DAVID
VS.
GOLIATH
…CAN WE BLAME THE UNDERDOG?
Universiteit van Amsterdam
MSc Business Studies
Master Thesis
Dr. Karin Venetis
Luuk Evers (10049975)
Abstract
Ambush marketing attained more attention within marketing literature over the last decades. Recent
research has shed new light on the effects of disclosure of an ambush marketing tactic on consumers’
brand attitude. Consumers’ brand attitude towards disclosed ambush marketing tactics, performed by
different kind of brands (dominant/less dominant), remains an underexplored subject. The purpose of
this research is fourfold. To examine both consumers’ brand attitudinal effects in the Dutch context, of
(1) disclosure of an ambush marketing tactic and (2) towards a new trend in branding; the underdog
brand biography. (3) Whether brand biography moderates the attitudinal effects disclosure towards the
ambushers’ brand and (4) if concerns of fairness form a mediator between brand biography and
consumers’ brand attitude during disclosure of an ambush marketing tactic.
Findings show, that disclosure of an ambush marketing tactic, negatively affects Dutch consumers’
attitudinal response, partly regardless to what kind of brand (dominant/ less dominant) is performing
the tactic. However, consumers’ affective attitudinal response were, marginally significant, less
deteriorated when an underdog brand biography was used. Furthermore, concerns of fairness did not
mediate the relationship between underdog brand biography and consumers’ attitudinal effects, in the
disclosure condition.
Table of contents
1. Introduction ... 5
1.1 Sponsorship as a marketing communication tool ... 5
1.2 Ambush Marketing as a cheaper solution to expensive sponsorship rights ... 6
1.2.1 What is ambush marketing? ... 6
1.2.2 Why do companies involve themselves in ambushing activities? ... 7
1.2.3 Research on ambush marketing... 8
1.3 Positioning as an underdog, the underdog brand biography ... 9
1.3.1 An underdog brand biography ... 9
1.3.2 An underdog and ambush marketing ... 10
1.4 Relevance ... 11
1.4.1 Academic Relevance... 11
1.4.2 Managerial Relevance ... 11
2. Theoretical Framework ... 12
2.1 How did ambush marketing arise? ... 12
2.1.1 Clearing the way for ambush marketers... 12
2.1.2 First ambush marketing practice ... 12
2.2 Importance of ambush marketing in marketing context ... 13
2.3 What effects do ambush activities have on brand awareness and brand attitude? ... 16
2.3.1 Effects of ambushing activities on brand awareness ambusher ... 16
2.3.2 Effects on consumers’ brand attitude ... 17
2.4 What is an underdog and why could it be of importance in an ambushing context? ... 19
2.4.1 The underdog ... 19
2.4.2 What is an underdog brand biography? ... 20
2.4.3 Why is it important in ambushing context? ... 22
2.5 Hypotheses ... 22 3. Method ... 25 3.1 Research Design ... 25 3.2 Hypothesized model ... 25 3.3 Pre-test... 26 3.4 Questionnaire development ... 27 3.4.1 Data collection ... 27
3.4.2 Consumers’ brand attitude towards the ambushers’ brand ... 28
3.4.3 Underdog- vs. a top dog brand biography ... 29
3.5 Statistical analysis ... 30
3.5.1 Schematic rendering of the questionnaire ... 30
3.5.2 Testing the hypotheses ... 31
4. Results ... 33
4.1 Pre-test results ... 33
4.2 Data collection ... 34
4.2.1 Descriptive target group ... 34
4.2.2 Differences between groups ... 35
4.3 Reliability of the scales ... 36
4.3.1 Cronbach’s Alpha values ... 36
4.3.2 Mean inter-item correlations ... 37
4.4 Descriptive statistics ... 38
4.4.1 Means and standard deviations ... 38
4.4.2 Bivariate correlations ... 39
4.5 Testing hypotheses 1,2 and 3 ... 40
4.5.1 Testing hypothesis 1 ... 40
4.5.2 Assumptions factorial MANOVA ... 40
4.5.3 Results of the factorial MANOVA concerning disclosure ... 41
4.5.4 Testing Hypothesis 2 ... 42
4.5.5 Results of the MANOVA concerning under-/top dog brand biographies ... 42
4.5.6 Testing hypothesis 3 ... 44
4.5.7 Results of the factorial MANOVA concerning the interaction between disclosure and under-/top dog brand biography ... 44
4.6 Testing hypothesis 4 ... 45
4.6.1 Results of the regression analyses step 1 ... 46
4.6.2 Results of the regression analysis step 2... 47
5. Conclusions, implications and limitations ... 48
5.1.Summary of the findings ... 48
5.2 Implications ... 49
5.3 Conclusion, limitations and directions for future research ... 51
References ... 53
Appendix A ... 58
Appendix B ... 72
Appendix C ... 74
1. Introduction
1.1 Sponsorship as a marketing communication tool
Over the last decades corporations are concerned about the efficiency of traditional methods of
marketing communications. According to Meenaghan (1996) to target their audiences, corporations
have adopted a range of alternative media. One such medium is sponsorship, which has grown
significantly in recent years. According to D’ Astous and Bitz (1995), sponsorship can be either
philanthropic or commercial. The first form mentioned implies the support of a cultural or social cause.
The latter implies that the firm associates itself with a public event in order to gain direct commercial
benefits: increase in consumer awareness, improvement in sales, etc. According to Meenaghan (1983)
commercial sponsorship involves “an investment, in cash or kind, in an event, person or idea, for the
purpose of exploiting the commercial potential of this association”.
To specify commercial sponsorship is big business, worldwide sponsorship generated $663
million in revenue for the 2001-2004 Salt lake City/Athens Olympic cycle. This amount was easily
exceeded by the Torino/Beijing cycle, in which revenues jumped 31% to $866 million (Pitt et al. 2010).
Next to that, Olympic ad spending was estimated at an additional $1.5 billion. Visa alone was
estimated to have spent $86 million on its official sponsorship of the 2008 Olympic games (Pitt et
al.2010). Next to this growth in commercial sponsorship expenditures on a globally well-known event
as the Olympic games, global expenditures on commercial sponsorship are also in a continuous rise.
To get a more specific picture about how much money is involved in commercial sponsorship
nowadays, global commercial sponsorship expenditures are calculated at $51.1 billion in 2012.
According to IEG’s sponsorship report of 2013, commercial sponsorship expenditures between
2000-2012 were still growing with an average growth rate of 5,1% a year. IEG expects the sponsorship
expenditures to grow in the future ($53.3 billion in 2013). As an element of worldwide advertising
expenditure, commercial sponsorship has grown because corporations have found that, through
sponsorship they can achieve new levels of exposure at lower costs than through traditional
advertising methods (Lyberger and McCarthy, 2001).
Multinational corporations have found sponsorship to be an appropriate means of
communicating with consumers in an array of markets across a broad cultural, ethnic, and social
spectrum (Mullin et al. 1999).
