Ambush Marketing Disclosure Impact on Attitudes Toward the Ambusher's Brand

8/11/2019 Ambush Marketing Disclosure Impact on Attitudes Toward the Ambusher's Brand

1/18

http://rme.sagepub.com/(English Edition)

Recherche et Applications en Marketing

http://rme.sagepub.com/content/25/2/51Theonline version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/205157071002500203

2010 25: 51Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition)Marc Mazodier and Pascale Quester

Ambush Marketing Disclosure Impact on Attitudes toward the Ambusher's Brand

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Association Franaise du Marketing

can be found at:Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition)Additional services and information for

http://rme.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://rme.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://rme.sagepub.com/content/25/2/51.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jun 1, 2010Version of Record>>

by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013rme.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/content/25/2/51http://rme.sagepub.com/content/25/2/51http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://-/?-http://rme.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://rme.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://rme.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://rme.sagepub.com/content/25/2/51.refs.htmlhttp://rme.sagepub.com/content/25/2/51.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://rme.sagepub.com/content/25/2/51.full.pdfhttp://rme.sagepub.com/content/25/2/51.full.pdfhttp://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://rme.sagepub.com/content/25/2/51.full.pdfhttp://rme.sagepub.com/content/25/2/51.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://rme.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://rme.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://-/?-http://www.sagepublications.com/http://rme.sagepub.com/content/25/2/51http://rme.sagepub.com/


2/18

INTRODUCTION

The first Olympic Games organized in China(2008) once again confirmed the importance of spon-sorship in current communications strategies. Morethan $43.5 billion were spent in 2008, or 14% more

than in 2007. Sponsorship can be defined as a tech-nique that consists, for any organization, in creating ordirectly supporting an independent socio-cultural

event and associating itself with it in the media inorder to reach marketing communication goals(Derbaix, Grard and Lardinoit, 1994). The object ofsponsorship can take on many forms: an event, ofcourse, but also a person, charity or research founda-tion (Fleck-Dousteyssier, 2007). Walliser (2003)

Recherche et Applications en Marketing, vol. 25, n 2/2010

Ambush Marketing Disclosure Impact on AttitudesToward the Ambushers Brand

Marc Mazodier

Assistant Professor of MarketingDepartment Head, Marketing

ISG Business School

Pascale Quester

Professor

University of Adelaide, Australia

The authors would like to sincerely thank the four anonymous reviewers as well as Jean-Louis Chandon, editor of the journal, for theirremarks and suggestions, which significantly contributed to improving the initial version of this article. They would also like to thank Marie-Laure Mourre for her methodical proofreading.The authors can be contacted at the following email addresses:[email protected]; [email protected]

ABSTRACT

This study examines the effect of ambush marketing disclosure on attitudes toward the ambushers brand. The results of anexperiment conducted to this end show that ambush disclosure negatively influences perceived integrity, affective response andpurchase intention. Involvement in the event and attitudes toward sponsorship of an event both moderate consumers response toambush marketing.

Keywords: Ambush marketing, sponsorship, ambush marketing disclosure, attitudes toward sponsorship, event involvement.


3/18

insists on the importance of exploiting the associa-tion between sponsor and sponsee. Several authors(Giannelloni, 1993; Keller, 2003) agree that sponsor-ship is a more effective way of building brand equity

than more traditional forms of marketing communi-cation such as advertising. Many studies (for a com-prehensive review, see Walliser 2003 and Cornwell2008) have demonstrated the positive impact ofsponsorship on brand awareness (Okter and Hayes,1988; Quester, 1997; Lardinoit and Derbaix, 2001),brand affect (Stipp and Schiavone, 1996; Didellon-Carsana, 1997; Harvey, 2001), brand image(Giannelloni, 1993; Lardinoit and Quester, 2001;Quester and Thompson, 2001), purchase intention(Daneshvary and Schwer, 2000; Madrigal, 2000;Mazodier and Chandon, 2005) and brand loyalty(Sirgy et al., 2008).

Such a successful strategy has not gone unnoticedand competition is fierce for sponsorship rights forhigh-profile events like the Olympics or the FIFAWorld Cup. Consequently, high fees and limitedaccess have encouraged certain firms to use an alter-native communication strategy: ambush marketing,also called guerrilla marketing or parasite marketing.Ambush marketing refers to any form of communica-tion around an event that uses its characteristic signsand symbols to mislead spectators by implying the

brand is an official sponsor in order to improve theambushers brand image. For example, during the2000 Olympics in Sydney, Qantas Airways featuredtwo Australian athletes who were competing in thegames and components such as Sydney 2000 orOlympic in advertisements, even though the brandwas not an official sponsor. Before the 2008Olympics, Mengniu, a Chinese dairy firm, created acommunication campaign based on images of ath-letes and was identified by nearly 30% of theChinese public as an official sponsor, while Coca-

Cola, an authentic official sponsor, was recognized assuch by only 40% (Madden, 2007).Several studies have observed public confusion as

to which firms are official sponsors and which areambushers (Sandler and Shani, 1989; Quester, 1997;Ukman, 1998). While this confusion can be attribu-ted in part to ambush marketing, memory also plays animportant role in identifying official sponsors. Whenthe link between the sponsor and event has not beenperfectly encoded by the individual, he tends to inferthe sponsors name based on several criteria: the per-

ceived congruence between the brand and the event,the brands prominence (Johar and Pham, 1999) andhis familiarity with the brand (Hoek and Gendall,2002). These inferences can explain how brands

involuntarily find themselves in ambush situations,i.e. they are identified as official sponsors withoutseeking to associate the brand with an event.However, if official sponsors cannot enjoy the exclu-sive rights they have paid for, there is no reason forthem to continue supporting an event. Thus, sponsorsof the 2006 FIFA World Cup demanded that sponsor-ship fees be reduced after several ambush marketingoperations. Among the different strategies organizershave developed to prevent this practice, public dis-closure of ambushing is one of the most controver-

sial. According to Frdric Quenet, MarketingDirector for the French Olympic Committee, organi-zers of major events like the IOC (InternationalOlympic Committee) or the FIFA (InternationalFederation of Association Football) have createdready-to-broadcast press releases to publiclydenounce ambushers. To date, however, the practicehas not been systematic. Only the IOC decided tolaunch a campaign in daily newspapers during theTurin and Beijing Olympics with the following mes-sage: By using Olympic emblems or imagery

without authorization, or by presenting themselves ashaving an official association with the OlympicGames, these companies undermine the future of theOlympic Games. This strategy leads us to the ques-tion of public reactions to ambush marketing.

