Could you get arrested for wearing orange? This is not as foolish a question as it seems, as a paper launched by the Institute this week reveals. Ambush Marketing and the Law explores the increasing levels of legislation that are being introduced to combat the ambushing of events by companies trying to gain free or cheaper exposure for their brands, than it would cost them to pay to be a sponsor.
Such ambushing is usually, but not exclusively, carried out at sporting events – but any event that attracts a potentially large audience can be targeted. With the Olympics just round the corner, attention is focusing on the greatest show on earth and it would seem reasonable to suppose, with sponsors paying an anticipated total of £930 million for 17 days’ exposure, that their interests are appropriately protected.
And, to a certain degree, it is. If I were a sponsor, I would want to know that I was getting value for money and that I wasn’t going to be undercut by a rival who got publicity for nothing. However, when it comes to the Olympics Act, there are some very strange provisions that might come as something of a shock not just to local businesses in the vicinity of the stadia, but to companies up and down the country too.
Ambush Marketing and the Law argues that there are two types of ambush marketing – one where companies attempt to mislead or confuse the audience into thinking that they are an official sponsor, and one where they are simply trying to get some extra or additional exposure for their own products or services. The former is, unquestionably, something that should be stopped and there is already adequate legislation in place to cover this under UK consumer law. The second is rather different. Ethically, it’s possible to argue that this is a legitimate part of the armoury of any business. If I put a poster up on the high street advertising my breakfast cereal, do I have any real cause for complaint if someone advertises a different breakfast cereal on the next hoarding? No – because that is not the space I paid for.
It’s should be the same with the Olympics, but unfortunately the Act does not make any distinction between the two types of ambush. To protect the rights of the official sponsors, no one else will be allowed to promote their brand ‘in the vicinity of’ stadia, and anyone who does so could be finding themselves issued with a fine of up to £20,000. You don’t even need to explicitly display a brand or a logo: the case of being arrested for wearing orange happened in this year’s World Cup, where a group of young women in orange dresses generated a great deal of publicity for the brewery Bavaria, even though there were no conspicuous logos on display.
Maybe you still think this is reasonable; after all, as LOCOG (London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games) are keen to point out, the Games ‘would not happen’ without the investment of sponsors. But this isn’t quite the same thing as saying that the sponsors are paying for the event. The UK taxpayer pays the entire cost of the £9.238 billion that the ‘rights’ to host the Games are costing. Not one penny of that £9.238 billion goes back to the public purse. The £930 million that the sponsors pay (roughly a tenth of the public purse contribution) is split between the IOC and LOCOG for a staging budget that adds approximately another £2 billion to the overall cost. With these kind of figures in mind, it’s concerning that companies who are contributing to the costs via taxes (and were encouraged to ‘back the bid’) are now finding they won’t be able to take advantage from the presence of the Games in ways we might expect.
There are even provisions in the Act to stop companies getting other benefits that have nothing to do with an attempt to ambush, and don’t jeopardise the interests of sponsors – yet they’ve been made illegal. The most surprising element of the ambush legislation is the ‘listed words’ that you cannot use without risking falling foul of the Olympics Act. If you’re a landlord and you want to put a sign outside your pub saying ‘Come inside and watch the 2012 games’ then you can’t – because according to the Act, you are ‘creating an association’ with the OIympics that does not exist because you are not a sponsor.
It seems like a crazy piece of legislation, but the Institute would not be doing its job if we don’t continue to point out to marketers what the rules say. LOCOG have gone on record before saying that they will only prosecute if there is clear intent to ambush, but what small company will want to take the risk?
To find out more, the paper Ambush Marketing and the Law is available for £15 as a pdf. Order your copy online.