Table of Contents 3 I. Methodology Methodology A total of 165 participants were contacted, via...

Table of Contents

3

I. Methodology

Methodology

A total of 165 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 January and February 2008.

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 + 4%.

This study was conducted in conjunction with IEG, LLC. www.sponsorship.com

4

http://www.sponsorship.com/

II. Executive Summary

5

• Decision-maker Survey Shows Confidence In Sponsorship Remains High

Despite unstable economic conditions roiling around them, corporate marketers remain committed to sponsorship, according to the eighth annual IEG/Performance Research Sponsorship Decision-makers Survey.

In fact, the average share of overall marketing budgets captured by sponsorship has hit a record high of 19.5 percent. Just six years ago, the average company devoted only 12 percent of its marketing dollars to sponsorship. In addition, for the first time ever, the majority of survey respondents-57 percent-allocated 11 percent or more of their overall budgets to the medium (see chart on pg. 20).

The reason for that sponsorship bullishness may be seen in another high water mark from the survey: Fifty-six percent of sponsors reported that their return on sponsorship is increasing, versus 15 percent who said it was unchanged and six percent who said returns were diminishing. Another 24 percent said they did not know how their ROI was trending (see chart on pg. 49).

Source: IEG Sponsorship ReportMarch 17, 2008 Volume 27: Number 5www.iegsr.com

6

• Decision-maker Survey Shows Confidence In Sponsorship Remains High (Continued…)

With a recession looming over their heads, expectations might be that a greater number of sponsors would be belt tightening, but their self-reporting on spending actually shows a slight increase in the number of sponsors who said their companies’ spending would rise this year (40 percent as opposed to 38 percent in the ’07 survey). Forty-one percent of sponsors were keeping budgets steady and 19 percent said they would spend less in ’08 (see chart on pg. 18).

• Gut Still Rules, As Little Is Spent On Research

Nearly half of survey respondents said their companies spend nothing on evaluating the appropriateness of potential sponsorships (see chart on pg. 45), and one-third said nothing was spent to measure the success of existing partnerships (see chart on pg. 43).

Only 20 percent spent more than one percent of a sponsorship’s total budget on pre-deal evaluation, while only 23 percent spent that amount on measuring return.


7

• Gut Still Rules, As Little Is Spent On Research (continued)

On a similar note, only 19 percent of sponsors said they had a dedicated budget for sponsorship research.

The average amount spent on activation relevant to rights fees (see chart on pg. 19) declined this year after increasing for the past three years. Activation spending slipped to $1.50 for every $1 spent on rights fees after reaching a record high 1.9-to-1 ratio in the ’07 survey.

In terms of what sponsors hope to achieve through their partnerships, increasing brand loyalty distanced itself as the most important objective, as 71 percent of sponsors rated it a 9 or a 10 on a 10-point scale (see chart on pg. 26).The ability to capture contact information for lead generation and database marketing grew in importance this year, now ranking as the sixth most important objective.


8

III. Assertions

9

• Assertions Some might be disappointed that the latest IEG/Performance Research Sponsorship Decision-makers Survey shows a decline in the activation-spending-to-rights-fee ratio from 1.9-to-1 last year to 1.5-to-1 this year (see Executive Summary). However, we don’t believe this result indicates that sponsors are less inclined to activate their deals. More likely, the drop reflects that leveraging activities are moving toward lower-cost media and communication tools, especially online, and away from costly traditional advertising. As evidence, note the survey’s finding that while advertising remained the top activation method, online promotions rose to the fifth most popular leveraging tool, with 62 percent employing Internet tie-ins versus 51 percent who said in last year’s survey that they activated online. Another reason for the lower activation ratio is that targeted sponsorship opportunities such as associations, B2B partnerships and local properties require lower levels of activation spending than do mass-market deals.

Source: IEG Sponsorship ReportAssertions: Jim AndrewsMarch 17, 2008 Volume 27: Number 5www.iegsr.com

10

• Assertions (continued) In a couple of additional survey findings, sponsors noted a slight decline in their reliance on agencies. Fifty-nine percent of sponsors reported that they used an agency to help support their sponsorship programs, reversing a three-year trend in which a growing number of sponsors (52 percent in ’05 to 62 percent in ’07) reported that they used agencies. Also, the percentage of sponsors who said they consulted with a sponsorship specialist to help determine their strategy and select opportunities declined from 17 percent last year to 13 percent this year.

