Changing Perceptions in Women’s Sport

On Monday 26th September there was a picture on the front page of the Guardian showing Manchester City Women celebrating the moment they became WSL Champions. On the front page. Now that is a step in the right direction. Less than a week later, the football club completed the double by winning the Continental Tyres Cup. There wasn't even time to put the champagne back on ice.

Female sporting role models surround us and it is brilliant. But, with all of these successes, it is important to take a step back and assess the impact this is having on women’s sport and, more pertinently, on young girls around the country. It would be difficult to argue that the aforementioned role models aren’t encouraging women to be active. But do they engage those that simply aren’t huge sports fans? Yes, Manchester City Women were on the front page of The Guardian and quite rightly the story focussed on their on-pitch successes. However, would you flick to the back pages to read the full story if you didn’t like football? Would you even notice it on the front page? Maybe not.

Inspiring young girls around the country to play sport can’t only be about the success of elite athletes. Moreover, changing perceptions of women in sport won’t be achieved solely in the back pages of the paper. It is, in fact, this prerequisite for somebody to like sport in order to play it, that might actually be putting people off. Instead, the value of sport and the impact it can have must be communicated in a much broader way which is relatable to all (sports fan or not). Not everybody should require an ambition to be the next Steph Houghton in order for them to feel empowered to kick a football. Young girls should instead want to go and play because the results are more far-reaching, they transcend sport itself. And because their everyday role models (enter mum and dad) are encouraging them to do it. Even mums and dads that don’t have a deeply ingrained passion for sport themselves.

A recent post on the Facebook account of ‘Parenting Girls – Raising Good Women’ argued that parents don't simply pay for their kids to play sports; they pay for the opportunities that sports provides to develop attributes that will serve them well throughout their lives. Respect, teamwork, winning and losing. The fundamental life skills that make up a well-rounded person. A recent ParkLives film by Synergy client Coca-Cola takes this one step further showing that sport can quite simply bring children, parents and communities together.

And the simplicity of this is what makes it the perfect area for brands to explore. It’s far too easy for us to simply tell the story of a female that has defied the odds to reach the pinnacle of her sport. Of course these stories can be incredibly powerful, but they aren’t always relatable. Instead we should be telling the stories of how football, and sport generally, has impacted the day-to-day lives of normal young girls. How it can build their confidence and enrich their social lives. How it has given them the tools to succeed academically. But most importantly, how their parents supported them through this process and encouraged them to play. Because this is a parent’s responsibility.

Which might just be the key.

Parents have a responsibility to encourage their children to be active. They also have a responsibility to change the perceptions of women’s sport with their own children – it should start at home. So let’s encourage them to do it. At the very least, we might make mums and dads think more about the power of sport. At best, we might empower parents to take their daughter to the park to play football, regardless of their ability or previous interest in the sport.

So what is the endgame? Somebody with no interest in sport is impacted by a sporting story. It’s something we tried to achieve when working with SSE on their ‘Dads and Daughters’ series. A football story that is about way more than just football. It’s about family bonding. It’s about overcoming challenges in life. It’s about togetherness, inclusion, equality and being a part of something that can change your life for the better. And it so happens that it couldn’t have happened without two things: dedicated parents and the power of football.

Therefore, the challenge is clear: we must talk to all parents about sport, not just those that are sports fans. And we must engage them with the power sport can have on the everyday lives of their children – regardless of whether or not their daughter might one day be pictured celebrating on the front page of The Guardian.

The PeRiodic Table – the Science of Sponsorship at Rio 2016

Getting an Olympic Games right is rare alchemy. The Road to Rio has been long and hard for athletes, organisers and sponsors alike. In the seven years since it won the bid to host the 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games, the country has experienced more than its fair share of drama: rioting around #changebrazil, a FIFA World Cup meltdown against Germany, the spectre of political corruption and the tragic emergence of Zika.Is the country really ready for the Games? Can the infrastructure hold up? Will the doping scandal forever tarnish Rio’s moment in the sun?

These will all have been questions and concerns for the sponsors of Rio 2016 – the 59 different brands that make up the four partnership tiers of the Games represent a unique ecosystem that has helped ROCOG meet its $570m target for sponsorship revenue and played a key role in making Rio a reality.

