Good Honest Dollar $$

“It’s just six quick questions and will take about thirty seconds of your time.”

To this day, I still remember those untruthful lines.

The above lines formed part of my script at an outbound call centre for a mortgage brokerage firm, where I worked for a short period whilst between jobs in 2005. My role was simple – make cold calls to residential numbers during dinner time to ascertain highly sensitive personal and financial information in relation to any mortgages held by call recipients. The data was then analyzed to determine which prospects represented promising leads.

According to the company spiel, the process was just six questions and would take thirty seconds. The questionnaire which then followed involved nine questions and rarely took less than three minutes.

According to the call centre manager, the questionnaire did indeed have only six questions. Yes, there were nine question marks on the page, but some questions had two parts.

Not surprisingly, many prospects did not respond in a positive manner.

A suggested response in the company manual to customer objections was to say that many people found that “that prospect of saving up to $11,000 or three years off their mortgage was worth thirty seconds of their time.”

Naturally, given the ‘cold call’ nature of the contact, neither I nor the firm had any idea whether or not we could actually deliver anywhere near that amount of savings.

 
A little respect, please

Telemarketing is a legitimate promotional medium. However, it is more intrusive than other forms of promotion, and companies who use it should at least observe some simple etiquette.

Customers deserve the truth. If the call involves nine questions instead of six, prospective customers should be told this up front. If the expected duration of the call is around three minutes, customers should be told this, not that it will take ‘around thirty seconds’. Finally, unless the firm has a sound basis for believing that they could actually deliver savings of the magnitude described above, prospective customers should not be given that promise.

Not to be truthful in relation to any of these matters shows complete disrespect for prospects’ time.

Companies who engage in telemarketing should be truthful about the nature and expected duration of the call.

Prospective customers at least deserve that much. 

In 1999, Pepsi Cola was an official sponsor the World Cup Cricket tournament in India.

It’s rival, Coca Cola, provided no form of financial support to the event.

However, that did not stop Coke from using the event for promotional purposes (refer article). Indeed the company placed hired people in the stands to drink Coke, wear Coke t-shirts and furl Coca-Cola flags in front of worldwide television audiences - all at an event sponsored by its rival.

 
Ambush marketing

The above example demonstrates the emergence of a controversial approach toward using large sporting events or other significant events for promotional purposes. This approach is commonly referred to as ‘ambush marketing.’

Ambush marketing is the practice of non-sponsors of major public events attempting to use the event for their own promotional purposes, often at the expense of rivals who sponsor the event.

The practice can take a wide range of forms (refer article), and can include sponsoring media coverage of an event (as opposed to sponsoring the event itself), sponsoring individual athletes or teams associated with the event, placing advertisements on nearby billboards, or giving away items (such as t-shirts or flags) for display at the event.

Such practices are particularly common at high profile sporting events, such as the Olympics or World Cup Soccer.

Although often sneaky, advertisers typically attempt to work within the confines of the law, and illegal practices are less common.

 
Why does it matter?

The practice of ambush marketing typically has an adverse effect on two parties – official corporate sponsors and the organizers of major events.

From the perspective of corporate sponsors, ambush marketing from rivals can have an adverse impact upon the value of the sponsorship. Consider Addidas and its sponsorship of the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta. The value of its sponsorship was significantly eroded by the actions of its rival, Nike, which plastered the city in billboards, handed out swoosh banners to wave during competitions and erected an enormous Nike centre overlooking the stadium.  

Not surprisingly, many people believed Nike, not Addidas, to be the official sponsor (refer article). 

Perhaps of greater importance is the adverse impact which ambush marketing can have upon organizers of major events, such as the International Olympic Committee.

These organizations are reliant upon corporate sponsorships as their primary source of funding. Ambush marketing places such sponsorships in jeopardy, potentially placing at risk the ability of event organizers to manage and run major events.

 
Unethical or smart?

My initial thoughts were that all forms of ambush marketing were unethical – companies who wish to use major sporting events for promotional purposes could at least provide a financial contribution to such events. Moreover, companies who are unwilling to support major events financially should not engage in any conduct which could potentially sabotage the benefits of such events for official corporate sponsors, particularly in cases where the sponsor concerned is a rival.

However, after further consideration, my opinion on the matter has changed, and I do not feel that it is that simple. Ambush marketing can take many forms, and in my view, some forms are acceptable from an ethical standpoint whilst other forms are not.

 
Acceptable Practices

The practice of sponsoring competing athletes or teams, for example, rather than sponsoring the event itself, is perfectly acceptable. Individual athletes and teams would not be able to train or compete without funding from sponsorships, and it is perfectly acceptable for companies to choose this method as a means of promotion rather than sponsoring the event itself.

Also acceptable are the practices of sponsoring media coverage of an event (again, as opposed to the event itself) or simply increasing the intensity of advertising in the lead up to the event.

Such practices, in my view, do not breach any ethical boundaries.

 
Unacceptable Practices

On the other hand, practices which do breach ethical boundaries include handing out t-shirts or flags to attendees for display inside the arena, booking billboards in the vicinity of the arena for display advertising, or handing out free samples of non-sponsor products, again in the vicinity of the arena.

Use the sporting arena or surrounding vicinity for promotional purposes should be limited to those who support the event financially.

In addition, any attempts by non-sponsors to mislead the public into thinking that the company concerned is indeed an official sponsor are particularly unethical. 

 
Conclusion

Some forms of ambush marketing are acceptable from an ethical standpoint, others are not.

Those which are not undermine both the value of sponsorship from the point of view of corporations as well as the ability of event organizers to secure funding required to order to manage and run the event.