Table of Contents
I.
METHODOLOGY
p. 3
II.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
p. 5
III.
RESPONDENT PROFILE
p. 8
IV.
SPONSORSHIP SPENDING AND INVOLVEMENT
p. 12
V.
RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS
p. 36
VI.
PROPERTY PERCEPTIONS
p. 46
I. Methodology
3
Methodology
A total of 106 participants were contacted, via email, by Performance Research and asked to
complete an online questionnaire about the 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 February and March 2010.
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, 2010
www.iegsr.com
Sponsors Send Clear Signal: We’re Coming Back
If the ’09 edition of the IEG/Performance Research Sponsorship Decision-makers
Survey provided proof that the industry would face its toughest year ever, this year’s
study offers evidence that the worst is behind us.
The tenth annual survey also sets a new benchmark in terms of the level of
commitment companies have to the sponsorship medium compared to other forms
of marketing and advertising. Specifically, corporate marketers reported that
sponsorship now accounts for, on average, 25.4 percent of their overall marketing,
advertising and promotion spending.
That is far higher that the survey’s previous high of 19.5 percent recorded two years
ago and comes after the average portion of marketing budgets devoted to
sponsorship had dipped to 17.6 percent last year.
6
Source: IEG Sponsorship Report
March 19, 2010
www.iegsr.com
Sponsors Send Clear Signal: We’re Coming Back (continued…)
Apart from signifying corporate interest and belief in sponsorship’s ability to meet
business objectives, the sharp rebound also most likely is attributable to the large hit
suffered by traditional media advertising budgets during the economic downturn. If
ad spending recovers along with the economy, such an unprecedented market share
gain for sponsorship may be a temporary phenomenon.
7
Decision Making Responsibilities
82%
77%
78%
Evaluate existing
properties
87%
76%
81%
Selecting new
properties / events
to sponsor
86%
83%
86%
77%
77%
78%
82%
80%
75%
Selecting marketing
plans / activation
supp. sponsorships
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
79%
78%
79%
80%
79%
Implementing
marketing plans /
activation supp.
sponsorships
"Within your organization, which of the following describes your responsibilities regarding sponsorship?
9
Sponsorship Programs
By Region
88%
64%
North America
92%
85%
83%
21%
18%
20%
17%
Europe
27%
10%
2%
Asia / Pacific Rim
16%
13%
17%
16%
Australia / New
Zealand
2006; N=150
5%
10%
11%
2007; N=132
14%
8%
2008; N=165
2%
South America
12%
10%
2009; N=110
11%
2010; N=106
5%
Africa
2%
5%
5%
7%
“In what regions do your sponsorship programs operate?”
10
Personal Location
By Region
87%
76%
North America
90%
82%
82%
Europe
6%
6%
3%
5%
9%
Australia / New
Zealand
Asia / Pacific Rim
5%
5%
2%
4%
3%
1%
0%
2%
2%
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2%
Africa
1%
2%
2%
1%
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
1%
South America
2010; N=106
0%
2%
1%
0%
1%
“In which region are you personally based?”
11
IV. Sponsorship Spending & Involvement
12
Choosing Property to Sponsor
73%
73%
75%
78%
76%
Set strategy and
seek the right
property
71%
61%
Approached directly
by property owners
73%
12%
62%
25%
26%
28%
Receive details
about property from
a sales agency
Consult sponsorship
specialist to
determine strategy
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
6%
23%
8%
17%
13%
2%
14%
“How do you typically go about choosing a property to sponsor?”
13
When Sponsorship Budget is
Decided
20%
First Quarter
(January - March)
23%
19%
9%
Second Quarter
(April - June)
2008; N=165
9%
9%
2009; N=110
26%
Third Quarter (July September)
2010; N=106
21%
19%
46%
Fourth Quarter
(October December)
47%
48%
“During which time period does your company determine its sponsorship budget?”
14
Likely Sponsorship Spending Compared to Prior
Year
38%
38%
Increase
40%
14%
19%
2006; N=150
44%
2007; N=132
43%
Stay the same
2008; N=165
41%
36%
2009; N=110
47%
18%
19%
Decrease
19%
51%
30%
“How will your overall sponsorship spending in [2010] compare to [2009]?”