11

Source: IEG Sponsorship ReportAssertions: Jim AndrewsMarch 17, 2008 Volume 27: Number 5www.iegsr.com

79%

82%

78%

83%

78%

78%

77%

86%

79%

77%

82%

81%

83%

87%

87%

88%

78%

82%

86%

89%

75%

77%

79%

83%

Implementingmarketing plans /activation supp.sponsorships

Selecting marketingplans / activation

supp. sponsorships

Evaluate existingproperties

Selecting newproperties / events

to sponsor

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

Decision Making Responsibilities

"Within your organization, which of the following describes your

responsibilities regarding sponsorship?13

5%

12%

16%

10%

20%

92%

2%

2%

2%

5%

18%

64%

5%

8%

10%

16%

21%

88%

4%

9%

12%

12%

18%

94%

8%

5%

7%

17%

16%

72%

5%

9%

12%

12%

24%

78%

Africa

South America

Asia / Pacific Rim

Australia / NewZealand

Europe

North America

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

Sponsorship ProgramsBy Region

“In what regions do your sponsorship programs operate?”14

1%

2%

2%

2%

3%

90%

2%

0%

2%

5%

6%

76%

0%

1%

1%

5%

6%

87%

0%

1%

0%

4%

4%

92%

0%

0%

6%

12%

13%

68%

1%

2%

1%

5%

12%

76%

South America

Asia / Pacific Rim

Africa

Australia / NewZealand

Europe

North America

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

Personal LocationBy Region

“In which region are you personally based?”15

13%

28%

73%

75%

17%

26%

61%

73%

8%

25%

71%

73%

9%

28%

72%

77%

13%

19%

72%

74%

16%

28%

71%

77%

Consult sponsorshipspecialist to

determine strategy

Receive detailsabout property from

a sales agency

Approached directlyby property owners

Set strategy andseek the right

property

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

Choosing Property to Sponsor

“How do you typically go about choosing a property to sponsor?”

16

IV. Sponsorship Spending And Involvement

17

19%

41%

40%

19%

43%

38%

18%

44%

38%

17%

47%

36%

20%

47%

33%

18%

42%

40%

Decrease

Stay the same

Increase

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

Likely Sponsorship Spending Compared to Prior Year

“How will your overall sponsorship spending in [current year] compare to

[prior year]?”18

0%

3%

7%

7%

15%

26%

0%

2%

1%

5%

7%

13%

13%

56%

2%

1%

1%

5%

3%

7%

17%

47%

17%

1%

0%

10%

6%

12%

19%

49%

3%

0%

7%

4%

1%

10%

21%

54%

3%

0%

2%

3%

5%

12%

29%

43%

3%

43%

75%-100%

51%-75%

41%-50%

31%-40%

21%-30%

11%-20%

1%-10%

0%

2003; N=102

2004; N=72*

2005; N=73*

2006; N=149*

2007; N=84*

2008; N=61*

[*Based on those who responded]

“Approximately what % of your org’s overall marketing budget do sponsorship

rights fees represent?”

Percentage of MarketingBudget Spent On Sponsorship

19

9%

12%

14%

48%

17%

11%

9%

26%

38%

16%

8%

15%

21%

43%

14%

7%

8%

21%

45%

19%

7%

9%

16%

46%

23%

12%

7%

20%

47%

13%

$4 to $1 or More

$3 to $1

$2 to $1

$1 to $1

0 to $1

2003; N=138*

2004; N=103*

2005; N=111*

2006; N=146*

2007; N=117*

2008; N=157*

Leveraging/Spending Ratio

“As best as you can estimate, what is your company’s typical promotional

spending ratio?”

Average Ratio of Activation Spending to Rights Fees

2003 – 1.7:1

2004 – 1.3:1

2005 – 1.5:1

2006 – 1.7:1

2007 – 1.9:1

2008 – 1.5:1


20

41%

10%

32%

30%

44%

50%

38%

8%

27%

33%

40%

50%

42%

9%

17%

25%

43%

51%

48%

10%

13%

37%

50%

53%

43%

7%

23%

34%

43%

51%

46%

18%

24%

31%

39%

52%

None, manage in-house

Sponsorship specialist agency who soldrights

Independent sponsorship specialist

Property / rights holder

Public relations agency

Advertising agency

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

Agency Used for Support

“What types of agencies, if any, do you use to help leverage/support your sponsorship program?"

21

62%

69%

71%

80%

77%

51%

67%

71%

79%

77%

59%

65%

76%

73%

77%

63%

74%

82%

86%

87%

58%

77%

76%

73%

71%

62%

65%

73%

72%

75%

Internet tie-ins

Hospitality

Internalcommunications

Traditionaladvertising

Public relations

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

“During the past 12 months, which of the following marketing communication channels have you used to leverage your sponsorship programs?"

