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 me an email at and, if you haven’t already, take a look at how Synergy think about sponsorship value in our white paper here.