Since the existing measures to prevent ambush marketing are widely ineffective, sponsors can use countercommunications, a public response to an ambushing attempt that aims to strengthen their own brand, relative to the ambusher. This research examines consumer responses to three types of counterambush marketing ads: humorous complaining, naming and shaming, and consumer education. Three experimental studies using both real and fictitious brands as well as different event settings indicate that a humorous counterad (vs. naming and shaming and consumer education counterads) results in more favorable consumer evaluations of the countermessage. The studies also show that perceptions of the advertising tactic's appropriateness mediate these effects and that a humorous counterad is only advantageous when consumers hold positive (vs. negative) attitudes toward the practice of ambush marketing. In addition, comparing the three types of counterads with a common sponsorship leveraging ad suggests that a humorous counterad and simply ignoring the ambusher produce equal perceptions of tactical appropriateness and similar positive indirect effects on consumer attitudes toward the ad. The studies thus provide implications for how sponsors can respond to ambushers.