15
2010; N=106
Sponsorship Spending in Prior Year
26%
Up to $500,000
$500,000 - $1 million
32%
7%
9%
$5 million - $15
million
$15 million - $30
million
$30 million and
above
2009; N=110
17%
$1 million - $5 million
18%
15%
2010; N=106
8%
9%
9%
6%
9%
“About how much did your company spend on sponsorship in [2009]?”
16
Percentage of Marketing
Budget Spent On Sponsorship
17 %
0%
2%
0%
2%
0%
47%
56%
1%-10%
43%
42%
42%
17 %
13 %
11%-20%
26%
37%
38%
7%
13 %
15 %
21%-30%
4%
25%
2006; N=149*
3%
7%
7%
8%
31%-40%
2007; N=84*
4%
5%
5%
41%-50%
2008; N=61*
7%
4%
17 %
51%-75%
75%-100%
2009; N=52*
1%
1%
3%
2%
4%
2010; N=24*
1%
2%
0%
2%
[*Based on those who responded]
4%
“Approximately what % of your organization’s overall marketing budget do sponsorship rights fees
represent?”
17
Considering Dropping Any Current Sponsorships
Not Up for Renewal
2009; N=110
47%
Yes
2010; N=106
48%
53%
No
47%
“Is your company seeking to drop out of any current sponsorships (those not up for renewal)?"
18
Considering New Sponsorships in the coming
year
2009; N=110
60%
Yes
64%
40%
No
33%
“Is your company considering new sponsorships in [2010]?"
19
2010; N=106
Leveraging/Spending Ratio
14%
16%
17%
16%
0 to $1
24%
43%
38%
$1 to $1
48%
54%
44%
21%
Average Ratio of Activation Spending
to Rights Fees
26%
$2 to $1
14%
16%
17%
2003 – 1.7:1
15%
2004 – 1.3:1
9%
$3 to $1
2005 – 1.5:1
12%
8%
7%
2006 – 1.7:1
2007 – 1.9:1
8%
$4 or More to $1
11%
9%
7%
9%
2008 – 1.5:1
2009 – 1.4:1
2006; N=146*
2007; N=117*
2008; N=157*
2009; N=110*
2010; N=105*
2010 – 1.4:1
[*Based on those who responded]
“As best as you can estimate, what is your company’s typical promotional spending ratio?”
20
Likely Direction of Leveraging & Activation
Spending in 2010
17%
Increase
28%
2009; N=110
43%
Stay the same
47%
40%
Decrease
20%
“How will your spending, specifically on sponsorship leveraging and activation in [2010],
compare to [2009]? Will it…?"
21
2010; N=106
Agency Used for Support
51%
50%
50%
Advertising agency
45%
47%
43%
40%
44%
36%
38%
Public relations agency
25%
33%
30%
35%
30%
Property / rights holder
17%
27%
32%
Independent sponsorship specialist
26%
27%
Sponsorship specialist agency who sold
rights
2006; N=150
9%
8%
10%
14%
12%
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
42%
38%
41%
None, manage in-house
2009; N=110
49%
43%
2010; N=106
“What types of agencies, if any, do you use to help leverage/support your sponsorship program?"
22
Marketing Communication
Channels Used [Top 5 Results]
76%
71%
71%
Internal
communications
79%
78%
73%
79%
80%
76%
77%
Traditional
advertising
65%
67%
69%
Hospitality
75%
67%
77%
77%
77%
Public relations
72%
78%
2007; N=132
59%
51%
Internet tie-ins
2006; N=150
2008; N=165
62%
65%
2009; N=110
74%
2010; N=106
“During the past 12 months, which of the following marketing communication channels have you used to
leverage your sponsorship programs?"
23
More Likely to be Involved in Sponsorship Category
than Prior Yr.
