Behind enemy lines

Why shell out millions sponsoring a high-profile event when you can just ambush it, usurping your competitors and whipping up a media storm in the process. Business Management’s Hertz van Rental examines why this brazen form of guerrilla marketing is a weapon that should be in every CMO’s armoury.

“The idea is to outsmart the competition versus outspending them.”
-Herbert Krabel, Guerrilla Communications

It began as a run-of-the-mill World Cup Group E encounter between eventual finalists Holland and Denmark at Johannesburg's Soccer City stadium this summer. Less than 24 hours later, the hot talking point wasn't Holland's distinctly uneventful two-nil victory but rather the hoo-ha surrounding a marketing ambush executed by Dutch brewer Bavaria. Soon after kick-off camera lenses fell on 36 young nubile ladies in the crowd sporting skimpy orange mini-dresses associated with family-owned Bavaria. On their feet chanting and clapping while garnering the attention of male Dutch supporters around them and millions watching on TV, it didn't take long for footballs governing body, FIFA, to cotton on that this was a marketing ploy. Security swooped and ejected the alleged models masquerading as fans, even making arrests and confiscating passports.

The official sponsor of the month-long tournament was Budweiser - the US beer giant paying an undisclosed few million euros for the privilege. But much to the chagrin of the so-called 'King of Beers', a plucky European rival had suddenly stolen the limelight for a small fraction of its spend. Soon web and social networking sites were awash with chatter surrounding the stunt and it became the 'did you see that?' conversations over the office water cooler. "For a very reasonable investment, Bavaria was the most talked about brewer at the World Cup," says Herbert Krabel, CEO of Guerrilla Communications. The story gained more mileage after it emerged a TV football pundit's allocation of tickets ended up in the hands of Bavaria's female fans. He was immediately sacked by the UK's ITV.

But the question is this: did FIFA's heavy-handedness merely create more publicity for Bavaria? After all, this is a company that has form for this kind of marketing ploy after having sent supporters wearing orange in lederhosen at the German World Cup four years ago. "The attempts by FIFA to stop the guerrilla marketing efforts actually helped Bavaria to get even more exposure because without the arrests and the circus surrounding the affair most people wouldn't have noticed it," says Krabel. "Now it became gossip around the world and people everywhere looked it up." In no time at all Bavaria had become the most searched for beer on the internet, despite the fact that the mini-dresses didn't include feature any logos or even the name of the brewer.

However, the plan backfired to some extent in that armchair football fans heard a lot more about the official sponsor. "The stunt may actually have helped Budweiser too because people found out who the official sponsor really was," suggests Krabel.

Continuing the sporting theme, last year Hugo Boss parked a sailboat emblazoned with the company's logo off the coast of Scotland just next to where the British Open golf tournament was taking place. Inevitably, the boat provided the backdrop for many of the TV camera shots of the action. There are also plenty of examples of sportswear giants Nike, Adidas and Reebok being involved in stunts to upstage their rivals at high-profile events, particularly the Olympics. Perhaps the most notorious was at the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona when Nike sponsored the press conferences with the US basketball team despite Reebok being the official sponsor. Much to Reebok's frustration, the US players covered their Reebok logos during ceremonies. Micheal Jordan, the jewel in Nike's crown at the time, covered his Reebok logo when accepting his gold medal. Likewise, sprinter Linford Christie wore Puma contact lenses before the 100 metres final. Reebok had paid US$40 million for the privilege of being official sponsor. At the 1994 Winter Olympics in Norway American Express ran ads saying American's didn't need 'visas' to visit the Visa-sponsored games. And in 2000, Qantas Airlines' slogan 'Spirit of Australia' sounded similar to the Olympic Games' slogan 'Share the spirit'. Ansett Air, the official sponsor, was none too pleased.

This form of marketing might be deemed as clever and just part of the marketing game, while others may see it as overstepping the mark, but as Bavaria proved, the exposure can be priceless if the stunt is successful.

However, don't just assume that guerilla or ambush marketing is cheap alternative to traditional advertising, says Krabel. "There is a general myth that guerrilla marketing is cheap or free, and that is not true. It can be more affordable, but the idea is to outsmart the competition versus outspending them." But for brands without the marketing might of the big boys, slick guerilla marketing is often they only option. "We'll see more and more attempts by brands to be more clever than their competitors because most brands really don't even have the option to do standard marketing," Krabel explains. "They are forced to do something outside the box if they want to make an impression."