While sponsorship is never an exact science, Synergy’s PeRiodic Table is an interactive graphic that allows you to explore a little more about each of the brands that are part of the Games. From sponsorship category to Twitter following, our interactive infographic – designed to be sorted and filtered as you see fit – provides the chance to discover some of the stories hidden beneath the surface of Rio 2016’s sponsorship landscape. Click here for the full table.

Heritage Matters: whilst the entire list of brands is typically sorted in alphabetical order, it’s notable that Coca-Cola sits before either Atos or Bridgestone in the TOP sponsor hierarchy. This is a quirk of Coke’s gift of rights: they will always be the first-mentioned brand in the IOC’s sponsorship recognition programme, acknowledging a relationship stretching back to 1928.

If You’ve Got It, Flaunt It: at time of publishing this, only 11 of the 46 brands with an active Twitter handle featured Rio 2016 marques on their profile. A potential missed opportunity for lager brand Skol, whose Twitter presence has perhaps the most overt Olympic theme, but lacks any actual recognition of its officialdom.

Missing The Tweet Spot: although it’s true that not every brand has to have a Twitter footprint, it’s interesting to note the official sponsors without a social presence, or those that have failed to build one ahead of the Games. For international brands with only a local relationship (anyone outside the TOP sponsor tier) like Nike, Nissan or Airbnb, the use of Brazil-focused feeds is also worth noting. While likely to be down to the IOC’s commercial restrictions around the use of social media, it will be interesting to see how many of the global Twitter handles end up giving a RT to their local market counterparts.

Toyota Revs Up For Tokyo: although the brand signed up as one of the IOC’s new TOP sponsors back in 2015, Nissan were already a Tier 1 sponsor of Rio 2016. This means Toyota can only talk about Rio in Japan (something Nissan cannot officially do), before turning their global attention to Tokyo 2020 following the conclusion of the current Games.

Necessity Is The Mother Of Investment: the outbreak of Zika not only created valid concern amongst athletes and spectators, but also led to the signing of OFF! – the Games first ever insect repellent partner. It probably depends on your level of cynicism whether you think this was to ensure a consistent quality control in terms of the level of safety provided to participants and attendees, or simply to head off commercial concerns around ambush of the category by unofficial brands.


Have a play with the various filters and sorting methods at the top of the screen, and see what stories you can unearth within the PeRiodic Table.

Bands, Brands & Fans – It’s all about getting closer…

A few years ago, we witnessed the start of some major changes in the music industry, with traditional revenues from record sales taking a big blow due to an increase in piracy. This coincided with the general public’s perceived value of music diminishing with the record labels continuing to exploit their assets with very short term targets in mind, licensing music for the likes of cover-mounts to the media industry, earning income, spiking sales for newspapers and magazines but further reducing the consumer’s perception around the value of music (which was ultimately being offered to them for free).

Some high profile artists benefited from this at the time, including the likes of Prince who released his ‘Planet Earth’ album exclusively via The Mail on Sunday. This earned Prince substantial revenues. It provided marketing for his 21-night performance at The O2, London and sold a lot of newspapers, so many would argue was a big success. It did, however, contribute towards the longer-term psychological perception amongst the consumer that music has been devalued.

It was at this point that I started to understand the fact that it was the job of both artists and the labels surrounding them to start re-thinking about how to add value back to the album format and demonstrate a reason for the consumer to continue purchasing in the future. It feels natural for artists and their labels to start packaging all of their assets into one deliverable (an app) with the aim of connecting with their fans on a deeper level, owning a bigger part of the relationship with them. The depth of relationship between artists and fans for me has always been the key to success.The rise of Spotify, followed by the multitude of other streaming businesses then created a distraction, tackled piracy and actually incentivised consumer spend, albeit reduced. The real value in music today, however, is primarily in the live business (concerts), but there are various attempts taking place to breathe life back into music beyond just experiential.

It seems the subject matter of how artists and their labels should be pumping value back into their product is heating up. Clearly, deepening the relationship with their fans seems to be becoming more understood amongst artists, with a number of technology players now moving into this space. Until now there has been little focus in the media about this, with most still focused on the battle of the streaming businesses (Spotify, Apple, Google, Deezer, Amazon etc).