Associations and membership
organizations
NA
17%
25%
22%
27%
31%
26%
Causes
31%
36%
Sports
41%
23%
26%
21%
20%
16%
19%
21%
Entertainment
Arts
14%
11%
12%
13%
12%
2006; N=150
36%
Community events / festivals / fairs
28%
27%
12%
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
23%
20%
Online sponsorship
2009; N=110
15%
23%
9%
2010; N=106
19%
“Compared to [2009], how much do you expect your company to be involved in the following types of
sponsorship in [2010]?"
24
Marketing Communication
Channels Used [Results 6-9]
57%
49%
Sampling on-site
60%
58%
56%
57%
61%
62%
55%
Direct marketing
47%
50%
56%
Business-to-business
2006; N=150
50%
46%
47%
2007; N=132
55%
41%
Sales promotion
offers
47%
44%
47%
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
“During the past 12 months, which of the following marketing communication channels have you used to
leverage your sponsorship programs?"
25
Less Likely to be Involved in Sponsorship Category than
Prior Yr.
Associations and membership
organizations
NA
19%
31%
26%
Online sponsorship
20%
44%
17%
25%
Entertainment
18%
26%
33%
22%
Community events / festivals / fairs
13%
10%
15%
27%
15%
27%
Arts
Sports
Causes
17%
21%
22%
21%
13%
14%
12%
22%
26%
15%
12%
10%
16%
13%
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
“Compared to [2009], how much do you expect your company to be involved in the following types
of sponsorship in [2010]?"
26
Sponsorship Objectives
[Top 5 “9” & “10” Ratings]
68%
64%
Increase brand loyalty
71%
67%
70%
63%
64%
67%
66%
68%
Create awareness /
visibility
51%
58%
58%
60%
55%
Change / reinforce
image
51%
42%
39%
Drive retail / dealer
traffic
2007; N=132
53%
43%
43%
Stimulate sales / trial /
usage
2006; N=150
2008; N=165
39%
2009; N=110
39%
38%
2010; N=106
32%
"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."
27
Sponsorship Objectives
[Other top “9” & “10” Ratings]
35%
33%
32%
Sample / displays /
showcase products /
services
44%
41%
35%
38%
38%
35%
42%
Showcase community
/ social responsibility
21%
23%
Entertain clients /
prospects
29%
27%
29%
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
21%
Gain on-site sales
rights
2006; N=150
16%
13%
16%
15%
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
"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."
28
Sponsorship Objectives Business To Business [“9” & “10” Ratings]
51%
Drive retail / dealer
traffic
42%
39%
53%
43%
21%
23%
Entertain clients /
prospects
29%
27%
29%
13%
14%
Sell to sponsee
19%
16%
20%
9%
Network with
cosponsors
Incent sales force
6%
10%
11%
7%
2006; N=150
6%
7%
2007; N=132
10%
13%
8%
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
7%
Excite employees
11%
7%
7%
2010; N=106
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."
29
Sponsorship Objectives Sales & Promotional [“9” & “10” Ratings]
31%
30%
Capture database /
lead generation
36%
46%
39%
35%
33%
32%
Sample / display /
showcase products
services
44%
41%
43%
39%
Stimulate sales / trial /
usage
39%
38%
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
21%
Gain on-site sales
rights
2006; N=150
32%
16%
13%
16%
15%
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
"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."
30
Sponsorship Objectives General [“9” & “10” Ratings]
68%
64%
Increase brand loyalty
71%
67%
70%
63%
64%
67%
66%
68%
Create awareness /
visibility
51%
58%
58%
60%
55%
Change / reinforce
image
2006; N=150
35%
38%
38%
35%
Showcase community
/ social responsibility
2007; N=132
42%
2008; N=165
29%
Access platform for
experiential branding
2009; N=110
33%
29%
35%
40%
2010; N=106
"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."
31
Value of Benefits
[Top 5 “9” & “10” Ratings]
67%
55%
Category exclusivity
64%
58%
61%
53%
54%
54%
On-site signage
49%
50%
39%
42%
41%
44%
37%
Title of proprietary
area
2006; N=150
42%
Access to property
mailing list / database
33%
36%
46%
37%
2008; N=165
39%
39%
Broadcast ad
opportunity
2007; N=132
2009; N=110
45%
41%
43%
2010; N=106
"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."
