Ambush marketing, guerilla marketing - whichever way it is phrased, the inference is of a hostile attack on the mainstream, and attention surrounding the phraseology of the draft London Olympics Bill progressing through the parliamentary system shows how seriously the sports marketing industry takes this sort of aggressive activity.
Sponsorship revenue from the International Olympic Committee's TOP partner programme is at 拢500m and rising, not to mention the estimated 拢400m to be derived from domestic sponsorship contracts at the London 2012 Games.
As the value of these deals has climbed over the years, so the legislation that protects official Olympic tie-ups has tightened. Since the 1996 Atlanta Games, when ambush marketing put paid to the intended high-impact strategies of a number of official sponsors, the IOC has required the national governments of host cities to create strict guidelines to prevent the activity.
'Anti-ambush marketing legislation is pretty stringent now,' says Karen Earl, managing director of Karen Earl Sponsorship. 'The escalation of Olympic sponsorship's value has meant an escalation of the rules. It is the only way sponsors can defend their investment.'
Burgeoning legislation
Lessons passed on by the IOC's transition team from one Olympics to the next have helped close loopholes exploited by ambush marketers, but have extended the legislation's boundaries enormously.
These strict guidelines have raised the hackles of many within the advertising industry. Bodies such as the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising (IPA) began lobbying the Government to relax its plans for London 2012 before the ink had barely dried on the draft proposals, branding the far-reaching restrictions as 'unreasonable'.
The government has tried to reassure the industry by consulting it on a line-by-line basis as to the exact make-up of the legislation. However, the signs are that any relaxing of the suggested rules during the second reading last week has been minimal (see box).
To its credit, the British government has stolen a march on previous host countries by dealing with the problem early and working to create a set of guidelines that everybody understands, and can work to, well in advance of the Games. It is hoped the bill will be signed off in the first half of 2006.
Although there has been huge improvement in anti-ambush marketing legislation, there are still two core problems facing Olympic organisers.
First, there is a feeling that penalties for infringement are too small to dissuade major corporations. Fines for the next Winter Olympics, to be held in Turin in February 2006, will range from 拢700 to a maximum of 拢70,000.
Such an amount represents small change to even a small business, and means that brand owners are unlikely to lose any sleep if caught (Marketing, 19 October).
Second, for a brand to be discredited, it must be proved guilty of something.
'Anti-ambush marketing legislation provides the backbone for a legal process for event organisers to counteract this type of threat. The problem is that the bulk of such activity is notoriously difficult to prove,' says David Stone, a partner at law firm Howrey, which worked on infringement cases at the 2000 Sydney Olympics.
'For example, it is difficult to say billboard ads highlighting an athlete endorsement, which make no mention of the Olympics, are in breach of regulations, despite there being an obvious connection between the two.'
The IOC itself is working to discourage ambush marketing by promoting the Games as a logo-free event, in line with the 'Olympic spirit'.
Protecting credibility
Part of the contract signed by host cities states that the immediate vicinity of Olympic locations be kept clean of advertising, incorporating not only areas surrounding the stadia in which the events are being held, but also the main transport lines serving them.
'A lot of people don't realise the stadia used at the Games are completely clean, and that includes the logos of official sponsors,' says IOC head of media relations Giselle Davies. 'The only icon you will see at an Olympic venue is the rings. Our sponsors understand the image of the Games is more credible to them, and us, if kept clean, and so should any would-be ambush marketers.'
British Olympic Association director of marketing Marzena Bogdanowicz believes that more emphasis should be given to the adverse effect ambush marketing can have on a brand's image.
'This activity is a parasite on the Games,' she says. 'It doesn't make sense for anybody, least all of the brand concerned, because it discredits it in the eyes of the public.'
While the organisers of London 2012 claim their role is to educate, not litigate, the 150 potential infringement cases brought to the attention of the London Organising Committee in the three months since the Games were awarded to the city, indicates that those without official associations are still planning to crash the party.
DATA FILE - LONDON OLYMPICS BILL - DRAFT PROPOSALS
1. A person infringes the London Olympics association right if in the course of trade he uses in relation to goods or services any representation (of any kind) in a manner likely to suggest to the public that there is an association between the London Olympics and
a. the goods or services, or
b. a person who provides the goods or services
2. For these purposes the use by a person of a combination of expressions of a kind specified above shall be treated, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, as being likely to create in the public mind an association with the London Olympics.
The combinations are
a. any of the expressions in the first group with
b. any of the expressions in the second group or any other expressions in the first group
Group 1. a 'games', b ' two thousand and twelve', c '2012', and d 'twenty twelve'
Group 2. a gold, b silver, c bronze, d London, e medals, f sponsor, g summer
Source: Department of Culture, Media and Sport