The effectiveness of ambush marketing strategies

For assignment help please contact at help@hndassignmenthelp.co.uk or hndassignmenthelp@gmail.com

Output of the collected data of the research will be presented and analyzed in this chapter. The 3 methods are measuring effectiveness of the ambush marketing.

Table 1 and 2 shows the general background of the sample.

Gender

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Valid

Female

40.0

Male

60.0

Total

Missing

100

100.0

Age

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Valid

17-20

24.0

21-24

64.0

25-29

12.0

Total

Missing

100

100.0

60 % of Male and 40% of female respondents participated in this research. The range of age was varied from 17 to 29. 64% of respondents, more than a half, were between 21 and 24.

Well-matched brand with World Cup

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Valid

Nike

60.0

Carlsberg

30.0

Continental

6.0

Hyundai

4.0

Total

100

100.0

Before exposure the advertisement, respondents were asked to choose the brand which is best harmonized with World Cup. Majority participants rated Nike as the best matched brand with World Cup with 60% and Carlsberg follows the second step as 30% whereas Continental and Hyundai placed at low level of preference with 6% and 4% respectively.

Brand awareness

Brand

Recognised as

Percent

Brand

Recognised as

Percent

Ambusher

Nike

Official

38%

Official Sponsor

Continental

Official

40%

Non-offical

30%

Non-offical

32%

Not Sure

32%

Not sure

28%

Missing

Carlsberg

Official

56%

Hyundai

Official

52%

Non-offical

26%

Not Sure

38%

Not Sure

22%

Missing

Carlsberg succeeded to be seen as an official since more than a half of respondents, 56, answered that Carlsberg is an official sponsor whereas 4% of people recognize Carlsberg as ambusher. However, there was two missing data for Carlsberg. Respectively, 52% and 40% of Correspondents are aware of both Hyundai and Continental as official sponsor correctly. 60% of participants do not know or are not sure about official sponsorship of Continental. Relatively the level of awareness of Nike as official sponsor was low at 38 compared to others while 30% recognize correctly.

A study of Nielson Company (2010) supported the analysis of this research; Nike and Carlsberg were selected as ambush official sponsors of World Cup by thanks to creative marketing. Nielson Company (2010) conducted buzz activity on online blogs, message boards, and social networking sites including, Flickr, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter in English language messages related to World Cup from 7 May to 6 June 2010. Nike's "Write the Future" campaign brought impressive feature in South Africa World Cup. Almost 14 million people viewed The full-length video of "Write the Future" campaign on YouTube since the middle of May. In early May, Carlsberg, sponsor of the England national team, promoted celebrities on advertising and its England association. They achieved four times more the level of mentions in English-language messages than the official sponsor Budweiser.

Rank

Brands

Type

% Share of official and competitor buzz

Rank

Brands

Type

% Share of official and competitor buzz

Nike

Non-affiliated Competitor

30.2%

Carlsberg

Non-affiliated Competitor

3.9%

Adidas

FIFA Partner

14.4%

McDonald's

FIFA World Cupâ„¢ Sponsor

2.8%

Coca-Cola

FIFA Partner

11.8%

Pepsi

Non-affiliated Competitor

2.5%

Sony

FIFA Partner

11.7%

Hyundai/Kia

FIFA Partner

2.4%

Visa

FIFA Partner

7.3%

Panasonic

Non-affiliated Competitor

1.9%

Source: The Nielsen Company(2010)

The descriptive and frequency analysis

The following is the descriptive and frequency analysis result of Advertising Attitude, brand image, corporate image of officials and ambushers. In advertising attitude part, respondents were asked to answer four questions related to advertising attitudes of selected brands and 68% respondents agreed that Nike's advertisement was effective while 20 % of them disagreed. 38% of people reflected the advertisement of Continental was effective while 32% of respond did not. In addition, majority of them agree that Carlsberg's advertisement was effective at 54% whereas 16% of them disagreed. 64% agreed that Hyundai's advertisement was effective while 22% of them disagreed with it. 70 % of respondents thought Nike's advertisement was attractive while only 18% of respondents did not think so. The striking point is that 44% of respondents disagreed that Continental's advertisement was attractive while 32% of them agree. 58 people agreed that Carlsberg's advertisement was attractive while 24 disagreed. 50% of correspondents agreed that Hyundai's advertisement was attractive 22% of them disagreed with it. Surprisingly, 44% of respondents sat on the fence by saying 'not sure' about reliability of Nike's advertisement while 38% said Nike's advertisement was reliable. 20% agree that advertisement was reliable while 52% were not sure whether Continental advertisement was reliable. 36% of correspondents believed that Carlsberg advertisement was reliable while 16% of them did not. Similar proportion of around 30% of people agreed and disagreed with reliability of Hyundai's advertisement. Majority of people, 86%, agreed that Nike's advertisement was helpful to enhance brand awareness while only 6 disagreed. 46% of respondents are agreed with the question of which Continental advertisement helps to enhance the brand awareness while 30% of them were not. 70 participants think that the advertisement of Carlsberg helped to improve brand awareness whereas 12 participants did not think so. 68% of people thought that the advertisement of Hyundai was helpful to increase brand awareness while each 14% of people disagreed and were not sure.