The contribution of this article is twofold. It exa-mines the effects of disclosing ambush marketingoperations on attitudes toward the pseudo-sponsor aswell as variables likely to influence these effects suchas involvement in the event. We have decided toadopt the tripartite model of Zanna and Rempel(1988), according to which attitude is made up ofthree distinct components: cognitive, affective andconative.

To examine these questions, the theoretical fra-mework of this study was developed based on areview of the literature on sponsorship and ambushmarketing. On this basis, we formulated a series ofhypotheses, which were then tested using an experi-mental approach. Our experiment enabled us to iden-tify public reactions to ambush marketing, as well asthe variables that moderate these effects.

Marc Mazodier, Pascale Quester52


4/18

CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND

A review of the literature suggests that ambushmarketing is a field of activity that is difficult todefine. Table 1 summarizes the different definitionsfound in the literature. The goal of the pseudo-sponsoris to hijack the intrinsic values of an event and takeadvantage, for the least possible cost, of the interest itsolicits in audiences and, finally, to improve its repu-tation and transfer the positive aspects of the event toits brand. According to Sandler and Shani (1989),The main objective is to create miscomprehensionin the consumers mind about who the sponsor is and

therefore either gain the benefits associated withbeing a sponsor or weaken the impact of a main com-petitor being the exclusive sponsor of an event.

Typically, the ambusher is not only seeking to createconfusion, but also to make the consumer believe he isthe real sponsor. Being identified as a sponsor is notsufficient to qualify a firm as an ambusher. In addition

to the voluntary nature of his initiative, the ambusheractively seeks to mislead the public. As we can see inTable 1, the notion of deception is included in thedefinitions proposed by McKelvey (1994), Farrelly,Quester and Greyser (2005) or Walliser (2006).

However, while it is true that the ambusher doesnot pay sponsorship fees to the organizer, he stillmust invest heavily to imply his association with theevent and reap the benefits of positive attitudes gene-rated by sponsorship. It is exaggerated and incorrect tosay that the pseudo-sponsor takes advantage of the

event for free (French Olympic Committee, 2006).We believe that the ambusher relies on severalcomponents that characterize the event in his adverti-

Ambush Marketing Disclosure Impact on Attitudes Toward the Ambushers Brand 53

Table 1. Definitions of ambush marketing

Authors (year) Proposed definition

Sandler and Shani Ambush marketing is a planned effort by an organization to associate itself indirectly(1989) with an event in order to gain at least some of the recognition and benefits that are

associated with being an official sponsor.

Meenaghan (1994) Ambush marketing is the practice whereby another company, often a competitor,intrudes upon public attention surrounding the event, thereby deflecting attentiontoward themselves and away from the sponsor.

McKelvey (1994) Ambush marketing is a companys intentional effort to weaken or ambush its competitorscited in Meenaghan official sponsorship. It does this by engaging in promotions or advertising [...] to confuse(1998) the buying public as to which company really holds the official sponsorship rights.

Fuchs (2003) Ambush marketing is a technique where an advertiser not accredited by the organizersof an event tries to deflect public attention surrounding an event to his advantage, usingmarketing techniques, in order gain some of the benefits associated with sponsorship.

Farrelly, Quester Olympic ambushers are direct competitors striving to catch an illicit ride on the Olympic

and Greyser (2005) wave by deceiving or confusing consumers into believing they too are official sponsors.CNOSF (French Ambush marketing is a set of behaviors by which an economic agent lurks in the wake ofOlympic Committee, another in order to take advantage, free of charge, of his efforts and skills.2006)

Walliser (2006) Ambush marketing can be defined as a technique where an advertiser who does not holdofficial sponsorship rights, notably for an event, tries to make the public believe thecontrary.

VANOC (Vancouver Ambush marketing capitalizes on the goodwill of the Olympic Movement by creating aOrganizing false, unauthorized association with the Olympic movement, the Olympic Games orCommittee, 2009) Olympic athletes.


5/18

sing campaigns in order to associate his brand impli-citly with it. He can, for example, try to create anassociation with promoters or other parties involved inthe event, use different symbols associated with a

sponsored activity (playing field, ball, etc.) or theplace where it is held (caricatures of the population,monuments, names of cities or countries, etc.) andeven capitalize on other non-protected symbols asso-ciated with the event (similar generic names, colors,etc.).

Brands that buy advertising space around majorevents are not necessarily ambushers; they simplywant to take advantage of large audiences and potentialmedia exposure. For example, nothing about theNike Joga Bonito campaign, where the consumersaw soccer champions playing in normal conditions,insinuated that Nike was an official sponsor of the2006 FIFA World Cup in Germany. TheJoga Bonitocampaign is not a case of ambush marketing. On theother hand, Pumas campaign in France, with a formersoccer star (Pel) and the German sloganWillkommen zum Fussball was clearly designed toassociate the brand with the World Cup by using thehost countrys language in addition to soccer images.The literature has yet to perfectly identify the non-protected elements featuring the event and giving theimpression that the ambusher is a sponsor.

The public, on the other hand, is generally notvery knowledgeable in this area. Often it is not evenaware of ambushing. Moreover, the public is notwell-versed in the legal aspects of sponsorship rights(Meenaghan, 1998). This is why it rarely perceivesthe actions of ambushers in a negative light, or as anunfair and unethical practice (Shani and Sandler,1998). In light of these studies, it seems that consu-mers are generally indifferent to ambushing, as long asthey remain unaware of its negative effects.