This continued growth in commercial sponsorship expenditures indicates the effectiveness of
commercial sponsorship as a form of corporate communication (Lyberger, McCarthy, 2001). According
to Mazodier et. al (2010) major brands are competing to secure highly prized, and equally expensive,
rights to sponsor events, motivated by the belief that association with the event will favorably impact
on the audience’s recall (Bennet,1999), preference (image) and behavior (D’Astous and Bitz,
1995;Ferrand and Pages, 1999). Because of its effectiveness regarding to these three important brand
equity components, commercial sponsorship rights are as afore mentioned; highly prized. The stakes
within this growing area of marketing communication are getting higher because of commercial
sponsorship’s effectiveness, therefore it can be assumed that sponsorship will remain a popular
marketing communication method for in the future.
1.2 Ambush Marketing as a cheaper solution to expensive sponsorship rights
1.2.1 What is ambush marketing?
While companies spend a lot of their communication budget on commercial sponsoring, they want to
have something in return for their effort. Increased brand awareness, a more positive brand attitude or
increasing sales etc. could be motives. Regarding these purposes, commercial sponsorship remains a
method to commercial gain and thus a competitive environment. Because of budget or political
limitations some corporations are not afforded the opportunity to associate with major national and
international sports events. Such corporations which are unable to gain official affiliation with major
events, or who choose not to pursue affiliation, seek to develop alternative strategies that will provide
them the benefits of associations (e.g. improved image and credibility and increased sales) (Lyberger
and McCarthy, 2001). One such strategy is a form of ambush marketing.
During one of the last major international sports events, the European Soccer championship in
Poland and Ukrain in july 2012, the Danish football striker Nicklas Bendtner flashed the name of an
Irish bookmaker printed on his underwear during a match. Because the Irish bookmaker wasn't
licensed as an official sponsor, the Control and Disciplinary Body of the UEFA, organizer of the
championship, had taken drastic action against him. The player was fined an astonishing €100.000
and was banned for one competitive international fixture ( The Daily Mail, Rick Sharma, 18th of June
2012).
This typical act of the Danish player is an example of Ambush Marketing or Parasitic Marketing.
As Mazodier et al. (2010) argue, the literature on ambush marketing, while still scarce has aimed to
develop a definition a definition for this practice. Many attempts in defining ambush marketing were
made. However, the definition by Burton & Chadwick (WORKING PAPER No. 3,2008) could be
considered as one of the most all-embracing definitions, namely: “Ambush marketing is a form of
strategic marketing which is designed to capitalize upon the awareness, attention, goodwill, and other
benefits, generated by having an association with an event or property, without an official or direct
connection to that event or property”.
1.2.2 Why do companies involve themselves in ambushing activities?
By purchasing commercial sponsorship rights, a sponsor seeks to attract the attention generated by
an event to its own product. In a typical commercial sponsorship arrangement, a sponsor purchases
the rights and does further promotion to draw attention to itself (Meenaghan,1996).
A company that involves itself in an ambush marketing tactic can associate itself with an event without
paying large sums of money like their competitors had to pay, by purchasing securing rights. The
major benefit of adopting an ambush marketing strategy is therefore; to fulfill brand awareness and
image objectives at low costs (Meenaghan,1996). Ambush marketers are often competitors trying to
negate any competitive advantage gained by sponsors from their association with an event, tactic,
sport or athlete (Amis et al.,1999).
Tribou (2002) found, that during the Olympic games of 1996 in Atlanta, Pepsi Cola benefited,
in terms of brand recognition, despite their refusal to pay for sponsorship rights. The findings by Pitt et
al. (2010) concur with these findings. Results of their study showed, that Li Ning, an ambusher during
the Beijing 2008 Olympiad, was the clear brand winner, in terms of recall, recognition and brand
recommendation, in the footwear category. Furthermore, Pitt et al. (2010) argue that ambush
marketing strategies are clearly effective by looking at its ubiquity. In line with this statement, the
above examples show, that brand awareness and image objectives can be achieved through
ambushing marketing tactics effectively and at low costs. The latter argument is one of the most
important ones for companies using such tactics. To avoid spending large amounts on commercial
sponsorship rights, ambush marketing tactics are an effective way to achieve the same goals
commercial sponsors have.
1.2.3 Research on ambush marketing
In view of the large increase in commercial sponsorship expenditures over the last decades,
ambush marketing became more popular as a marketing communication tool. Scholars took notice of
the growing interest in this phenomenon. The amount of articles devoted to the subject grow
significantly over the last 25 years. Ellis et al. (2011) argue that this literary movement on ambush
marketing can be divided in five central areas
:
(a) describing the practice and developing a definitional construct, (b) looking at concerns around consumer perceptions, (c) judicial precedent and descriptionof legalities, (d) examining ethical issues, and (e) strategies for fighting and preventing ambush
marketing.
Many research has been devoted to the five central areas. Research on consumers’ attitudes
to ambush marketing activities, remained twofold and in a certain degree incomplete. Portlock and
Rose (2009) have summarized the results of studies on consumer reactions to ambush marketing
activities. They found that, overall, consumers tend to be indifferent to ambush marketing practices
(Shani & Sandler, 1998; Lyberger & McCarthy, 2001). However, by 2005, Seguin et al.’s Olympic
research found that, 88% of respondents were unaware of any company trying to represent itself as an
official sponsor when it was not. Portlock and Rose (2009) cleverly noticed that consumers’ ability to
judge the ethics of ambush marketing is dependent upon their understanding and level of awareness
of the practice.
In response to this gap, Mazodier et al. (2010) were the first to set up an experiment to test
consumers’ attitudes towards ambush marketing, while the practice was being disclosed by the
organizations of the event. Results of their study showed that, disclosure of an ambush marketing
tactic generated negative attitudes towards the ambushers’ brand. These findings were also a
breakthrough in another respect, it was the first attempt in conceptualizing how a marketing
communication campaign aimed at disclosing an ambush marketing tactic could assist sponsors in
defending their rightful competitive advantage (Mazodier et al., 2010).
1.3 Positioning as an underdog, the underdog brand biography
1.3.1 An underdog brand biography
David vs. Goliath, a classic example of an underdog narrative, is a biblical story about a duel between
a giant named Goliath (the dominant) and David (the underdog). Goliath is much stronger and
therefore expected to win from his weaker opponent. Against the odds however, David wins the battle
by outsmarting Goliath and becomes Israel’s champion. Paharia et al. (2010), argue that such
underdog narratives, across cultures, contexts and time periods have inspired people. They point out,
that transferring such narratives to a commercial setting is a great trend in branding. The label of
Nantucket Nectars for example, a beverage company from the US, informs consumers that its creators
started “With only a blender and a dream”.
The definition of an underdog according the American Heritage Dictionary (2006) is; an
individual or groups who are at a disadvantage and are expected to lose. However, as Paharia et al.
