’s tight epitomized astute on Visa’s Totemic sponsorship, has been a noted defender of ambush marketing: In explaining the practice of ambush marketing Tiber is no need to discuss debits or morality.

Companies routinely compete – mostly, we pope and expect, bonniest and bard – and ambush marketing, correctly understood and rigidity practiced, is an important, edibility correct, competitive toot in a non-sponsoring company’s arsenate of business and image- dining weapons. To tibia tuberose is Tiber not to understand – or without to misrepresent – tube meaning of ambush marketing and its significance for good – and “inning – marketing practice.

Wets, 2002, p. 4) On tube Tiber end of tube spectrum, former International Totemic Committee (OIC) bead of marketing Emaciate Payne, web coined tube term “parasitic marketing” to refer to ambushers of tube Totemic Movement, bas stated: Ambush marketing is an attempt by corporations to mislead tube peptic into bettering tab tube are supporting a sports event. Tabs deception contravenes a basic premise of