Eric P.

Butcher
HPR 715
CASE STUDY #3
07/10/13

1. Which ethical framework utilitarianism or Kantian moral theory/duty based

ethics is more compelling when applied to the issue of ambush marketing? How
could these theories inform in the Coca-Cola brand marketers decision-making
process?

Proponents of utilitarian theory believe that the right action is that which

produces the most good for the most people in a specific situation (McKelvey, 2006).

The biggest challenge in applying this theory to the concept of ambush marketing is the

difficulty in determining what is good or bad essentially, what is considered

good for one person or company may not be considered good for another.

Additionally, the application of utilitarian theory can cause companies to resort to

unethical measures if they only focus on how their company will benefit from the

marketing tactic (McKelvey, 2006). Completely forgetting about the consequences of

ones actions can be a dangerous thing whether it is something as simple as basic

human interaction or as elaborate as planning an ambush marketing campaign.

Basing ambush marketing decisions on Kantian moral theory seems to make

much better sense, since it relies on universal standards of goodness and the motivation

to fulfill ones duties and obligations (McKelvey, 2006). Also referred to as duty-based

ethics, this theory focuses on the obligations a marketing professional has, which can be

numerous operating in an ethical manner, doing a good job for the company, achieving

job-related goals, and maximizing revenues for company stockholders, to name a few. In
 employing Kantian theory to ambush marketing, these obligations form the basis for

justification of the tactic. A number of companies, including Nike, have built their

businesses on this practice.

With the popularity of the National Football League in the U.S., along with Coca-

Colas long-standing relationship with the league, the company clearly saw a need to

continue this association despite losing out on the exclusive sponsorship to PepsiCo.

Applying Kantian theory to this case, the company may have also felt an obligation to

stockholders to maintain the association because it would ultimately have a positive

effect on company revenue. However, the situation can also be viewed through a

utilitarian lens, since Coca-Colas concerns are likely limited to its own success in other

words, the greater good of the company would be enough to justify the decision to

ambush the Super Bowl.

2. What obligation does Coca-Cola owe to its shareholders to market its product in
association with such a high-profile national sporting event such as the Super Bowl?

In many cases, large multinational brands tend to stick in the minds of consumers;

also, many people assume big companies are involved in major events, whether they

actually are or not (Costa, 2011). For a high-profile brand such as Coca-Cola, the cost of

non-involvement with a major sporting event like the Super Bowl is simply too great

both in terms of revenue generation and brand perception (by both consumers and

shareholders). Applying Kantian moral theory, this would justify the use of ambush

marketing tactics to generate a perceived association with the Super Bowl, since Coca-

Cola has an obligation to shareholders to maximize revenue and seek out opportunities to
 promote the brand and potentially increase brand equity, thereby increasing company

revenue.

It is also important to consider the ongoing war between Coca-Cola and

PepsiCo in the soft drink market. The companies have battled for years over customers,

sponsorships, and market share, employing countless marketing methods along the way.

Coca-Cola has long been at the top of the mountain, so to speak, and has an obligation to

its shareholders to continue this success even if it means employing some ambush

marketing tactics to get the message out.

Besides, Pepsi has returned the favor on more than one occasion. Pepsi-Cola

doesnt typically try to usurp Coca-Colas Olympic sponsorships with a comprehensive

campaign, though its launched some ambush marketing tactics in some countries in the

past and isnt unfamiliar with guerrilla marketing (Fahey & Mandese, 1991).

In a capitalist society such as ours, ambush marketing strategies are absolutely

necessary from time to time to ensure the company remains competitive in the market. Of

course, the company also has an obligation to abide by the law of the land when deciding

to employ such strategies.

3. Should Pepsis exclusive promotional rights to the NFL and the Super Bowl
necessarily extend to the entire thematic space of professional football?

No, Pepsis promotional rights to the NFL and the Super Bowl should not extend

to other aspects of professional football. Since NFL franchises are free to negotiate their

own individual sponsorship deals, and NFL-Pepsi deal would not preclude those

franchises from setting up deals with other soft drink companies such as Coca-Cola, Dr.
 Pepper, and others. Likewise, Pepsi is free to negotiate deals with individual teams, and

has done so on a number of occasions.

The NFL also negotiates contracts with video game publishers to license NFL

teams, logos, and likenesses for use in their games. The league changed things up and

negotiated an exclusive deal with Electronic Arts in 2004, essentially shutting Take Two

Interactive, publisher of the competitive 2K football game series, out of the business.

While the lack of a relationship with the NFL would not necessarily put Coca-Cola or

PepsiCo out of business, it is an important partnership.

In a lot of ways, it would be similar to Coca-Cola or PepsiCo signing an exclusive

deal with NASCAR that would also extend to individual cars that race in NASCAR

events. Extending the exclusive rights to the entire space of professional football would

practically eliminate any ambush marketing strategies from competing companies;

however, companies in a capitalist economy have the right to employ such strategies to

remain competitive in the market provided they abide by the statues laid out by the

Lanham Act, of course.

4. If you were an event organizer, what anti-ambush marketing strategy (pick only
one) will you implement, instead of just relying on legal protection? Write the
strategy and explain about the detailed procedure as to how the strategy will be
implemented.

There could be many problems associated with relying merely on legal measures

to combat ambush marketing, such as ambiguity in interpretation of the law, low chance

of successful legal action against ambushers, and the lengthy legal process (Hartland &
Skinner, 2005). While exclusive deals may be an effective method of dealing with

ambushers, they may also cause dissatisfaction among consumers because their choices

are limited (Hartland & Skinner, 2005).

I would choose to create unique logos (and potentially brand names) for the event

that sponsors would have exclusive rights to for all marketing collateral. For example, if I

were organizing the next Super Bowl, a unique logo for the event would be created, along

with a unique name (Super Bowl XIV, for example). Sponsors would be required to use

the name and logo in all marketing efforts to create consistency; the use of these elements

would also make it more difficult for ambush marketers to associate themselves with the

event without breaking the law to do it. Of course, the name and logo would have to be

federally registered well in advance to ensure all legal protections.

While no strategy can completely eliminate the possibility of ambush marketing, I

feel this is one of the best ways to at least make it more difficult for competitors to create

an artificial association with the event. This could also potentially expand into consistent

color schemes and other elements, although there might be some difficulty in legally

protecting those elements. The ultimate goal would be to visually create an association

with the event sponsors while legally protecting as much of the visual relationship as

possible to prevent ambush marketers from taking advantage of it.

 References

Costa, M. (2011). Sponsors run risk of ambush at Olympics. Marketing Week, 34(41), 24.

Fahey, A., & Mandese, J. (1991). Coca-Cola is wary of Olympic 'ambush'. Advertising Age, 52.

Hartland, T., & Skinner, H. (2005). What is being done to deter ambush marketing? Are these

attempts working? International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 6(4), 231-

241.

McKelvey, S. M. (2006). Coca-Cola vs. PepsiCo -- A "Super" Battleground for the Cola Wars?

Sport Marketing Quarterly, 15(2), 114-123.