(2010) argue, underdog narratives are underexplored. The authors have studied the essential
dimensions of an underdog and introduce the concept of underdog brand biographies (UBB). With this
concept, the authors try to describe an emerging trend in branding, in which firms author a historical
account of their humble origins, lack of resources, and determined struggle against the odds.
Results from their study show, that participants had more favorable evaluations, in terms of
brand preference, of a company, when it had an underdog brand biography. However, why participants
had more favorable evaluations remained underexposed. Interesting in this regard, are results from
the study by Vandello et al. (2007). The authors have investigated the why in ‘the underdog
phenomenon’. They argue that despite ample anecdotal evidence of the appeal of underdog figures, it
is not clear why people are drawn to underdogs. Paharia et al. (2010) argue that, prior research in
social identity theory found that, people want to associate themselves with winners and disassociate
themselves from losers, which suggests that consumers should prefer top dog brand biographies,
since top dogs are more likely to win. In their goal to find why people support underdogs, Vandello et
al. (2007) found that apart from considering other emotional motivations, concerns of fairness play the
most important role in underdog support.
1.3.2 An underdog and ambush marketing
A motivation for companies to involve themselves in ambush marketing practices could be a financial
one. Since smaller players in the market often have a lack of financial resources, it is a par excellence
a suitable tactic for underdogs in the market. However, results found by Mazodier et al. (2010) show
that, a disclosure message created by the organization of an event, negatively affects consumers’
brand attitude. This indicates that such tactics are cheap but in the end may backfire regarding
consumers’ brand attitude towards the ambushers’ brand.
A suggestion by Pitt et al. (2010) however, could come in handy regarding this matter. Prior to
this suggestion, results of their study are of great interest. Results of their study show that, Li Ning, a
Chinese manufacturer of sports clothing, outcompeted Adidas after the 2008 Beijing Olympics on both
brand awareness as recommendation likelihood. Importantly to note however, is that Li Ning’s ambush
marketing tactic was not disclosed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC).
At the end of their article, the authors argued that consumers do not seem to care about ambush
marketing tactics. They base their argument on data of a reader poll of the 1992 Barcelona Olympics.
They suggest an important argument why consumers not seem to care: “..the Chinese consumer
might have viewed the incident as the triumph of a local hero over an international giant” (Pitt et al., 2010). This interesting suggestion indicates that, consumers’ attitudes towards ambushers
might differ on grounds of what kind of company involves itself into an ambush marketing tactic.
Keeping the above suggestion in mind and referring to the findings by; Mazodier et al. (2010),
Paharia et al. (2010) and Vandello et al. (2007), an interesting question can be raised; could the
negative attitudinal effects of disclosure of an ambush marketing tactic be moderated by brand
biography (under- or top dog brand biography)? For which the negative effects of disclosure on brand
attitude are decreased by an underdog brand biography. Furthermore, it would be interesting to
investigate whether the relationship between brand biography (under- or top dog brand biography) and
consumer brand attitude, are mediated by concerns of fairness during disclosure.
1.4 Relevance
1.4.1 Academic Relevance
Previous research on ambush marketing tactics were mainly focused on whether they are effective or
not and their related legal and ethical issues. Few authors have studied consumers’ response, with
regard to ambush marketing tactics. The first results regarding this subject, found by Shani & Sandler
(1998), showed that, consumers were indifferent towards ambush marketing tactics. Portlock and
Rose (2009), however, stressed out the fact that consumer’s ability to judge the ethics of ambush
marketing is dependent upon their understanding and level of awareness of the practice. In response
to that, Mazodier et al. (2010) found that disclosure of an ambush marketing tactic negatively affects
consumers’ attitudes towards the ambushing company.
Paharia et al. (2010) found that, respondents showed more favorable evaluations, in terms of
brand preference, towards an underdog brand biography. Vandello et al. (2007) found, that above and
beyond other emotional considerations, concerns of fairness play the most important role in underdog
support. Combining these results, and keeping the suggestion by Pitt et al. (2010) in mind, an
interesting question can be raised: Could the attitudinal effects of disclosure be moderated by brand
biography (i.e. be smaller for an underdog brand biography than for a top dog brand biography) and
will concerns of fairness mediate the effects of brand biography on consumers’ brand attitude during
disclosure?
1.4.2 Managerial Relevance
As afore mentioned by Mazodier et al. (2010), ambush marketing tactics represent one of the biggest
threats to the future of major sport events because they strike at the heart of the deals that finance
them. Many scholars have devoted themselves to provide companies with strategies to fend off
ambushers. Recent results on consumers’ response to ambushing marketing tactics, while it is being
disclosed, can be used by companies to counterattack the ambusher. However, if, as Paharia et al.
(2010) have found, consumers are sensitive to the underdog effect, this might imply new possibilities
for brands that are considered as underdogs within the market and consider to use an ambush
marketing tactic. The effects of disclosure on consumers’ brand attitude towards the ambushers’ brand
may be decreased by means of positioning as an underdog brand biography.
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1 How did ambush marketing arise?
2.1.1 Clearing the way for ambush marketers
The afore mentioned phenomenal growth in commercial sponsorship expenditures over the last three
decades (from $300 million in 1980 to $51.1 billion in 2012) indicates its effectiveness as a marketing
communication tool. This growth was accompanied by legal shortcomings and legislation. For
example, prior to 1980s, Olympic sponsorship was organized on an open, unrestricted basis, allowing
interested parties to associate themselves with the event at a cost. The result of this original
sponsorship scheme was an unlimited number of Olympic partners tying themselves to the event,
reaching as many as 628 ‘official’ sponsors at the 1976 Montreal Summer Olympics (Working paper
Chadwick 2009). Although this meant financing for the games, it also meant the dilution of the Olympic
brand, and the smaller impact for, and awareness of, official sponsors (Shani & Sandler, 1998).
Stemming from financial constraints experienced in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the IOC
had sought to reform their sponsorship program for the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games. In an effort
to provide greater value for sponsors and generate greater revenue for Olympic organizers, the IOC
instituted a product category, exclusivity-based sponsorship plan in time for the 1984 Games in Los
Angeles. However, despite encouraging greater investment from official sponsors, and the Los
Angeles Games being one of the most profitable and financially successful Olympic Games (Shani &
Sandler, 1998), granting exclusivity also opened the door to ambush marketers seeking to capitalize
on the event, as they were no longer able to do so legitimately (Burton and Chadwick, 2008
WORKING PAPER No. 3). In other words, the way was cleared for ambush marketing.
2.1.2 First ambush marketing practice
In Shani & Sandler’s (1998) article about ambush marketing during the Los Angeles Olympics 1984,
hey described the first ambush marketing practice. As afore shortly mentioned, the IOC instituted a
product category, exclusivity-based sponsorship plan in time for the 1984 Games. It implied that, only
through paying a large sum of money, the title ‘official sponsor’ could be bought by a potential sponsor.
Without strong regulation and legislation regarding breach of these sponsorship agreements, the
doors were opened to competitors for potential ambushing practices.
