2012 IEG B2B Research - Performance Research

advertisement
Table of Contents
I.
METHODOLOGY
p. 3
II.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
p. 5
III.
RESPONDENT PROFILE
p. 13
IV.
SPONSORSHIP SPENDING & INVOLVEMENT
p. 17
V.
RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS
p. 41
VI.
PROPERTY PERCEPTIONS
p. 52
I.
Methodology
3
Methodology
From a sample of over a thousand sponsorship decision makers invited worldwide, a total of
105 participants completed an online questionnaire about their sponsorship decision-making
process.
Respondents were screened by IEG, Inc. to be sponsorship decision-makers from small,
medium and large corporations worldwide.
Data collection was conducted in January and February of 2012.
Research objectives included, but were not limited to, determining the benefits and services
that are most important to companies when making sponsorship decisions and estimating
how companies are budgeting for measurement and activation. The margin of error for this
study is approximately + 5%.
This study was conducted in conjunction with IEG, LLC. www.sponsorship.com
4
II. Executive Summary
5
Source: IEG Sponsorship Report
March 19, 2012
www.sponsorship.com/IEGSR.aspx
Decision-Makers Survey: Old Habits Do Die – Sponsor Survey Sees Less
Reliance on Ads, Signage
While they embrace ways to engage better, sponsors still come up short on
measurement.
The 12th annual IEG/Performance Research Sponsorship Decision-makers Survey
indicates that sponsors are letting go of some of the more traditional and less
engaging ways to communicate and evaluate their partnerships.
In terms of activation, traditional advertising was used far less as a leveraging tool
than in any previous year. Although 72 percent of sponsors still buy media to
activate, that figure is a long way from the high of 86 percent in 2005.
The survey added social media as an activation channel this year and not
surprisingly it appears as one of the five most popular leveraging tools, alongside
public relations, internal communications, advertising and hospitality.
6
Source: IEG Sponsorship Report
March 19, 2012
www.sponsorship.com/IEGSR.aspx
Decision-Makers Survey: Old Habits Do Die – Sponsor Survey Sees Less
Reliance on Ads, Signage
(continued…)
Hospitality was significantly more popular this year (75 percent of sponsors using it
vs. 63 percent last year), pointing to its resurgence after falling out of favor during
the recession, especially among financial services companies.
Another old standby that fell somewhat out of favor this year was on-site signage.
Just over half of respondents said it was a highly valuable benefit (giving it a score of
9 or 10 on a 10-point scale) compared to 63 percent in 2011.
Another exposure-related benefit—identification in the property’s media buy—fell out
of the top 10 benefits this year, replaced by the right to promote co-branded
products and services. Category exclusivity remained the most valuable sponsorship
benefit.
7
Source: IEG Sponsorship Report
March 19, 2012
www.sponsorship.com/IEGSR.aspx
Decision-Makers Survey: Old Habits Do Die – Sponsor Survey Sees Less
Reliance on Ads, Signage
(continued…)
Also, generating awareness is no longer alone at the top in terms of how sponsors
are evaluating success. Two other measures—attitudes toward the brand and sales—
moved into a virtual tie for the top spot among most valuable metrics.
Also of note, measuring televised logo exposure fell out of the top ten metrics,
replaced by the response of trade/channel partners.
Finally, when assessing the importance of various objectives, increasing brand
loyalty joined creating awareness and visibility as the top goals of sponsors.
When asked about their 2012 plans, sponsors demonstrated the cautious attitude
noted in IEG’s projections of slowed spending growth this year.
8
Source: IEG Sponsorship Report
March 19, 2012
www.sponsorship.com/IEGSR.aspx
Decision-Makers Survey: Old Habits Do Die – Sponsor Survey Sees Less
Reliance on Ads, Signage
(continued…)
Although still a majority, the number of sponsors who said they were considering
new sponsorships in 2012 dropped six percentage points from 2011.
Similarly, the number of decision-makers who indicated they were looking to drop
current deals not up for renewal rose six percentage points from last year, although
remained in the minority.
