Fresh Insights from IEG

IEG’s sponsorship experts provide unique perspective on the latest industry developments, news and trends. These posts will make you think, challenge conventional wisdom, give you new ideas, and spark discussion.

Learn more about IEG > Work with IEG >

Sponsorship Blogs

Three Reasons Your Sponsorship Programs Are in the Losers Bracket

Posted: 2/24/2010 4:39:39 PM by Diane Knoepke | with 4 comments

1. Gold.
2. Silver.
3. Bronze.

I know, I know. It may be one of the most long-lasting, beat-to-death sponsorship arguments out there: what's wrong with organizing a corporate sponsorship program using monikers derived from precious metals? Why don’t I just give it up already, as some out there seem to be saying, "heck, why stop at gold, silver, and bronze when there are so many metals?” I've seen it go as far down as pewter. (What's next, wood and paper?!)

As I've watched the Olympics this past week and a half, I’ve caught myself thinking more and more about how gold-silver-bronze sponsorship levels misrepresent the aim of most sponsorship programs. Even as our industry has evolved over the past three decades, there are still thousands of these sponsorship programs out there.

Here are three reasons that precious metals should go back to where they belong: Olympians' necks. (O.K., and maybe my jewelry box.)

1. It commoditizes access to the property's brand and audience. "Here's the menu, Ms. Sponsor, would you like small, medium or large? Or would you like to super-size and go for the platinum?"

2. It often makes spending the exclusive determinant of designation. It does not take into account whether it’s an organization-wide relationship or event-specific, and sometimes it doesn’t even distinguish between marketing and philanthropy.

When this process is used—not to sell packages but—to recognize the cumulative amount spent by a company on a la carte opportunities, it confuses and cheapens the whole value exchange. "If you spend $5,000 more, you can have all these benefits!" It may work as an upsell tactic occasionally, but more often it'll make sponsors feel like their hard-won budgets are equivalent to Skee-Ball tickets at Chuck E. Cheese’s. And what does that make your offerings?

3. It's donor-ish. It's very appropriate (if a tad commonplace) to name donor giving levels this way. Many universities, hospitals and cultural institutions have listings of donors organized this way in their annual reports. So if you want your program to feel like a cost-based giving exercise, it makes sense. If you want it to drive a value-based business return, you need to re-brand (and possibly re-package).

Comments

Please login to post a comment.

	Jim Andrews
	Although any criticism of his spending would be mitigated by the fact that he is spending his own campaign funds, not taxpayer dollars, I agree with Carrie that he would be wise to tie the sponsorship into something meaningful to voters.
	2/10/2010 4:35:11 PM

	Carrie Urban
	More than a "normal" sponsor, it will be critical for Meek to communicate the reasons for his support of NASCAR. We all know that marketing plays a key role in political campaigns and standard advertising for political campaigns seem to be less and less effective. Through this sponsorship, Meek needs to deliver some sort of messaging going beyond visual recognition. His attendance at the race, his support of the Florida economy and the financial health of NASCAR and the promotional aspect of the sponsorship seem to be going in the right direction, but it will be important that he can communicate to a larger audience. Otherwise, it could leave him open to the criticisms of wasteful spending. Do you agree?.
	2/9/2010 10:24:40 AM

	Jim Andrews
	Only a for-profit property could allow it, as nonprofits would jeopardize their tax-exempt status by allowing political advocacy. As for whether sponsors would do it, I don't think most mass-market companies would see the advantage in getting political, unless it was something directly related to their industry, like supporting de-regulation.
	2/8/2010 6:11:25 PM

	Vinu Joseph
	With the recent Supreme Court ruling on corporate campaign spending, I'll be interested to see if companies tap into their sponsorships as part of the effort. They might not activate around the message with promotions and the like, but it could be as simple as replacing their corporate branding with something like "Universal Healthcare Now". Would a sponsor do it and, just as important, should the property allow it?
	2/8/2010 5:06:41 PM

Fresh Insights from IEG

Sponsorship Blogs

Three Reasons Your Sponsorship Programs Are in the Losers Bracket

Comments

Experience IEG

IEG Bloggers

About IEG

Advisory & Measurement

Information & Resources

Community & Conversation