If a fan wants to know what Beyoncé wore last night, they check Instagram. If a fan wants to know where Ed Sheeran is performing next, they check Twitter (as long as he’s not decided to take a ‘time out’). If a fan wants to know what Ariana Grande has been up to today, they are likely to watch her Snapchat story. Social Media has brought artists and fans closer together than ever before. It has solidified the artist and fan relationship, offering access never previously seen before. These relationships via social networks offer the ability for artists (and their partners) to promote themselves, sell music, tickets and merchandise. It also provides instant feedback whether it be about newly released music or any other promotional activities. Importantly, it is this relationship, combined with artist-generated content (music, film, games, etc) that can be extremely attractive and powerful.

When Björk launched ‘Biophilia’ a few years ago, she offered her fans an entire suite of content – much more than just music. She successfully continued to build that ever-so-important connection with her fans, giving them much more than they expected, with lots to talk about and engage with.

Since then, a number of artists have attempted to enter this space. A few businesses from the tech world have also moved into the ‘Artist & Fan’ relationship space – their approach being to enhance the overall fan experience, whilst providing insight and learnings about their fans back to the artists and their representatives.

These start-ups include the likes of: Gigrev, Lionshare Media and Disciple Media. BuddyBounce was another great business very much in this space, recently selling to Crowdmix which was due for launch later this year but unfortunately went into administration earlier this month, prior to its official launch. Additionally, Supapass is a new multi-artist platform that has recently come onto the scene, offering not just single artist relationships but the opportunity for fans to engage with a multitude of their favourite artists. An interesting one to watch…

The idea is that fans subscribe to an artist/label channel (costing approx £1 per month). The artists and their rightsholders then earn a substantial % of the revenue share from their fan subscriptions. One generally finds with fan-based marketing that there is always a top-tier core fan who will traditionally spend on artist product and this will specifically appeal to those. By offering multi-artist content, SupaPass are spreading the risk and potentially offering greater impact for the platform. It feels like it makes sense.

It is these artist-to-consumer platforms that will not only ensure continued growth and depth of relationship between artists and their fans, but could also potentially offer a very interesting space for brands to engage. According to the Cassandra Report, Millennials, in particular, expect brands to offer more than just their product or service, and if a brand can be seen to be offering a closer relationship between fans and an artist, the credibility and love for that brand could very easily dramatically improve. Additionally, the learnings and data available could really help not only the artist, but also brands, understand how to interact and behave with these fans, potentially offering a three-way win-win(-win) symbiotic relationship for band, brand and fan.

To conclude, the music industry is continuing to change rapidly. There are no rules and an array of interesting opportunities for brands (as well as artists) to tap into, offering previously impossible access to potentially long-term relationships with fans. The ‘Artist & Fan’ relationship is the ‘Holy Grail’ within the music industry. For a brand to be a critical part of that could be an extremely powerful space to occupy.

Sponsorship Deals: Picking the Right Partner

FC Barcelona and Nike look like they couldn’t be happier together, having signed a new sponsorship deal reportedly worth £120m p.a. and therefore breaking adidas and Manchester United’s previous £75m p.a. record.FIFA and the IOC may be in slightly rockier relationships. After all, a lot has changed since they reported record revenues of £2.1bn ($5.7bn) in 2014 and c.$850-1,600m from Toyota for eight years on their TOP programme.

Yet in both cases, friends have asked me the same question: “Who is the winner in this sponsorship deal?”

Unlike sport, sponsorship is not a game of Win and Lose. It’s time someone articulated why brands and rightsholders (and my mates!) need not see deal-making as a zero-sum game. So here goes…

Thinking Win/Win underpins any successful partnership. But, in sponsorship rightsholders and brands often enter discussions with a Win/Lose mindset, leading to no deal or a Lose/Lose outcome. It’s time the sponsorship articulated why deal-making need not be seen as a zero-sum game, and how rightsholders and sponsors can create Win/Win partnerships.

“Not a technique; a total philosophy of human interaction” is how Stephen Covey, author of best-seller The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, defines Win/Win. To Covey, it means that in any deal “all parties feel good about the decision and feel committed to the action plan”. I find it surprising that many rightsholders and sponsors do not think the same way.

Many rightsholders focus on revenue and price rights without understanding their value to would-be sponsors. It’s like a first date spent pitching all the reasons you are a 10/10 without once stopping to ask what your potential partner about their passions.

What happens without win/win thinking?

