“Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge” - Always stealing the Show By Padmanabhan N.S[i]
Introduction
Everyone in our country knows about the all time hit bollywood movie “ Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge”. Our hearts still fill with joy and dance with Sharukh and Kajol. We all laughs with Sharukh, sing with Sharukh, and even cry with Sharukh. Yes.Raj and Simran( characters of Sharukh and kajol) are still in our hearts. The pretty worse thing is that we are not even bothered about Kuljeet(to whom Simran is engaged). He has spent lavishly in his preparation to marriage and became a looser in the end. As a movie it was quite interesting. Imagine what happens when it appeals to real life. In Marketing this type of stealing the show has become a common phenomenon. In the year is 1996, Reebok was the official sponsor of the Games. They've spent quite a bit of money trying to convince the world to buy Reebok shoes and clothing. The Atlanta organizing committee is keeping things hush about who will light the torch. And then, imagine this: Nike CEO Phil Knight parachutes into the Opening Ceremonies, torch in hand, and lights the Olympic flame. The next day, everyone's talking about Nike, and nobody's talking about Reebok. In the same year i.e. in 1996, soft drinks giant Coke paid a fortune for the right to call itself the official sponsor of the World Cup. Rival Pepsi promptly launched a massive advertising blitz, based on the catch-line: Nothing Official About It. The Pepsi campaign captured the public imagination - and Coke, the official sponsor, lost out. In the latest concluded IPL series DLF was the official sponsor but who got business is Kingfisher who was certainly an ambush marketer.
The above cases are a simple replica of Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge. Here the official sponsor represents our Kuljeet while Raj represents the intruders i.e. Nike and Pepsi. How funny this is?

What is Ambush Marketing? Ambush marketing has been defined as,”… the practice whereby another company, often a competitor, intrudes upon public attention surrounding the event, thereby deflecting attention towards itself and away from the sponsor”. Often classified as a form of “guerrilla” marketing, the term was coined by the originator of cause-related marketing – Jerry Welsh - when he was at the American Express. Smaller companies cannot afford the kind of amounts which larger conglomerates and multinationals like LG, Samsung, Coke, Pepsi, Reliance, etc pay for getting the sponsorships, which runs into millions of dollars. This is one of the basic reasons that is perpetrating ambush marketing.

The bigger companies also cannot sponsor almost all the events, since it is quite expensive. Apart from sponsorship fee, they have to spend on various other promotional means like TV, print, outdoor ads and other related promotional activities. It is estimated that for a sponsorship to be successful a brand has to spend a lot on other promotions almost five times the sponsorship cost.

Likely Forms

Ambush Marketing takes many forms. Two of the main forms are-

• Association Ambushing- the non-sponsor gives the impression of being an official sponsor by using words or symbols associated with the event; and

• Intrusion Ambushing- the non-sponsor piggybacks on the media and spectator exposure of the event by, for eg, advertising near event venues.

Different Strategies of Ambush Marketing
Researchers have identified five of the most commonly employed ambush marketing strategies:

• Sponsoring Media Coverage of an Event

Kodak’s sponsorship of the ABC broadcasts of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics when Fuji was the official IOC sponsor.

• Sponsoring a Sub-Category within an Event During the 1988 Olympic games at Seoul, Kodak secured the worldwide category sponsorship for the Games, while Fuji obtained sub-sponsorship of the U.S. swimming team.

• Making a Sponsorship-Related Contribution to a Players’ Pool

Ian Thorpe being sponsored by Adidas’ when Nike was the official clothing supplier for the Australian Olympic team. Thorpe was even photographed with his towel draped over Nike’s logo at a medal presentation ceremony to protect his personal contract with Adidas.

• Engaging in Advertising that Coincides with a Sponsored Event

Intense advertising done by a competitor during or around a sponsored event.

Other Imaginative Ambush Strategies

This could include either one or all of the following:

❖ “Hit squads” who target revelers on their way to and from the event implying association thanks to their physical presence near the venue.

❖ Associating the image of a winning athlete around the brand.

❖ Referring to a sporting event in advertising.

❖ Using marketing techniques to mislead the consumer e.g. offering event tickets as prizes

❖ Booking billboards near to event venues to fool consumers into thinking there is a link to the event.

❖ Handing out unofficial programmes and free merchandise to event attendees – inside and outside the venues.

❖ Distributing free samples of a non-sponsor brand product or giveaway items such as t – shirts or flags displaying the brand at the event.

❖ Entering and highlighting non-Olympics related sports activities e.g. former Olympic athletes, children’s athletic causes and programs etc. to underscore the non-sponsor’s commitment and dedication to the same generic thematic space which Olympic sports occupy.

Issues Ambush Marketing has raised several issues in the market. The most highlighted one is the regarding the ethical aspect. Is it ethical on the part of companies to indulge in such activities? Debates are done over and over. Still a consensus has not been met. More and more of “Raj”s are coming out to steal the show. The debate assumes greater significance because companies are alternating between sponsoring an event and indulging in ambush marketing. For instance, Pepsi sponsored the 1999 Cricket World Cup, but Coca Cola put hired people in the stadium and made them furl Coke flags, drink Coke, wear Coke t – shirts etc., in full view of the worldwide TV audiences. In 2004, the tables were turned. Coca Cola sponsored Euro 2004, but Pepsi used its association with David Beckham and other players to produce a celebrity ad that successfully deflected and diverted viewers’ attention from Euro 2004.
Tackling the Problem Despite the weakness of the existing legal system, organizers are increasingly turning to it for protection. Thus the organizing committee for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games successfully got approved the Sydney 2000 Games (Indicia and Images) Protection Act 1996. The Act was the centre piece of the action plan to reduce the incidence of ambushing at the 2000 Olympic Games. Similarly, the International Cricket
Council (ICC) lobbied with the South African government to get the Merchandise Marks
Amendment Act 2002 passed. The legislation even contained provisions to jail directors of companies that engage in ambushing activities. ICC has also incorporated a clause which mentions that players are not allowed to endorse products that are in direct conflict with the ICC’s official sponsors for a period of 45 days before, during and after an ICC tournament is held. While educating the public on the real sponsors could be a solution, there is the possibility of actually reinforcing awareness of the rival. Even similar measures are done even now, the weakness in our law prevents from any strict action against ambushers. Marketers today have coined some methods to tackle this problem. They use any one of them or a combination of all. Some of the methods to curb ambush marketers are ❖ Preventing tickets from being used as competition prizes;

❖ Policing the event more strictly for “ambushers” and denying them access;

❖ Using event regulations and participation agreements to restrict the rights that participants can grant their own sponsors (e.g., what athletes may wear or carry when they compete).

❖ Following a spectator ticketing policy that prevents people from bringing certain items into the viewing areas.

❖ Entering into additional sponsorship contracts with or securing exclusive rights from key participants and major stakeholder groups (athletes, teams, event organisers and broadcasters); and,

❖ Controlling the manufacture and distribution of licensed merchandise.

Conclusion It is a highly evident fact that the ambushers have the potential of– hijacking the consumers' mind. So marketers have to be very careful in closing the doors for the ambushers at any cost. Otherwise they have to remain as “Kuljeet”s forever watching all the “Raj”s stealing the show.

References

1. www.123eng.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11943

2. www.doshdosh.com/ambush-marketing-the-art-of-diverting-attention

3. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambush_marketing

4. www.advancedge.com/archives/nov04/MBArk_ambush_marktng.pdf

-----------------------
[i] Padmanabhan N.S., Asst. Professor, Department of Management Studies, Westfort Higher Education Trust, Thrissur