Should Toyota and Cardiac Science Product Recalls Have Any Impact on Their Sponsorships?
Posted: 2/10/2010 1:59:08 PM by
Diane Knoepke | with 0 comments
Usually when we’re talking about recall and corporate sponsorship in the same conversation, it’s a discussion of figuring out whether audience members had a positive recall (aided or unaided) of a given property's sponsors as measured by a survey. Today, however, we’re talking about product recalls and what should be done by (and for) properties that have the manufacturers—if not the product brands themselves—as corporate sponsors?
Toyota is the obvious story here, as the recalls have been so newsworthy and Toyota is a huge sponsorship spender (#7 on IEG’s 2009 list of Top U.S. Sponsors). Another, smaller player caught my attention today as well: Cardiac Science, manufacturer of automatic external defibrillators (AEDs), is recalling 12,000 of its devices as they "may not be able to deliver therapy during a resuscitation attempt, which may lead to serious adverse events or death." Cardiac Science is not what I would call a prolific sponsor, but their 2001 signing of a landmark deal with City of San Diego was an important milestone for active and aspiring municipal marketers (and making them very interesting to people like me).
It’s a good day for out clauses.
Properties working with Toyota or Cardiac Science do not necessarily need to abandon their corporate partnerships. But they do need to do something, even if it’s strictly behind the scenes. This is where contract “out clauses” are designed to (a) aid properties in having uncomfortable conversations with their sponsors about managing a problem neither one anticipated and (b) protect each party in case the situation cannot be resolved.
If you don’t have out clauses in your sponsorship contracts, here’s your case to get them put in. You don’t want to have to worry about being stuck with a partner if their product is defective. You want to be able to have a healthy conversation about if and how to manage through the situation and have a mutual understanding of the consequences for both parties.
Sponsorship is an implied endorsement in both directions, meaning simply that each party has decided the other is worthy of affiliating with its name and activities.
With that in mind, what is the appropriate response by a property that has implied its endorsement of a company that is going through a rough patch?
Passive or active messaging?
I would hope that each property is, at a minimum, discussing message points with its representatives at the sponsoring company. And most of those message points should be used passively on the part of properties when asked, likely deflecting their comments back to the company’s representatives.
But in matters of life and death—specifically, Toyota’s racing ties and Cardiac Science’s City of San Diego AED supply—should the properties proactively address the issue? In this era of high expectations for transparency (and high consequences for a lack thereof), I’m seeing a responsibility on the part of these properties to address the issue head-on. In tandem with their partners, the properties should craft straightforward messages to protect their credibility, and demonstrate their accountability, in areas of safety and public trust.
But what do you think?
Read more blog posts
Filed under: government/municipal, guidelines, NASCAR, non-traditional categories, sports, contracts