http://rme.sagepub.

com/
(English Edition)
Recherche et Applications en Marketing
http://rme.sagepub.com/content/25/2/51
The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/205157071002500203
2010 25: 51 Recherche 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/alerts Email Alerts:

http://rme.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:

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

What is This?

- Jun 1, 2010 Version of Record >>

by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013 rme.sagepub.com Downloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013 rme.sagepub.com Downloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013 rme.sagepub.com Downloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013 rme.sagepub.com Downloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013 rme.sagepub.com Downloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013 rme.sagepub.com Downloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013 rme.sagepub.com Downloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013 rme.sagepub.com Downloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013 rme.sagepub.com Downloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013 rme.sagepub.com Downloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013 rme.sagepub.com Downloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013 rme.sagepub.com Downloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013 rme.sagepub.com Downloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013 rme.sagepub.com Downloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013 rme.sagepub.com Downloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013 rme.sagepub.com Downloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013 rme.sagepub.com Downloaded from by slaheddine dardouri on October 19, 2013 rme.sagepub.com Downloaded from
INTRODUCTION
The first Olympic Games organized in China
(2008) once again confirmed the importance of spon-
sorship in current communications strategies. More
than $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 or
directly supporting an independent socio-cultural
event and associating itself with it in the media in
order to reach marketing communication goals
(Derbaix, Grard and Lardinoit, 1994). The object of
sponsorship can take on many forms: an event, of
course, 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 Attitudes
Toward the Ambushers Brand
Marc Mazodier
Assistant Professor of Marketing
Department 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 their
remarks 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:
marc.mazodier@isg.fr; pascale.quester@adelaide.edu.au
ABSTRACT
This study examines the effect of ambush marketing disclosure on attitudes toward the ambushers brand. The results of an
experiment conducted to this end show that ambush disclosure negatively influences perceived integrity, affective response and
purchase intention. Involvement in the event and attitudes toward sponsorship of an event both moderate consumers response to
ambush marketing.
Keywords: Ambush marketing, sponsorship, ambush marketing disclosure, attitudes toward sponsorship, event involvement.
03Mazodier (GB) 7/03/11 11:31 Page 51
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 Cornwell
2008) have demonstrated the positive impact of
sponsorship 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 unnoticed
and competition is fierce for sponsorship rights for
high-profile events like the Olympics or the FIFA
World Cup. Consequently, high fees and limited
access 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 signs
and symbols to mislead spectators by implying the
brand is an official sponsor in order to improve the
ambushers brand image. For example, during the
2000 Olympics in Sydney, Qantas Airways featured
two Australian athletes who were competing in the
games and components such as Sydney 2000 or
Olympic in advertisements, even though the brand
was not an official sponsor. Before the 2008
Olympics, Mengniu, a Chinese dairy firm, created a
communication campaign based on images of ath-
letes and was identified by nearly 30% of the
Chinese public as an official sponsor, while Coca-
Cola, an authentic official sponsor, was recognized as
such by only 40% (Madden, 2007).
Several studies have observed public confusion as
to which firms are official sponsors and which are
ambushers (Sandler and Shani, 1989; Quester, 1997;
Ukman, 1998). While this confusion can be attribu-
ted in part to ambush marketing, memory also plays an
important role in identifying official sponsors. When
the link between the sponsor and event has not been
perfectly encoded by the individual, he tends to infer
the sponsors name based on several criteria: the per-
ceived congruence between the brand and the event,
the brands prominence (Johar and Pham, 1999) and
his 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 without