Once consumers are informed, various studies

show contradictory results. Studies conducted by theIOC suggest that ambushers are ill-perceived by thepublic. For example, 80% of consumers in ninecountries assert: Only companies sponsoring theOlympic Games should be allowed to use anOlympic message in their advertising and 68%agree with the statement I think it is wrong for com-panies to deliberately avoid paying for Olympicrights (IOC, 1996). Even if these questions askrespondents to approve or disapprove of value judg-ments, a technique which often leads to automatic

agreement, they do indicate the potential danger forthe ambusher. Public opinion is far from indifferentwhen it is informed of the differences between spon-sorship and ambush marketing (Mazodier, 2008) and

tends to become radicalized when it feels an advertiseris trying to mislead (Meenaghan, 1998). Thus, Shaniand Sandler (1998) observe that consumers believeambushers are wrong because they try to passthemselves off as an official sponsor.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, Lybergerand McCarthy (2001), in a study based on statementscondemning ambush marketing, find that mostrespondents are not against the ambushers practices,nor do they harbor hostile feelings toward the ambu-shers company. According to these authors, theconsumer is largely indifferent and not at all affected

by the supposed dishonesty of the ambusher.In light of these contradictory results, it is not

easy to anticipate consumer reactions to ambushing.Moreover, these studies have limited external vali-dity. Indeed, this work is either exploratory and quali-tative (Meenaghan, 1998; Mazodier, 2008) or basedon measurement instruments whose validity has notbeen confirmed (IOC, 1996; Shani and Sandler,1998; Lyberger and McCarthy, 2001). In addition,these studies were conducted with ad hoc samplesand no control group. Furthermore, most of these stu-

dies date back to the 90s or the beginning of theyears 2000. Since then the public seems to have gaineda clearer understanding of the partnership betweensponsor and sponsee, and spectators are more informedas to the commercial aims of sponsors. Therefore,they are more likely to perceive the stakes involvedin such a strategy and to be more critical of ambu-shers (Farrelly, Quester and Greyser, 2005). In order tounderstand the effects of disclosing ambush tacticson attitudes toward the ambushers brand, as well asthe conditions of these reactions, an experiment see-med necessary.



6/18

THE EFFECTS OF DISCLOSING AMBUSHMARKETING TACTICS ON THE AMBUSHER

Direct and moderating effects of the ambush

disclosure process

While the affective and conative components ofattitude are traditionally associated with brand affectand purchase intention, the cognitive component hasyet to be defined. Among the multiple beliefs asso-ciated with a brand, we decided to examine trust.According to Rempel, Holmes and Zanna (1985) orGurviez and Korchia (2002) brand trust can be definedas is a psychological variable mirroring a set of

accumulated presumptions involving the credibility,integrity and benevolence that a consumer attributes tothe brand. Our study adopts this three-dimensionalstructure of trust, where relations between these threedimensions and trust are both causal and formative.Hence, the three dimensions of trust can vary inde-pendently and be studied separately. According toFarrelly, Quester and Greyser (2005), the officialsponsor seems more sincere than ambushers.Assimilation-contrast theory (Dianoux et al., 2006)supports this proposition. By comparing the sincerityof sponsors to the dishonesty of ambushers, disclo-sure creates a contrast between brands. The ambu-sher is described as less honest than the sponsor bycertain individuals (Mazodier, 2008). However, theintegrity dimension of brand trust is defined by theperceived sincerity and honesty of the brands com-munication (Gurviez and Korchia, 2002). The firsthypothesis put forward in this study can therefore beformulated as follows:

H1. Disclosure of ambush tactics negativelyinfluences the perceived integrity of the ambusher.

Once consumers are informed of the potentiallosses for the event or the sponsors caused byambush marketing, some develop a negative opinion ofambushers (Meenaghan, 1998; Shani and Sandler,1998; Mazodier, 2008). Therefore, we can put for-ward a second hypothesis:

H2. Disclosure of ambush tactics has a negativeinfluence on brand affect.

According to Mazodiers qualitative study in2008, part of the audience stated they no longer wan-

ted to purchase the ambushers products, suggestingthe following hypothesis:

H3. Disclosure of ambush tactics negativelyinfluences purchase intention.

Regarding variables moderating the ambush mar-keting disclosure process, Sandler and Shani (1998),Meenaghan (1998) and Mazodier (2008) all agreethat reactions to ambush marketing depend on consu-mer involvement in the event. Thus, the more deeplyinvolved the individual is in the event, the strongerhis disapproval of ambush marketing. A person who isinvolved in the event is more sensitive to the damagecaused by ambush marketing. Therefore we put for-ward a fourth hypothesis:

H4. The more a person exposed to disclosure ofambush marketing tactics is involved in the event, themore disclosure will negatively affect his attitudestoward the ambushers brand and, more specificallyperceived integrity (H4a), brand affect (H4b) andpurchase intention (H4c).

According to Mazodier (2008), consumer atti-tudes toward sponsorship would also seem to moderatethe effects of disclosure. Attitudes toward sponsor-ship of an event combine feelings about sponsorship,the perceived utility and motivations of the sponsor

and intentions to purchase the sponsors products(Quester and Thompson, 2001). Considering thethree-dimensional structure of attitudes adopted forthis study, our fifth and final hypothesis can thereforebe formulated as follows:

H5. The more positive the individuals attitudetoward sponsorship, the more disclosure of ambushtactics will negatively affect his attitudes toward theambushers brand in terms of perceived integrity(H5a), brand affect (H5b) and purchase intention(H5c).

This set of hypotheses serves as the basis for ourresearch model, which is presented in Figure 1.

Measurement instruments

Brand affect was measured in this study using ascale developed by Didellon-Carsana (1997), inspi-red by one proposed by Batra and Stayman (1990).This scale is widely used in French studies of spon-



7/18

sorship and has proven its reliability (Louis, 2004;Abbassi, 2007; Cronbachs > 0.90).

We also wanted to measure changes in perceivedintegrity after disclosure of ambush marketing tac-tics. We decided to use Gurviez and Korchias scale(2002), which is based on the work of Rempel,Holmes and Zanna (1985) and whose reliability hasalready been established (Brechet, Desmet and dePechpeyrou, 2005; Cronbachs = 090).

In order to measure purchase intention for theambusher, Justers 11-point scale (1966) was selec-ted. It is considered as a reference (Day and Gan,1991; Brennan and Esslemont, 1994; Brennan, 1995;

Bressoud, 2001) whose main advantage lies in combi-ning a verbal and a probabilistic measurement.To measure enduring involvement of an indivi-

dual in an event, and more specifically intensity ofinvolvement, we selected Strazzieris PIA scale(Pertinence Intrt Attirance Relevance InterestAttraction; 1994) due to its convergence with ourresearch objective (measuring intensity), its psycho-metric qualities (unidimensionality) and ease ofadministration. Volle (1996) selected only one itemper aspect of involvement and worked on a three-

item scale. These three items were selected due totheir association coefficients with the factorial axesof the original scale and their ability to be transposedin other contexts. This simplified scale has been usedand confirmed in numerous studies (Rieunier, 2000;Merle, 2007). Here we used a 3-item scale that hadbeen already tested to measure enduring involvementin an event and confirmed by Abbassi (2007;Cronbachs = 0.94).