In 1984, Fuji Film won the sponsorship rights for the Los Angeles Olympic games. Kodak, one of their
main competitors, could not just sit back and watch a major competitor receiving such exposure so, in
response, it “ambushed” Fuji with a well-planned campaign. Kodak became the “proud sponsor” of
ABC’s broadcast of the games, the “official film” of the U.S. track team and obtained official
sponsorship rights for some of the company’s cameras (Shani & Sandler, 1989). This event was found
to be the kick off for ambushing practices. According to Shani & Sandler (1998), the following games
of 1988, ambush marketing appeared to be the name of the games. Later on, many companies
followed by adopting ambush marketing tactics and demonstrated it was not a hype but a tactic that is
there to stay. The fact that ambush marketing, as a phenomenon, transferred from a topic to a field of
research over the last 25 years, confirms this assumption.
2.2 Importance of ambush marketing in marketing context
Mazodier et al. (2010) argue that ambush marketing tactics represent one of the biggest threats to the
future of major sport events because they strike at the heart of the deals that finance them. By looking
at the fast growing interest in commercial sponsorship over the last two decades and knowing that
expenditures on commercial sponsorship worldwide are calculated to be $51.2 billion dollar in 2012,
ambush marketing could form a threat within commercial sponsorship and eventually to the existence
of events. As afore mentioned, scholars took notice of the growing interest in ambush marketing. Ellis
et al. (2011), argue that previous literature in ambush marketing can be argued to represent research
in five central areas: (a) describing the practice and developing a definitional construct, (b) looking at
concerns around consumer perceptions, (c) judicial precedent and description of legalities, (d)
examining ethical issues, and (e) strategies for fighting and preventing ambush marketing. Because of
its relative young character, the first area of research on ambush marketing that must be covered, is
(a) the development of a definition (Ellis et al., 2011).
Since the first attempt in defining ambush marketing by Shani & Sandler (1989), according to
Ellis et al. (2011), it could be argued that there is an increasing tendency towards uncertainty and
confusion in defining the practice (cf. Crow & Hoek, 2003; Grady et al. 2010; McKelvey & Grady,2008).
After comparing several definitions of different authors, the afore mentioned definition by Burton &
Chadwick (WORKING PAPER No.3, 2008) could be considered as one of the most all-embracing
definitions, namely; “Ambush marketing is a form of strategic marketing which is designed to capitalize
upon the awareness, attention, goodwill, and other benefits, generated by having an association with
an event or property, without an official or direct connection to that event or property”.
Different findings were found during research on concerns around consumers perceptions (b).
Consumers tend to be indifferent towards ambushing practices. Ellis et al. (2011) argue, that
consumers currently lack knowledge about practice and are generally confused by sponsorship
categories (Lyberger & McCarthy, 2001; Sandler & Shani,1993; Seguin, Lyberger, et al.,2005; Shani &
Sandler,1998). Meenaghan (1998) partly found that consumers who have knowledge about the
benefits of sponsorship, as well as the potential negative impact of ambush marketing, were much
more concerned by the practice then those who were unaware. In line with these findings, Mazodier et
al. (2010) found that disclosure of an ambushing tactic by the organization of an event, has negative
consequences regarding consumers’ attitude towards the ambushers’ brand. Ambush marketing has
become an increasing subject of interest from a legal scholarship perspective (c) (Ellis et al., 2011).
According to the authors, many articles have examined what legal issues can be raised when looking
at the practice, on both sides of the argument, thus those who are ambushed and those who ambush
(Bhattacharjee & Rao, 2006; Hoek & Gendall, 2002; Moorman & Greenwell, 2005; Scassa, 2008).
Various scholars have examined the legal recourse currently available to protect sponsors under
already existing policies, such as; contract law, trademark and copyright protection (Bean,1995; Crow
& Hoek, 2003;McKelvey,2003;McKelvey & Grady,2008). Others seek to outline those ways in which
ambush marketing is permissible under the law (Nish, 2003) and how ambushers can avoid legal
consequences (Bean,1995).
Finally, Ellis et al. (2011) argue that, scholars have attempted to look back and evaluate the
success of early legislative measures to address ambush marketing legislation (Bhattacharjee & Rao,
2006); Kendall & Curthoys, 2001; McKelvey & Grady,2004, 2008) and look forward with an in-depth
analysis of current legislation, examining the level of protection offered, the necessity of the legislation
and the potential impact of such measures (Grady et al.,2010;McKelvey & Grady,2008;Scassa,2008).
The authors also describe a trend within this legal scholarship perspective; examining the various
stakeholders involved in Olympic marketing with reference to how legislation may impact them (Ellis et
al. 2011;Grady et al.,2010). A remarkable finding, found by Grady et al. (2010), was that, in their study
on anti-ambush legislation from Beijing, Vancouver and London to scrutinize the balance between
protecting the rights of stakeholders, namely the IOC (International Olympic Committee) and local
businesses and city residents, they discussed specifically whether such legislation meets the mandate
of governments to protect commercial freedoms and ensure a fair marketplace in their country,
whether it could be argued that there is a viable marketing and/or economic rationale for such
measures and the specific practical business repercussions of anti-ambush marketing legislation.
However legislation is created to fend off ambushers, the discussion on the other hand arises whether
such legislation still meets the mandate of governments to protect commercial freedoms and ensure a
fair market place in their country (Grady et al.,2010). However, despite legal restrictions, as Farrelly,
Quester and Greyser (2005) argue, ambushers are also getting smarter and determined to create a
false association between an event and their product or brand are now capable of doing so without
infringing or breaching trademark or intellectual property laws.
The fourth theme that Ellis et al. (2011) discussed that is evident to ambush marketing
literature, is (d) a discussion of ethical issues related to the practice. The first authors who studied the
subject were O’Sullivan and Murphy (1998). The outcome of their study was that the classification
whether ambush marketing can be seen as unethical is dependent on both the perspectives from
which the argument is being made, as well as the specific ambush marketing strategy being
examined. The subject whether ambush marketing is unethical is an ongoing discussion. Séguin,
Lyberger et al. (2005) have used an international consumer perspective on the debate over ambush
ethics. Their findings indicated that 43.4% of respondents believed the practice to be unethical,
however the respondents were not aware of ambush marketing. Portlock & Rose (2009) stressed out,
that consumer’s ability to judge the ethics of ambush marketing is dependent upon their understanding
and level of awareness of the practice. D. Ellis et al. (2011) argue that the last major area of study in
ambush marketing is fighting and preventing ambush marketing. According to the authors, literature
clearly shows that the issues of ambush marketing can be addressed by various business means (c.f.
Burton & Chadwick,2009, Crow & Hoek,2003;Farrely,Quester & Greyser,2005; McKelvey &
Grady,2008, Meenaghan,1996; Séguin & O’reilly,2008; Townley, Harrington & Couchman,1998).