seeking 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 for
them to continue supporting an event. Thus, sponsors
of the 2006 FIFA World Cup demanded that sponsor-
ship fees be reduced after several ambush marketing
operations. Among the different strategies organizers
have developed to prevent this practice, public dis-
closure of ambushing is one of the most controver-
sial. According to Frdric Quenet, Marketing
Director for the French Olympic Committee, organi-
zers of major events like the IOC (International
Olympic Committee) or the FIFA (International
Federation of Association Football) have created
ready-to-broadcast press releases to publicly
denounce ambushers. To date, however, the practice
has not been systematic. Only the IOC decided to
launch a campaign in daily newspapers during the
Turin and Beijing Olympics with the following mes-
sage: By using Olympic emblems or imagery
without authorization, or by presenting themselves as
having an official association with the Olympic
Games, these companies undermine the future of the
Olympic 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 marketing
operations on attitudes toward the pseudo-sponsor as
well as variables likely to influence these effects such
as involvement in the event. We have decided to
adopt the tripartite model of Zanna and Rempel
(1988), according to which attitude is made up of
three distinct components: cognitive, affective and
conative.
To examine these questions, the theoretical fra-
mework of this study was developed based on a
review of the literature on sponsorship and ambush
marketing. On this basis, we formulated a series of
hypotheses, which were then tested using an experi-
mental approach. Our experiment enabled us to iden-
tify public reactions to ambush marketing, as well as
the variables that moderate these effects.
Marc Mazodier, Pascale Quester 52
03Mazodier (GB) 7/03/11 11:31 Page 52
CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND
A review of the literature suggests that ambush
marketing is a field of activity that is difficult to
define. Table 1 summarizes the different definitions
found in the literature. The goal of the pseudo-sponsor
is to hijack the intrinsic values of an event and take
advantage, for the least possible cost, of the interest it
solicits in audiences and, finally, to improve its repu-
tation and transfer the positive aspects of the event to
its brand. According to Sandler and Shani (1989),
The main objective is to create miscomprehension
in the consumers mind about who the sponsor is and
therefore either gain the benefits associated with
being 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 create
confusion, but also to make the consumer believe he is
the real sponsor. Being identified as a sponsor is not
sufficient to qualify a firm as an ambusher. In addition
to the voluntary nature of his initiative, the ambusher
actively seeks to mislead the public. As we can see in
Table 1, the notion of deception is included in the
definitions proposed by McKelvey (1994), Farrelly,
Quester and Greyser (2005) or Walliser (2006).
However, while it is true that the ambusher does
not pay sponsorship fees to the organizer, he still
must invest heavily to imply his association with the
event and reap the benefits of positive attitudes gene-
rated by sponsorship. It is exaggerated and incorrect to
say that the pseudo-sponsor takes advantage of the
event for free (French Olympic Committee, 2006).
We believe that the ambusher relies on several
components 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 attention
toward themselves and away from the sponsor.
McKelvey (1994) Ambush marketing is a companys intentional effort to weaken or ambush its competitors
cited 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 organizers
of an event tries to deflect public attention surrounding an event to his advantage, using
marketing 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 of
Olympic 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 hold
official sponsorship rights, notably for an event, tries to make the public believe the
contrary.
VANOC (Vancouver Ambush marketing capitalizes on the goodwill of the Olympic Movement by creating a
Organizing false, unauthorized association with the Olympic movement, the Olympic Games or
Committee, 2009) Olympic athletes.
03Mazodier (GB) 7/03/11 11:31 Page 53
sing campaigns in order to associate his brand impli-
citly with it. He can, for example, try to create an
association with promoters or other parties involved in
the event, use different symbols associated with a
sponsored activity (playing field, ball, etc.) or the
place where it is held (caricatures of the population,
monuments, names of cities or countries, etc.) and
even capitalize on other non-protected symbols asso-
ciated with the event (similar generic names, colors,
etc.).
Brands that buy advertising space around major
events are not necessarily ambushers; they simply