We used the scale developed by Quester andThompson (2001) to measure attitudes toward spon-sorship of events since it contains all three compo-

nents of the concept. The scale was translated intoFrench and adapted to Olympic sponsorship. Weused a retro-translation procedure to identify poten-tial translation errors. Several marketing professorsthen assessed the items obtained and confirmed theelimination of three that had not been selected byWalliser (2003). Comprehension of the scale waspretested on an ad hoc sample of forty people, whichled to changes in two statements. All the scales usedare presented in Appendix A1.


H5+

H4+

H3-

H2-

H1-

Disclosure of

ambush marketing

tactics

Perceived integrity

Brand affect

Purchase intention

Involvement in

the event

Attitudes

toward

sponsorship

Attitudes toward the

ambusher's brand

Figure 1 Conceptual model explaining the principaland moderating effects of disclosing ambush marketing tactics


8/18

Presentation of the experiment plan, validation of

measures and comparisons between groups

Our experiment plan was inspired by Solomons

Four Group Design. However, we were not able toconduct an experiment with four groups. The

Solomon Four Group Design is difficult to use due to

the large sample size required. In our case, it seemed

less relevant to measure attitudes toward the ambu-

shers brand before and after if the respondent wasnot exposed to the disclosure. In fact, data was col-

lected once and face-to-face, which enabled us to

ensure no external event could bias the results while

the questionnaire was being administered. We can

suppose that the short lapse of time between mea-

sures before and after treatment limits the maturation

and history effects that Solomons fourth groupwould have detected. Thus, we used a three-group

design: one group was exposed to the information

used to measure attitudes toward the ambusher

before and after disclosure (Z = disclosure is the

experimental treatment), a second group was expo-

sed to the information used to measure attitudes after

disclosure and a third group was not exposed to the

disclosure. Figure 2 shows our experiment plan:

This design allowed us to measure the sensibili-

zation effect caused by the first observation, O11, by

comparing observations O12 and O22. This researchplan enabled a comparison between observations O11and O32, which implied the experimental group was

representative of the rest of the sample. We expected

there would not be a significant difference between

observations O12 and O22 or observations O11 and

O32.

A newspaper article and an official press release by

the French Olympic Committee (CNOSF) published

during the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens consti-

tuted the disclosure. To date, all disclosures of

ambush marketing worldwide have been published in

daily newspapers and specialized magazines.

Therefore, the respondent was placed in a realistic

situation: he discovers an ambush marketing cam-paign while reading a newspaper. The CNOSF press

release was selected because, at the time of the expe-

riment, it was the only press release that had disclosed

ambush marketing tactics to the French public. The

press release deals with ambushing, but does not

reveal the names of any ambushers.

In addition, this press release was merged with an

article about ambushing. During the 2006 FIFA

World Cup, several articles dealt with the threat of

ambush marketing. After reviewing the press, an

article from the Swiss paper Le Matin seemed the

most informative and balanced and was used to

create our article. After adapting the article to the

2006 games, we reproduced the page lay-out com-

monly used by the business press and inserted the

CNOSF press release (see Appendix A2). The clarity

of the material (article and press release) was pre-tes-

ted simultaneously with the questionnaire. This

enabled us to change certain sentences in the article

that the respondents had difficulty understanding. In

order to create an interval between disclosure and

measurement of attitudes toward the ambusher and

limit testing effects, we introduced a diversion taskwhich consisted in asking respondents to cite other

well-known ambush marketing campaigns. Finally,

in order to enhance the external validity of the experi-

ment, we chose to study four real brands from two

different product categories (Nike, Puma, Apple and

Creative Labs)1.

In the end, our experiment included three groups

and four brands, or twelve experimental conditions.

For each experimental condition, the adapted article


Z = experimental treatment

Figure 2. Experiment plan

O11 Z O12 Before/After group (N = 160)

Z O22 After only control group (N = 160)

O32 Unexposed control group (N = 160)

1. In order to avoid negative effects toward the experimental brands, the test subjects were informed of the artificial nature of the experiment andthe innocence of the brands in terms of ambush marketing at the end of the questionnaire.


9/18

fromLe Matin presented respondents with one of the

brands as an ambusher during the 2004 Olympic

Games in Athens. We questioned 40 people for each

experimental condition or a total of 160 per group

and 480 in all. The questionnaire was administeredface-to-face by a team of ten people trained in sur-

veys and research. The sample, which mirrored

cross-segments of the French population in terms of

age, gender and socio-professional groups, was

recruited in relatively quiet public places, such as

parks, in several French cities between September

15th and October 15th 2007. The people who accepted

to take part in the study were then randomly assigned

one of the twelve experimental conditions by choo-

sing a number from 1 to 12. This determined which

version of the questionnaire was administered. The

sample is described in Appendix A3.

An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) performed

on a sub-sample of 80 individuals generated by a ran-

dom drawing under SPSS, followed by a confirma-

tory factor analysis (CFA) of a sub-sample of the 400

remaining individuals, enabled us to examine the

validity and reliability of the measure (see Appendix

A4) and, in certain cases, to adjust the scale. The

scales generally show good indicators, except for

attitude toward sponsorship, which has the weakest

validity (rh = 0.58), but is still acceptable. Indices

for each multi-item scale were created by adding the

statements of the readjusted scales.

The constructs were checked using Fornell and

Lackers test of discriminant validity (1981). Theshared variance between each of the latent variables

and their indicators is greater than shared variance

between latent variables (see Appendix A4). The dis-

criminant validity of the scales is therefore confir-

med. Finally, the homogeneity of the three experi-

mental groups was checked via the dependent,

moderating and socio-demographic variables using

analysis of variance and chi-square tests. No signifi-

cant difference was discovered between groups. The

different moderating and socio-demographic

variables of the experimental groups were therefore

homogenous. Moreover, attitudes regarding thebrand among the control groups were not signifi-

cantly different from those of the experimental group

(see Appendix A5). Since the different groups in the

experiment were comparable for all the variables

measured, our hypotheses were tested on the entire

sample.

