Ambush Marketing, Rule 40, and the Sochi Controversy You Aren’t Hearing About

Have Olympic advertising partnerships gotten too big? Have rules and restrictions protecting these “official sponsors” gone too far?

Dawn Harper Tweets her Opinion of Olympic Rule 40

Dawn Harper Tweets her Opinion of Olympic Rule 40

Two-time track and field medalist Dawn Harper thinks so.  That’s why she posted this tweet with #Rule40 in protest of the IOC’s infamous Rule 40 during the 2012 Olympics in London.

If you aren’t yet familiar with Rule40, it is a total ban on an athlete’s promotion of personal sponsors and their ability to acknowledge those who helped them get where they are today. It is especially focused on social media, where it has become a commonplace for athletes to thank sponsors with pictures and personal statements.

Harper isn’t the only athlete to voice her displeasure with the effective “gag order” on competitors, but with companies spending upwards of $100,000,000.00 to associate their brands with the Olympics Games, is it really that hard to see why #Rule40 is in effect?

Some have even gone as far to refer to the situation as a “battle”. Yet, despite the activism surrounding #rule40, without a doubt the biggest threat to the official Olympic sponsors is the ever-pervasive ambush marketers, silently stalking and waiting for their chance to steal some the Olympic brand name.

These controversial ambush marketing campaigns attempt to capitalize on high-visibility events and locations through brand association without having to pay for the high-cost of officially sponsoring an event. My favorite example of ambush marketing involved the Minnesota Timberwolves selling this advertisement on the side of their stadium, where it happens to only be viewable from inside the nearby Minnesota Twins baseball stadium (where the official sponsor is Target).

View of Timberwolves basketball stadium from inside the Twins baseball stadium

View of Timberwolves basketball stadium from inside the Twins baseball stadium

Ambush marketing may have been around in the advertising world for years, but the Olympics are seen as “the flagship event for ambush marketing”. Creative campaigns by infamous ambush advertisers like Nike often times attract more online buzz and conversation than the actual official sponsors.

During the 2010 World Cup in South Africa officially sponsored by Reebok, advertising juggernaut and infamous ambush marketer Nike, placed an eye-catching ad on the fourth tallest building in the entire city of Johannesburg. When paired with a lengthy viral video, many agreed that Nike had effectively hijacked the sponsorship from Reebok and gained closer brand association with the World Cup event.

Nike ad in Johannesburg during World Cup 2010

Nike ad in Johannesburg during World Cup 2010

Another ambush marketing giant, Subway, has already launched its attempt to steal some association from the upcoming Sochi games.  Summer Olympian Michael Phelps and retired speed-skating icon Apollo Ohno both appear in TV commercials for Subway’s “$5 foot long campaign” due to some legal loopholes discovered by Subway.

So is it reasonable for the IOC to implement Rule 40 to help protect sponsors? Freeskiier David Wise recently commented that, “[he] understand[s] the Olympics are a moneymaking game, but it’s sad for [him] to have all these sponsors who have really taken care of [him]…[he’s] on the biggest stage [he] can possibly be on and [he] can’t give them the representation they deserve.”

Another athlete and social media enthusiast, Nick Goepper, has stated that he will be completely off of social media for the entirety of the Olympics. “I think it might be safer not to tweet anything,” said Nick, the 19-year-old favorite to win Ski Slopestyle gold. “All I know, it’s pretty much zero tolerance for branding.”

The Sochi games are only 3 days away, but the media blackout protecting the games’ sponsors has been in effect since January 26. When the final medal is awarded and the closing ceremonies complete, which brands will you associate with the games? Which advertisements and commercials will be the most talked about and discussed? Is $100,000,000 too much to pay for a loose association with the Olympic rings?

Will the “ambushers” steal the spotlight once again?

– Greg Rothman

5 thoughts on “Ambush Marketing, Rule 40, and the Sochi Controversy You Aren’t Hearing About

  1. I had not heard of Rule 40 until reading this article. I can’t believe that actually exists as a rule. I see why people would want it since there are these ambush ads by certain companies but olympians really don’t make that much money unless they have a lot of good sponsors so by not letting them endorse them at all makes the olympians lose a lot of money making opportunities. I think olympic athletes should have the right to endorse brands at least on social media.

  2. I think this post is fascinating. I had no idea that the Olympics were banning the athletes from promoting their sponsors. It seems cruel that the Olympics would do something that is essentially taking away the athletes right to speak freely. Athletes should be able to give thanks and promote those who have helped them along the way. I was also surprised by the fact that Nike is known for being an ambush marketer. I don’t really understand why a company would want to be known for that. I understand that they got a lot of press at the World Cup but it just seems like they are selling out. What do you think? Also thanks for such an informative blog!

  3. These rules and restrictions have gone too far in my opinion. I believe these individuals whom have made it this far to represent such achievements should be able to give recognition to such sponsors. After reading this post, I have been informed on rule 40. These personal sponsors might not be the biggest name and giving them credibility will not only help their company but help other outstanding athletes. Nike has been one of my favorite companies for a while now, i’m shocked at their actions. I can compare this article to Super Bowl commercials as well. The top dogs always remain on top. I would like to take away a broader network of sponsors to explore from the Olympics instead of these huge brands. Moreover, now I’m curious as to what rules 1-39 are. Thanks for sharing!

    Cailynn Bastion
    cab3260@uncw.edu

  4. Like Brett said this was the first time hearing about this as well, and I cannot help but to disagree with this rule of keeping athletes from acknowledging their sponsors. Keep in mind that many athletes in the Olympics are young. Very young actually, some not even being 18. A teenager participating in the Olympics obviously does not have the means to pay for the coaching, facilities, and equipment needed to be good enough in their sport without the contributions of sponsors. Without these sponsors backing, athletes wouldn’t even be able to participate in these games. Add in athletes from much smaller and less commercialized countries who need that sponsorship desperately and you run into a problem. If companies don’t get the exposure for their athletes in the Olympics, then what is the point of sponsoring them? The Olympics is risking the livelihood of some of these athletes because if the sponsors back out then they don’t have the means to participate in the Olympics. As far as the ambush advertising goes, it will play an even bigger role this year and it will be entertaining to see what some of these countries try to pull off.

  5. Very interesting read! Prior to this article, I had never heard of the Rule 40 and had no idea at the social media mini-revolution of the Olympic athletes. It’s interesting how an external force would attempt to constrain athletes to not thank and promote their vital sponsors, when nearly any other organization, individual, or company acts in a very parallel nature. Looking forward to see where this story goes in the future!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s