The Economist: "Ambush Marketing" and Implications for WC 2006

[roadkit]

Okay, I admit it. I read The Economist. However, much to my surprise, there was an article in the 18 feb edition (page 62-63) with relevance for fans attending World Cup 2006 this summer. It has to do with "Ambush Marketing." Basically, it boils down to this: lots of companies pay big, big, bucks to sponsor the World Cup - presumably to get prime advertising. So let's say you're Reebok, and you've paid big bucks to be a sponsor of the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta - and Nike hands out caps at transport hubs to people attending the games, who then arrive at the venue en masse advertising for your competition. And they paid way, way less. That's the idea.

So in the article, they fast forward to World Cup 2006. To wit:

"Such a situation is intolerable to both organisers and official sponsors, who are determined to use the law to protect their interests. FIFA, the world football authority, which is organising this year's World Cup in Germany, will use contract law. Tickets are actually revocable licenses between the venue and the spectator -- and the terms and conditions (which no fan ever reads) ban such things as ticket give-aways or attending en masse in clothing emblazoned with unauthorised logos. Thus if hordes of fans turn up at one of the games this summer carrying pepsi drink-tumblers or wearinf Google caps, they may have to hand them over or be barred entry to protect the real sponsors -- Coke and Yahoo!

Sorry I don't have a link, but you get the gist. So in addition to worrying about whether our name is the same as the one on the ticket, we have to worry about what SWAG we take into venues or whether waving to a friend will be misconstrued as a Hitler salute! Sigh....

Thoughts?

[herewego]

On one hand it is understandable that big money sponsors want to have some protection from ambush marketing. They have to pay a lot for exclusivity.

On the other hand FIFA and their sponsoring partners may have went much too far. If they go on this way, the World Cup one day could only be accomplished in some undemocratic, totalitarian countries.

Some examples why I come to this conclusion:

For example, if you are from Gelsenkirchen and payed for a ticket and want to wear the jersey of the clubteam you are supporting, there would be a trickot sponsor on that t-shirt, say an old Schalke shirt with a big "Veltins" (germanj beer brand). FIFA would order you to turn this t-shirt to the left or would not let you enter the stadium.

It is said that at the Athen Olympics people had to put tape over small logos on their shirts or caps or would have been forbiden to enter the venues.

That seems to me rather unconstitutional, if somebody could tell you what brands you wear. I mean, that has nothing to do with a dress code. One can order you to wear a smoking for a special occasion, but not wether the smoking is from Armani or BOSS.

Or, another example: Most of the german stadia have sponsored names, like Allianz Arena from the german insurance company "Allianz Versicherung". It is understandable, that FIFA does not allow this names for their tournament, but even that might not be unproblematic for non public financed arenas.

But what wents much to far, is that FIFA ruled in their contracts with german FA and german government, that there have to be so called "Bannmeilen" (~ban miles, areas around the WC stadia) where only FIFA is allowed to establish shops, advertising, giving licences to vendors.

For that agreement i.e., the fan shops that every Bundesliga club normaly operates in their stadium or around it, have to be closed during World Cup if they are not Adidas.

In Stuttgart there is a new indoor arena beside of the Daimler stadium, the so called "Ferdinand Porsche Arena" with a big Porsche logo on the top. This arena is owned by private, not public investors. FIFA through communal government wants to order them to cover that logo because they are in the "ban mile". Porsches is going to court with that, we have to wait for the outcome.

If you are an owner of a shop or any other business in the ban mile, maybe since decades, it can happen, and it did happen, that communal government in agreement with the contract that every WC town had to sign with FIFA, orders you to cover your logos or your showcase windows, even orders you what products not to sell during WC.

All that could never be constitutional and there are a lot of lawsuits about this items ongoing this days in germany, we will hear about it.

If FIFA goes on with such things, you will see World Cups not be able to be held in free countries in the future.

[nyrmetros]

So all the folks wearing Umbro, Nike, and Puma shirts will be banned from attending ? Brilliant!

[herewego]

So all the folks wearing Umbro, Nike, and Puma shirts will be banned from attending ? Brilliant!

There is a big debate about it. I cannot imagine, that they try to order the brazilian fans not to wear brazilian national kits from nike. On national jerseys there are no trickot sponsors on it like on clubjerseys. But it could be, that they will order you to put tape over the nike, puma, umbro sign.

[nyrmetros]

There is a big debate about it. I cannot imagine, that they try to order the brazilian fans not to wear brazilian national kits from nike. On national jerseys there are no trickot sponsors on it like on clubjerseys. But it could be, that they will order you to put tape over the nike, puma, umbro sign.

Except if Ireland makes the World Cup in 2010. And why does Ireland have a kit sponsor when no one else does ?

[herewego]

You see, germany is a country with big car brands, but Hyundai (I even not know how to spell them :confused: ) is the worldwide FIFA car sponsor.

So all the VIP transfers are made not with Mercedes, Audis, BMWs, but with Hyundais. FIFA orders even the mayors of WC towns or primeministers of the german states or federal secretaries not to enter the ban mile with their statelimous.