want to take advantage of large audiences and potential
media exposure. For example, nothing about the
Nike Joga Bonito campaign, where the consumer
saw soccer champions playing in normal conditions,
insinuated that Nike was an official sponsor of the
2006 FIFA World Cup in Germany. The Joga Bonito
campaign is not a case of ambush marketing. On the
other hand, Pumas campaign in France, with a former
soccer star (Pel) and the German slogan
Willkommen zum Fussball was clearly designed to
associate the brand with the World Cup by using the
host countrys language in addition to soccer images.
The literature has yet to perfectly identify the non-
protected elements featuring the event and giving the
impression that the ambusher is a sponsor.
The public, on the other hand, is generally not
very knowledgeable in this area. Often it is not even
aware of ambushing. Moreover, the public is not
well-versed in the legal aspects of sponsorship rights
(Meenaghan, 1998). This is why it rarely perceives
the actions of ambushers in a negative light, or as an
unfair and unethical practice (Shani and Sandler,
1998). In light of these studies, it seems that consu-
mers are generally indifferent to ambushing, as long as
they remain unaware of its negative effects.
Once consumers are informed, various studies
show contradictory results. Studies conducted by the
IOC suggest that ambushers are ill-perceived by the
public. For example, 80% of consumers in nine
countries assert: Only companies sponsoring the
Olympic Games should be allowed to use an
Olympic message in their advertising and 68%
agree with the statement I think it is wrong for com-
panies to deliberately avoid paying for Olympic
rights (IOC, 1996). Even if these questions ask
respondents to approve or disapprove of value judg-
ments, a technique which often leads to automatic
agreement, they do indicate the potential danger for
the ambusher. Public opinion is far from indifferent
when it is informed of the differences between spon-
sorship and ambush marketing (Mazodier, 2008) and
tends to become radicalized when it feels an advertiser
is trying to mislead (Meenaghan, 1998). Thus, Shani
and Sandler (1998) observe that consumers believe
ambushers are wrong because they try to pass
themselves off as an official sponsor.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, Lyberger
and McCarthy (2001), in a study based on statements
condemning ambush marketing, find that most
respondents are not against the ambushers practices,
nor do they harbor hostile feelings toward the ambu-
shers company. According to these authors, the
consumer 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 based
on measurement instruments whose validity has not
been confirmed (IOC, 1996; Shani and Sandler,
1998; Lyberger and McCarthy, 2001). In addition,
these studies were conducted with ad hoc samples
and no control group. Furthermore, most of these stu-
dies date back to the 90s or the beginning of the
years 2000. Since then the public seems to have gained
a clearer understanding of the partnership between
sponsor and sponsee, and spectators are more informed
as to the commercial aims of sponsors. Therefore,
they are more likely to perceive the stakes involved
in such a strategy and to be more critical of ambu-
shers (Farrelly, Quester and Greyser, 2005). In order to
understand the effects of disclosing ambush tactics
on attitudes toward the ambushers brand, as well as
the conditions of these reactions, an experiment see-
med necessary.
Marc Mazodier, Pascale Quester 54
03Mazodier (GB) 7/03/11 11:31 Page 54
THE EFFECTS OF DISCLOSING AMBUSH
MARKETING TACTICS ON THE AMBUSHER
Direct and moderating effects of the ambush
disclosure process
While the affective and conative components of
attitude are traditionally associated with brand affect
and purchase intention, the cognitive component has
yet to be defined. Among the multiple beliefs asso-
ciated with a brand, we decided to examine trust.
According to Rempel, Holmes and Zanna (1985) or
Gurviez and Korchia (2002) brand trust can be defined
as is a psychological variable mirroring a set of
accumulated presumptions involving the credibility,
integrity and benevolence that a consumer attributes to
the brand. Our study adopts this three-dimensional
structure of trust, where relations between these three
dimensions and trust are both causal and formative.
Hence, the three dimensions of trust can vary inde-
pendently and be studied separately. According to
Farrelly, Quester and Greyser (2005), the official
sponsor seems more sincere than ambushers.
Assimilation-contrast theory (Dianoux et al., 2006)
supports this proposition. By comparing the sincerity
of sponsors to the dishonesty of ambushers, disclo-
sure creates a contrast between brands. The ambu-
sher is described as less honest than the sponsor by
certain individuals (Mazodier, 2008). However, the
integrity dimension of brand trust is defined by the
perceived sincerity and honesty of the brands com-