Numerous strategies are either described or suggested as ways to prevent, combat, or chastise
ambushing marketing and those who partake in it. One of the most important findings which are in
favor of fending off ambushers is the fact that while ambush marketing activities are being disclosed,
consumers tend to have negative attitudes towards the ambushers’ brand (Mazodier et al., 2010)
2.3 What effects do ambush activities have on brand awareness and brand attitude?
2.3.1 Effects of ambushing activities on brand awareness ambusher
The first aspect of brand knowledge is brand awareness. It is defined as; brand awareness is related
to the strength of the brand node or trace in memory as reflected by consumers' ability to recall or
recognize the brand under different conditions. Brand awareness can be characterized by depth and
breadth. The depth of brand awareness relates to the likelihood that the brand can be recognized or
recalled. The breadth of brand awareness relates to the variety of purchase and consumption
situations in which the brand comes to mind (Grover and Vriens, 2006).
Regarding results of ambush marketing tactics on brand awareness, Meenaghan (1996)
argued that, there was limited evidence whether ambush marketing tactics were effective or not. He
cites an example during the 1990 soccer World Cup. The soccer World Cup had 12 official sponsors, a
local electric utility, National Power, was the sponsor of the Independent Television (ITV) network’s
coverage. Despite having less coverage than the event sponsors in the U.K. market, only two of the
main sponsors achieved any recognition by the U.K. population, with National Power outperforming
the other eight. Another example he quotes, is an example of Performance Research Inc. studies of
the 1992 Olympic Games. It showed that, many non-sponsors that aired commercials during Olympic
broadcasts in the U.S. market created the impression of Olympic involvement. Using association with
the event as a success indicator, they could determine that many non-sponsors outperformed official
sponsors in the relevant categories (Meenaghan,1996).
In the following years, the first pieces of evidence about the effectiveness of ambush
marketing on brand awareness were found. Crompton (2004) argued that, few studies have
investigated the issue and those who published their results in the public domain have been limited to
assessing recall and recognition of official sponsors and ambushers.
For example, a national advertising agency which has surveyed public recall of Olympic sponsors after
every Olympic Games since 1984 has consistently found that non-sponsors which advertised were
perceived by most, being official sponsors (Crompton,2004). Lardinoit and Quester (2001) found that
consumers rely on heuristics to recall sponsors and some may genuinely recall a non-sponsor as a
sponsor, simply because the brand is dominant or exhibits a high degree of congruence with the
event. As afore shortly mentioned, Tribou (2002) found that during the Atlanta Olympics in 1996 Pepsi
Cola invested heavily in a French sport magazine, showing one of the French track-and-field star with
the following caption “Marie Jose Perec, official representative of a non-official drink at Atlanta”. During
the games, Coca Cola’s recognition actually decreased while Pepsi Cola benefited, despite their
refusal to pay sponsorship rights. At last, also shortly mentioned before, findings by Pitt et al. (2010)
indicated that the ambusher, Li Ning, outperformed the official sponsor of the Beijing Olympics, Adidas,
on sponsorship recognition (incorrectly identified) and even recommendation likelihood. The above
examples clearly show, the effectiveness of ambush marketing tactics regarding both brand recall and
recognition.
2.3.2 Effects on consumers’ brand attitude
As Grover and Vriens (2006) argue, brand awareness is an important first step in building brand
equity. But what about the other aspect; brand image, as reflected by the associations consumers hold
towards the brand. Grover and Vriens (2006) argue that this aspect is vitally important to the brand. As
can be seen in the figure below, Keller (1993) describes three types of brand associations. The types
of brand associations that are of interest in an ambush marketing context are the attitudes consumers
have towards the brand. According to Keller (1993), brand attitudes are defined as ‘consumers overall
evaluations of the brand and are important since they often form the basis of consumer behavior.
Grover & Vriens (2006), argue that attitudes are hypothetical constructs and classical psychological
theory considers attitudes to consist of three components; the cognitive (learn), the affective (feel) and
the conative (do) component. These three-component approach to attitudes is based upon attitudes
towards an object, person or organization. The sequence of attitude formation is; learn, feel and do.
Figure 1: Brand equity model, Keller (1993)
The cognitive (learn) component; refers to the level of knowledge and beliefs about a product and/or
the beliefs about specific attributes of the offering (Fill, 2005). For this research, a relevant belief often
evoked in relation to sponsors and ambushers is selected, integrity-related beliefs. Such beliefs are
believed to be key to successful sponsorship and hence, would be equally sought by sponsors and
ambushers (Mazodier et al., 2010). The affective component refers to a the feelings held about a
product (e.g. good, bad, pleasant or unpleasant). For this research the measure for affective response
relied work of Batra and Stayman (1990). The conative compent is the action component of the
attitude construct and refers to an individual’s disposition or intention to behave in a certain way (Fill,
2005). In this research, no conative measure is used because the use of an fictitious brand.
Results regarding consumers’ attitudes about ambush marketing are summarized well by
Portlock and Rose (2009). In their article the authors begin by mentioning findings by Shani and
Sandler (1998), who found consumers to be indifferent to the practice. Research by Lyberger &
McCarthy, (2001) on the American Super Bowl, showed similar results. Half (51%) of their respondents
agreed to that non-sponsors “should not lead consumers to believe that they are official sponsors” and
only 38% believing that “associating with the Super Bowl without being an official sponsor is
unethical”. These findings suggest that rights holders and sponsors should educate consumers on
how to identify sponsors and the contributions that they make to the event.
However, by 2005, Seguin et al.’s (2005) Olympic research had found that 88% of respondents were
unaware of any company trying to represent itself as an official sponsor when it was not.
Furthermore, nearly 50% agreed that “it was not fair for companies to associate themselves with the
Olympics without being an Olympic sponsor”, 43% considered ambush marketing “unethical” and only
36% were annoyed by it. Consequently, while many respondents considered ambush marketing
tactics “unacceptable, unethical and [were] confused by sponsorship clutter”, they were unaware of the
application (Portlock and Rose; 2009). The results of Portlock and Rose’s study showed that the UK
consumers appear to be relatively tolerant of ambush marketing (56% found it unethical), with a low
level of annoyance (13%) to it (Portlock and Rose; 2009). The authors also stressed out the fact that
consumer’s ability to judge the ethics of ambush marketing is dependent upon their understanding and
level of awareness of the practice.
Awareness of the ambush marketing tactic remained a research gap. Mazodier et al. (2010)
have tried to fill this gap within this area of research. According to the authors there is no previous
research examining the vexed issue of whether disclosing ambush marketing tactics benefits or harms
ambushers (Mazodier et al., 2010). Their results showed that, disclosing ambush marketing activities
generates negative brand attitudinal (both the affective and cognitive component of brand attitude)
response towards the ambusher’s brand. They also showed that disclosure is not without risk and
should be carefully targeted. More generic ambush disclosure messages run the risk of increasing
consumers’ cynicism towards all brands, and may result in both sponsors and ambushers being
painted with the same brush by disgruntled consumers.