Marketing CommunicationChannels Used [Top 5]

22

47%

50%

60%

62%

41%

56%

49%

61%

55%

50%

57%

57%

45%

51%

47%

64%

52%

45%

37%

46%

53%

46%

44%

54%

Sales promotionoffers

Business-to-business

Sampling on-site

Direct marketing

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

“During the past 12 months, which of the following marketing communication channels have you used to leverage your sponsorship programs?"

Marketing CommunicationChannels Used [6-9]

23

12%

23%

16%

27%

27%

41%

11%

15%

20%

22%

28%

36%

14%

20%

21%

25%

36%

31%

9%

12%

26%

27%

23%

36%

17%

8%

21%

24%

28%

29%

16%

15%

23%

27%

24%

31%

Arts

Online sponsorship

Entertainment

Causes

Community events /festivals / fairs

Sports

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

“Compared to 2007, how much do you expect your company to be involved in the following types of sponsorship in 2008?"

More Likely to be Involved in Sponsorship Category than Prior Yr.

24

10%

15%

12%

26%

21%

20%

12%

10%

14%

18%

17%

26%

15%

13%

13%

25%

27%

31%

9%

8%

12%

15%

21%

23%

11%

12%

13%

14%

15%

22%

11%

11%

12%

18%

18%

26%

Causes

Community events /festivals / fairs

Sports

Entertainment

Arts

Online sponsorship

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

“Compared to 2007, how much do you expect your company to be involved in the following types of sponsorship in 2008?"

Less Likely to be Involved in Sponsorship Category than Prior Yr.

25

32%

39%

58%

67%

71%

39%

42%

58%

64%

64%

43%

51%

51%

63%

68%

39%

51%

60%

70%

73%

51%

52%

71%

79%

71%

40%

43%

66%

75%

75%

Stimulate Sales / Trial/ Usage

Drive Retail / DealerTraffic

Change / ReinforceImage

Create Awareness /Visibility

Increase BrandLoyalty

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

Sponsorship Objectives[Top 5 “9&10” Ratings]

"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?" 26

13%

29%

32%

38%

16%

23%

33%

38%

21%

21%

35%

35%

20%

25%

32%

37%

14%

25%

43%

46%

19%

29%

38%

44%

Gain On-Site SalesRights

Entertain Clients /Prospects

Sample / Displays /Showcase Products /

Services

ShowcaseCommunity / Social

Responsibility

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

Sponsorship Objectives[Other top “9&10” Ratings]

"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

10%

7%

10%

19%

29%

39%

7%

11%

6%

14%

23%

42%

6%

7%

9%

13%

21%

51%

14%

12%

8%

13%

25%

51%

10%

12%

10%

9%

25%

52%

9%

11%

14%

15%

29%

43%

Incent sales force

Excite employees

Network withcosponsors

Sell to sponsee

Entertain clients /prospects

Drive retail / dealertraffic

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

"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?"

Sponsorship Objectives -Business To Business [“9&10” Ratings]

28

13%

36%

32%

32%

16%

30%

33%

39%

21%

31%

35%

43%

20%

30%

32%

39%

14%

34%

43%

51%

19%

36%

38%

40%

Gain on-site salesrights

Capture database /lead generation

Sample / display /showcase products

Stimulate sales / trial /usage

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165


Sponsorship Objectives -Sales & Promotional [“9&10” Ratings]

29

29%

38%

58%

67%

71%

33%

38%

58%

64%

64%

29%

35%

51%

63%

68%

34%

37%

60%

70%

73%

36%

46%

71%

79%

71%

40%

44%

66%

75%

75%

Access platform forexperiential branding

Showcase community/ social responsibility

Change / reinforceimage

Create awareness /visibility

Increase brand loyalty

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165


Sponsorship Objectives -General [“9&10” Ratings]

30

41%

39%

45%

54%

64%

42%

40%

39%

54%

55%

39%

45%

39%

53%

67%

53%

45%

50%

56%

78%

52%

48%

55%

57%

61%

46%

53%

56%

62%

69%

Title of proprietaryarea

ID in property's mediabuy

Broadcast adopportunity

On-site signage

Category exclusivity

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

"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?"