munication (Gurviez and Korchia, 2002). The first
hypothesis put forward in this study can therefore be
formulated as follows:
H1. Disclosure of ambush tactics negatively
influences the perceived integrity of the ambusher.
Once consumers are informed of the potential
losses for the event or the sponsors caused by
ambush marketing, some develop a negative opinion of
ambushers (Meenaghan, 1998; Shani and Sandler,
1998; Mazodier, 2008). Therefore, we can put for-
ward a second hypothesis:
H2. Disclosure of ambush tactics has a negative
influence on brand affect.
According to Mazodiers qualitative study in
2008, part of the audience stated they no longer wan-
ted to purchase the ambushers products, suggesting
the following hypothesis:
H3. Disclosure of ambush tactics negatively
influences purchase intention.
Regarding variables moderating the ambush mar-
keting disclosure process, Sandler and Shani (1998),
Meenaghan (1998) and Mazodier (2008) all agree
that reactions to ambush marketing depend on consu-
mer involvement in the event. Thus, the more deeply
involved the individual is in the event, the stronger
his disapproval of ambush marketing. A person who is
involved in the event is more sensitive to the damage
caused by ambush marketing. Therefore we put for-
ward a fourth hypothesis:
H4. The more a person exposed to disclosure of
ambush marketing tactics is involved in the event, the
more disclosure will negatively affect his attitudes
toward the ambushers brand and, more specifically
perceived integrity (H4a), brand affect (H4b) and
purchase intention (H4c).
According to Mazodier (2008), consumer atti-
tudes toward sponsorship would also seem to moderate
the 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 the
three-dimensional structure of attitudes adopted for
this study, our fifth and final hypothesis can therefore
be formulated as follows:
H5. The more positive the individuals attitude
toward sponsorship, the more disclosure of ambush
tactics will negatively affect his attitudes toward the
ambushers brand in terms of perceived integrity
(H5a), brand affect (H5b) and purchase intention
(H5c).
This set of hypotheses serves as the basis for our
research model, which is presented in Figure 1.
Measurement instruments
Brand affect was measured in this study using a
scale 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-
Ambush Marketing Disclosure Impact on Attitudes Toward the Ambushers Brand 55
03Mazodier (GB) 7/03/11 11:31 Page 55
sorship and has proven its reliability (Louis, 2004;
Abbassi, 2007; Cronbachs > 0.90).
We also wanted to measure changes in perceived
integrity 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 has
already been established (Brechet, Desmet and de
Pechpeyrou, 2005; Cronbachs = 090).
In order to measure purchase intention for the
ambusher, 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 of
involvement, we selected Strazzieris PIA scale
(Pertinence Intrt Attirance Relevance Interest
Attraction; 1994) due to its convergence with our
research objective (measuring intensity), its psycho-
metric qualities (unidimensionality) and ease of
administration. Volle (1996) selected only one item
per aspect of involvement and worked on a three-
item scale. These three items were selected due to
their association coefficients with the factorial axes
of the original scale and their ability to be transposed
in other contexts. This simplified scale has been used
and confirmed in numerous studies (Rieunier, 2000;
Merle, 2007). Here we used a 3-item scale that had
been already tested to measure enduring involvement
in an event and confirmed by Abbassi (2007;
Cronbachs = 0.94).
We used the scale developed by Quester and
Thompson (2001) to measure attitudes toward spon-
sorship of events since it contains all three compo-
nents of the concept. The scale was translated into
French and adapted to Olympic sponsorship. We
used a retro-translation procedure to identify poten-
tial translation errors. Several marketing professors
then assessed the items obtained and confirmed the
elimination of three that had not been selected by
Walliser (2003). Comprehension of the scale was
pretested on an ad hoc sample of forty people, which
led to changes in two statements. All the scales used
are presented in Appendix A1.
Marc Mazodier, Pascale Quester 56
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 principal
and moderating effects of disclosing ambush marketing tactics
03Mazodier (GB) 7/03/11 11:31 Page 56
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 to
conduct 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 was
not 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 group
would 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, O
11
, by
comparing observations O
12
and O
22
. This research
plan enabled a comparison between observations O
11
and O
32
, which implied the experimental group was
representative of the rest of the sample. We expected