Four questions about brand image were given and 72 out of 100 respondents answered that Nike is a good brand and 16 of them disagreed with that. 60 answered they are not sure of whether Continental is good brand or not while 34 agreed Continental is a good brand. 72% of participants agreed that Carlsberg is a good brand however 14% of them were not agreed. 58% of correspondents agreed that Hyundai is a good brand while 20 % of them disagreed. 80% people consider Nike as an attractive and highly recognised brand while only 6% and 10% does not respectively. 28% of respondents think Continental is attractive brand however 58% of respondents had no idea. 72% of participants agreed that Carlsberg is attractive brand while 14% of them were not agreed. 46% of them consider Hyundai as an attractive while 40 participants were not sure. Generally, more than a half of people were not sure about brand image of Continental. 24 out of 100 respondents did not agree with that Continental has a high level of brand awareness while 52 answered 'not sure'. 74% of them consider Carlsberg as a brand with high level of awareness whereas 10 did not. 60% of correspondents agreed that Hyundai has a high level of brand awareness while 14 % of them disagreed.58% people agreed that Nike is a reliable brand. 30% of people assumed Continental as a reliable brand while 8% of them did not. 48% of respondents agreed with that Carlsberg is a reliable brand while 40 put a fence on 'not sure'. 36 consider Hyundai as a reliable brand while 40 participants were not sure.

Furthermore, participants were asked to answer five questions to examine corporate image and 78% of respondents agreed that Nike is the company having a future potential whereas 2% of them disagreed with this fact. 68% of respondents agreed that Carlsberg company has a potential for the future whereas 8% disagreed. Respectively, 38% and 68% of respondents believed that Continental and Hyundai has a future potential while 6% of them did not. 46 participants satisfied with the quality of the product of Nike while 32 did not. 34% of respondents agreed that Continental provides high quality of the product while 10% of them disagreed. 38% of participants agreed that Carlsberg has the highest quality of product while 16% of them disagreed. 32% of them assumed that Hyundai has the highest quality while 26% of them did not. 40 out of 100 respondents agreed that Nike tries to satisfy customers' needs. Around 35% of them assumed that Hyundai has the highest quality and tries to satisfy consumers' needs while 25% and 14% of them, respectively, did not. 40 believed that Carlsberg tries hard to satisfy consumers' needs while 14 did not. 36% of them assumed that Hyundai tries to satisfy consumers' needs while 14% of them did not. 86% of people disagreed that Nike contributes on social and environmental issues while only 14 agreed. 52% of them were not sure of whether Carlsberg contributes on social and environmental issues while 18% of them agreed. 30% and 58% of participants disagreed and were not sure of contribution of Continental on social and environment issues while 12% of them agreed. Slightly more than a fifth of respondents agreed that Hyundai contributes on social and environmental issues while the same number of people disagreed. 46 participants basically liked the company, Nike. Furthermore 28 liked the Continental company in overall while 60 were not sure. 52 answered they like Carlsberg as a whole. 42% of people agreed that they like Hyundai and 20% of them did not.

Independent t-test result

Group A was defined as the respondents who recognize a brand as an official sponsor of South Africa World Cup while group B was defined as the respondents who did not recognize a brand as an official. Comparison of Nike's advertising attitude of group A (M=3.6842, dv=1.04248) and group B (M=3.4597, dv=.74409) revealed no significant difference between groups, t=1.254. Nike's Brand image (M=4.1184, dv=.66965) and corporate image (M=3.4000, dv=.51360) of group A was more positive than brand image (M=3.7016, dv=.51360) and corporate image (M=3.1355, dv=.65464) of group B. There was a significant difference between groups in brand image and corporate image, (t=2.702, p=.008 and t=2.121, p=.036 respectively).

In Continental, group A has more positive attitude toward advertising (M=3.2375, dv=.56093) and differ from of group B (M=2.8667, dv=.73857), p=.009.

Comparison of brand image (M=3.3125, dv=.54816) and corporate image (M=3.11600, dv=.49110) of Continental in group A and those (M=3.0917, dv=.54650, and M=3.1467, dv=.49110, respectively) of group B was proved that there is no significant differences between groups since P-value was not less than 0.05.

