Sing your own song

This article describes ambush marketing: The Advertising Standards Authority has put in place a Sponsorship Code, which sets down certain principles and guidelines for good practice and fairness in sponsorship and which protects the interests of the sponsors.

“sing your own song”

 AVRIL LAVIGNE AMBUSHED

This article describes ambush marketing: The Advertising Standards Authority has put in place a Sponsorship Code, which sets down certain principles and guidelines for good practice and fairness in sponsorship and which protects the interests of the sponsors.

Kelly Thompson, partner Adams & Adams (first published in Society News)

Music concerts are big business in South Africa, with more and more “big name” artists visiting our shores to strut their stuff and belt out their popular tunes. Sponsorship of these events by South Africa’s corporations provides both funding for the event and a marketing opportunity for the sponsors. The Advertising Standards Authority, recognising these benefits, has put in place a Sponsorship Code, which sets down certain principles and guidelines for good practice and fairness in sponsorship and which protects the interests of the sponsors.

The provisions of the Sponsorship Code instill those principles which must be followed to encourage and promote sponsorship since, as it is stated in the introduction to the Sponsorship Code:

“Through sponsorship, the nation’s sporting, cultural, environmental, artistic, media, humanitarian and educational heritage is nurtured, enhanced and spectator choice widened.”

To this end, the Sponsorship Code prohibits, inter alia, ambush marketing. Ambush marketing is defined as:

“The attempt of an organisation, product or brand to create the impression of being an official sponsor of an event or activity by affiliating itself with that event or activity without having paid the sponsorship rights fee or being a party to the sponsorship contract.”

The ASA’s Sponsorship Dispute Resolution Committee recently had cause to deal with one of the first real disputes to be determined in terms of its Sponsorship Code. The event concerned was the Edgars/5FM Avril Lavigne Concert held at The Dome in Northgate on Friday, 6 May 2005.

In the days leading up to the concert, it came to the attention of 5FM (owned by the SABC) that one of its competitors, 94.7 Highveld Stereo, was running an extensive promotion and give-away of tickets for, and a VIP experience at, the concert. The campaign consisted of: 

1.      repeated flightings (over the course of at least 10 days) of pre-recorded promotional advertisements and live DJ commentary relating to a competition giving away tickets to the event and which implied that 94.7 Highveld Stereo was an official sponsor of the event, or was in some way connected or affiliated with the event;

2.      website advertisements advertising the event and the competition details;

3.      the offering of a “VIP experience” at the event as part of the competition’s prize.

One of the recorded promotions, for example, stated: 

“We brought you the world’s biggest vocal band, we’ve given you front row seats to see legendary rockers REM, now Joburg’s Number 1 Hit Music Station will make sure you are there when Canadian wild child Avril Lavigne rocks SA.” 

DJ Alex Jay also made the comments “We are giving away tickets to see Avril Lavigne live. Who else is going to give them away? Only your concert connection, 94.7”. 

Attorneys Adams & Adams, on behalf of their clients, the SABC and its radio station 5FM lodged a complaint with the Advertising Standards Authority in terms of the Sponsorship Code. Despite an initial adverse ruling by the ASA Directorate, the matter was subsequently referred to the Sponsorship Dispute Resolution Committee, which held that 94.7 Highveld Stereo’s conduct indeed amounted to an act of ambush marketing in terms of the Code. 

In coming to its finding, the committee confirmed an earlier statement by the ASA Directorate to the effect that the mere giving away of tickets to an event is not unacceptable but that “it is how this is dressed up that could be problematic”. The committee went on to review 94.7 Highveld Stereo’s promotion as a whole (i.e. the overall impression created by the various recorded promotions, the website advertisements and the offering of a VIP experience). It found that these all lead to the conclusion that 94.7 intended to ambush the event. Indeed, it held: 

“The very magnitude of the Respondent’s campaign contributes to creating the likely impression in the minds of the public that there was some connection between the Respondent and the event.” 

One of the points raised by the SABC/5FM at the hearing of the matter was that 94.7 Highveld Stereo ought to have used the official name of the event during its promotion (i.e. that when giving away tickets, it should have referred to it as “The 5FM/Edgars Avril Lavigne concert”). While the committee refused to create any hard and fast rule on the naming of events, it pointed out that the correct naming of an event would ensure that it is not incorrectly associated with a third party. 

This is a landmark ruling which is to be welcomed as it will be of great assistance to the sponsors of future music concerts and other sponsored events in South Africa.