Are laws against ambush advertising needed?
It is the world cup and Bavaria beer are at it again with their ‘ambush advertising’ at matches. They may not be really noticed in the match but the media certainly picks up on the backlash afterwards. Exclusive sponsorships and advertising at big sporting events is becoming the way in which the money is made, however it does lead to silly rules and crackdowns on any other brand. For some it might even be considered an issue of freedom of speech. Are such bans on competitors needed?
Leads to anti-competitive results
The world cup is a colossal marketing opportunity. For that very reason, sponsors pay colossal amounts of money to be a part of the advertising in the world cup. Ambush advertising is a way in which companies can gain the benefits of the huge marketing opportunity without paying the price. This will lead to anti competitive results on the market. These companies would be receiving an unfair advantage. Not only over those who also are not allowed to advertise being linked to the world cup, but also those who paid the hefty cost associated with it.
Incorrect. What companies can afford to sponsor the world cup and all teams within that world cup? Companies that own a large proportion of the market share. What will the advertising do for them? It will increase their market share. How can the growth of already large companies be cited as good for competition? In reality this could blow many smaller competitors out of the water. The end result is that the consumer gets a bad deal as the larger companies are able to charge what they want for whatever quality of product they want.
It decreases Fifa’s revenue
F.I.F.A run the world cup. They own the rights in selling the marketing opportunities contained within. If we did not have laws against such ambush marketing, companies would not pay such a premium for their advertising space alongside the world cup branding. In the end this would result in poorer pitches, poorer management of the football fixtures and would generally disintegrate the entertainment value of football. Given these results, we should keep these laws against ambush advertising.
Not in the slightest would football decrease in quality should Fifa lose out on a bit of sponsorship money. In fact, if the football players were not so concerned with money perhaps they would play football better as opposed to concentrating on branding themselves. The whole idea of this shows how far football is a corporate event. It may be better should there not be so much money involved in the sponsorship of the world cup. Therefore, we should abolish these rules against ambush advertising.
Ambush advertising can lead to wasting tax payer’s money
Not only does this ambush advertising affect the World Cup – the London 2012 Olympics will also be targeted. £9.3 billion is the new budget for the Olympics in London. What the Government cannot attain through sponsorship deals and advertisements, they will gain from the tax payer. Given the public purse debt. Given that all areas of the public sector will receive budget cuts. We should be pushing to get as much money out of corporate sponsors as possible. We will not be able to do this if these companies thought that ambush advertising was allowed; that another company could gain the advertising space for free.
But surely there is more of a waste of money going into policing such trivial misdemeanours. Not only did the law have to be created; something which takes a vast amount of time by numerous individuals who all have to be paid. After this, the law then needs to be policed. This will be once by the police and then followed up by the courts. This whole process is time consuming, and the time is consumed by individuals who charge high prices for their time. There is no evidence to suggest that the rules on ambush marketing save tax payers money more than they cost.
Creativity should be rewarded
In advertising it is the most creative ideas that stand out. This creativity and ingeniousness should be rewarded. Looking at the most successful marketing campaigns we have the classic gorilla advert for Cadbury’s. Completely unrelated to the chocolate brand but yet so well executed that everyone remembered it. Compare this to the menial banners and ‘sponsoring the World Cup’ advertising that we have seen around the World Cup stadiums. Snore. Is it any wonder more people are paying attention to the orange dresses for a Danish beer than the benign advertising efforts of Budweiser? We should not protect the unimaginative.
Creativity should be rewarded? Not in the slightest. A wrong doing is a wrong doing. By obviating the advertisement laws these companies are in fact stealing from the World Cup and its brand. We would not allow thieves to get away with their criminality just because they had a creative approach to their thievery, and the same should go for companies that use ambush advertising.
It adds to the fun!!
We should not make these sporting events so serious. It is for this reason that trouble arises. People take these things far too seriously. We all enjoy the silliness of streakers/(stripper-rejects) and we all enjoy the surprising and inventive way in which companies try to ambush the marketing for their product range. It adds to the fun and excitement of the world cup, and this is what we should encourage. We should not have laws which curtail the enjoyment of the world cup.
But surely the fun is in the obviating of the law! It would be no fun if everyone were allowed to ambush advertise. In that case, we would become so used to it that we would barely notice it. The same goes for the example of streakers; if this were allowed and accepted in the sporting world, many people would do it, and we would become irritated by it. In fact, legalising/legalizing such conduct would detract from the enjoyment of the game. Therefore we should keep the law where it is to aid everyone’s enjoyment of the sporting event and the occasional mishaps.
What do you think?