Results of the study

In order to examine the direct effects of disclo-sing ambush marketing tactics on brand affect, per-

ceived integrity and purchase intention, a MANOVA

(multivariate analysis of variance) was used as an

explanatory factor of exposure (or not) to the disclo-

sure. The three conditions for applying MANOVA

were tested. Heteroscedasticity was acceptable since

Fmax was lower than 10 for all the dependent

variables (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2006). The

variables we wanted to explain were close to normality

(indices of symmetry and kurtosis of the statements

were between [1; 1]) and multinormality (Mardiastest = 3.335). Finally, the dependent variables were

significantly correlated (Pearsons r > 0.57; p =0.000).

In light of these results, disclosure does negati-

vely affect attitudes toward the ambusher (F (3. 636) =

62.54;p = 0.000), which are composed of intercorre-

lated variables: brand affect, perceived integrity and

purchase intention.

As we can see in Table 2, disclosure of ambush

tactics has a significantly negative effect on percei-

ved integrity (F (1. 638) = 151.86; p < 0.001).


Table 2 Effects of disclosing ambush marketing tactics on perceived integrity,brand affect and purchase intention

Exposed Not exposed F test P Partiel ETA2 Observed power

N = 320 N =160

Perceived integrity 10.12 13.57 151.86 0.000 0.192 1.000

Brand Affect 11.65 13.74 46.37 0.000 0.068 1.000

Purchase intention 46.39 50.65 5.842 0.016 0.009 0.675


10/18

Disclosure of ambushing explains 19.2% of variance in

perceived integrity. The tests power is quite good.We can therefore confirm hypothesis H1.

Disclosure of ambush tactics has a significantly

negative effect on brand affect (F (1. 638) = 46.37;p < 0.001). The tests power shows that sample size issufficient. Hypothesis H.2 is confirmed. However,

disclosure of ambushing explains only 6.8 % of

variance in brand affect. Finally, disclosure of

ambush tactics has a significantly negative effect on

purchase intention (F (1. 638) = 5.84; p < 0.05). We

can confirm hypothesis H3, even though disclosure

explains only 1% of the variance in purchase inten-

tion.

Introduction of the brand as a nominal variable

with four categories (Nike, Puma, Apple and

Creative Labs) as a second explanatory factor

enabled us to generalize the negative effects of dis-

closure to the different brands studied. The results of

the MANOVA show that interaction between disclo-

sure and the brand does not significantly influence

attitudes toward the ambusher (F (3. 632) = 1.055;

p = 0.39).

The results of our experiment demonstrate that

disclosure of ambush marketing tactics negatively

influences brand affect, perceived integrity and pur-

chase intention. Our experiment has a greater internal

and external validity than previous studies (IOC,1996; Meenaghan, 1998; Shani and Sandler, 1998;

Lyberger and McCarthy, 2001), since it was conducted

with a quota sample, including two control groups,

and was based on confirmed measurement instru-

ments. However, disclosure of ambush tactics had

little influence on brand affect and purchase intention

(ETA2 < 0.1). Impact was much stronger for perceived

integrity (ETA2 = 0.192).

In order to identify the variables moderating the

effects of disclosure of ambush tactics on attitudes

toward the ambusher, we tested the interaction effectbetween the explanatory factor (exposure to the dis-

closure) and the covariables (involvement in the

event and attitude toward sponsorship) on attitudes

toward the brand by conducting a MANCOVA (multi-

variate analysis of covariance). This analysis shows

that the more an individual is involved in an event,

the more the disclosure of ambush tactics negatively

influences brand affect (F (1. 634) = 8.12; p < 0.05;

= 0.102), perceived integrity (F (1.634) = 9.10;p < 0.05; = 0.145) and purchase intention

(F (1.634) = 10.31; p < 0.05; = 0.927).Furthermore, involvement in the event has no direct

effect on attitudes toward the ambushers band(p > 0.05). Consequently, involvement in the

Olympics is a pure moderating variable of the effect ofdisclosure on brand affect, perceived integrity and

purchase intention (Sharma, Durand and Gur-Arie,

1981). Therefore, hypotheses H4(a) and (c) are

confirmed: involvement in the event significantly

increases the negative impact of disclosure on

brand affect, perceived integrity and purchase

intention. However, interaction of the disclosure

with involvement in the Olympics explains less than

1% of the variance of brand affect, perceived inte-

grity and purchase intention.

However, it is likely that the experiment underesti-

mated the moderating influence of involvement in

the event. We believe that disclosure of ambush tactics

requires intensive processing for the message to pro-

duce effects. However, only individuals who are dee-

ply involved tend to elaborate intensive processing

(Batra and Ray, 1985; Greenwald and Leavitt, 1984;

Lutz, 1985). Unfortunately, our study did not allow

us to test this hypothesis. In fact, the act of taking

part in a survey automatically makes the respondent

more attentive. Moreover, we checked that the

respondent had processed the information and

understood the disclosure with an open-ended question(What have you learned from the article and press

release?). In real life situations, involvement should

have a much greater moderating effect on the impact

of disclosure since the people not involved in the

event would probably not read, or just skim over, the

press release.

The results of our experiment also demonstrate

that attitudes toward sponsorship reinforce the negative

impact of disclosure of ambush tactics on brand

affect (F (1.634) =12.57; p < 0.01 and = 0.248)

and perceived integrity (F (1.634) = 29.39; p < 0.01and = 0.238), but not purchase intention(p > 0.05). Furthermore, attitude toward sponsorship of

the Olympic Games has a direct negative influence

on brand affect (p < 0.05) and perceived integrity of

the ambusher (p < 0.01). Attitude toward sponsorship

of an event is therefore an impure moderating

variable of the influence of disclosure on brand affect

and perceived integrity. Therefore, hypotheses

H5(a) and (b) are confirmed. However, hypothesis

H5(c), according to which attitude toward spon-



11/18

sorship of an event reinforces the negative impact

of disclosure on purchase intention, is not confir-

med. Ambushers therefore run the risk of eroding

perceived integrity and brand affect among audiences

sensitive to sponsorship. Finally, we can observe,using a MANOVA, that neither age (p = 0.65), gender

(p = 0.99) nor socio-professional group (p = 0.92)

play a significant moderating role in the impact of

disclosure of ambush tactics on attitudes toward the

ambushers brand.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Our study is the first empirical step toward identi-

fying the nature of consumer responses to the disclo-

sure of ambush marketing tactics. Up until now,

ambush marketing was considered a questionable

practice, even reprehensible, but relatively harmless

since its effects, whether positive or negative, had

never been measured or explained. Our experiment

establishes the limitations and risks of ambush marke-

ting and offers a partial response regarding the defen-sive strategies available to official sponsors, whose

investments are compromised by these tactics.

