A major challenge exists in sponsorships. They are typically long-term and don’t lead to immediate sales, so how can a marketer demonstrate value from sponsorships? MASB, the Marketing Accountability Standards Board, tackles this problem in their new book — Sponsorship Accountability.
Demonstrating Value From Sponsorships
One of the challenges with sponsorship accountability is that there are synergies. Things work better when you do a lot of things together. You need the right sponsorship deal, activation must be effective, and the product must be something people will actually want to use again after they try it. If any of these fall down, you don’t have much of anything.
If you feel you have done a good job on your sponsorship the next challenge is to show the results. Some impacts, like drinks sales in a sponsored stadium, are pretty easy to show. The worldwide lift in Coke sales from sponsoring the Olympics is much harder. The book tells the story of the Olympic Torch in 1996 which was deliberately sent on a weird circuitous route to get to Atlanta from LA to take in as much of the populated areas of the US as possible. (Shame for New Mexico and the Dakotas). It certainly created news interest but did it sell Coke?
How then to measure the value of a sponsorship?
Media Equivalency
A traditional way to measure sponsorships is media equivalency. You might see people use terms like ‘eyeballs’. This is where the value of a sponsorship is estimated from the number of people who see it. You then say if we were to place magazine adverts or rent outdoor billboards what would it cost to reach this many people?
You can see why people want to do this. It is relatively easy to estimate (compared to other methods, although it can still be pretty challenging). The challenge is that it doesn’t do too much of value. The problem is that an eyeball is not the same as another eyeball. Some eyeballs are better than other eyeballs. Good sponsorship does a lot more than just be seen by a certain number of people. For example, there should be a good fit between the sponsors and what is sponsored. Weightwatchers sponsoring Nathan’s Hotdog eating contest would be odd. (But it would be pretty fun I hope they do that anyhow).
The overall message is that given quality matters as well as quantity then media equivalency isn’t really going to cut it.
Choosing Sponsorships
There is more to choosing an event, or influencer to partner with, than choosing the one that will be seen by the most people. One thing that the sponsor needs to do is commit. Sponsorship generally only makes sense as a long-term commitment. Don’t try and chase the latest trend but instead find something that is a good fit and work with it.
This is similar to cause marketing, which is when a firm supports a worthwhile cause. Sponsorship and cause marketing can overlap. For example, promoting a sport might be both a cause that the managers feel passionate about — e.g., increasing women’s sporting opportunities — and a traditional sports sponsorship when you want to associate the brand with the team/athlete. Such activities will likely only work if the firm sticks with the plan for a decent period of time.
…the brand must be sincere and realistic about making an enduring commitment to the cause
MASB, 2024, page 19
Across all such partnerships, there should be a systematic view — a business case that details what is expected to be delivered by the sponsorship and what will need to be invested to get the results.
Sponsorship accountability is a tricky subject. This book should help those working in the area to think it through.
For more on sponsorship and MASB read here and here.
Read: Sponsorship Accountability: A Roadmap for Sponsorship Marketing Success (2024) MASB (Marketing Accountability Standards Board)