The dual case studies around the South African Rugby team’s branding controversies offer a masterclass in how two marketing strategies—newsjacking and ambush marketing—can create very different outcomes for brands.
Newsjacking: A Playful Tactic with High Rewards
Checkers Sixty60 demonstrates the power of newsjacking, which is a time-sensitive strategy to inject a brand into breaking news, to its advantage.
The South African grocery e-commerce platform capitalized on the alternative mint-green and white kit for the national rugby team, which coincidentally resembled its own brand colors. By promptly launching a cheeky video campaign, Checkers built a narrative that not only won public approval but also drove significant traffic to its social media pages.
What’s worth noting is how Checkers maintained a fine balance between wit and respect, acknowledging the kit’s original purpose to aid visually impaired fans. By doing so, they successfully broadened their brand awareness without appearing opportunistic or insensitive, all while contributing to a light-hearted public debate.
The Checkers Ad
Ambush Marketing: High Risks, Legal Consequences
On the other end of the spectrum, we have Eskort, which faces legal repercussions for its marketing campaign that infringed upon the Springboks' intellectual property rights.
Ambush marketing is designed to associate a brand with an event or entity without paying for the official sponsorship rights, often leaving a sour taste for official partners who have made significant investments.
The Eskort campaign initially caught public attention when Eskort placed a conspicuous billboard over the main road leading into OR Tambo International Airport. The billboard, awash in the Springboks' iconic green-and-gold color scheme, displayed the message, "Go Springbox Love Eskort," alongside the South African flag. The clever wordplay was intended to promote Eskort's new spring season cooler box designed for carrying their braai meat.
The Eskort Ad
South African Rugby Union Strong Stance
South African Rugby Union (SARU)’s strong stance against this practice reinforces the importance of respecting IP rights and the financial arrangements that fund teams like the Springboks. While ambush marketing might offer a quick boost in visibility, the potential legal consequences and damage to the brand’s reputation can outweigh the benefits.
The South African Rugby Union (SARU) secured an interim court order against food Eskort, putting a halt to its controversial 'Springbox' marketing campaign.
The issue at hand is more than just linguistic similarity; it's a clear violation of intellectual property rights, according to SA Rugby. The organization took swift legal action, leading to a court order that demanded Eskort remove all signs, marketing materials, and digital footprints of the campaign. The case has been referred to SA Rugby's specialist intellectual property lawyers for further action.
The Battle Over Brand Equity
Both cases illustrate the constant battle for brand equity and visibility in today’s saturated marketing environment. Checkers Sixty60’s strategy thrived on agility, creativity, and ethical consideration, while Eskort’s approach stumbled due to its blatant disregard for intellectual property laws.
It's Branding and Legal Landscape
It's a cautionary tale for brands on the importance of understanding not just the marketing landscape, but also the legal frameworks that govern it. As SARU and its partners like MTN and FNB exemplify, there are right and wrong ways to support a cause or leverage an event for marketing purposes.
The Boundaries
While the allure of quick publicity through newsjacking or ambush marketing is tempting, brands must tread carefully, respecting both public sentiment and legal boundaries.
