Each sport property also has a unique set of exploitable sponsorship components to offer prospective sponsors. This brings to focus one of the basic theoretical changes in marketing with the last 25 years.
The move from a product orientation (Sell what you make) or a Market Orientation (Make what will sell). Clearly this must function in the area of sponsorship as well.
My 1998 research with the top 50 sponsors in the US indicated that too often, sport properties were trying to sell their inventory rather than looking to meet sponsor needs.
Thus, the Filter Component of the Model is the inventory which the Sport Property has to offer through which the sponsor objectives may be met. Certainly alternative marketing opportunities, other than sport sponsorship, will be considered by the sponsor as well.
The flow of objectives through the filter will yield the Activated Components
Activated Components
These would naturally vary depending on the sponsors and the property.
Give the unique nature of each sponsor, customized proposals and tailored sponsor benefits must be constructed.
Evaluation Protocol
Previous research by Irwin and Sutton presented and empirically test criteria utilized by corporations to select appropriate sponsorship opportunities. However, they did not address evaluation. According to the principles set forth in exchange theory, in order to justify continued spending on sport sponsorships, corporations must ascertain if their benefits support their expenditures
An evaluation model for sponsors based on this scheme has yet to evolve. This evaluation model must be based on the ideas presented thus far wherein the most appropriate measure of effectiveness emanate, not from what the sponsorship accomplished, but from whether the specific marketing objectives of the corporation were met.
So What are these measures of ROI?
What is the relative measure of effectiveness of sport sponsorship?
Key performance indicators must be established and an evaluation protocol developed for each performance indicator.
Because of the complexity, most corporations have not engaged in measuring sponsorship effectiveness. Some have accepted data and reports from sponsored properties that attempted to measure what the sponsorship accomplished, with little regard to the sponsor’s objectives.
Therefore, specific and authentic measure related to each objective must be undertaken. As noted in the Model, these could include:
- recognition and recall measure,
- Qualitative interviews,
- employee morale measure within the sponsor company.
- Consumer-based focus groups
- sales data collected pre and post event.
These are supported in the literature, yet all too often not in practice.
There have been sporadic measures as illustrated by the following
1. During the 2002 Olympics, Samsung conducted recognition and recall measures in 10 different markets around the world.
2. Qualitative interviews again, after the Olympics, VISA asked consumers about their sue of the VISA card. 65% of all consumers interviewed (18 and over with annual income of over $20,000) were aware of VISA sponsorship of the Olympics. 20% of those indicade that they used their VISA card more in the last month than they had the month prior to the Games.
3. NASCAR has been famous for consumer-based focus groups. Data has been widely reported that indicate that consumers are positively influenced in their purchasing by a sponsors’ participation in NASCAR sponsorship. Similarly, Pitts found that the participants of the Gay Games were incredibly loyal to the sponsors.
4. Sales data are also important measures related to corporate objectives. Coke’s research during the 2002 Olympic Games found that first quarter sales increased in the US, Japan, Mexico, and Germany more than 5%.
While these present just a few examples, the general opinion is that no systematic protocol or model has been presented which provides a comprehensive over view of how theory can shape current proactive.
Hopefully this model can be utilized to bridge the gap between theory and practice in sport sponsorship. Those who propose theory without a connection to practice are as misguided as practitioners who disregard theoretical underpinnings.
David K. Stotlar
University of Northern Colorado
david.stotlar@unco.edu