In addition, comparison of Carlsberg's advertising attitude (M=3.3304, dv=.67438) and brand image (M=3.37054, dv=.62178) of group A and those of group B (M=3.3810, dv=.56103 and M=3.5476, dv=.57710, respectively) revealed no significant difference between groups since p-value is not less than 0.05. Group A has more positive attitude toward Corporate image (M=3.4071, dv=.40535) and differ from group B (M=3.1714, dv=.55624),p=.023. In case of Hyundai, the group A had more positive attitude toward advertising (M=3.7788, dv=.48672), brand image (M=3.4423, dv=.58707), and corporate image (M=3.4423, dv=.58707) than group B's advertising attitude (M=2.9201, dv=.85416), brand image (M=3.2188, dv=.66169), and corporate image (M=3.2188, dv=.66169). There is significant differences between groups, P=.000, P=.077, P=.077, respectively.

Correlation

A correlation for the data revealed that brand image and corporate image of Nike (r=.646, p<.01), Continental (r=.735, p<.01), Carlsberg (r=.685, p<.01), Hyundai (r=.1000, p<.01) were significantly related, two tails. Higher brand image was associated with higher corporate image vice versa.

This research has identified the effectiveness of ambush marketing by examining advertising attitude, brand image, and corporate image. (It shows that those factors influence to identify the effectiveness of ambush marketing.) These factors correlations should be examined in order to identify whether the relationship between these factors is related to the effectiveness of ambush marketing.

Summary

This chapter analysed the collected data using spss by comparing it to existing theory. In next chapter, findings and analysis results will be discussed.

Discussion

if advertising attitude, brand image, corporate image of consumer toward ambush marketing is positive considerably, the ambush marketing can be seen as influential and effective.

If advertising attitude, brand image, corporate image of consumer toward official sponsor is negative considerably, the ambush marketing can be seen as influential and effective marketing strategy as itself.

Nike has the most positive advertising attitude (M=3.613) and brand image (M=3.83) and corporate image (M=3.236) was second highest score of positive level at consumer perception. Although more than a half had a knowledge of which Nike is not an official sponsor, majority of respondents still have distinctive positive attitude toward Nike. Respondents who recognized Nike as official have more positive brand image and corporate image toward Nike. Nike succeeded in achieving high level of brand image and corporate image by making fake impression. However, in case of Continental, consumer attitude toward advertising (M=3.015), brand image (M=3.195), and corporate image (M=3.1775) of was the lowest level among four selected brands. Although respondents who recognized Continental as official sponsor correctly have more positive advertising attitude, their cognition toward advertising, brand image, corporate image is relatively neutral. No matter how many people recognize continental, it failed to appeal privilege of official sponsorship and to bring positive impact on their brand. Since advertising attitude, brand image, corporate image of official sponsors at consumer perception was fairly lower than those of ambushers, it proves that the ambush marketing can have a chance to outperform over privileged sponsorship performers since official sponsor is not always effective. Furthermore, in Hyundai, consumer perspective toward advertising attitude (M=3.3713), brand image (M=3.3426), and corporate image (M=3.2729) was positive enough and had better achievement than Continental. People who recognized Hyundai as an official successfully had more positive attitude toward advertising attitude, brand image, and corporate image. Thus it can be seen that Hyundai obtained benefit from being a sponsor of World Cup and experienced sponsorship effect. However the extent of positive level was lower than those of ambusher group. On the other hand, Carlsberg has the highest positive aspect of corporate image (M=3.324) at consumer perception among four brands. Following Nike, Carlsberg achieved the second highest positive attitude of advertising (M=3.477) and brand image (M=3.665). More than a half was misled Carlsberg as an official sponsor. Participants who believed Carlsberg as an official rather have more positive corporate image. In terms of this, Carlsberg succeed to make confusion of recognizing official sponsor Budweiser and executed successful ambush marketing campaign effectively. Since consumer perception of advertising attitude, brand image, corporate image toward Nike and Carlsberg was more positive than Continental and Hyundai; the ambush marketing can be seen as influential and effective marketing strategy. This research proves that ambush marketing can be more effective than official sponsors, in terms of consumer perceptions. Official sponsorship does not always bring benefit to the sponsors. Sponsorship effect does not depend on the fact of which sponsors pay sponsorship fee and get the exclusive right. How you communicate with the consumer. Aggressive and creative marketing strategy seems to work very well. Development of social media through internet enable ambushers executes their marketing campaign effectively.

Summary

In this chapter, findings of the research were contained and discussed. The following chapter will draw conclusion as well as providing suggestions for future research.

Contact Us

Tuesday, September 15, 2015