Many rightsholders are out to maximize the price they get from sponsors at pretty much any cost, even if it means a bad deal for their partner. In a sense, this is not surprising if we consider their profit maximization problem:

Rightsholder Profit = Revenue from Sponsor – Cost of Providing Rights

(Rightsholder ROI = Revenue from Sponsor / Cost of Providing Rights)

Seemingly, the rightsholders’ profit will be maximized by bleeding the sponsor dry while incurring as few costs as possible. This can cause Win/Lose partnerships, as demonstrated when thinking from a sponsor perspective and their profit maximization problem:

Maximum Sponsor Profit = Incremental Value from Sponsorship Cost of Sponsorship

(Sponsor ROI = Incremental Sales from Sponsorship / Cost of Sponsorship)

As shown in our two equations, Revenue from Sponsor = Cost of Sponsorship. Looked at like this, taking the size of the pie as fixed, both parties could be forgiven for seeing any relationship as Win/Lose.

Except that the size of the pie is not fixed. We must recognize that Incremental Sales from Sponsorship are variable. More incremental sales can mean more value to be shared between both parties.

What would you rather have?

Fortunately, not all first dates are one-way pitches, and insightful rightsholders realize deals are not a zero-sum game. Instead, they search out and build Win/Win partnerships.

However, even for those with the right mindset – even for those daters who could be a perfect match – many still struggle to find the right words to make it show. In sponsorship, the debate and media coverage today is focused on revenue and cost. We know FIFA generated £2.1bn in revenue from 2011-14, but we collectively lack the language and metrics to understand how much is created for sponsors. The point here is that the sponsorship industry needs not only to think Win/Win, but also to talk through a Value lens. Put another way, sponsors care about value and ROI. Rightsholders must demonstrate their ability to deliver maximum value and ROI for sponsors.

They can do this by replacing the one-size fits all rights packages and proposals of today with value-based discussions with sponsors. Instead of metrics like # fans, demographic of fans, # followers and broadcast exposure, potential partners could discuss how to maximise value and ROI through the sponsorship Pathways to Value relevant to them. Consequently, the likelihood of creating a Win/Win partnership and sharing a bigger pie would be significantly higher.If it becomes clear that a partnership is value-creating, as it appears to be for FC Barcelona and Nike, both parties can negotiate a price and go on to live happily ever after. Time will tell if their tale of romance continues. For now, as Stephen Covey suggests with another of his 7 Habits, let’s Put First Things First and start thinking Win/Win.

 

If you want to chat Win/Win sponsorship deals or anything to do with sponsorship measurement and evaluation please get in contact with tom.gladstone@synergy-sponsorship.com and, if you haven’t already, take a look at how Synergy think about sponsorship value in our white paper here

This Brand Can

Does anyone out there still doubt that women’s sport offers one of the most exciting opportunities in sponsorship?

In a week where Synergy is hosting #ThisGirlDoes, a brilliant panel exploring why no brand should be without a strategy for women and women in sport, it makes sense to have a quick look at how rightsholders and brands can work together to not only fuel this fire, but benefit from it. And it’s actually pretty simple:

Where possible, any rightsholder with both men’s and women’s propositions should commercialise them separately. And where they are not currently commercialised separately, brands should ask for them to be.

The fact is that most big properties that have both men’s and women’s propositions still tend to bundle them together. Sponsors of the FIFA World Cup (let’s be honest, no-one sponsors FIFA, they sponsor the World Cup), get the Women’s World Cup as part of the deal. The exact same thing applies to the UEFA European Championships, the Champions League, the RBS 6 Nations and the ICC Cricket World Cup. Similarly, if you sponsor England Rugby, Arsenal, Manchester City, PSG or any other major team, you typically also get the women’s team thrown into the deal. While this may simplify things for both rightsholder and sponsor, it is not necessarily the best solution for either side.

One competition where this is not the case is the FA Cup, with the Emirates FA Cup and SSE Women’s FA Cup running side by side. Synergy have been working closely with both SSE and the FA from the beginning to create a bespoke programme for Women’s/Girl’s football, so we have seen the power of this unbundled approach first hand.

By bundling the men’s and women’s propositions together, rightsholders are likely to be leaving value on the table. Basically, this sponsorship version of Buy-One-Get-One-Free doesn’t attribute the appropriate amount of value to the Women’s proposition. How much value do the FIFA World Cup sponsors attribute to their Women’s World Cup rights? Would Emirates expect to pay any less for their overall sponsorship of Arsenal if the Women’s team had a different brand on their shirts?

