Talk:Ambush marketing/Archives/2012

Fuji?
Which company does it mean? Fujifilm, Fuji Heavy Industries, Fuji Television, Fuji Advanced Sports or Fuji Bank?

Michaelas10 07:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Michaelas10 06:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is referring to Fuji film when it mentions Fuji —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.242.120 (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Soni?
Did Sony pull off an ambush when Rebecca Soni won three swimming medals? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"Sponsored whilst not being official sponsor"
Is a very unclear and almost meaningless statement. What is meant by 'sponsored'? Mauls (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The distinction between "official sponsor" and "sponsor" is defined in the article (negatively) as "without paying the sponsorship fee and without breaking any laws".


 * My concern is that "official sponsorship" as a whole seems to be some sort of contractual legalism which probably varies between situations, is not necessarily made public, and yet is presented to the public as having a specific meaning. By extension a "non-official" act by another company is simply a ploy to circumvent contractual details. This exercise may provide marketing and legal departments with fodder to justify their existence, but this article needs state clearly what meaning "ambush marketing" has to the general reader. Did Linford Christie do a "bad" thing by wearing Puma contact lenses where Reebok was the official sponsor? If so, in what sense? Should he have been fined? Or chastised? And if not, then what difference exactly does his action make? Piano non troppo (talk) 08:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm still not sure this is really what is at the heart of the matter. 'Sponsor' means support, and these 'non-official-sponsors' aren't supporting the events, therefore they aren't sponsors. In the case of Christie, Puma were sponsoring him, but Reebok were sponsoring the event.


 * Ambush marketing is perhaps more accurately described as implying an association with or sponsorship of an event or organisation whilst not having actually arranged to be an official supporter.


 * This could be by getting advertising in physical proximity to the event (e.g. opposite a stadium, or inside on kit or contact lenses), or by adopting a theme related to the event (e.g. athletics themed adverts during an Olympics).


 * Whilst this saves the ambushing company money, it could be argued that it deprives the event or organisation of income: it permits the ambush advertiser to 'freeload' on someone else's goodwill and good reputation.


 * Mauls (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Dead Link The below link in the references space leads to a dead end! http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/06/sports/AS_SPT_New_Zealand_Ambush_Marketing.php₢

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/06/sports/AS_SPT_New_Zealand_Ambush_Marketing.php

First three sentences
I first came across the phrase 'ambush marketting' three minutes ago, so I turned to Wikipedia to find out what it is. The first three sentences of this article convey _nothing_ to me, are they even idiomatic English?

Also a small typesetting problem: a foot note mark (first occurrence of '[1]' in this case) should not be on the line after the text that it labels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.5.20 (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Timberwolves/Twins controversy?
Does that qualify as ambush marketing? The Minnesota Timberwolves are selling advertisement on a billboard on their arena that will be visible from within the Minnesota Twins' stadium. News is that the Twins are quite upset about it because they're not being paid for that advertising. If it does, perhaps we can add it to the "notable events" list? Here's the source for whoever wants to edit. --PK9 (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)