What’s more
surprising is a finding that was buried towards the end of the post. Macdonald
said his firm’s study found that, “Despite the media's
best efforts, people feel remarkably warmly towards the sponsors: three times
as many agree as disagree with the statement ‘The Olympic Games are better as a
result of the money received from sponsors’; and twice as many disagree as
agree that ‘The Olympic Games shouldn't have any sponsors.’”
There
is a popular perception that sponsorship is a necessary evil – that audiences
tolerate sponsorship at games and competitions. Sports organizations having corporate
partners is just another way for teams and leagues to generate as much money as
possible even as they receive millions of dollars or billions of dollars in
ticket sales, media rights, and event revenue. Former U.S. Representative Barney Frank articulated
this seemingly popular belief when he said,
“I don’t think anybody has ever opened a bank account or decided to buy a CD
because a bank’s name is on the stadium.”
Yet
Havas’s study directly addresses these issues. In fact, fans understand the
impact that sponsorship has on their favorite organizations, teams, and leagues.
In addition, the sponsorship activation does not detract from the overall fan
experience. In fact, the study shows that fans may actually want sponsors to be
a part of these events.
Highlighting
that sponsorship either enhances (or at least does not negatively impact) the overall
fan experience can be a critical element of sales pitches that rights holders
can make to potential partners. It is true that an increasing number of
marketing managers, media buying agencies, and company owners are requiring
sports organizations to provide a tangible return of investment (ROI). Even after
receiving ROI data, however, many corporate partners need to be convinced that
their target demographics will view their sponsorships in a positive light.
Havas’s finding is a good first step for making this case.
No comments:
Post a Comment