2.4 What is an underdog and why could it be of importance in an ambushing context?
2.4.1 The underdog
Given the presence of well-known underdog stories in literature, mythology, and sport, it might seem
intuitively obvious that most people sympathize with and support such figures (Vandello et al.,2007).
Vandello et al. (2007), one of the first who were interested in the underdog phenomenon, argue that,
despite anecdotal evidence of the appeal of underdog figures, it is by no means clear from a review of
prominent social psychological theories that people should in fact be drawn to underdogs, and there
may even be reasons to suspect people should favor top dogs.
A core tenet of social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) is for example, that the accomplishments
of the groups which with we identify are a crucial source of our self-esteem. People often choose to
emphasize their associations with those who are successful. Conversely, there is a great deal of
evidence that people distance themselves from people or groups that are viewed unfavorably
(Vandello et al., 2007).
In contrast with such findings, Vandello et al. (2007) believe that, there are good theoretical
reasons to expect that most people will in fact like and support underdogs under most circumstances
and propose that fairness plays the most important role in underdog support. For example, findings by
Lerner (2003), showed that competitive scenarios of inequality may arouse people's sense of fairness
and justice, general principles people care about deeply. Next to Lerner, a number of social preference
models point out to people’s aversion to inequalities (e.g., Fehr & Schmidt,1999; Lowenstein,
Thompson, & Bazerman, 1989; Messick, 1995) and people’s concerns with fairness can even override
self-interest such that people experience more utility with equality than advantageous inequality
(Camerer, 2003; Kahneman, Knetsch & Thaler, 1986). Vandello et al. (2007) argue that although most
of this research has looked at fairness when one is directly involved in the outcomes, it is possible that
general norms about fairness and inequality are salient to people even when they do not have a direct
stake in the outcomes of competitions.
Given that observers cannot directly alter outcomes, passively supporting the underdog may
be one way to restore a sense of fairness. To study this, Vandello et al. (2007) have explored the
possible reasons why people are so attracted to underdogs. Results from their study suggest that
people do not support underdogs simply because of their lower expectations for success but rather
because of the perception of some disadvantage. They suggest that the desire to see disadvantaged
entities succeed is based on people’s strong motivation to see fair outcomes. According to the authors,
these concerns with fairness play a role in underdog support, above and beyond other emotional
motivations (e.g. self-interested emotional considerations).
2.4.2 What is an underdog brand biography?
As afore shortly mentioned, across cultures, contexts, and time periods, underdog narratives have
inspired people. Stories about underdogs are pervasive in sports, politics, religion, literature and film.
Both candidates in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Barack Obama and John McCain, positioned
themselves as underdogs to gain support for voters, as did presidential primary candidates Hillary
Clinton and John Edwards. Underdog author J.K. Rowling, a welfare mother who wrote seven of the
best-selling books of all time, created a lovable underdog character, Harry Potter, an inexperienced but
passionate orphan who grew up in a closet (Paharia et al., 2010). These are examples of underdog
narratives, narratives which are part of an emerging trend in branding. Because the underdog
narrative is an underexplored topic in consumer research, the authors began by discovering the
dimensions of an underdog narrative. The two factors defining an underdog that emerged were; (1)
external disadvantage and passions and determination (2).
Figure 2: Underdog disposition matrix
Based on these two dimensions, the authors distinguished four different categories; a Top Dog,
Privileged Achiever, Victim and an Underdog. The authors aimed their research on a specific type of
brand biography that has become increasingly popular on store shelves, the underdog brand
biography. These biographies tell stories about entrepreneurs of humble origins who struggle against
the odds to build their brands and businesses through sheer will and determination, despite lacking
the resources of their well-endowed competitors. Such biographies are being used by both large and
small companies and across different product categories (Paharia et al., 2010). To test whether
underdog brand biographies were in favor, the authors’ first study was designed to show an underdog
main effect.
hi
gh
Victim
Underdog
E
x
tern
a
l
D
is
ad
van
tage
Top Dog
Priviliged
Achiever
low
low
high
Passion and Determination
Results showed, that participants had more favorable evaluations of a company, in terms of brand
preference, when it had an underdog brand biography than when it had a top dog brand biography.
As afore shortly mentioned, the reason why people tend to favor underdogs was underexplored.
Regarding this issue, the afore mentioned findings by Vandello et al. (2007) are of interest.
2.4.3 Why is it important in ambushing context?
The findings by both Vandello et al. (2007) as Paharia et al. (2010), could be of importance in an
ambush marketing context. If people are more drawn to a underdogs, this preference may affect the
effects disclosure of an ambush marketing tactic has on consumers’ attitude towards the ambushers’
brand. It would be interesting to investigate whether the effects of disclosure of an ambush marketing
tactic are moderated by an underdog brand biography. Next to that it is interesting to investigate
whether concerns of fairness mediate the effect an underdog brand biography has on brand attitude
during disclosure of the ambush marketing tactic.
2.5 Hypotheses
Based on the literature, four hypotheses can be formulated to answer the main question of this
research. Portlock and Rose (2009) stressed out the urgency that existing research on consumers’
response towards ambush marketing tactics all lacked awareness of the ambush marketing tactic.
Mazodier et al. (2010) found that understanding and awareness of the practice, by means of,
disclosing the ambushers’ tactic, negatively affected consumers’ attitudes. However, their findings
were generated in France. To see whether their findings can be generalized to the Dutch context, the
following is hypothesized;
H1: Disclosure of an ambush marketing tactic negatively affects consumers’ brand attitude (cognitive and affective components), in the Dutch context, towards the ambushers’ brand
Based on the findings of Mazodier et al. (2010), it is expected that consumers’ attitudinal response, in
the Dutch context towards the ambushers’ brand are negatively affected by disclosure of the ambush
marketing tactic.
Paharia et al.’s (2010) main purpose of their research was, to investigate an emerging trend in
branding; transferring underdog narratives to a commercial setting, by means of an underdog brand
biography. Results of their study show that, respondents had more favorable evaluations for an
underdog brand biography compared with a top dog brand biography. The authors already found
evidence of the cross-cultural appeal of underdog brand biographies, however, not in the Dutch
context. Therefore the second hypothesis is;
H2: Consumers, in the Dutch context, perceive more positive attitudinal (affective and cognitive) response towards an underdog brand biography than towards a top dog brand biography.
Regarding the required financial resources for commercial sponsorship rights nowadays, it remains a
limited accessible marketing communication tool. For those who lack the required financial resources
and are in fact disadvantaged compared to corporations that have huge communication budgets, an
ambush marketing tactic would be an ideally suited option. Findings by both Vandello et al. (2007) as
Paharia et al. (2010) show that, perceptions of disadvantage are key to the identity of an underdog.
Given the findings by Mazodier et al. (2010), Vandello et al. (2007) and Paharia et al. (2010), it is
expected that, the negative effects of disclosure on consumers’ brand attitude towards the ambushers’
brand, are smaller for an underdog brand biography than for a top dog brand biography. Therefore the
third hypothesis is;
H3: The negative effects of disclosure of the ambush marketing tactic on consumers’ brand attitude (affective and cognitive) towards the ambushers’ brand, are moderated by brand biography, i.e. the effects of disclosure are smaller for an under- than for a top dog brand biography.
