Should Sponsors Be Obligated To Promote Property Values: A Debate
Posted: 2/1/2010 3:54:35 PM by
Lesa Ukman | with 0 comments
The following is an email exchange between Victory Sports Marketing’s Gordon Kane and me. I thought our divergent points of view regarding the responsibilities sponsors have to properties—in particular Olympic partners—would make for interesting reading. (I have made just a few slight edits of some extraneous material to improve readability.)
I welcome your thoughts on the subject.
From: Gordon Kane
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 1:47 PM
To: Lesa Ukman
Subject: A new approach to sports sponsorship
First—hope all is well.
Second—I spent time this week with new USOC CEO Scott Blackmun and we talked about the sponsorship landscape moving forward. Candidly, I shared a concern about commercialism versus corporate responsibility in sponsorship. For example—what obligation does an Olympic sponsor have to promote Olympic values versus selling cheeseburgers and are those mutually exclusive?
There is an increased sensitivity to “cause related” marketing moving forward—so how does this intercept with the increased demand for ROI? I am hoping to develop a POV after the Vancouver Games.
All the best,
Gordon
From: Lesa Ukman
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 3:53 PM
To: Gordon Kane
Subject: RE: A new approach to sports sponsorship
Regarding sponsor responsibility to talk Olympic values, I don't think they have a responsibility to do anything other than figure out what's going to help them accomplish their objectives.
This isn't philanthropy, so why put "responsibility" on them, especially when there is none on their competitors? That said, I don't think any sponsor sets out to "commercialize" the Games. Commercialism comes from all the advertising!
Best regards,
Lesa
From: Gordon Kane
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 4:36 PM
To: Lesa Ukman
Subject: RE: A new approach to sports sponsorship
Many thanks for the response and the feedback.
Candidly, I respectfully disagree. The Olympics are predicated on a set of values—and it is the association with those values that sponsors covet. It is the very premise of the sponsorship offering.
If you want to associate yourself with that, then they have the right to ask that you do it in a way that protects and enhances the long-term viability of the Olympic brand. NFL has set some standards (no cigarettes, nothing that would enhance gambling or drug usage, etc). The Olympics are the same—except their standards are higher.
This doesn’t have to mean philanthropy—but I do believe a property has a right to set standards and to protect (with vigor) how messages about the property are delivered (by broadcasters, by sponsors, by the property itself).
If over time those Olympic values are eroded, then the sponsorship losses commercial value for everyone.
Commercial “Partners” should be aware of that and see the benefit of enhancing the perception of the property they wish to associate with their brand.
Unlike any sporting event on the planet, the charter of the Olympic Games never mentions medals or winning—it mentions values—fair play, harmony, peace.
If those messages are lost and replaced by winning, jingoism and discounted cheeseburgers, then the Olympics fail to differentiate from other sporting activities and everybody loses.
From: Lesa Ukman
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 8:38 PM
To: Gordon Kane
Subject: RE: A new approach to sports sponsorship
For sure any property that is worth sponsoring is a property with equity worth protecting. All Blacks probably does the best job of this of any rightsholder. (BTW, I don't think its charter mentions winning either. And I know for sure Special Olympics doesn't).
However, protecting and mandating are two very different things. The IOC should not approve sponsor messaging that undermines Olympic values, but it should not require sponsors promote certain values. Sponsors are buying promotional rights, and as long as they are not off message or ambushing another sponsor, or creating intrusion on the fan or athlete experience, they should have the freedom to use the marks to meet their business goals.
Commercial partners, or whatever you want to call sponsors, are paying a huge premium for the Olympics. It is not their job to build the equity. The IOC should negotiate time and space with media partners as part of its deals to promote itself. And, when sponsors like McDonald's create an Olympic effort that builds the Olympic brand—like the “Lost Ring”—they should get some sort of credit or special benefit from the IOC.
Re: the NFL, I would be shocked if the public agreed with you that they have standards. They have had deals with pharmas—nose strips, Viagra, etc.—Coors Light (Booze is a drug, according to the American Medical Assn.); tobacco's not allowed to advertise and gambling is illegal so what have they given up?
