How Sponsorship Properties Must Evolve In The Year Ahead
October 11th, 2016 | Norm O’Reilly, The T1 Agency
ACA Members, join our webinar Oct. 11 at 11:30 a.m. ET to get more insights into the 10th Annual Canadian Sponsorship Landscape Study.
Just five years ago, many of those who study sponsorship – including myself – were preaching the need for every property to act like a jazz fest or a weekend concert or even a mini Super Bowl or Grey Cup. Starting in the 1990s up to recently, “Festivalization” and “Disneyfication” were key words in blogs, trade magazines and academic journals alike. Whether a sporting championship, a cultural experience or a tourism destination, property managers were being told to “act like a festival” and provide sponsors and potential sponsors with a captive, enthralled and demographically “tight” audience. The idea of 100,000 people of similar backgrounds (e.g., Millennials, Boomers) and a common passion (e.g., country music, football) all together, phones off or focused on capturing the experience, was positioned as the secret to future sponsorship success.
And, the data supported Festivalization. In 2011, we even called it the year of “the festivalization of sponsorship,” with results of the study showing that festivals were rivaling professional sport and Olympic sport in their ability to attract corporations’ marketing dollars for rights fees (CSLS, 2011). Indeed, about one-third of rights fees were being spent on what sponsors referred to as ‘festivals, fairs and annual events’.[1] Industry leaders were also professing the activation potential of festivals, in terms of creativity[2].
Now, let’s fast forward to 2016.
Today, things are different for some properties. Not all, but some. And the “some” I’m talking about are those traditional sport properties without vast media reach who had sought to festivalize but now should be wary of the “branded content” and “owned property” trends out there. Recent trend data supports this reality. Even as sponsorship continues to thrive and grow across property types, traditional properties are lagging. For example, in a June 2016 report, IEG noted that fairs, festivals and annual events (at 2.1% growth) are trailing other property types like sport (5.0%) and are less than half of the overall expected growth of 4.5% in North American sponsorship spending.
Two major North American studies in 2015 and 2016 both pointed to sponsors emphasizing major concerns around “activation quality” as what keeps them up at night about sponsorship (Nifty Fifty, 2015; CSLS, 2015; CSLS, 2016).
Three further data points around the changing nature of activation from these and other recent North American studies add to the story:
- Nifty Fifty (a 2015 study by the National Sports Forum and Ohio University, of which I was a part) interviewed executives from more than 50 sponsors, identifying major trends in sponsorship. There were a number of key findings in this study. First, when asked where they were directing their sponsorship dollars, interviewees ranked social and digital as where they were increasing their investments the most, well ahead of onsite sponsorship. Second, when asked what they want from a sponsorship, sponsors ranked “use of marks and logos,” “access to exclusive content” and “category exclusivity” as #1, #2 and #3, with “on-site activation” coming 6th.
Finally, a few key quotes from leading sponsors to illustrate further the current sense of sponsors:
“[We want]…less static in ‘brand building’ – less hard signage, less specific corporate branded signage, more specific engagement programs…”
“We will do the best to amplify any of the assets we build or buy. It’s ALL about the Activation!”
“Traditional (advertising) is becoming less relevant.”
- CSLS 2015 and 2016, the two most recent versions of Canada’s annual sponsorship landscape study (soon to launch for the 11th annual edition) shows that activation spend has shifted so that “branded content” is now the largest proportion of activation spend by Canadian sponsors, well ahead of hosting, advertising and social media.
- MVP (2016) – a joint venture by Ipsos and The T1 Agency, in its 4th edition, again found that consumers, when thinking about which properties are most valuable to them, rank “personal involvement” (i.e., was I impacted personally? Did I change my behaviour?), “creating the moment” (i.e., something they will not forget), and “impact on cause” (i.e., do they feel like they impacted something that mattered with an organization they trust) as the three most influential factors.
To summarize, over the past five years, cutting-edge activation has moved from Festivalization to branded content. Most now believe that the captive audience beats a media audience every time. Industry studies – MVP, Nifty Fifty and CSLS – support this. So, here we are in 2016 and the studies are showing that in order to activate well, sponsors need to build properties, create new properties, brand content platforms digitally, and not rely on old-fashioned (traditional) activation around properties with limited access.
So, where does this leave the property that is without media but a large in-person audience (e.g., professional sport club, music festival, cultural event, major fair, etc.)? Are they going to lose sponsors to those with more controllable content? Do they need to spend a fortune building out owned properties or branded platforms? What else can they do? What does all this mean? Why are sponsors questioning activation quality? Why are patterns shifting?
Well, from where I stand, there are two main takeaways we can glean from the research.
First, sponsors have an increasing interest in and desire to own and activate around digital inventory. That’s something that festivals or similar properties without large media reach do not have in the same quantity as other properties. As TV ratings decline and digital consumption expands, this point will continue to grow in importance in the future.
Second, there is an ever-growing trend around both “ownable properties” and “branded content.” Although these terms differ in some respects, they’re similar in that they are about content or assets that one can activate around with few limitations. In some cases, they can be the same thing – where a brand creates its own property, then brands it digitally – such as the many owned properties created by Red Bull (e.g., Air Race). Recently, the NHL and the NHLPA ran the World Cup of Hockey, their own property in their own way. Many theatre brands and movie houses are creating their own film festivals, movie conferences or events. For years, soccer clubs have built academies for player development and marketing benefit.
To conclude, properties that possess the festival-like atmosphere with limited media reach should start considering “owned properties” as a key competitor or alternative choice when seeking sponsorship investment from brands. Further, all properties – Festivalized or not – must focus on building digital assets that a partner can activate on. Overall, and in consideration of both owned properties and branded content, an environment where the sponsor can activate with as few limitations as possible is vital.
Dr. Norm O’Reilly holds a PhD, is a Partner of T1 Consulting and Chair of the Department for Sports Administration at the Ohio University College of Business. In his spare time, he’s published hundreds of Sports Marketing books and articles. Norm is recognized internationally as one of the foremost scholars on sport business, sponsorship and marketing strategy. He leverages his academic experience as a senior advisor to the T1 Consulting Group. Norm O’Reilly and Elisa Beselt’s presentation on the Canadian Sponsorship Landscape Study is live on Oct. 11 at 11:30 a.m. ET and can be found in the Webinar Archives afterward.
[1] www.sponsorshiplandscape.ca – both 2010 and 2011 reports