Findings by Vandello et al. (2007) show, that above and beyond emotional motivations, concerns of
fairness play the most important role in underdog support. Therefore, the role of fairness is
investigated in this context. It is expected that concerns of fairness are mainly being evoked when it is
clear it concerns an ambush marketing tactic, that is why the role of concerns of fairness in this study
is only investigated in the condition where the ambush marketing tactic is being disclosed.
Because an underdog brand biography has a lack of financial resources in comparison with the top
dog brand biography and therefore is not afforded the opportunity to bid on commercial sponsorship
rights, it is expected that, because of this perceived external disadvantage, an underdog brand
biography evokes more concerns of fairness than a top dog brand biography. In turn, these concerns
of fairness, have a positive effect on consumers’ brand attitude towards the ambushers’ brand.
Therefore the following is hypothesized;
H4: Concerns of fairness mediate the effect brand biography has on consumers’ brand attitude, during disclosure of the ambush marketing tactic.
With respect to the direction of the effect, it is expected, that, during disclosure of the ambush
marketing tactic, an underdog brand biography evokes more concerns of fairness than a top dog
brand biography tactic and that these concerns of fairness have a positive effect on consumers’ brand
attitude.
3. Method
3.1 Research Design
The purpose of this research fourfold; (1) examining whether disclosure of an ambush tactic has a
negative effect on consumers’ attitudinal response towards the ambushers’ brand in the Dutch context.
(2) If consumers’ attitudinal response is more favorable towards a UBB in the Dutch context and (3) to
what extent brand biography moderates the effects disclosure has on consumers’ attitude on the
ambushers’ brand. The final purpose (4) is, to determine whether concerns of fairness mediate the
relationship between brand biography and consumers’ brand attitude, during disclosure of the ambush
marketing tactic.
With regard to the above purpose, this study can be considered as an explanatory study. In
this explanatory study the emphasis is on the explanation of the relationships between predictor- and
outcome variables, namely no-/disclosure of an ambush marketing tactic and consumers’ attitude
towards the brand (hypothesis 1). The effect of an underdog brand biography on consumers’ brand
attitude (hypothesis 2). The negative brand attitudinal effects (affective and cognitive) of disclosure of
the ambush marketing tactic on the ambushers’ brand, are moderated by brand biography, for which
an underdog brand biography decreases the strength of the effects (hypothesis 3). At last, if concerns
of fairness are a mediator between brand biography and consumers’ brand attitude in the disclosure
condition (hypothesis 4).
3.2 Hypothesized model
The theoretical framework forms the basis of the conceptual model that will be hypothesized.
Following the framework the following variables will be added: CONSUMER BRAND ATTITUDE
(COGNITIVE AND AFFECTIVE COMPONENT), DISCLOSURE OF THE AMBUSH MARKETING
TACTIC (hypothesis 1), BRAND BIOGRAPHY (hypothesis 2 and 3) and CONCERNS OF FAIRNESS
in the disclosure condition (hypothesis 4).
Figure 3. Hypothesized model
3.3 Pre-test
Two brand biographies, based on the original brand biographies by Paharia et al. (2010) were created
by this study. This has been done in order to create both an extreme under- as an extreme top dog
brand biography. A pre-test was performed to test whether this goal was achieved. The created- and
original brand biographies by Paharia et al. (2010), were tested by a sample of ten respondents. Half
the respondents were asked to judge the brand biographies created by this study, the other half of the
respondents were asked to judge the original brand biographies by Paharia et al. (2010). Respondents
were asked to judge the brand biographies on a 7-point semantic differential rating scale, designed by
this study, on three different dimensions based on Paharia et al.’s (2010) underdog disposition matrix
(figure 2). The dimensions on which respondents had to judge the brand biographies were; passion,
determination and external disadvantage. The underdog brand biographies are considered to be found; “passionate”, “determined” and “externally disadvantaged”. In their turn, the top dog brand
biographies are considered to be found; ”dispassionate”, “hesitant” and “not externally disadvantaged”.
For the statements, the below semantic differential rating scale, ranging from 1 (“dispassionate”) to 7
(“passionate”), is used. The final scale looked like this:
I think Morpheus is a brand that is..
dispassionate passionate
hesitant determined
not externally advantaged externally disadvantaged
Disclosure / No-disclosure of the ambush marketing tactic Consumer brand attitude (Cognitive and - Affective component) Brand biography (Under-/Top dog brand biography)
H1
H3
Concerns of fairness (during disclosure)H2
H4
H4
26
3.4 Questionnaire development
To test the hypothesized model (figure 3), an experiment was conducted. According to Saunders et. al
(2007) the purpose of an experiment, is to study causal links, whether a change in one independent
variable produces a change in another dependent variable. The first causal link of attention in this
research are the differences in attitudinal response between disclosure and no-disclosure of an
ambush marketing tactic. The second causal link of interest is the difference in attitudinal response
between an underdog- and a top dog brand biography. The third causal link is to determine whether
brand biography moderates the effects of disclosure on consumers’ brand attitude towards the
ambushers’ brand. The final causal link is, to determine whether concerns of fairness mediate the
relationship between brand biography and consumers’ brand attitude in the disclosure condition. The
experiment consists of four different questionnaires. To measure the effects disclosure/no-disclosure,
brand biography and their interaction have on consumers’ attitudes towards the brand, four different
conditions were created. Two conditions where the ambush marketing tactic was being disclosed, and
two conditions where there is no disclosure. In the disclosure condition an ambush marketing tactic is
disclosed by either an under- or a top dog brand biography, through a press release by the
organization of the event (IOC). In the no-disclosure condition, both an underdog- as a top dog brand
biography are announced as a sponsor of the event. The no-disclosure condition is created to form the
control group and the disclosure condition is created to form the experimental group. The final
versions of the different questionnaires can be found in Appendix A. The ambush marketing tactic that
is used, is an on-site ambush marketing tactic. This form of ambush marketing occurs when a
business attempts to get its name, logo or products on the grounds of an event without paying to be
there (Small Business.chron, 2013).
3.4.1 Data collection
A total number of 238 respondents have filled in this questionnaire. It was digitally published through
this link: https://uvafeb.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_ezzmSJFOTviVB5j. Through spreading the
questionnaire online, many respondents could be reached within a relatively short period of time. The
web-based tool ‘Qualtrics’ was used for building this survey. This tool allows it to distribute the four
different versions of the questionnaire, randomly over the respondents.
Collecting data offline, is more time consuming in as well the preparation as the end phase. For this
reason and to collect a big amount of respondents, the choice was made to conduct the survey online.
In order to sample randomly, the questionnaire was distributed through different e-mail addresses,
different social media as; Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter. The diversity of these recruiting methods
helped in getting different types of people to respond.
