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