This isn’t to say that those sponsors don’t value the women’s property at all – of course they do. It’s just that they don’t value it as much as a brand that wants to focus on the women’s property in its own right. And a brand that values it more highly will also be willing to pay more for it.

The brands that value the women’s propositions more highly in their own right are also the brands that are going to create more powerful activation campaigns. Although a slightly different form of unbundling, what Sainsbury’s and Channel 4 did with the Paralympics was one of the most powerful lessons from London 2012. As “Paralympic-only” sponsors they could identify what made the Paralympics so uniquely powerful and could focus their activation budget on bringing it to life. They were able to create brilliant Paralympic campaigns – not just Olympic campaigns that ran during the Paralympics.

There is no doubt that this same principle applies to brands that want to tell empowering women’s stories. As an industry, we need to make sure that they have access to great properties that will allow them to do so. Campaigns like This Girl Can, Always #LikeAGirl, Dove Real Beauty Sketches, Under Armour #IWillWhatIWant and Nike #BetterForIt show what’s possible when a brand gets it right. And it’s a strategy worth pursuing as research by Google suggests that women ages 18-34 are twice as likely to think highly of a brand that creates an empowering ad about women and nearly 80% are more likely to engage with it.

So brands with a strategy for women and women in sport can create better, more relevant and more targeted activation campaigns, while rightsholders can extract more value. Imagine the Possibilities.

Finally, a shirt sponsor for Les Bleus?

In mid-April, on the same day that the NBA announced it would be the first of the big US sports to adopt jersey sponsorship, across the Atlantic in a Bordeaux suburb French rugby luminary Bernard Laporte launched his bid to become President of the FFR, which if he is elected could see France become the last major rugby nation to sell its national team’s shirt to a sponsor.

After the NZRU sold the previously sponsor-free All Blacks shirt to AIG for five years in 2012, Les Bleus became the only major national rugby team who choose to take the field with unbranded shirts. Laporte proposes to change that.

Laporte’s is a classic sports federation rationale: selling the shirt sponsorship will create a big new revenue stream, which he estimates at €5m-€10m per year, to help fund French grass roots rugby development. But this is much more than a commercial decision for the FFR: it will require a major philosophical pivot.

In March last year FFR head of marketing Bernard Godet told L’Equipe that the FFR had received three unsolicited shirt sponsorship offers for Les Bleus, but that the bids had been “rejected outright without studying them” because the French national team shirt is “a symbol….We remain committed to this principle and we are very proud, even if the All Blacks gave in. We are the last ones.”

When the NZRU sold AIG the All Blacks’ shirt sponsorship in 2012, France became
the last major rugby nation to choose to take the field without a shirt sponsor

And earlier this year Mr Godet told Le Monde that the FFR will not “yield to the sirens’ money” and “sell our soul…The French shirt is ultimately a kind of flag, not to be tainted with a brand of coffee, or car, or olive oil” - although he also revealed that the FFR was considering selling the sevens, women’s and youth teams’ shirts to a sponsor.

A big philosophical gap then. But unbridgeable? Maybe not. In a classic piece of realpolitik, Laporte has also proposed that the shirt sponsorship should be sold only to ‘a beautiful French flagship brand’, building a Touboniste bridge between his and the FFR’s position.

We’ll have to wait until the end of this year to find out if Laporte’s Presidential bid is successful. But if it is, with 44 manifesto measures to push through he will be a very busy man. And the shirt sponsorship idea is not one of the 44 measures in Laporte’s manifesto, so could readily be de-prioritised in the inevitable politicking of the election or its aftermath.

There’s no doubt that were it to become available there would be high demand for the French shirt sponsorship given the popularity of rugby in France, the size of the French economy, the domestic and international media visibility of the shirt, and the cachet of becoming the first shirt sponsor of Les Bleus.

However, restricting the opportunity to French brands will reduce the value of the opportunity to the FFR, by driving down demand and competition from international brands who, as the All Blacks’ deal with AIG demonstrated, would surely be interested.

So for a French-only deal the lower half of Laporte’s estimate of €5m-€10m per year is about right, benchmarked against what other major rugby countries generate for their shirt sponsorships and, as our sponsorship evaluation model Synergy Decisions demonstrates, the fact that a sponsorship has varying values to brands in different categories.

Only time will tell if Les Bleus finally break with tradition. But in the meantime, it’s worth taking a look at the commercial proposals in Laporte’s manifesto – in particular the concept of pooling the commercial rights of the FFR and the clubs. Now that would be radical.