there would not be a significant difference between
observations O
12
and O
22
or observations O
11
and
O
32
.
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 task
which 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
Ambush Marketing Disclosure Impact on Attitudes Toward the Ambushers Brand 57
Z = experimental treatment
Figure 2. Experiment plan
O
11
Z O
12
Before/After group (N = 160)
Z O
22
After only control group (N = 160)
O
32
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 and
the innocence of the brands in terms of ambush marketing at the end of the questionnaire.
03Mazodier (GB) 7/03/11 11:31 Page 57
from Le 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 administered
face-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
15
th
and October 15
th
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). The
shared 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 the
brand 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 (Mardias
test = 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).
Marc Mazodier, Pascale Quester 58
Table 2 Effects of disclosing ambush marketing tactics on perceived integrity,
brand affect and purchase intention
Exposed Not exposed F test P Partiel ETA
2
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
03Mazodier (GB) 7/03/11 11:31 Page 58
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 is
sufficient. 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
(ETA
2
< 0.1). Impact was much stronger for perceived
integrity (ETA
2
= 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 effect
between 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 of
disclosure 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 < 0.01
and = 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-
Ambush Marketing Disclosure Impact on Attitudes Toward the Ambushers Brand 59
03Mazodier (GB) 7/03/11 11:31 Page 59
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 the
French 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 perceived
integrity, 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 report
these 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 the
press 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 the
ambusher a lasting phenomenon?
Due to the spread of ambush marketing and the
sheer size of sponsorship budgets more research in
Marc Mazodier, Pascale Quester 60
03Mazodier (GB) 7/03/11 11:31 Page 60
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), Efficacit du sponsoring sportif selon
la condition dexposition lvnement, Doctoral dis-
sertation, CERGAM, University Paul-Czanne (Aix-
Marseille III, IAE).
Batra R. and Ray M.L. (1985), How advertising works at
contact, 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 in
advertising effectiveness, Journal of Consumer
Research, 17, 2, 203-214.
Brechet A., Desmet P. and de Pechpeyrou P. (2005), Effets de
lannonce dun prix multidimensionnel sur la confiance
dans la marque, Proceedings of the 4
e
Congrs interna-
tional des tendances en marketing, Paris.
Brennan M. and Esslemont D. (1994), The accuracy of the
Juster 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 Juster
Scale, 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, Doctoral
dissertation, University Paris I Panthon Sorbonne.
Comit National Olympique Sportif Franais (2006), La
protection des marques et du territoire olympiques,
Confrence organise par le CNOSF du 24 janvier
2006, 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 association
endorsement 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 en
Marketing, 9, 2, 43-67.
Dianoux C., Herrmann J.-L., Poncin I. and Zeitoun H.
(2006), La thorie de lassimilation-contraste peut-elle
contribuer expliquer le fonctionnement des annonces
comparatives ?, Proceedings of the XXII
e
Congrs de
lAssociation Franaise de Marketing, Nantes.
Didellon-Carsana L. (1997), Mode de persuasion et mesure
defficacit du parrainage : une application au domaine
sportif, 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 b2b
partnerships: the case of ambush marketing, Journal of
Advertising Research, 45, 3, 339-348.
Fleck-Dousteyssier N. (2007), Le parrainage : dune intuition
une stratgie de communication, Dcisions
Marketing, 47, 7-20.
Fornell C. and Larcker D.F. (1981), Evaluating structural
equation 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 de
faire du parrainage ?, Dcisions Marketing, 30, 31-39.
Giannelloni J.-L. (1993), Linfluence de la communication
par lvnement sur la nature de limage de marque de
lentreprise, 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 Consumer
Research, 11, 1, 581-592.
Gurviez P. and Korchia M. (2002), Proposition dune
chelle de mesure multidimensionnelle de la confiance
dans la marque, Recherche et Applications en
Marketing, 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: more
than just a commercial irritant?, Entertainment Law, 1, 2,
72-91.
International Olympic Committee (1996), Marketing fact
