Fight for Publicity

Sports have become a very popular avenue to increase the visibility of your brand and so every brand fights to get a place in the major sporting events. While some become the official event sponsors, some indulge in ambush marketing to get the crowd’s attention.

While we consider ICC’s conditions unfair on the players, it is important to realize the pressure on ICC and BCCI by the sponsors of the event. Several times players endorse the sponsor’s competitor brands. While this can be considered legal but it certainly annoys the event organizers and sponsors.

Even though this “Ambush Marketing” is one of the most controversial forms of marketing, it is very effective indeed.

In Olympics, athletes were not allowed to bring their own food and drink, so that if they are photographed the brand don’t undermine the sponsor of the event.

The 2002, Boston Marathon was sponsored by Adidas, but Nike provided the runners with swooshes that commemorated the day of the race. Similarly, in 1998 Fifa World Cup, Nike sponsored individual teams when Adidas was the official sponsor. In 1992 Barcelona Olympics Games, Michael Jordon was sponsored by Nike, even though the team’s official sponsor was Reebok. While accepting the gold medal he covered the Reebok sign on his gear.

There have been several such cases of conflicting loyalty. In such cases, players are more inclined towards their individual sponsors rather the event sponsors who have spent heavily.

During British open, Hugo Bush parked a sailboat with a very visible logo on waters off of Scotland, where the tournament was held, thus getting all media attention and branding without paying anything. However, it is not illegal as it does not involve any counterfeiting or illegal use of trademarks, trade-names or any symbols.

In the ICC vs. Indian cricket players’ case, the players were in a leveraged position and could refuse to agree with the clause of ambush marketing imposed by ICC. But this might not be the case every time. Moreover, ICC had its own reason to impose this condition. It is very essential that we tackle this issue in a better manner as the players have already made commitment to their individual sponsors.

The board needs to discuss the matter with the players so as to avoid conflicting endorsements in future and reduce the scope of ambush marketing, rather than forcing them to sign a contract.