The Next Big Evolution In Rugby World Cup Sponsorship

Japanese brands have history with the Rugby World Cup. Attracted by a big Japanese TV deal, in 1987 they accounted for almost all of the handful of sponsors of the first tournament. I suspect we will see something similar when we get to RWC 2019. Except there will be more Japanese sponsors - a lot more.Well before Japan's electrifying performances in the current RWC, Japan 2019 was always going to be a safe sponsorship bet for World Rugby.First, there's the size and strength of the Japanese economy - the world's third largest, much bigger than any of the Tier 1 rugby countries. Next, as I wrote at the time, back in 2013 when Tokyo won the right to stage the 2020 Olympics it had the unintended consequence of making Rugby World Cup sponsorship more strategically attractive, especially to Olympic sponsors and to their rivals. Then there's the way that Corporate Japan has got behind Tokyo 2020. Tokyo was clearly a big factor in Panasonic and Toyota agreeing huge new global sponsorships with the IOC. And Tokyo is on course to achieve the most successful domestic sponsorship sales programme in Olympic history.And all this was before Japan's three breakthrough RWC 2015 wins, which have created unquestionably the marketing factoid of this Rugby World Cup. The total cumulative TV audience in Japan for the whole of RWC 2011 was just under 25 million. Whereas the live TV audience in Japan just for the Japan v Samoa RWC 2015 match was 25 million.Zilch to 25 million. Zilch to 20 per cent of the Japanese population. Zilch to a world record national viewing audience for rugby.I think that's what they call growth.

No surprise then that Brett Gosper, World Rugby's CEO, said last week that for RWC 2019 World Rugby "will make some adjustments to allow more local brands to take part [as sponsors]...ones that sit well with our global partners". Whether this means an increase in some or all of the four current tiers of RWC sponsorship remains to be seen. But I suspect the question is not how many Japanese brands will be sponsors of Japan 2019, but whether there'll be any space left for anyone else.

Rightsholders’ Sponsorship Proposals: Counting What Counts

As everyone who works client-side in sponsorship knows, rightsholders’ sponsorship proposals tend to be very generic; all about the same old rights and outputs, rather than ideas and outcomes. As the saying goes, if you’ve read one, you’re read them all. Wouldn’t it be great if that changed, and focused on the things that matter to brands, especially the metrics?
Since Synergy’s Carsten Thode wrote ‘Rightsholders getting it right’ and the subsequent launch of Synergy Decisions we’ve been looking at potential fresh approaches by rightsholders to their proposals. In this blog, I’m going to highlight the top five most common sponsorship proposal problems and what better proposals could look like.

Think about the last sponsorship proposal you read. Chances are the content looked something like this:

Rightsholder Proposals Today ppt.jpg

While some initial proposals do genuinely address the objectives of a potential sponsors, and 2nd round proposals usually do a far better job of presenting content that matters, many make it a real challenge to extract the content that counts. Having talked to Synergy clients and colleagues, who have collectively reviewed literally thousands of sponsorship proposals, these are the top five problems commonly encountered:

1. Little or no attempt to understand the brand’s key business drivers and challenges
2. One size fits all rights
3. Too long
4. No view on how campaigns could help tell the brand story
5. Focus on outputs rather than  the value-based metrics that matter

Now imagine the dream sponsorship proposal you wish you could read. Chances are the content would look something like this:

Rightsholder Proposals Tomorrow ppt.jpg

Spot the difference?That’s the change in approach that’s needed and we’re continually talking to rightsholders on new ways of thinking about the following:

•  Approaching sponsorship top-down from the campaign idea, instead of bottom-up from the rights (selling the meal, not the ingredients) and from the brand’s perspective
•  Rights having no intrinsic value (sponsorship value is entirely contextual)
•  Where and how their rightsholders’ offers could help create value for potential sponsors by identifying potentially suitable: a) industry categories; b) brands within those categories; c) key objectives and value drivers which matter most for those brands

Armed with this new way of thinking, rightsholders could go to potential sponsors with a different type of proposal. One which is:

1. based on upfront research by rightsholders about a brand’s key business drivers and challenges
2. tailored to consider the value-drivers of each specific target brand
3. targeted at what matters
4. tells the story of how a sponsorship rightsholder can help the brand tell their story
5. grounded in value-based thinking

If rightsholders adopted this approach brands would be far more inclined to pay attention to their proposals than they are to the generic, one size fits all decks that routinely hit their inbox. If not, a great deal of money and time will continue to be wasted.