file 1996, Lausanne, IOC.
Johar G.V. and Pham M.T. (1999), Relatedness, promi-
nence and constructive sponsor identification, Journal
of Marketing Research, 36, 3, 299-312.
Johar G.V. and Pham M.T. (2001), Market prominence
biases 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,
Ambush Marketing Disclosure Impact on Attitudes Toward the Ambushers Brand 61
03Mazodier (GB) 7/03/11 11:31 Page 61
Journal of the American Statistical Association, 61,
315, 658-696.
Keller K.L. (2003), Brand synthesis: the multidimensionality
of brand knowledge, Journal of Consumer Research,
29, 4, 595-600.
Lardinoit T. and Derbaix C. (2001), Sponsorship and recall
of sponsors, Psychology et Marketing, 18, 2, 167-190.
Lardinoit T. and Quester P.G. (2001), Attitudinal effects of
combined sponsorship and sponsors prominence on
basketball 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 XX
e
Congrs International de
lAFM, Saint-Malo.
Lutz R.J. (1985), Affective and cognitive antecedents of
attitude 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 Erlbaum
Associates Publishers, 45-63.
Lyberger M. and McCarthy L. (2001), An assessment of
consumer knowledge of, interest in, and perceptions of
ambush marketing strategies, Sport Marketing
Quarterly, 10, 3, 130-137.
Madden N. (2007), Ambush marketing could hit new high at
Beijing Olympics, Advertising Age, 23 july.
Madrigal R. (2000), The influence of social alliances with
sport teams on intentions to purchase corporate spon-
sors products, Journal of Advertising, 29, 4, 13-24.
Mazodier M. (2008), Une tude exploratoire de lattitude
du public face la rvlation du pseudo-parrainage
dvnements sportifs, Revue Europenne de
Management du Sport, 23.
Mazodier M. and Chandon J.-L. (2005), Limpact du parrai-
nage sportif sur la notorit, lattitude et lintention
dachat : effet modrateur des normes de groupe, du
sexe et de lge, Revue Sciences de Gestion, 48, 65-87.
McKelvey S. (1994), Sans legal restraint, no stopping
brash, 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 et
Marketing, 18, 2, 191-215.
Merle A. (2007), La valeur perue de la customisation de
masse : proposition et test dun modle conceptuel
intgrateur, Doctoral dissertation, CERGAM,
University Paul-Czanne (Aix-Marseille III, IAE).
Okter T. and Hayes P. (1988), valuation de lefficacit du
sponsoring. 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 prix
and 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 in
close relationships, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 49, 1, 95-112.
Rieunier S. (2000), Linfluence de la musique dambiance
sur le comportement du consommateur sur le lieu de
vente, Doctoral dissertation, DMSP, University Paris
IX-Dauphine.
Sandler D.M. and Shani D. (1989), Olympic sponsorship
vs. ambush marketing: who gets the gold?, Journal of
Advertising Research, 29, 4, 9-14.
Shani D. and Sandler D.M. (1998), Ambush marketing: is
confusion 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 of
self-congruity with sponsorship on brand loyalty,
Journal of Business Research, 61, 10, 1091-1097.
Stipp H. and Schiavone N.P. (1996), Modelling the impact of
olympic sponsorship on corporate image, Journal of
Advertising Research, 36, 4, 22-28.
Strazzieri A. (1994), Mesurer limplication durable ind-
pendamment du risque peru, Recherche et
Applications en Marketing, 9, 1, 73-91.
Tabachnick B.G. and Fidell L.S. (2006), Using multiva-
riate statistics, 5
th
edition, Boston, Allyn & Bacon.
Trendel O. and Warlop L. (2005), Prsentation et applica-
tions des mesures implicites de restitution mmorielle en
marketing, 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 la
recherche internationale sur le parrainage, Recherche et
Applications en Marketing, 18, 1, 65-94.
Zanna M.P. and Rempel J.K. (1988), Attitudes: a new look
at an old concept, in D. Bar-Tal and A.W. Kruglanski
(eds.), The social psychology of knowledge, New York,
Cambridge University Press, 315-334.
Marc Mazodier, Pascale Quester 62
03Mazodier (GB) 7/03/11 11:31 Page 62
Ambush Marketing Disclosure Impact on Attitudes Toward the Ambushers Brand 63
APPENDICES
A1. List of measurement items
Brand affect
Here is a list of statements about the Nike brand. Please indicate to what extent you agree with these statements according to the
following 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 according
to 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 according
to 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 statements
according 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.
03Mazodier (GB) 7/03/11 11:31 Page 63
Marc Mazodier, Pascale Quester 64
A2. Article disclosing ambush marketing
03Mazodier (GB) 7/03/11 11:31 Page 64
Ambush Marketing Disclosure Impact on Attitudes Toward the Ambushers Brand 65
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 83 146
Others, no professional activity 29 45 74
Total 233 247 480
03Mazodier (GB) 7/03/11 11:31 Page 65
Marc Mazodier, Pascale Quester 66
A
4
.