32
Value of Benefits
[“9” & “10” Ratings 6-10]
35%
32%
38%
38%
35%
Presence on property
website
28%
32%
31%
Right to property
marks / logos
38%
39%
45%
40%
39%
36%
38%
ID in property's media
buy
Access to property
content for digital &
other uses
2006; N=150
NA
19%
35%
30%
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
25%
Rights to survey
audience onsite
2009; N=110
21%
19%
33%
26%
2010; N=106
"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."
33
Value of Benefits
[“9” & “10” Ratings 11-15]
37%
35%
ID property collateral
materials
43%
32%
33%
24%
Access to property
provided research
29%
23%
30%
34%
Right to promote cobranded product /
service
27%
23%
26%
29%
40%
27%
25%
30%
25%
30%
Tickets / hospitality
Opportunity to
participate in turnkey
retailer promos.
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
29%
2009; N=110
21%
25%
25%
30%
2010; N=106
"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."
34
Value of Benefits
[“9” & “10” Ratings 16-21]
19%
23%
23%
23%
Spokesperson / access to personalities
30%
29%
28%
30%
Ad in program book
22%
28%
15%
16%
14%
19%
18%
Nonprofit / cause overlay
21%
14%
18%
17%
17%
Intro to cosponsors / cross-promotion
opportunities
15%
14%
11%
16%
18%
Pass through rights to your own retailers
Access to property merchandise
5%
6%
7%
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
11%
19%
"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."
35
V. Research Considerations
36
Importance of Various Types of Analysis [“9” & “10”
Ratings]
42%
40%
43%
Internal Feedback
29%
Sales / Promo bounce-back measures
38%
36%
18%
21%
21%
Dealer / Trade response
19%
19%
22%
Primary Consumer Research
15%
16%
14%
Print media analysis / Clipping
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
15%
13%
17%
TV exposure analysis
Syndicated consumer research
2010; N=106
5%
5%
14%
“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?"
37
Primary Source of
Sponsorship Industry News
27%
IEG
35%
35%
34%
36%
20%
18%
20%
20%
16%
Internet
9%
11%
14%
Sports Business Journal
20%
26%
17%
11%
10%
14%
16%
Industry press / journals
5%
Colleagues
0%
13%
8%
6%
2006; N=150
2%
Conferences
1%
Independent agencies
Newspapers
2007; N=88*
5%
3%
3%
2%
2%
0%
2%
2008; N=95*
6%
2009; N=110
1%
1%
1%
0%
0%
2010; N=50*
[*Based on those who responded]
“What is your primary source of sponsorship industry news?"
38
Sources of Sponsorship
Industry News [Top 5 Sources]
81%
Advertising /
marketing magazines
and journals
74%
76%
77%
74%
68%
64%
68%
Sponsorship industry
newsletters
75%
72%
65%
71%
70%
Sponsorship Web
sites
75%
74%
2006; N=150
65%
55%
Colleagues and
contacts
71%
72%
72%
60%
56%
Internet
2007; N=132
2008; N=164*
2009; N=110
68%
66%
60%
2010; N=102*
[*Based on those who responded]
“From the following list, which sources would you say you rely on to provide you with sponsorship
industry news?"
39
Sources of Sponsorship
Industry News [Sources 6-9]
44%
53%
52%
54%
Industry conferences
43%
40%
37%
42%
Newspapers
32%
37%
27%
27%
31%
E-mail circulars
2006; N=150
36%
2007; N=132
27%
2008; N=164*
15%
14%
15%
Radio / TV
2009; N=110
20%
2010; N=102*
8%
[*Based on those who responded]
“From the following list, which sources would you say you rely on to provide you with sponsorship
industry news?"
40
Information Sought Pre-Sponsorship [Top 4 Results]
87%
91%
92%
85%
88%
Demographics
77%
77%
Attendance
82%
81%
75%
65%
64%
Fan Passion / Affinity
73%
68%
68%
54%
49%
46%
43%
"Which of the following do you typically analyze when making your decision?"