Responses about the direction of 2012 spending were nearly identical to 2011’s,
with just about half of sponsors holding budgets steady, while 36 percent will spend
more and 17 percent plan to spend less.
Overall, spending on sponsorship fees—not including activation—will account for a
smaller portion of total advertising, marketing and promotion budgets than last
year—17 percent versus 19 percent.
9
Source: IEG Sponsorship Report
March 19, 2012
www.sponsorship.com/IEGSR.aspx
Decision-Makers Survey: Old Habits Do Die – Sponsor Survey Sees Less
Reliance on Ads, Signage
(continued…)
When asked specifically about activation spending, about half of sponsors said they
would shell out the same for leveraging this year as last, while 42 percent will
allocate more money and 11 percent will lay out fewer dollars.
The average ratio comparing activation spending to the amount spent to acquire
sponsorship rights rose for the third year in a row to $1.70 on leveraging for every
$1 spent on rights fees. In 2011, the comparison was $1.60 to $1.
Despite other signs that sponsors are growing savvier about sponsorship, the survey
reveals that more than one out of five still spend nothing on activating their
partnerships.
10
Source: IEG Sponsorship Report
March 19, 2012
www.sponsorship.com/IEGSR.aspx
Decision-Makers Survey: Old Habits Do Die – Sponsor Survey Sees Less
Reliance on Ads, Signage
(continued…)
More sponsors than ever indicated that their return from sponsorship was growing,
with nearly six out of 10 seeing better results over the past few years, while just five
percent saw a decline in their return.
Another one out of five sponsors reported they had not determined whether their
return was improving or not.
That’s despite the vast majority of sponsors who say the need for meaningful results
continues to grow.
11
Source: IEG Sponsorship Report
March 19, 2012
www.sponsorship.com/IEGSR.aspx
Decision-Makers Survey: Old Habits Do Die – Sponsor Survey Sees Less
Reliance on Ads, Signage
(continued…)
Continuing a long-term pattern of wanting better measurement but not allocating
resources for it, this year’s survey found nearly one-third of sponsors allocating no
money to measure the success of a given partnership, while another 44 percent
spent an amount equal to one percent or less of the sponsorship fee to evaluate
their return.
As for how properties can best service their partners beyond delivering the rights and
benefits committed to, sponsors placed more value on property-provided research
into audiences’ attitudes toward and images of sponsors, as well as research on the
audiences’ propensity to purchase sponsor products.
12
Decision Making Responsibilities
83%
86%
Selecting new
properties / events
to sponsor
77%
81%
82%
82%
80%
Selecting marketing
plans / activation
supp. sponsorships
2008; N=165
75%
2009; N=110
81%
80%
2010; N=106
78%
87%
Evaluate existing
properties
76%
80%
77%
2011; N=120
2012; N=105
79%
80%
79%
78%
81%
Implementing
marketing plans /
activation supp.
sponsorships
“Within your organization, which of the following describes your responsibilities regarding sponsorship?”
14
Sponsorship Programs by Region
92%
85%
83%
88%
89%
North America
20%
17%
Europe
27%
23%
29%
16%
13%
17%
14%
19%
Asia / Pacific Rim
Australia / New
Zealand
South America
10%
11%
14%
12%
13%
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
12%
10%
11%
13%
2010; N=106
2011; N=120
18%
Africa
2012; N=105
5%
5%
7%
8%
7%
“In what regions do your sponsorship programs operate?”
15
Personal Location by Region
90%
82%
82%
86%
84%
North America
Europe
Australia / New
Zealand
Asia / Pacific Rim
Africa
South America
3%
5%
9%
9%
10%
2%
4%
3%
3%
1%
2%
2%
2%
1%
2%
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
2%
1%
1%
1%
2%
2010; N=106
1%
0%
1%
1%
2%
2012; N=105
2011; N=120
“In which region are you personally based?”
16
IV. Sponsorship Spending & Involvement
17
Choosing Property to Sponsor
75%
78%
76%
83%
84%
Set strategy and
seek the right
property
73%
70%
Approached directly
by property owners
62%
69%
70%
28%
28%
Receive details
about property from
a sales agency
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
2011; N=120
23%
23%
25%
2012; N=105
13%
Consult sponsorship
specialist to
determine strategy
2008; N=165
19%
14%
19%
19%
“How do you typically go about choosing a property to sponsor?”
