In my last post, I shared my observations on how culture impacts—and should impact—the way sponsorship sellers create their strategies. In this post, I’m taking a look at the buyers, for whom culture is a much different thing.
To once again oversimplify, a company’s sponsorship selection (to buy or not to buy) and sponsorship evaluation (to renew or not to renew) strategy is a process that screens each opportunity against a set of criteria. Those criteria are built to measure a given opportunity’s likelihood to help the company meet its objectives. This includes opportunities where the company instigates the conversation and/or the property cold calls. more
Some good news for sponsorship: Compared to other forms of marketing, brand sponsorship experienced the greatest increase in levels of trust in the two years since the last Nielsen Global Online Consumer Survey of more than 25,000 Internet consumers from 50 countries. A full 64 percent of consumers surveyed in April said they trust brand sponsorship, up from 49 percent in April 2007.
Latin American consumers are most trusting of brand sponsorships, with 81 percent of both Colombians and Venezuelans, and 79 percent of Brazilians, trusting brand sponsorships. U.S. consumers came in 12th, with 72 percent trusting brand sponsorships. Sponsorships held the least sway among Swedes (33 percent), Latvians (36 percent) and Finns (38 percent).
Latin Americans appear to bring their positive feelings about sponsorship with them to the U.S. IEG research reveals that Latino consumers are among the most responsive audiences to sponsorship. more
The distinction between sponsorship evaluation, valuation and return on investment is often an area of confusion for my clients.
Evaluation is a continual and important part of any sponsorship. From a sponsor’s perspective, a partnership should initially be evaluated against other opportunities and should consider—among many factors—the sponsor’s objectives, audience, budget, geography, timing, fit with messaging, etc. Ongoing evaluation of the relationship should be done on a regular basis to ensure it continues to fit with a sponsor’s objectives, budget, etc. Evaluation is generally done on the sponsor side with information provided by the property in order to properly evaluate the opportunity. more
In my previous blog post, I discussed why it would be a good thing for sponsorship buyers and sellers to be more open about what is paid for deals—specifically that it would provide the industry with guideposts to determine the relative health of properties, property segments and the overall medium.
But there is a bigger reason why transparency—to the extent it doesn’t divulge proprietary, competitive information—would be extremely beneficial. And this is not just the opinion of a sponsorship journalist with a need to know. I first heard this argument espoused by Stuart Schwartz, a Coca-Cola executive in the ’90s who was heading up the company’s early efforts at establishing a model to measure value and return on investment.
Here is the argument: For sponsorship to benefit both parties, it should be an “efficient market,” which is defined as a market where purchases and sales result in even exchanges of value. One of the four characteristics of an efficient market is: Price information is widely and cheaply available to buyers. The sponsorship marketplace does not have that characteristic, and thus is not efficient. more
Something that many Americans like to do first thing in the morning is get a jolt of the latest headlines. Therefore, it was a sense of irony the first session of Tuesday’s IEG Sponsorship Conference dealt with media sponsorships. more
In the last keynote address of the day, Carlsberg’s Keld Strudahl explained why the company uses soccer as its core sponsorship platform. more
IEG’s Lesa Ukman and Millward Brown’s Ann Green gave a great presentation today on measuring sponsorship’s return on investment. more