There is no doubt that ambush marketing under-

mines financial support for events and, in the long

run, their very existence. Frdric Quenet of theFrench Olympic Committee underlines the fact that

the IOC must protect official partners since they

represent, along with television broadcasting rights

(50%), the main source of funding for the Olympic

movement with 40% of the IOC budget. Our research

shows that unmasking ambushers erodes perceivedintegrity, brand affect and purchase intention. It also

suggests that organizers would benefit from disclo-

sing ambush tactics in press releases.

Thus, companies seeking to associate themselves

with an event to increase awareness and improve

consumer attitudes toward their brand must choose

between sponsoring the event, and paying the requisite

fees, or engaging in ambush tactics and running the

risk of deteriorating consumer attitudes if they are

unmasked. Ambushers must therefore bear in mind

the risks associated with ambush strategies. Even if

these tactics could produce an improvement in brand

attitudes, which remains to be proven empirically,

they could also backfire when consumers discover

the deception. Moreover, deterioration is more signifi-cant among individuals who are more favorable

toward sponsorship in general and involved in the

event. The risks for ambushers, and potential losses,

are even greater when these individuals are a key tar-

get.

As is the case for all research, this study has its

limitations. The main methodological weakness of

our experiment lies in the short lapse of time between

measuring brand attitudes and disclosure. Testing

effects could have biased the results if the respon-

dents had adjusted their answers a posteriori accor-

ding to the perceived purpose of the study. The use of a

diversion task, after disclosure, aimed to minimize

these effects. However, this task was short and focused

on the same subject, undoubtedly enabling some sub-

jects to identify the purpose of the study. The use of

implicit tests to measure brand attitudes could pre-

vent demand effect or social desirability bias in stu-

dying the effects of disclosing ambush tactics

(Trendel and Warlop, 2005). Implicit measurements

are particularly suited to this type of situation, eluci-

dating the test subjects cognitive and affective pro-

cesses or motivation without asking him to reportthese processes verbally. The measure of attitude

toward sponsorship of the Olympic Games represents

another methodological limitation since it was not

constructed for the experiment, but was inspired by

the scale used by Quester and Thompson (2001) to

measure attitudes toward sponsorship of art festivals.

In fact, the public is affected by other information

besides the disclosure of ambush marketing. The

experiment focuses the respondents attention on thepress release disclosing these tactics, therefore limiting

the external validity of its results. It would be interes-ting to analyze the direct effects of disclosure on atti-

tudes toward the ambushers brand during a real cam-paign. Moreover, we measured attitudes toward the

brand immediately after disclosing ambush tactics. It

would be interesting to measure the longitudinal

effects. For example, is the deterioration of certain

components of the consumers attitude toward theambusher a lasting phenomenon?

Due to the spread of ambush marketing and the

sheer size of sponsorship budgets more research in



12/18

this area is urgently needed. Companies incapable of

competing with the global brands typically associa-

ted with high-profile events are inevitably tempted

by ambush marketing strategies, despite the risks

revealed in our study. Therefore we would recom-mend they proceed with extreme caution. Other studies

need to be conducted, in different contexts and with

other potential moderating variables, in order to

determine more precisely which parameters compa-

nies must take into consideration before envisaging

an association between a brand and event outside a

formal sponsorship agreement. Furthermore, identi-

fying the specific non-protected features that enable

ambushers to fool the public would be an interesting

research topic to explore in order to clarify the

concept of ambush marketing.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

Abbassi W. (2007), Efficacitdu sponsoring sportif selonla condition dexposition lvnement, Doctoral dis-sertation, CERGAM, University Paul-Czanne (Aix-Marseille III, IAE).

Batra R. and Ray M.L. (1985), How advertising works atcontact, in L.F. Alwitt and A.A. Mitchell (eds.),Psychological processes and advertising effects,Hillsdale, N.J., Lawrence Erlbaum, 13-44.

Batra R. and Stayman D.M. (1990), The role of mood inadvertising effectiveness, Journal of ConsumerResearch, 17, 2, 203-214.

Brechet A., Desmet P. and de Pechpeyrou P. (2005), Effets delannonce dun prix multidimensionnel sur la confiancedans la marque, Proceedings of the 4e Congrs interna-tional des tendances en marketing, Paris.

Brennan M. and Esslemont D. (1994), The accuracy of theJuster scale for predicting purchase rates of branded,

fast-moving consumer goods, Marketing Bulletin, 5,may, 47-53.

Brennan M. (1995), Constructing demand curves from pur-chase probability data: an application of the JusterScale,Marketing Bulletin, 6, may, 51-58.

Bressoud E. (2001), De lintention dachat au comporte-ment: essais de modlisations incluant variables attitu-dinales, intra-personnelles et situationnelles, Doctoraldissertation, University Paris I Panthon Sorbonne.

Comit National Olympique Sportif Franais (2006), Laprotection des marques et du territoire olympiques,Confrence organise par le CNOSF du 24 janvier2006, Paris, France.

Cornwell T.B. (2008), State of the art and science in spon-sorship-linked marketing,Journal of Advertising, 37, 3,41-55.

Daneshvary R. and Schwer R.K. (2000), The associationendorsement and consumers intention to purchase,

Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17, 3, 203-213.Day D. and Gan B. (1991), Predicting purchase behaviour,

Marketing Bulletin, 2, may, 18-30.Derbaix C., Grard P. and Lardinoit T. (1994), Essai de

conceptualisation dune activit minemment pra-tique : le parrainage, Recherche et Applications enMarketing, 9, 2, 43-67.

Dianoux C., Herrmann J.-L., Poncin I. and Zeitoun H.(2006), La thorie de lassimilation-contraste peut-ellecontribuer expliquer le fonctionnement des annoncescomparatives ?, Proceedings of the XXIIe Congrs delAssociation Franaise de Marketing, Nantes.

Didellon-Carsana L. (1997), Mode de persuasion et mesuredefficacitdu parrainage : une application au domainesportif, Doctoral dissertation, ESA, Grenoble,University Pierre-Mends-France.

Farrelly F.J., Quester P.G. and Greyser S.A. (2005),Defending the co-branding benefits of sponsorship b2bpartnerships: the case of ambush marketing,Journal ofAdvertising Research, 45, 3, 339-348.

Fleck-Dousteyssier N. (2007), Le parrainage : dune intuition une stratgie de communication, DcisionsMarketing, 47, 7-20.