3.4.2 Consumers’ brand attitude towards the ambushers’ brand
As afore mentioned, to test whether disclosure of an ambushing tactic affects consumers’ attitudes
towards the ambushing brand, two different situations were created; a disclosure and a no-disclosure
condition. In line with the experiment of Mazodier et al. (2010), the no-disclosure condition was
created through a fictitious official press release of the Dutch news agency ANP on the best viewed
Dutch general news website www.nu.nl. The content of this press release included an official
statement by the IOC, the International Olympic Committee, announcing the fictitious brand Morpheus
to be an official sponsor for the upcoming two editions of the Olympic games. The same design was
used to create the disclosure condition. But in contrast, the content of the press release differed by
disclosing an ambush marketing tactic during the men’s 100 meter sprint final of the 2012 London
Olympic games. Both press releases followed after reading a short brand biography of the fictitious
brand Morpheus. In line with the experiment by Mazodier et al. (2010), to measure the cognitive part of
attitude, a relevant belief often evoked in relation to sponsors and ambushers was used, namely
integrity. According to Farelly et al. (2005), perceptions of integrity are key to successful sponsorship
and hence, would be equally sought by sponsors and ambushers. The integrity related beliefs were
measured by a scale adapted from Rempel et al. (1985). The three-item scale measures consumer
response to statements concerning sincerity, honesty and concern for audiences (Mazodier et al.,
2010). The affective measure relied on early work by Batra and Stayman (1990) and Batra and
Stephens (1994). This scale is based on three items that determine whether the brand is one that
respondents “appreciate”, “like” or “are favorable to”. For the statements, a semantic differential rating
scale ranging from 1 (“strongly appreciate”) to 7 (“strongly do not appreciate”) is used. Thus, important
to mention is that; the higher the score on an item, the more negative respondents’ brand attitude is.
According to Saunders (2007), these scales are often used in consumer research to determine
underlying attitudes.
The total scale looked like this:
I think Morpheus is a brand that..( Cognitive component of attitude)
is sincere to the consumer is not sincere to the consumer at all
is honest to its customers is not honest to its customers at all
expresses an interest does not expresses an interest in its
in its customers customers at all
What is your opinion about Morpheus after reading both stories?
Morpheus is a brand that I.. (Affective component of attitude)
appreciate very much do not at all appreciate
like very much do not at all like
am in favor with am not in favor with at all
3.4.3 Underdog- vs. a top dog brand biography
In order to test whether the results by Paharia et al. (2010) are generalizable to the Dutch context and
whether the negative effects of disclosure on consumers’ brand attitude towards the ambushers’ brand
are smaller for an underdog- than for a top dog brand biography, two different brand biographies were
used; an underdog and a top dog brand biography. Both brand biographies form the variable: brand
biography. However, Paharia et al. (2010) have distinguished four different biographies based on the
four dimensions in the underdog disposition matrix (figure 2), the top dog brand biography was most
suitable to use. This biography is in sharp contrast with the underdog brand biography, having low
external disadvantage and low passion and determination. Next to that, as afore mentioned, Vandello
et al. (2007) argue that regarding social identity theories, people are expected to favor top dogs. In line
with social identity theory, the top dog brand biography was chosen over the other two brand
biographies.
Because the experiment serves as gut feeling trigger, the questionnaire was held in Dutch. At
last, the brand biographies were fictitiously named Morpheus, for which no a priori attitudes would
exist and a related product category sports clothing, was chosen.
To measure whether concerns of fairness mediate the relationship between brand biography and
consumers’ brand attitude in the disclosure condition, a scale developed by Campbell (Bruner, 2005)
was used. This scale was only used in the experimental disclosure condition, because as afore
mentioned, concerns of fairness are expected to be evoked in a situation where the ambush marketing
tactic is being disclosed. Three bi-polar adjectives are used in this scale to measure respondents
perceived fairness in the disclosure condition. The items determine to what extent respondents rate
the ambush marketing tactic as; fair/unfair, right/wrong and unreasonable/reasonable. For the
statements concerning fairness, a semantic differential rating scale is used, ranging from 1 (“very fair”)
to 7 (“very unfair”). Even as the scale used for attitude, the higher respondents’ score on a certain
item, the more negative their perception. The final scale looked like this:
I think Morpheus’ ambush tactic is..
very fair very unfair
very right very wrong
very reasonable very unreasonable
3.5 Statistical analysis
3.5.1 Schematic rendering of the questionnaire
The questionnaire consists of three components: (1) explanation of the concepts commercial
sponsoring and ambush marketing, (2) presentation of the under- or top dog brand biography (3) disclosure or no-disclosure press release (4) measuring consumers’ brand attitude, and perceived
fairness, in the disclosure situation. The above description about how every component is measured is
pictured in the figure below.
Figure 4. Schematic rendering of the questionnaire
Phase 1
Concept
Explanation
Phase 2
Brand
Biography
Phase 3
Press
Release
Phase 4
Consumers’ brand
attitudes (affective and
cognitive component
(Concerns of fairness in
disclosure condition)
At first the concepts of ambush marketing and commercial sponsoring will be shortly introduced, to all
respondents. This is done as neutral as possible. In the next phase, respondents will either read an
underdog- or a top dog brand biography of the fictitious brand Morpheus, a sports clothing producer.
It will be followed by a press release by the Dutch news agency (ANP) which consists of either a
disclosure or a no-disclosure message. After reading both the brand biography as the associated
press release, respondents will be asked about their brand attitude. At last, respondents in the
disclosure condition, will be asked about their concerns of fairness.
3.5.2 Testing the hypotheses
To test the four hypotheses, several statistical analyses will be conducted. In advance, the reliability of
the two scales will be tested in order to test the scale’s internal consistency to see whether the items
that make up the scale ‘hang together’. The coefficient ranges in value from 0 to 1. Ideally, the
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of a scale should be above .7 (Pallant, 2011, p.97).
H1: Disclosure of an ambush marketing tactic negatively affects consumers’ brand attitude (cognitive and affective components), in the Dutch context, towards the ambushers’ brand.
The first hypothesis is set to investigate the influence disclosure of the ambush marketing tactic has on
consumers’ attitudes towards the ambushers’ brand.
H2: Respondents, in a Dutch context, perceive more positive attitudinal (affective and cognitive) response towards an underdog brand biography than towards a top dog brand biography.
This hypothesis is set to investigate whether consumers have more positive attitudinal responses
towards a UBB than towards a top dog brand biography.
H3: The negative effects of disclosure of the ambush marketing tactic on consumers’ brand attitude (affective and cognitive) towards the ambushers’ brand, are moderated by brand biography, i.e. the effects of disclosure are smaller for an under- than for a top dog brand biography.
The third hypothesis is set to investigate whether the attitudinal effects of disclosure on the
ambushers’ brand are moderated by brand biography. To test the above hypotheses, a factorial
MANOVA will be conducted.
