Sponsorship, Ambushing, and Counter-Strategy: Effects Upon Memory for Sponsor and Event Michael S. Humphreys University of Queensland T. Bettina Cornwell University of Michigan Anna R. McAlister, Sarah J. Kelly, Emerald A. Quinn, and Krista L. Murray University of Queensland Corporate sponsorship of sports, causes, and the arts has become a mainstream communications tool worldwide. The unique marketing opportunities associated with major events also attract nonsponsoring companies seeking to form associations with the event (ambushing). There are strategies available to brands and events which have been ambushed; however, there is only limited information about the effects of those strategies on attainment of sponsorship objectives. In Experiment 1, university staff and students participated by studying paragraphs linking a sponsor to a novel event. Relative to each sponsor-event pair, they then studied one of three different messages about a competitor. Results find a message which linked the competitor and the event increased competitor recall given the event as a cue and event recall given the competitor as a cue. These effects were moderated if there was information about the competitor not being the sponsor. In Experiment 2 ambushing and counter-ambushing information was presented over 2 days. Both types of messages increased competitor recall given the event as a cue and event recall given the competitor as a cue. In addition, “not sponsor” information was not always used even when it should have been recallable. The results can be explained if participants are using three cues: a specific cue such as a brand name, a contextual cue, and a category cue, such as the concept of an event. Findings suggest to sponsoring firms and event properties that counter- ambushing communications may have the unintended effect of strengthening an ambusher-event rela- tionship in memory. Keywords: memory, interference, retrieval cues, corporate sponsorship, ambushing The stakes in sponsorship investment around major events are high. Companies paid a record $2 billion to secure official spon- sorship status at the Beijing Olympics in 2008, compared to just $338 million at Seoul in 1988, a substantial increase, even ac- counting for inflation (Davies, 2008). Likewise, official sponsors of sporting events such as the FIFA World Cup, Super Bowl and NASCAR Championships pay millions of dollars to secure top tier rights to affiliate with these events (IEG, 2007; McKelvey & Grady, 2008). Moreover, it is estimated that companies spend at least three times this initial outlay on sponsorship activation costs (IEG, 2007). These unique marketing opportunities also attract nonsponsoring companies who seek to form an association with the event. Such an activity—where a nonsponsoring company associates itself with an event without paying for sponsorship rights—is known as “ambushing” (Shani & Sandler, 1998). Ambushing activities include use of phrases and images asso- ciated with the event or activity, purchase of advertising time within the event broadcast, presence in and around the venue, as well as use of consumer promotions and congratulatory messages (McKelvey & Grady, 2008). Ambushing potentially devalues the sponsorship by causing confusion and by diluting exclusivity of sponsoring brands. Sponsors and event organizers often seek to combat ambushing by using “market friendly,” counter-ambushing strategies which support achievement of sponsorship objectives without backfiring on brand image. In pursuit of this goal, it is important to understand the underlying memory process for these various messages. Memory for brands in terms of brand recall and brand associations are fundamental to consumer-based brand eq- uity (Keller, 1993) because they influence consumer behavior. Without memory for brands we could not ask someone for a specific product (e.g., “Would you buy some Kashi cereal when you go to the store?”) nor could you give them a helpful cue (e.g., “You know, the one in the purple box.”). Memory for brands and their associations is particularly important in ambushing because outcomes hinge on awareness of the true sponsor and the ambush- ing attempt; furthermore awareness of ambushing is argued to result in negative attitudes toward ambushers (Dalakas, Madrigal, & Burton, 2008). This discussion suggests that memory for the links among the true sponsor, the event, and the ambushers are foundational to attitude and subsequently to consumer behavior. We seek to better understand the memory for these messages and thereby offer suggestions for specific actions that could be taken Michael S. Humphreys, Anna R. McAlister, Sarah J. Kelly, Emerald A. Quinn, and Krista L. Murray, University of Queensland Business School; T. Bettina Cornwell, University of Michigan School of Kinesiology. Financial support from the Australian Research Council Grant DP0772168 to the first three authors is gratefully acknowledged. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michael S. Humphreys, School of Business, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland 4072 Australia. E-mail: mh@humanfactors.uq.edu.au Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied © 2010 American Psychological Association 2010, Vol. 16, No. 1, 96 –108 1076-898X/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0018031 96 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.