 

If you want to chat about ROI in sponsorship or anything to do with sponsorship measurement and evaluation, please do send Synergy an email at tom.gladstone@synergy-sponsorship.com and, if you haven’t already, take a look at how Synergy think about sponsorship value in our white paper here.

Moving Social Media Measurement in Sponsorship from Vanity to Value

Closing the Telegraph’s Business of Sport article on ‘The importance of social media in sport’, Synergy CEO Tim Crow says rightsholders “need to focus less on selling price and impressions and much more on delivering engagement and value”.

He's right – value metrics are the future. And with more words set to be published on twitter in the next 2 years than in all books ever printed, the cost of getting social media measurement wrong – by using vanity metrics such as “likes” and “clicks” – is set to skyrocket. This blog aims to provide a quick guide to moving sponsorship towards better social media measurement.

social media channels

The majority of data points available in off-the-shelf analytics packages are what author of The Lean Startup, Eric Reis, calls Vanity Metrics – they might make you feel good, but don’t offer clear guidance on what actions to take. Put another way, they do not help make decisions on how to drive value. Since around 80% of companies use vanity metrics, it’s clear that sponsorship must move from vanity to value in social media ASAP.

“But how?” I hear you ask.

Social media is very different to other channels in terms of data accuracy, frequency and availability. Platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter can offer a wealth of data on user actions to the very second at which they took place, and the rise of real-time is set to transform the way we estimate and track value beyond what I can imagine. That means a move to value metrics in social media will have to leverage some of the most advanced measurement tools and techniques out there today.

Future Dashboards

We can understand value creation through Social Media with a simple framework for understanding social media value:

Reach – the number of unique impressions (organic & paid) made on the audience. Put another way, it’s the number of people who actually see an ad pop up in their newsfeed on Facebook or Twitter, or the pinboard of Pinterest users.

Engagement – directly purchasing a promoted product or interacting with and sharing brand content. Fundamentally, it’s the people who “like”, “share”, or “comment” on Facebook, Twitter or Instagram.

Advocacy – sentiment of the users who engage with the ad. In other words, the degree to which they are positive, neutral or negative towards the ad.

Purchase – the number of users who see the ad who, are converted to sale. In simple terms, it’s the people who have, one way or another, seen the ad and parted with their cash because of it.

Sales – Cost = Return on Investment (ROI)

Job done!

Or not, as it turns out. Analytics experts reading the above (I’m sure there are many…) will have noted the “simple” approach above is perhaps a bit too simple. Reach and Engagement are indeed hard to measure. There is, in fact, a relationship between impressions and interactions: the greater the Engagement level, the more users interact, the larger the resulting Reach. Put another way, albeit making an inference about causality, more engagement can drive more impressions – social media users who engage with and share brand ads are growing the number of people ‘impressed’.

Analysis has shown the correlation coefficient between impressions and engaged users to be +0.83

Transitioning to an approach like the one outlined above, and addressing the interaction across stages, would be represent a significant step forward for the sponsorship industry.Learning from Social Media

While data frequency in more traditional channels such as live-event, TV or Radio broadcast may never reach the levels seen in social media – it does not need to – brands should push for the same level of data accuracy and availability. The key is to transform their respective vanity metrics, like branded mentions and views, into value metrics.

Further lessons lie in the dashboards and user-interfaces used to visualize social media metrics today. In an age of big-data, it is easy to get lost in a sea of information without getting to insight. Social media platforms like Facebook – and behind-the-scenes Facebook Insights – are a step ahead of other sponsorship channels in tracking user data pre-, during- and post-campaign. We must learn from them.

So what next?

With only 1% of companies currently being “socially native” – meaning (among other things) they have measurement to match business objectives – the sponsorship industry has a long way to go. But a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. I hope this blog will help the industry take it.

 

If you need a nudge or some guidance on social media measurement please do send Synergy an email at tom.gladstone@synergy-sponsorship.com and, if you haven’t already, take a look at how Synergy think about sponsorship value in our Synergy Decisions white paper here.

Valuing Rugby World Cup 2015 Sponsorship: A 5-Step Guide to Sponsorship Event Measurement

It's not long now until Rugby World Cup 2015 kicks-off and sponsors start to see a significant return on investment...