18
When Sponsorship Budget is Decided
20%
23%
19%
28%
First Quarter
(January - March)
20%
Second Quarter
(April - June)
9%
9%
9%
9%
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
14%
Third Quarter (July September)
2010; N=106
26%
21%
19%
18%
2011; N=120
2012; N=105
23%
46%
47%
48%
45%
Fourth Quarter
(October December)
43%
“During which time period does your company determine its sponsorship budget?”
19
Likely Sponsorship Spending Compared to Prior Year
40%
14%
Increase
19%
35%
36%
2008; N=165
41%
2009; N=110
36%
Stay the same
47%
48%
47%
19%
51%
Decrease
30%
18%
17%
“How will your overall sponsorship spending in [2012] compare to [2011]?”
20
2010; N=106
2011; N=120
2012; N=105
Sponsorship Spending in Prior Year
26%
26%
Up to $500,000
32%
26%
31%
12%
$500,000 - $1 million
7%
9%
9%
8%
2008; N=165
17%
$1 million - $5 million
$30 million and
above
2009; N=110
18%
19%
21%
2010; N=106
13%
15%
$5 million - $15
million
$15 million - $30
million
24%
2011; N=120
8%
9%
11%
2012; N=105
4%
9%
9%
8%
9%
7%
6%
9%
5%
8%
“About how much did your company spend on sponsorship in [2011]?”
21
Percentage of Marketing Budget Spent on Sponsorship
0%
0%
2%
0%
1%
0%
43%
42%
42%
1%-10%
50%
56%
26%
37%
38%
11%-20%
22%
22%
15 %
4%
21%-30%
25%
12 %
9%
1
7%
8%
31%-40%
4%
4%
2008; N=61*
2009; N=52*
7%
7%
2010; N=24*
4%
41%-50%
17 %
5%
3%
51%-75%
2011; N=74*
3%
2%
4%
3%
1%
2012; N=81*
0%
76%-100%
[*Based on those who responded]
2%
4%
3%
3%
“Approximately what % of your organization’s overall marketing budget do sponsorship rights fees
represent?”
22
Considering Dropping Any Current Sponsorships
Not Up for Renewal
2009; N=110
47%
2010; N=106
48%
Yes
2011; N=120
42%
2012; N=105
45%
53%
47%
No
58%
55%
“Is your company seeking to drop out of any current sponsorships (those not up for renewal)?”
23
Considering New Sponsorships in the Coming Year
2009; N=110
60%
2010; N=106
64%
Yes
2011; N=120
78%
2012; N=105
72%
40%
33%
No
22%
28%
“Is your company considering new sponsorships in [2012]?”
24
Leveraging/Spending Ratio
17%
16%
0 to $1
24%
23%
22%
48%
54%
$1 to $1
44%
43%
39%
14%
16%
17%
13%
17%
$2 to $1
$3 to $1
$4 or More to $1
Average Ratio of Activation Spending to
Rights Fees
2008 – 1.5:1
12%
8%
7%
10%
11%
2009 – 1.4:1
9%
7%
9%
2012 – 1.7:1
2010 – 1.4:1
2011 – 1.6:1
12%
12%
2008; N=157*
2009; N=110*
2010; N=105*
2011; N=120*
2012; N=105*
[*Based on those who responded]
“As best as you can estimate, what is your company’s typical promotional spending ratio?”
25
Likely Direction of Leveraging & Activation Spending in
2012
17%
28%
Increase
44%
42%
2009; N=110
43%
2010; N=106
47%
Stay the same
2011; N=120
41%
47%
40%
20%
Decrease
15%
11%
“How will your spending, specifically on sponsorship leveraging and activation in [2012],
compare to [2011]? Will it…?”