R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

a
n
d

v
a
l
i
d
i
t
y

o
f

s
c
a
l
e
s

m
e
a
s
u
r
i
n
g

r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
1
s
t
J
o
r
e
s
k
o
g

s
R
h

o
f
C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n

c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
e
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t

2
d
.
f
.
*
*
G
F
I
R
M
S
E
A
C
F
I
r
h

c
o
n
v
e
r
g
e
n
t
A
f
f
e
c
t
I
n
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
I
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t
S
p
o
n
s
o
r
s
h
i
p
(
N

=

4
0
0
)
*
v
a
l
i
d
i
t
y
B
r
a
n
d

a
f
f
e
c
t
6
,
6
1
8
2
0
,
9
9
0
0
,
0
7
6
0
,
9
9
7
0
,
9
7
0
,
9
2
1
,
0
0
P
e
r
c
e
i
v
e
d
7
,
7
2
5
2
0
,
9
8
7
0
,
0
7
6
0
,
9
9
6
0
,
9
6
0
,
8
9
0
,
5
2
1
,
0
0
i
n
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
I
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t

i
n

t
h
e

O
l
y
m
p
i
c
s

0
,
3
8
9
2
0
,
9
9
9
0
,
0
0
0
1
,
0
0
0
0
,
9
7
0
,
9
1
0
,
0
1
0
,
0
0
1
,
0
0
A
t
t
i
t
u
d
e

t
o
w
a
r
d

s
p
o
n
s
o
r
s
h
i
p

0
,
3
2
6
2
1
,
0
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
1
,
0
0
0
0
,
8
4
0
,
5
8
0
,
0
1
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
3
1
,
0
0
K
e
y
:
A
f
f
e
c
t
:
b
r
a
n
d

a
f
f
e
c
t
;

I
n
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
:
p
e
r
c
e
i
v
e
d

i
n
t
e
g
r
i
t
y

o
f

t
h
e

b
r
a
n
d
;

I
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t
:
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t

i
n

t
h
e

O
l
y
m
p
i
c

G
a
m
e
s
;

S
p
o
n
s
o
r
s
h
i
p
:
a
t
t
i
t
u
d
e

t
o
w
a
r
d

s
p
o
n
s
o
r
s
h
i
p

o
f

a
n

e
v
e
n
t
.
*

C
o
n
f
i
r
m
a
t
o
r
y

f
a
c
t
o
r

a
n
a
l
y
s
e
s

w
e
r
e

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d

w
i
t
h

a

s
u
b
-
s
a
m
p
l
e

o
f

4
0
0

p
e
o
p
l
e
.

*
*

S
i
n
c
e

t
h
e

v
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s

b
r
a
n
d

a
f
f
e
c
t
,
p
e
r
c
e
i
v
e
d

i
n
t
e
g
r
i
t
y

a
n
d

i
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t

i
n

t
h
e

O
l
y
m
p
i
c

G
a
m
e
s

w
e
r
e

o
n
l
y

r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
r
e
e

s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
s

a
f
t
e
r

a
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
,
w
e

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

a
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t

i
n
d
i
c
e
s
b
y

a
p
p
l
y
i
n
g

a

T
a
u

e
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t

t
o

t
h
e

r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g

s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
s
,
i
.
e
.

w
e

i
m
p
o
s
e
d

a
n

e
q
u
a
l
i
t
y

c
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t

o
n

t
h
e

n
o
n
-
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
z
e
d

f
a
c
t
o
r

w
e
i
g
h
t
s
.
03Mazodier (GB) 7/03/11 11:31 Page 66
Ambush Marketing Disclosure Impact on Attitudes Toward the Ambushers Brand 67
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 0.508
Unexposed control group 160 13.61
Experimental group: measure after disclosure 160 11.55
0.201 0.654
Control group, after only 160 11.76
Perceived integrity of the ambusher N Average F P
Experimental group: measure before disclosure 160 17.94
0.037 0.848
Unexposed control group 160 17.86
Experimental group: measure after disclosure 160 12.96
2.506 0.114
Control group, after only 160 13.87
Purchase intention for the ambusher N Average F P
Experimental group: measure before disclosure 160 51.72
0.793 0.374
Unexposed control group 160 49.57
Experimental group: measure after disclosure 160 45.88
0.160 0.690
Control group, after only 160 46.90
The tests were performed indifferently for all 4 brands (Nike, Puma, Apple and Creative Labs).
03Mazodier (GB) 7/03/11 11:31 Page 67