41
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
47%
Psychographics
2006; N=150
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
Information Sought Pre-Sponsorship [Results 5-8]
45%
47%
49%
46%
41%
Growth trends in
property category
40%
43%
What your
competition sponsors
50%
42%
43%
35%
36%
Interest in property
among trade / dealers
TV ratings
42%
39%
39%
33%
36%
36%
36%
31%
"Which of the following do you typically analyze when making your decision?"
42
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
Have A Budget for
Sponsorship Research
2006; N=150
19%
2007; N=132
25%
Yes
2008; N=165
19%
2009; N=110
27%
2010; N=106
20%
81%
75%
81%
No
73%
79%
“Do you have an on-going budget for sponsorship research?"
43
% of Rights Fee Spent on PreEvent Research to Evaluate Fit
47%
41%
43%
None
33%
1% or Less
43%
39%
19%
14%
16%
1% to 5%
More than 5%
2008; N=162*
2009; N=104*
2010; N=106
1%
1%
1%
[*Based on those who responded]
“Approximately what % of a sponsorship’s total budget is typically spent on pre-selection research to
evaluate fit?”
44
% of Rights Fee Spent on Concurrent / Post-event
Research
42%
27%
None
33%
29%
36%
33%
42%
44%
38%
40%
1% or Less
24%
18%
18%
1% to 5%
2006; N=150
23%
23%
More than 5%
2007; N=132
1%
0%
2008; N=165
5%
3%
0%
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
“Approximately what % of a sponsorship’s total budget is typically spent on concurrent / post-event
research to measure success?”
45
VI. Property Perceptions
46
Value Placed On Property
Provided Services [“9” & “10” Ratings]
Assist. w/measuring ROI
NA
48%
49%
42%
46%
50%
42%
Post event report / fulfillment audit
27%
Research on sponsor recall
35%
37%
40%
36%
31%
27%
35%
38%
34%
Research on sponsor loyalty
29%
27%
32%
Leveraging ideas
38%
36%
25%
21%
26%
Research on audience buying habits
31%
29%
18%
16%
Third-party evaluation statement
23%
23%
23%
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
15%
Sponsor workshop
10%
12%
15%
17%
“Please rate the following ‘property-provided services’ as to how valuable they are to
your organization."
47
2010; N=106
Extent To Which You Depend On
Properties To Measure ROI
Lowest ratings - 1 & 2
[NET]
3
4
8%
19%
17%
15%
11%
16%
2%
4%
6%
11%
6%
5%
7%
4%
7%
12%
5
15%
9%
Average Ratio of Activation Spending to
Rights Fees
26%
23%
2006 Mean=5.2
11%
6
18%
13%
11%
16%
12%
13%
15%
7
16%
8
Highest ratings - 9 &
10 [NET]
2007 Mean=5.4
2008 Mean=5.9
23%
2009 Mean=6.0
11%
9%
13%
15%
9%
9%
2006; N=150
2010 Mean=5.8
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
13%
11%
2010; N=106
18%
16%
“To what degree do you depend on properties to help you measure your ROI during / after your
sponsorship involvement?”
48
Properties Meeting Expectations
2006; N=150
27%
2007; N=132
30%
Yes
2008; N=165
27%
2009; N=110
34%
2010; N=106
32%
73%
71%
No
73%
66%
63%
“Are properties meeting your expectations in delivering ROI measurement or research information?"
49
Perceived ROI From Sponsorship Over Past Few
Years
54%
52%
56%
52%
49%
Increased
22%
21%
Stayed the same
15%
12%
23%
Decreased
6%
4%
6%
6%
3%
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
18%
Don't know
24%
24%
2009; N=110
31%
2010; N=106
23%
“In general, over the past few years has your ROI from sponsorship…?"
50
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 twenty 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: AnheuserBusch, Coca-Cola, Citi-Financial, R.J. Reynolds, Sony-Ericsson and UBS.
51
Performance Research
25 Mill Street
Newport, RI USA
02840
401-848-0111
www.performanceresearch.com
contact: Bill Doyle, Vice President
Bill@performanceresearch.com
52