26
2012; N=105
Agency Used for Support
44%
36%
Public relations agency
38%
52%
54%
50%
45%
47%
43%
51%
Advertising agency
30%
35%
30%
26%
30%
Property / rights holder
32%
26%
27%
22%
18%
Independent sponsorship specialist
2008; N=165
10%
14%
12%
15%
11%
Sponsorship specialist agency who sold
rights
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
41%
49%
None, manage in-house
43%
33%
34%
2011; N=120
2012; N=105
“What types of agencies, if any, do you use to help leverage/support your sponsorship program?”
27
Marketing Communication Channels Used [Top 5 Results]
80%
76%
77%
77%
Traditional
advertising
72%
77%
72%
Public relations
78%
76%
77%
71%
79%
78%
Internal
communications
72%
77%
62%
65%
Internet tie-ins
74%
66%
2008; N=165
60%
2009; N=110
69%
75%
Hospitality
67%
63%
2010; N=106
2011; N=120
75%
2012; N=105
“During the past 12 months, which of the following marketing communication channels have you used to
leverage your sponsorship programs?”
28
Marketing Communication Channels Used [Results 6-9]
62%
55%
Direct marketing
47%
55%
43%
60%
58%
56%
52%
59%
Sampling on-site
47%
44%
47%
51%
44%
Sales promotion
offers
2008; N=165
50%
46%
47%
Business-to-business
2009; N=110
41%
51%
Social Media
2010; N=106
2011; N=120
NA
2012; N=105
74%
“During the past 12 months, which of the following marketing communication channels have you used to
leverage your sponsorship programs?”
29
More likely to be Involved in Sponsorship Category than
Prior Year
41%
23%
26%
Sports
36%
37%
27%
31%
26%
31%
Causes
36%
27%
Community events / festivals / fairs
12%
23%
30%
28%
23%
Online sponsorship
Arts
9%
19%
23%
27%
12%
13%
12%
2008; N=165
22%
31%
Entertainment
16%
19%
21%
18%
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
31%
Associations and membership
organizations
2011; N=120
12%
19%
17%
15%
24%
2012; N=105
“Compared to [2011], how much do you expect your company to be involved in the following types of
sponsorship in [2012]?”
30
Less likely to be Involved in Sponsorship Category than
Prior Year
20%
Associations and membership
organizations
38%
19%
23%
14%
12%
22%
26%
Sports
17%
10%
26%
33%
Entertainment
22%
16%
19%
20%
44%
Online sponsorship
17%
15%
8%
15%
27%
Community events / festivals / fairs
15%
13%
13%
21%
22%
21%
Arts
13%
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
20%
2011; N=120
10%
Causes
16%
13%
7%
2012; N=105
11%
“Compared to [2011], how much do you expect your company to be involved in the following types
of sponsorship in [2012]?”
31
Sponsorship Objectives
[Top 5 “9” & “10” Ratings]
67%
66%
68%
68%
70%
Create awareness /
visibility
71%
67%
70%
65%
72%
Increase brand loyalty
58%
60%
55%
53%
Change / reinforce
image
66%
2008; N=165
39%
53%
Drive retail / dealer
traffic
43%
53%
39%
32%
39%
38%
43%
42%
Stimulate sales / trial /
usage
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
2011; N=120
2012; N=105
“Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all and 10 is extremely, please rate the following objectives as to their
importance to you or your marketing team's decisions when you evaluate which sports or properties to sponsor.”
32
Sponsorship Objectives
[Other Top “9” & “10” Ratings]
38%
35%
42%
40%
43%
Showcase community
/ social responsibility
32%
Sample / display /
showcase products /
services
44%
41%
34%
36%
29%
27%
29%
33%
29%
Entertain clients /
prospects
Gain on-site sales
rights
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
13%
16%
15%
17%
12%
2011; N=120
2012; N=105
“Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all and 10 is extremely, please rate the following objectives as to their
importance to you or your marketing team's decisions when you evaluate which sports or properties to sponsor.”