…at least that's what they hope.

If you already know whether their event sponsorship endeavors will be likened to a World Cup win or group-stage knockout then you can stop reading now. Otherwise, this 5-step guide to sponsorship event measurement should help you understand how to deliver, measure and evaluate a high-ROI event sponsorship of any scale.

RWC Image 2

So, using Rugby World Cup 2015 as a case study, let’s outline an approach which could help…

RWC Partners Image

By the way, this guide brings to bear much of the thinking already shared in the Synergy Decisions white paper.

Step 1: Understand the Pathways to Value

In the context of event sponsorship and Rugby World Cup 2015, this means understanding that the event could deliver value through different Pathways. Brands like Canterbury and Heineken will have similar rights, but will be using them to deliver different objectives. The rights will drive different levels of value accordingly.

That said, let’s consider some of the Pathways through which Heineken could drive value:

  1. B2C Brand Awareness (e.g.pitch-side branding to reach a global audience via extensive TV coverage)
  2. B2B Hospitality (e.g. hosting and building relationships with trade contacts to increase listings in the on and off trade)
  3. Data Capture (e.g. recording fan contact details through at-event activations)
  4. Experiential (e.g. campaigns to connect with fans at the stadium)
  5. Pouring rights (e.g. increased sales at all 48 matches at the expense of competitors such as Guinness)

Heineken Experience

Step 2: Identify the Value Drivers for Each Pathway

This is crucial. Rugby World Cup 2015 sponsors must know which metrics influence how much value is being created within each specific pathway. Sponsors should ask whether their value drivers are, for example:

1 - Talking to business customers – If so, how many do we need in our hospitality suite at each match? Of the business clients who join, what share do we want to be “high” value? Of those who are “high” value, how many do we need to convert into sales?
2 - Data capture – If so, how many details do we need to collect at each match? How many are attending each match? What is the likelihood that a new contact converts to a sale? What is the value of that sale? How quickly do we need to follow up?
3 - Maximizing at-event sales – If so, how many sales do we need to make? Where can we sell at the ground and how many sales staff can we deploy? At what cost?
4 - Etc. … (In the interest of time I’ll refrain from listing the 30+ different Value Drivers we’ve worked on at Synergy over the last year, but you get the idea!)
The earlier brands map out these questions, the easier it’ll be to:

• find where and how value could be created pre-campaign
• change course and track progress during-campaign
• evaluate performance post-campaign

Step 3: Build a Model

Having successfully navigated Step 2, it’s time to enter Excel and use the value drivers to create a model which helps us understand the value created within each Pathway. Let’s say that Heineken, for example, is trying to understand the Data Capture Pathway. The global beer brand’s model could be structured to make calculations using inputs like:

• # matches at which we have experiential rights
• # attendees (by match)
• % attendees engaged in experiential
• % attendees engaged who share data / contact details
• % post-match contacts converted to sale
• £ lifetime value of average contact converted to sale

Step 4: Find the Best Possible Inputs and Assumptions

With a strong Step 1, Step 2 and Step 3 in support, finding and measuring the metrics that matter should feel less like a scrum and more like a kick from under the posts. Whether it be through consumer surveys, brand trackers, data records on the ground, web analytics, or a combination of all of the above, the key to sponsorship measurement is inputs and assumptions you can adjust but believe in.

Dan Carter

With our Heineken / Data Capture example in mind, imagine that they have one pop-up activation per match. Heineken could then track performance through, for example, conducting consumer surveys at each of the 48 Rugby World Cup 2015 matches.

Step 5: Interrogate the Model

Once the detail is done and dusted, better decisions can be made more easily with the help of a user-friendly dashboard, which could look something like:

Dashboard2

As any Rugby World Cup-winning team will tell you, most of the hard work is done before the main event. Tough questions are asked, different tactics tested and weights lifted before the Final event itself.Likewise, sponsorship event measurement must be grounded in strategic analysis ahead of time, and a commitment made to analyse and gather the necessary data to find scenarios, sensitivities and breakeven points. With a clear sense of how to drive maximum value, CMOs and Sponsorship Managers alike can send staff out onto the marketing field-of-play confident their team will perform.

 

I hope you’ve enjoyed this quick guide on how to take a more structured approach to understanding the value of event sponsorship. If you’d like to talk in more detail feel free to email Synergy at tom.gladstone@synergy-sponsorship.com