I think the NFL does a great job maximizing revenue for owners. For example, NFL will go after number three brand like Coors Light, knowing it will pay more than leaders Bud Light and Miller Lite. They slice and dice categories. They break up assets to take multiple sponsors from same category.
From: Gordon Kane
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 1:31 PM
To: Lesa Ukman
Subject: RE: A new approach to sports sponsorship
Great points. Good clarification on Special Olympics and All Blacks.
I think their “standards” help my point. Could you see Go Daddy as the broadcast partner for either of these organizations?
All I am stating is that the higher the global equity of the property, the higher the standards set for the advertisers should be. And I fear that the desire for revenue can send some properties down a slippery slope where they actually start to erode the very thing they are paid to protect.
I am not against commercialization of sport—it is how I make my living—but I think we need to be careful that as “partners” (the new word these days, instead of sponsors) we are entering into a relationship where we both hold responsibility for upholding the values of the property.
There can be no greater example in sports marketing of ROI than when VISA decided to take on AmEx using the Olympic Games. Research study after study showed that the more you connected the Games to VISA the better you felt about the card and the greater your likelihood to pull it out of your wallet. Yet—while hammering a message into our brains for years—they never lost sight of the status that is associated with the Olympic Games.
Now as they promote the opportunity to win Olympic tickets for life, they do so in a way that not only enhances their status but raises the bar for how people perceive the property. Commercialized? You bet! On message for their brand? Absolutely! Leveraging the power of the Olympics by embracing the values of the property—priceless (to mix credit card metaphors).
These ads are fantastic—and I am willing to bet they are effective also. THAT is a great partnership.
Even the 1987 commercial holds up.
From: Lesa Ukman
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 4:17 PM
To: Gordon Kane
Subject: RE: A new approach to sports sponsorship
Partner is not a new term; it has been used by us and many others as a synonym for sponsorship for 25-plus years. I was in the U.K. in November and participated in a debate about the need to find a moniker other than "sponsor" and "partner" was deemed too domestic by the 300-plus participants.
Call it what you want, but again I go back to what customers want. And they could care less if a company calls itself official partner, sponsor, champion (term I came up with years ago for NCAA), product or anything else. It's what a company does with the rights that matters to their customers and target.
Re: higher equity = higher standards, what is higher and who decides? Sounds like your issue is who they align with. I am much more concerned with the number of ads per hour on Olympic broadcasts than who is buying ads during the show.
If Go Daddy was willing to pay enough to cut the number of ads per hour by 2/3, I'd be all for it as it would be a better viewing experience for consumers. Anyhow, why is it okay for banks to advertise when they were using predatory lending policies? What about beer ads that institutionalize macho behavior and stereotype women? Should there be standards there? My point is standards, like religion, are in the eyes of the beholder and no one has the right to impose theirs on the rest of us.
Re: Visa, go back to the early Visa ads and you will see they were not actually promoting Olympic values. Visa was borrowing the international imagery of the Olympics to promote their own acceptance message—"They don't take American Express"—and would not have bought the deal without getting this right from the IOC. They could have cared less about Olympic values at the time. People at Visa at the time, as well as IOC reps, have told me this.
This is a good thing, not bad in my mind. The IOC delivered a solution to Visa and Visa member banks were able to exploit this to grow their business. The Olympic brand was not harmed by selling out and only taking Visa. Indeed, their brand was built by Visa promotions.
BTW, WPP sibling agency, UNITED, does the Olympic messaging ads and I think they are fantastic, albeit too rarely seen.
Can I post this exchange on my blog?
From: Gordon Kane
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:47:04 -0600
To: Lesa Ukman
Subject: RE: A new approach to sports sponsorship
Terrific – I love the exchange. You bring up some great points and I love the passion.
One additional thought—because I can’t let go: Surprisingly, inside the early VISA ads you will hear references to the commitment of the athletes and the global magnitude of the event. It may not have been the main purpose of the ads, but without those points of reference the ads would have just been plain old AmEx beating—and would have been a lot less effective.
I have to convince you that the Olympic Games are significant and magnificent before I can hit home that they don’t take AmEx. If I told you that the Sacramento Rodeo doesn’t take AmEx, you wouldn’t care.
Read more blog posts
Filed under: trends, what is sponsorship, olympics