Fornell C. and Larcker D.F. (1981), Evaluating structuralequation models with unobservable variables and measure-ment error,Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 1, 39-50.

Fuchs S. (2003), Le pseudo-parrainage : une autre faon defaire du parrainage ?,Dcisions Marketing, 30, 31-39.

Giannelloni J.-L. (1993), Linfluence de la communicationpar lvnement sur la nature de limage de marque delentreprise, Recherche et Applications en Marketing,8, 1, 5-29.

Greenwald A.G. and Leavitt C. (1984), Audience involve-ment in advertising: four levels,Journal of ConsumerResearch, 11, 1, 581-592.

Gurviez P. and Korchia M. (2002), Proposition dunechelle de mesure multidimensionnelle de la confiancedans la marque, Recherche et Applications enMarketing, 17, 3, 41-61.

Harvey B. (2001), Measuring the effects of sponsorships,Journal of Advertising Research, 41, 1, 59-65.

Hoek J. and Gendall P. (2002), Ambush marketing: morethan just a commercial irritant?,Entertainment Law, 1, 2,72-91.

International Olympic Committee (1996), Marketing factfile 1996, Lausanne, IOC.

Johar G.V. and Pham M.T. (1999), Relatedness, promi-nence and constructive sponsor identification, Journalof Marketing Research, 36, 3, 299-312.

Johar G.V. and Pham M.T. (2001), Market prominencebiases in sponsor identification: processes and conse-quentiality, Psychology et Marketing, 18, 2, 123-143.

Juster F.T. (1966), Consumer buying intentions and pur-chase probability: an experiment in survey design,



13/18

Journal of the American Statistical Association, 61,315, 658-696.

Keller K.L. (2003), Brand synthesis: the multidimensionalityof brand knowledge, Journal of Consumer Research,29, 4, 595-600.

Lardinoit T. and Derbaix C. (2001), Sponsorship and recallof sponsors, Psychology et Marketing, 18, 2, 167-190.

Lardinoit T. and Quester P.G. (2001), Attitudinal effects ofcombined sponsorship and sponsors prominence onbasketball in Europe, Journal of Advertising Research,41, 1, 48-57.

Louis D. (2004), Linfluence du parrainage sur lattitude lgard du parrain : une comparaison off line/on line,Proceedings of the XXe Congrs International delAFM, Saint-Malo.

Lutz R.J. (1985), Affective and cognitive antecedents ofattitude toward the ad: a conceptual framework, in L.F.Alwitt and A.A. Mitchell (eds.), Psychological pro-cesses and advertising effects: theory, research and

applications, Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates Publishers, 45-63.

Lyberger M. and McCarthy L. (2001), An assessment ofconsumer knowledge of, interest in, and perceptions ofambush marketing strategies, Sport MarketingQuarterly, 10, 3, 130-137.

Madden N. (2007), Ambush marketing could hit new high atBeijing Olympics,Advertising Age, 23 july.

Madrigal R. (2000), The influence of social alliances withsport teams on intentions to purchase corporate spon-sors products,Journal of Advertising, 29, 4, 13-24.

Mazodier M. (2008), Une tude exploratoire de lattitudedu public face la rvlation du pseudo-parrainage

dvnements sportifs, Revue Europenne deManagement du Sport, 23.Mazodier M. and Chandon J.-L. (2005), Limpact du parrai-

nage sportif sur la notorit, lattitude et lintentiondachat : effet modrateur des normes de groupe, dusexe et de lge,Revue Sciences de Gestion, 48, 65-87.

McKelvey S. (1994), Sans legal restraint, no stoppingbrash, creative ambush marketers,Brandweek, 35, 20.

Meenaghan T. (1994), Ambush marketing: immoral or ima-ginative practice?,Journal of Advertising Research, 34,5, 77-88.

Meenaghan T. (1998), Ambush marketing: corporate stra-tegy and consumer reaction, Psychology et Marketing,15, 4, 305-322.

Meenaghan T. (2001), Sponsorship and advertising: a com-parison of consumer perception, Psychology etMarketing, 18, 2, 191-215.

Merle A. (2007), La valeur perue de la customisation demasse : proposition et test dun modle conceptuelintgrateur, Doctoral dissertation, CERGAM,University Paul-Czanne (Aix-Marseille III, IAE).

Okter T. and Hayes P. (1988), valuation de lefficacitdusponsoring. Expriences de la Coupe du monde de foot-ball 1986,Revue Franaise du Marketing, 118, 2, 13-39.

Peter J.P., Churchill Jr. G.A. and Brown T.J. (1993),Caution in the use of difference scores in consumer

research, Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 4, 655-662.

Quester P.G. (1997), Awareness as a measure of sponsor-ship effectiveness: the Adelaide formula one grand prixand evidence of incidental ambush effects, Journal of

Marketing Communications, 3, 1, 1-20.Quester P.G. and Thompson B. (2001), Advertising and

promotion leverage on arts sponsorship effectiveness,Journal of Advertising Research, 41, 1, 33-47.

Rempel J.K., Holmes J.G and Zanna M.P. (1985), Trust inclose relationships, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 49, 1, 95-112.

Rieunier S. (2000), Linfluence de la musique dambiancesur le comportement du consommateur sur le lieu devente, Doctoral dissertation, DMSP, University ParisIX-Dauphine.

Sandler D.M. and Shani D. (1989), Olympic sponsorshipvs. ambush marketing: who gets the gold?,Journal ofAdvertising Research, 29, 4, 9-14.

Shani D. and Sandler D.M. (1998), Ambush marketing: isconfusion to blame for the flickering of the Flame?,Psychology et Marketing, 15, 4, 367-383.

Sharma S., Durand R.M. and Gur-Arie O. (1981),Identification and analysis of moderator variables,Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 3, 291-300.

Sirgy J., Lee D.-J., Johar J.S. and Tidwell J. (2008), Effect ofself-congruity with sponsorship on brand loyalty,Journal of Business Research, 61, 10, 1091-1097.

Stipp H. and Schiavone N.P. (1996), Modelling the impact ofolympic sponsorship on corporate image, Journal ofAdvertising Research, 36, 4, 22-28.