33
Sponsorship Objectives – Business To Business [“9” & “10”
Ratings]
39%
Drive retail / dealer
traffic
53%
43%
53%
39%
29%
27%
29%
Entertain clients /
prospects
33%
29%
19%
16%
20%
21%
Sell to sponsee
25%
Excite employees
Incent sales force
Network with
cosponsors
7%
7%
11%
14%
9%
2008; N=165
10%
13%
8%
13%
8%
2009; N=110
10%
11%
2011; N=120
2010; N=106
7%
2012; N=105
13%
11%
“Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is ‘Not at all’ and 10 is ‘Extremely,’ please rate the following objectives as to
their importance to you or your marketing team's decisions when you evaluate which sports or properties to
sponsor.”
34
Sponsorship Objectives – Sales & Promotional [“9” & “10”
Ratings]
39%
Drive retail / dealer
traffic
53%
43%
53%
39%
29%
27%
29%
Entertain clients /
prospects
33%
29%
19%
16%
20%
21%
Sell to sponsee
25%
Excite employees
Incent sales force
Network with
cosponsors
7%
7%
11%
14%
9%
2008; N=165
10%
13%
8%
13%
8%
2009; N=110
10%
11%
2011; N=120
7%
13%
11%
2010; N=106
2012; N=105
“Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is ‘Not at all’ and 10 is ‘Extremely,’ please rate the following objectives as to
their importance to you or your marketing team's decisions when you evaluate which sports or properties to
sponsor.”
35
Sponsorship Objectives – General
[“9” & “10” Ratings]
67%
66%
68%
68%
70%
Create awareness /
visibility
71%
67%
70%
65%
72%
Increase brand loyalty
58%
60%
55%
53%
Change / reinforce
image
66%
38%
35%
Showcase community
/ social responsibility
42%
40%
43%
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
29%
35%
Access platform for
experiential branding
40%
38%
38%
2011; N=120
2012; N=105
“Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is ‘Not at all’ and 10 is ‘Extremely,’ please rate the following objectives as to
their importance to you or your marketing team's decisions when you evaluate which sports or properties to
sponsor.”
36
Value of Benefits
[Top 5 “9” & “10” Ratings]
64%
58%
61%
63%
62%
Category exclusivity
54%
49%
50%
On-site signage
63%
51%
45%
41%
43%
Broadcast ad
opportunity
49%
45%
41%
44%
Title of proprietary
area
37%
44%
39%
Presence on property
website
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
38%
38%
35%
2011; N=120
44%
44%
2012; N=105
“Using the same scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is ‘Not at all’ and 10 is ‘Extremely,’ please rate the following
benefits as to how valuable they are to your organization.”
37
Value of Benefits
[“9” & “10” Ratings 6-10]
36%
46%
Access to property
mailing list / database
37%
43%
33%
31%
38%
39%
Right to property
marks / logos
43%
45%
43%
ID property collateral
materials
32%
33%
42%
39%
39%
36%
38%
41%
ID in property's media
buy
30%
Right to promote cobranded product /
service
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
26%
29%
2011; N=120
40%
39%
39%
2012; N=105
“Using the same scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is ‘Not at all’ and 10 is ‘Extremely,’ please rate the following
benefits as to how valuable they are to your organization.”
38
Value of Benefits
[“9” & “10” Ratings 11-15]
30%
22%
Ad in program book
28%
34%
29%
25%
25%
Opportunity to
participate in turnkey
retailer promos.
30%
33%
27%
23%
30%
Access to property
provided research
34%
31%
31%
30%
2008; N=165
30%
31%
28%
2009; N=110
25%
Tickets / hospitality
2010; N=106
19%
Rights to survey
audience on-site
33%
2011; N=120
26%
31%
25%
2012; N=105
“Using the same scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is ‘Not at all’ and 10 is ‘Extremely,’ please rate the following
benefits as to how valuable they are to your organization.”
39
Value of Benefits
[“9” & “10” Ratings 16-20]
23%
23%
Spokesperson /
access to
personalities
30%
29%
23%
14%
19%
18%
Nonprofit / cause
overlay
28%
20%
18%
17%
17%
21%
24%
Intro to cosponsors /
cross-promotion
opportunities
2008; N=165
7%
Access to property
merchandise
11%
19%
18%
2009; N=110
10%
2010; N=106
11%
Pass through rights
to your own retailers
2011; N=120
16%
18%
15%
16%
2012; N=105
“Using the same scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is ‘Not at all’ and 10 is ‘Extremely,’ please rate the following
benefits as to how valuable they are to your organization.”
