IEG's Sponsorship Blog: Jim Andrews

IEG’s Sponsorship Blog

About IEG > Sponsorship Blogs > Jim Andrews > February 2010 > Insights From the Kellogg Sports Business Conference, Part 1

Insights From the Kellogg Sports Business Conference, Part 1

Posted: 2/23/2010 9:05:26 AM by Jim Andrews | with 3 comments

I had the pleasure of participating in a panel discussion at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management this weekend. The occasion was the school’s inaugural sports business conference.

“The Business of Sports Sponsorships” panel—which featured Bank of America corporate sponsorship chief Ray Bednar, Cleveland Indians SVP of sales and marketing Vic Gregovits and IMG College SVP Lawton Logan in addition to me—covered a lot of ground in our 75 minutes.

Among the more interesting discussion points was the idea of variable compensation as it relates to sponsorship fees. Ray was adamant that a pay-for-performance model needs to become the standard in our business in order for sponsors to justify expenditures.

In addition to adjusting fees based on delivery of benefits and ROO and ROI benchmarks, he included on-field performance—winning teams should get paid more than losing franchises because Bank of America’s research shows that those partnerships perform better for the company.

The logic behind that approach makes senses, but if Bank of America and other corporate sponsors want this to be more than a negotiating ploy, they are going to have to share some of the specifics of what type of difference a winning record makes to a marketer.

Just as player union reps negotiating new CBAs want to see the books and not just take team owners’ word that they are losing tons of money, properties are within their rights to ask sponsors to prove the case for variable compensation related to victories and defeats.

I also sat in on the keynote presentation from NBA SVP of team marketing and business operations Chris Granger. I’ll share some of his insights in my next post.

 

Read more blog posts

Filed under: evaluation, negotiating, sponsorship measurement, sponsorship ROI, trends, valuation, contracts

Share |
Comments

Please login to post a comment.

Vinu Joseph
I could see this working, but only with: 1) a multi-year arrangement, 2) an established price floor and ceiling and 3) limitations on increases/decreases from one term to the next. Sort of like an ARM.
2/23/2010 3:37:14 PM
 
Anne Mahoney
Sounds like a valid idea in theory. I also wonder what happens then when a "winning" team's season goes awry. Sponsors quick to pull the rug out could threaten the existence of organizations which rely on those dollars. They would then seem like the bad guy. Public perception of those sponsors also may decrease, as they come off as flaky and lacking loyalty through thick & thin.
2/24/2010 11:25:27 AM
 
Kevin Hanft
"Pay for Performance" certainly makes sense from a sponsor perspective, as it ensures that properties will be more rigorous and diligent in structuring a deal around business goals. It will also increase their accountability to participate with the client in activation and measurement. Long term relationships will be key, this could put 'partnership' back into the equation.

One key element has to be an equitable plan; it can be all downside risk for the the property. They should be rewarded when business goals are exceeded.
2/26/2010 11:35:09 AM
 

Jim’s Tags

About the Author

Jim Andrews is senior vice president and editorial director of IEG. A 22-year industry veteran, he can remember tracking the industry on index cards and typesetting the early editions of IEG Sponsorship Report. Nevertheless, he has embraced the enhanced communication with the industry offered by social media and enjoys sharing his experienced views on issues of topical interest through his blog posts and commentary. Follow Jim on Twitter!

Subscribe 

RSS 2.0

Atom 1.0

IEG Bloggers

Read what’s on the minds of IEG’s sponsorship experts relating to the latest industry news and trends.


Comments, views and opinions expressed by employees of IEG are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily represent the views of IEG, LLC or its management.