Donovan Neale is the founder and Executive Director of the CMO Council - a global network of 5000 marketing and branding chiefs. He says the key here is to push the boundaries to get the public's attention. "It's guerrilla warfare so you have to attract attention in bizarre, absurd or inventive and imaginative ways. Wherever there is a large gathering of people or highly-trafficked environment, marketers are going to see an opportunity to put their brand out there because there is an affinity created when somebody does something that's really strange, bizarre or radical." He says today's digital age magnifies the interest in a marketing ambush. "Most people carry cell phones, and most cell phones have digital cameras so if you experience something then you are going to share it - there's immediacy to it."

But it's not just sporting events that can fall prey to the ambush marketers. US President Barack Obama's Democrat primary election rally in 2008 was ambushed by three people directly behind him in the audience wearing Abercrombie & Fitch T-shirts. The large logos over Obama's shoulder distracted the TV viewers and led to heap of publicity for the clothing company. Clearly product placement works. Product launches too can be hijacked by rivals. In 2007, Sony held a lavish launch party for its Playstation 3 console in Paris. VIPS, the media and gamers were all in attendance by the capital's iconic Eiffel Tower. However, Silicon Valley behemoth Microsoft, makers of Playstation 3's rival the Xbox 360, decided to gatecrash the party by sailing an enormous barge boat up the Seine. On the side of the vessel in massive lettering was Xbox 360 © You. "What do you think was the most photographed object that evening?" says Krabel rhetorically. "The event's location was quite stunning but it allowed Microsoft to get a foot in the door. This marketing stunt created quite a buzz - Sony spent a huge amount of money here and the efforts by Microsoft certainly weren't cheap either, but Microsoft certainly got the most bang for their buck."

Similarly, Donovan says some consumers appreciate a bold statement like Microsoft did that night. Microsoft isn't short of a few euros but to hire the barge and create the slogan was thinking outside the box. "If you don't have the resources then this could work because your product or brand could appeal to a consumer who appreciates cheekiness or something that is cool or hip. You want to connect with consumer and make a statement." But the organisers of global events are fighting fire with fire because without sponsors the World Cup or the Olympics would never happen. South Africa passed a law in the run-up to the 2010 tournament making ambush marketing a criminal offence. The London 2012 Olympic Games has also passed similar legislation banning unofficial sponsors from using the words '2012, games, gold, silver, bronze'. Those marketers found in violation of the 2006 London Olympic Games and Paralympics Games Act could face a UK£20,000 fine. The problem for the organisers is that pursuing a conviction just creates more publicity for an offending brand and underlines the fact corporate sponsorship can be a waste of money. The Chartered Institute of Marketing (CIM) published a report entitled the 'The event that speak its name' in which the CIM criticises the Act as being "draconian". The paper says the blanket ban on ambush marketing prevents SMEs from gaining any benefit from the presence of the games in the UK. "The trick with most guerrilla marketing stunts is to explore grey areas and avoid breaking the law," says Krabel. "Asking for forgiveness versus permission is a good mantra here."

The ethics over whether ambush marketing is considered acceptable will rage on. Marketing is a cutthroat business with brands all vying for a fickle consumer's attention, even more so in this tumultuous economic period. Sometimes a company has little choice but to get dirty with some guerrilla warfare, particularly if advertising budgets are tight. The rewards or ROI always has to be balanced against the risks. Bavaria's CMO must have been feeling pretty smug with all the attention the brand received but it would have been tinged with apprehension after news broke of the arrests, although no charges were made, as well as threats of legal action. Sometimes you need balls of steel to mastermind a stunt like this but it's still a gamble; you never know for sure what the outcome will be. But the proven effectiveness of ambush marketing doesn't spell the end of traditional marketing and sponsorship. Both will continue to coexist with the guerrilla marketers coming up with big and bolder stunts to out do their competitors and capture the public and media's attention. Today's CMO just needs to keep an open mind to the value of an ambush when opportunity arises. After all, it's a war out there.

The pros and cons of ambush marketing

+ Creates global exposure if executed properly

+ Can be considerably cheaper than sponsoring an event

+ The stunt goes viral and the brand penetrates new markets

+ Revenues increase 

- The ambush could backfire and is largely ignored.

­- Legal proceedings against your company could follow