40
V. Research Considerations
41
Importance of Various Types of Analysis [“9” & “10” Ratings]
42%
40%
43%
44%
42%
Internal feedback
29%
38%
36%
41%
32%
Sales / Promo bounce-back measures
19%
19%
22%
Primary consumer research
29%
29%
18%
21%
21%
23%
22%
Dealer / Trade response
15%
13%
17%
TV exposure analysis
2008; N=165
23%
13%
15%
16%
14%
21%
Print media analysis / Clipping
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
0%
Syndicated consumer research
2011; N=120
5%
5%
14%
13%
11%
2012; N=105
“Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is ‘not at all’ and 10 is ‘extremely’, please rate the importance of the
following types of analysis in evaluating whether to change or renew a sponsorship?”
42
Information Sought Pre-Sponsorship
[Top 4 Results] [Based on those who responded]
92%
85%
88%
Demographics
95%
88%
82%
81%
Attendance
75%
76%
73%
73%
68%
68%
68%
Fan Passion / Affinity
2008; N=165
76%
49%
46%
43%
46%
47%
Psychographics
“Which of the following do you typically analyze when making your decision?”
43
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
2011; N=120
2012; N=103*
Information Sought Pre-Sponsorship
[Results 5-8] [Based on those who responded]
50%
42%
43%
46%
45%
What your
competition sponsors
49%
46%
Growth trends in
property category
41%
45%
50%
36%
36%
TV ratings
31%
2008; N=165
38%
35%
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
42%
39%
39%
35%
Interest in property
among trade / dealers
2011; N=120
48%
“Which of the following do you typically analyze when making your decision?”
44
2012; N=103*
% of Rights Fee Spent on Pre-Event Research to Evaluate
Fit
47%
41%
43%
40%
45%
None
33%
43%
39%
40%
36%
1% or Less
19%
14%
16%
19%
19%
1% to 5%
More than 5%
2008; N=162*
2009; N=104*
2010; N=106
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
2011; N=120
2012; N=105
[*Based on those who responded]
“Approximately what % of a sponsorship’s total budget is typically spent on pre-selection research to
evaluate fit?”
45
% of Rights Fee Spent on Concurrent / Post-Event
Research
33%
29%
36%
28%
32%
None
44%
38%
40%
44%
44%
1% or Less
18%
23%
23%
1% to 5%
2008; N=165
28%
2009; N=110
23%
More than 5%
2010; N=106
5%
3%
0%
0%
1%
2011; N=120
2012; N=105
“Approximately what % of a sponsorship’s total budget is typically spent on concurrent / post-event
research to measure success?”
46
Change in Need for Validated Results in Past 1-2 Years
83%
86%
INCREASED [NET]
61%
Increased a lot
53%
23%
Increased a little
2011; N=120
32%
13%
13%
Remained the same
2012; N=105
3%
Decreased a little
0%
Decreased a lot
DECREASED [NET]
1%
1%
3%
1%
“How has the need for validated results from sponsorships changed in the past one to two years?”
47
Company Actively Measures Sponsorship Returns
67%
Yes
66%
2011; N=120
2012; N=105
33%
No
34%
“Does your company actively measure return from its sponsorships?”
48
Company Has a Standardized Measurement Process
42%
Yes
45%
2011; N=101*
2012; N=105
58%
No
55%
[*Based on those who responded]
“Does your company have a standardized process for measuring return from its sponsorships?”
49
Information Sought Pre-Sponsorship
[Top 6 “4” & “5” Ratings]
Lead generation
Entertainment of key
customers or prospects
Response of employees
or internal constituents
TV logo exposure
Response of trade or
channel partners
Lower customer
acquisition cost
[Based on those who responded]
50%
N = 87
56%
48%
N = 93
61%
2011; N=120
41%
N = 100
60%
39%
N = 93
46%
2012;
N=Varies*
36%
N = 93
47%
26%
N = 81
41%
“How does your company measure sponsorship’s return on investment and/or return on objectives?”