Only Chancelor Merkel has told them, that nobody has to order her to change her car.

[herewego]

Except if Ireland makes the World Cup in 2010. And why does Ireland have a kit sponsor when no one else does ?

Have they? I´ve never seen a national kit with a sponsor advertisment on it in an offical World Cup or Euro game. I think that is not allowed by FIFA or UEFA, just for the same reason, exclusivity for official FIFA sponsor partners.

[nyrmetros]

Have they? I´ve never seen a national kit with a sponsor advertisment on it in an offical World Cup or Euro game. I think that is not allowed by FIFA or UEFA, just for the same reason, exclusivity for official FIFA sponsor partners.

I meant that the Ireland replica shirts all have a sponsor (Eircom) on them.... so the thousands of Irish supporters will be wearing their Ireland Eircom replica Umbro shirts if they qualify for 2010. Will they all be banned ? I think I am confused.

[herewego]

Yepp, that could happen. Actually I think they will be orderd to turn that t-shirt inside outside at the entrance.



And once they are in, they´ll turn it back.:p

[nowherenova]

Does anyone else find this taping and insideouting orwellian?

[buckeye5]

I meant that the Ireland replica shirts all have a sponsor (Eircom) on them.... so the thousands of Irish supporters will be wearing their Ireland Eircom replica Umbro shirts if they qualify for 2010. Will they all be banned ? I think I am confused.

I wouldn't think so. Eircom is what, Ireland's major Telecom provider? I assume they pretty much have a monopoly in Ireland and exist only in Ireland?

I don't see any conflict here with any FIFA sponsors.

[Wizhawk]

That seems to me rather unconstitutional

Well unfortunately Germany doesn't follow the American constitution.
;)

[AGF Aarhus]

So much supposition and so little knowledge here.

I've read the article and it is 100% sensible. FIFA will not stop individuals wearing whatever they want. What they do want to stop is a situation like what happend in Atlanta. Reebock was an oficial sponser, but Nike paid people to stand at transist stations near venues and hand out free Swoosh baseball caps to everyone going to an event. The result is that when people watch the event on TV, they get ths impression that Nike is a sponser.

Why is this bad for fans? Because 50% of the very expensive business of holding a WC is paid for by sponsers. If sponsers' rights are not protected, they will stop paying. If you want to make up the difference in higher ticket prices, be my guest.

Just like in the 'Germany to arrest Enlgish fans who use the Hitler Salute' thread, please be sensible and don't jump to absurd conclusions, people.

[balatonsurfer]

Companies locked out of primetime sponsorship deals could, if they wanted to, and were smart, in essense, sponsor suppoters' groups. Afterall, prime camera time after a goal is showing the hardcore fans cheering.

Let's just say, for example, Umbro decided to be "Sam's Army's" official sponsor, and they gave like $200-300 in free Umbro merchandise, scarves, etc to members of Sam's Army.

Could make for quite an interesting thing, not just for the USNT, but imagine say, Sony sponsoring Chelsea's Supporters' groups, or Nokia sponsoring supporter group of a Vodafone team...oh, possibilities!

[Justin O]

So all the folks wearing Umbro, Nike, and Puma shirts will be banned from attending ? Brilliant!

You clearly don't understand what's going on here.

[Shibb]

You see, germany is a country with big car brands, but Hyundai (I even not know how to spell them :confused: ) is the worldwide FIFA car sponsor.

So all the VIP transfers are made not with Mercedes, Audis, BMWs, but with Hyundais. FIFA orders even the mayors of WC towns or primeministers of the german states or federal secretaries not to enter the ban mile with their statelimous.

Only Chancelor Merkel has told them, that nobody has to order her to change her car.

When I lived in Germany, about five years ago, I'm fairly sure I never, ever saw a Hyundai on the streets. Hondas occasionally. But never on a Hyundai.

[nyrmetros]

You clearly don't understand what's going on here.

sarcasm mate. Brilliant! :)

[TOTC]

Well unfortunately Germany doesn't follow the American constitution.
;)

What about the European Union?

[miked9]

So much supposition and so little knowledge here.

I've read the article and it is 100% sensible. FIFA will not stop individuals wearing whatever they want. What they do want to stop is a situation like what happend in Atlanta. Reebock was an oficial sponser, but Nike paid people to stand at transist stations near venues and hand out free Swoosh baseball caps to everyone going to an event. The result is that when people watch the event on TV, they get ths impression that Nike is a sponser.


I don't see how it is the sponsor's "right" to determine what fans wear, even if it is a situation like the Atlanta one. Sponsors pay to be the "official" corporation of an event, not of the spectators or surrounding community. Anytime people start talking about the "rights" of corporate organizations superceding the right of individuals (and in this case, smaller businesses as well), it makes me nervous.

[ohk4]

I don't see how it is the sponsor's "right" to determine what fans wear, even if it is a situation like the Atlanta one. Sponsors pay to be the "official" corporation of an event, not of the spectators or surrounding community. Anytime people start talking about the "rights" of corporate organizations superceding the right of individuals (and in this case, smaller businesses as well), it makes me nervous.

as it should