An interesting thing struck me over the weekend when thinking about modern sponsorships. Can you ever truly have a relationship where both parties are 100% happy?
It’s an interesting thing when you think about it. As a brand we often pay multi million dollar deals on securing a sponsorship property; whether that be to build a positive brand association, reach a broad range of consumers, or as was more prevalent in the ’80’s and still many small businesses today, because the owner / CEO personally likes the property or has a hero syndrom with the team.
In exchange for the sponsorship you would think it fair that you could then leverage that sponsorship, within reason, as you wish. However increasingly I am noticing examples of the sponsorship property forcing the brand to undertake activities that counter the original objectives of the sponsorship. For instance a performance car brand sponsoring a car race, then actively being forced to promote a TAC style, speed kills campaign. Or a confectionery brand sponsoring a sporting league and then forced to develop a ‘limit your unhealthy food intake’ campaign.
So why are the property owner’s feeling that their social responsibility stretch from their direct product to the broader association with brands and any perceived risks they think exist.
More so, why are brands conceding to these demands and still investing, and how long will this continue?
It’s no surprise therefore to read the latest figures that show sponsorship investment in Australia is down -4% year on year. If it’s becoming more expensive as well as more restrictive in how you can leverage a partnership I really question where brand managers will be investing in the coming year.
Digital anyone?
Brandom Thoughts 