50
Information Sought Pre-Sponsorship
[“4” & “5” Ratings 7-12]
Awareness of company
or brand's sponsorship
Awareness of products,
services or brand
Attitudes toward brand
Response to
sponsorship, eventrelated promotions or ads
Product or service sales
Amount of media
exposure generated
[Based on those who responded]
78%
N = 97
83%
74%
N = 95
82%
2011; N=120
69%
N = 95
86%
66%
N = 99
2012;
N=Varies*
74%
64%
N = 94
81%
58%
N = 100
77%
“How does your company measure sponsorship’s return on investment and/or return on objectives?”
51
VI. Property Perceptions
52
Value Placed on Property Provided Services [“9” & “10”
Ratings]
46%
50%
Post event report / fulfillment audit
Audience research on attitudes toward / image of
sponsors
42%
NA
48%
50%
37%
40%
36%
44%
45%
Audience research on sponsor recognition/recall [Prior
to 2011: Research on sponsor recall]
Audience research on propensity to purchase / loyalty /
behavior toward sponsors
55%
50%
NA
43%
49%
32%
38%
36%
39%
37%
Leveraging ideas
Audience contact information
NA
33%
Coupon / promotional offer redemption results
38%
2008; N=165
NA
21%
32%
26%
31%
29%
25%
28%
Research on audience buying habits
16%
Third-party evaluation statement
23%
23%
23%
28%
12%
15%
17%
16%
18%
Sponsor workshop
“Please rate the following ‘property-provided services’ as to how valuable they are to
your organization.”
53
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
2011; N=120
2012; N=105
Extent to Which You Depend on
Properties to Measure ROI
Lowest ratings - 1 & 2
[NET]
3
4
8%
4%
6%
8%
7%
4%
15%
11%
11%
20%
11%
7%
7%
6%
4%
15%
5
9%
17%
23%
13%
11%
16%
11%
12%
6
15%
7
16%
13%
16%
2008; N=165
2007 Mean=5.4
2008 Mean=5.9
23%
2009 Mean=6.0
13%
15%
8
Highest ratings - 9 &
10 [NET]
Average Ratio of Activation Spending to
Rights Fees
23%
9%
11%
6%
11%
2010 Mean=5.8
18%
18%
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
2011; N=120
2011 Mean= 5.7
18%
2012 Mean= 5.1
16%
2012; N=105
“To what degree do you depend on properties to help you measure your ROI during / after your
sponsorship involvement?”
54
Properties Meeting Expectations
2007; N=132
30%
2008; N=165
27%
Yes
2009; N=110
34%
2010; N=106
32%
2011; N=120
33%
2012; N=105
33%
71%
73%
66%
No
63%
67%
67%
“Are properties meeting your expectations in delivering ROI measurement or research information?”
55
Perceived ROI from Sponsorship Over Last Few Years
56%
52%
49%
50%
58%
Increased
15%
12%
Stayed the same
23%
27%
17%
Decreased
6%
6%
3%
6%
5%
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
24%
31%
Don't know
2011; N=120
23%
18%
20%
2012; N=105
“In general, over the past few years has your ROI from sponsorship…?”
56
Company Profile
Performance Research (Newport, Rhode Island) was organized in 1985 to provide quantitative and qualitative
evaluation of event marketing programs to corporate sponsors, properties and their agencies.
Over the past 27 years, the company has conducted over 1 million on-site, on-line, and telephone interviews and more
than 500 focus groups regarding corporate sponsorships of sports, leisure activities and special events. As a leader in
custom sponsorship evaluation, Performance Research has in-depth experience with varied events worldwide, and is
a primary research partner with many of the world’s top corporate sponsors, including: Anheuser-Busch, Coca-Cola,
Citi-Financial, R.J. Reynolds, Sony-Ericsson and UBS.
57
Performance Research
25 Mill Street
Newport, RI USA
02840
401-848-0111
www.performanceresearch.com
contact: Bill Doyle, Vice President
[email protected]
58
Download
Related flashcards

Finance

14 cards

Credit

13 cards

Banking

30 cards

Finance

16 cards

Create Flashcards