Strazzieri A. (1994), Mesurer limplication durable ind-

pendamment du risque peru, Recherche etApplications en Marketing, 9, 1, 73-91.Tabachnick B.G. and Fidell L.S. (2006), Using multiva-

riate statistics, 5th edition, Boston, Allyn & Bacon.Trendel O. and Warlop L. (2005), Prsentation et applica-

tions des mesures implicites de restitution mmorielle enmarketing, Recherche et Applications en Marketing,20, 2, 77-104.

Ukman L. (1998), Assertions, Sponsorship Report, 17, 4, 2.Vancouver Organizing Committee (2009), The importance of

protecting the olympic brand, www.vancouver2010.-com/en/LookVancouver2010/ProtectingBrand, consul-ted 02/10/2009.

Volle P. (1996), Impact du marketing promotionnel des dis-

tributeurs sur le choix du point de vente et rle modra-teur de variables individuelles, Doctoral dissertation,DMSP, University Paris IX-Dauphine.

Walliser B. (2006), Le parrainage sponsoring et mc-nat, Paris, Dunod.

Walliser B. (2003), Lvolution et ltat de lart de larecherche internationale sur le parrainage,Recherche etApplications en Marketing, 18, 1, 65-94.

Zanna M.P. and Rempel J.K. (1988), Attitudes: a new lookat an old concept, in D. Bar-Tal and A.W. Kruglanski(eds.), The social psychology of knowledge, New York,Cambridge University Press, 315-334.



14/18


APPENDICES

A1. List of measurement items

Brand affectHere is a list of statements about the Nike brand. Please indicate to what extent you agree with these statements according to thefollowing scale: 1 = Dont agree at all; 7 = Completely agree. Nike is:

Af1 a brand that I appreciate.Af2 a pleasant brand*.Af3 brand that I like.Af4 a brand that I favor.

Perceived integrity

Here is a list of statements regarding the Nike brand. Please indicate to what extent you agree with these statements accordingto the following scale: 1 = Dont agree at all; 7 = Completely agree

Int1 Nike is sincere with consumers.Int2 Nike is honest with its customers.

Int3 Nike expresses an interest in its customers.

Purchase intention

If you needed a new pair of running shoes within the next six months, you would purchase a Nike model:

Certainly or most certainly (99% chance)Almost certainly (90% chance)Most probably (80% chance) Probably (70% chance) There is a good possibility (60% chance) There is a fairly good possibility (50% chance) Possibly (40% chance) There is a fair possibility (30% chance) There is a slight possibility (20% chance)

There is a remote possibility (10% chance) Not likely (1% chance)

Involvement in the event

Here is a list of statements about the Olympic Games. Please indicate to what extent you agree with these statements accordingto the following scale: 1 = Dont agree at all; 7 = Completely agree

Inv1 The event... is in an area that is very important to me.Inv2 You could say the event... interests me.Inv3 I feel particularly attracted to the event...

Attitude toward sponsorship of the Olympic Games

Here are a few statements often made about sponsorship. Please indicate to what extent you agree with these statementsaccording to the following scale: 1 = Dont agree at all; 7 = Completely agree

AttSpon1 I think favorably of companies that sponsor the Olympic Games.*AttSpon2 Sponsorships are no different from advertising.*AttSpon3 I would be inclined to give my business to firms that sponsor. *AttSpon4 Companies who sponsor the Olympics seem to be successful.AttSpon5 Sponsors are only interested in increasing sales.AttSpon6 The Olympic Games would not be possible without sponsorship.AttSpon7 The Olympic Games are better because of sponsors.

*Items eliminated during the first experiment.


15/18


A2. Article disclosing ambush marketing


16/18


A3. Composition of the sample

By gender and age

Age group/gender Women Men Total

15-24 years 37 38 75

25 to 34 years 38 39 77

35 to 44 years 41 42 83

45 to 54 years 41 40 81

55 to 64 years 34 34 68

65 to 74 years 25 22 47

More than 74 years 31 18 49

Total 247 233 480

By gender and socio-professional group

Socio-professional group Men Women Total

Farmers 4 2 6

Artisans, merchants and entrepreneurs 11 4 15

Executives, liberal professions 24 13 37

Intermediate professions 31 29 60

Employees 18 59 77

Workers 53 12 65

Unemployed who have already worked 63 83 146Others, no professional activity 29 45 74

Total 233 247 480


17/18


A4.

Reliabilityandvalidityofscalesmeasuringresearchvariables

1st

Jo

reskogs

Rho

f

Correlationcoefficient

experiment

2

d.f.*

*

GFI

RMSEA

CFI

rh

convergent

Affect

Integrity

InvolvementS

ponsorship

(N=400)*

validity

Brandaffect

6,618

2

0,990

0,076

0,997

0,97

0,92

1

,00

Perceived

7,725

2

0,987

0,076

0,996

0,96

0,89

0

,52

1,00

integrity

Involvement

intheOlympics

0,389

2

0,999

0,000

1,000

0,97

0,91

0

,01

0,00

1,00

Attitudetoward

sponsorship

0,326

2

1,000

0,000

1,000

0,84

0,58

0

,01

0,00

0,03

1,00

Key:Affect:brandaffect;Integrity:per

ceivedintegrityofthebrand;Involvement:involvementintheOlympicGames;Sponsorship:attitudetowardsponsorshipofanev

ent.

*Confirmatoryfactoranalyseswerepe

rformedwithasub-sampleof400people.

**Sincethevariablesbrandaffect,perc

eivedintegrityandinvolvementintheOlym

picGameswereonlyrepresentedbythreestatementsafteradjustment,wecalculatedadjustmentindices

byapplyingaTauequivalenttotherem

ainingstatements,i.e.weimposedanequalityconstraintonthenon-standardizedfacto

rweights.


18/18


A5. Comparison of attitudes toward the ambusher among the experimental group and control groups

Ambushers brand affect N Average F P

Experimental group: measure before disclosure 160 13.88 0.438 0.508Unexposed control group 160 13.61

Experimental group: measure after disclosure 160 11.550.201 0.654

Control group, after only 160 11.76

Perceived integrity of the ambusher N Average F P

Experimental group: measure before disclosure 160 17.940.037 0.848

Unexposed control group 160 17.86



Purchase intention for the ambusher N Average F PExperimental group: measure before disclosure 160 51.72

0.793 0.374Unexposed control group 160 49.57



The tests were performed indifferently for all 4 brands (Nike, Puma, Apple and Creative Labs).

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	slaheddine-dardouri
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

Ambush Marketing Disclosure Impact on Attitudes Toward the Ambusher's Brand

Documents