Value of Benefits [“9&10” Ratings] Top 5 Results

31

23%

31%

38%

36%

43%

29%

32%

32%

33%

35%

24%

28%

35%

42%

37%

41%

38%

32%

36%

33%

42%

38%

36%

44%

41%

37%

35%

38%

39%

44%

Access to propertyprovided research

Right to propertymarks / logos

Presence on propertywebsite

Access to propertymailing list / database

ID property collateralmaterials

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

Value of Benefits [“9&10” Ratings] Results 6-10


32

23%

25%

26%

30%

30%

23%

21%

23%

25%

28%

19%

29%

27%

27%

29%

29%

32%

32%

33%

30%

32%

32%

35%

35%

39%

28%

25%

34%

30%

40%

Spokesperson /access to

personalities

Opportunity toparticipate in turnkey

retailer promos.

Right to promote co-branded product /

service

Tickets / hospitality

Ad in program book

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165



33

7%

11%

14%

18%

19%

19%

6%

14%

16%

14%

21%

5%

15%

15%

21%

25%

11%

18%

19%

22%

22%

18%

16%

23%

29%

27%

16%

14%

22%

21%

28%

Access to property merchandise

Pass through rights to you ow n retailers

Nonprofit / cause overlay

Intro to cosponsors / cross-promotionopportunities

Access to property content for digital &other uses

Rights to survey audience onsite

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165


NA


34

V. Research Considerations

35

3%

1%

2%

8%

14%

10%

20%

35%

5%

1%

6%

5%

11%

11%

18%

35%

2%

1%

1%

13%

9%

17%

20%

27%

0%

2%

1%

7%

10%

18%

15%

40%

0%

4%

1%

10%

5%

16%

6%

31%

Conferences

Newspapers

Independent agencies

Colleagues

Sports Business Journal

Industry press / journals

Internet

IEG

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=88*

2008; N=95*

“What is your primary source of sponsorship industry news?"

Primary Source ofSponsorship Industry News


36

68%

70%

71%

68%

76%

56%

71%

55%

64%

74%

60%

65%

65%

68%

81%

55%

63%

81%

82%

82%

41%

68%

66%

68%

76%

40%

58%

70%

69%

78%

Internet

Sponsorship Websites

Colleagues andcontacts

Sponsorship industrynewsletters

Advertising /marketing magazines

and journals

2003; N=151*

2004; N=108*

2005; N=108*

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=164*

“From the following list, which sources would you say you rely on to provide you with sponsorship industry news?"

Sources of SponsorshipIndustry News [Top 5 Sources]


37

15%

31%

42%

52%

14%

27%

37%

53%

15%

27%

40%

44%

21%

32%

40%

62%

24%

28%

58%

48%

20%

22%

46%

42%

Radio / TV

E-mail circulars

Newspapers

Industry conferences

2003; N=151*

2004; N=108*

2005; N=108*

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=164*

“From the following list, which sources would you say you rely on to provide you with sponsorship industry news?"

Sources of SponsorshipIndustry News [Sources 6-9]


38

49%

73%

82%

92%

54%

64%

77%

91%

47%

65%

77%

87%

53%

69%

86%

90%

64%

69%

79%

94%

52%

61%

67%

88%

Psychographics

Fan Passion / Affinity

Attendance

Demographics

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

"Which of the following do you typically analyze when making your decision?"

Information Sought Pre-Sponsorship [Top 4 Results]

39

36%

42%

50%

49%

36%

36%

43%

47%

33%

35%

40%

45%

41%

41%

50%

54%

45%

46%

55%

59%

41%

36%

30%

31%

TV Ratings

Interest in PropertyAmong Trade /

Dealers

What YourCompetition

Sponsors

Growth Trends inProperty Category

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

Information Sought Pre-Sponsorship [Results 5-8]

"Which of the following do you typically analyze when making your decision?"

40

81%

19%

75%

25%

81%

19%

78%

22%

83%

17%

74%

26%

No

Yes

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

Have A Budget forSponsorship Research

“Do you have an on-going budget for sponsorship research?"

41

“Approximately what % of a sponsorship’s total budget is typically spent on pre-selection research to evaluate fit?”

Rights Fee % Spent on Pre-Event Research to Evaluate Fit

1%

19%

33%

47%

More than 5%

1% to 5%

1% or Less

None

Total; N=165

42

5%

18%

44%

33%

0%

18%

42%

27%

1%

24%

33%

42%

3%

23%

49%

26%

3%

11%

43%

41%

1%

18%

46%

31%

More than 5%

1% to 5%

1% or Less

None

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

“Approximately what % of a sponsorship’s total budget is typically spent on concurrent / post-event research to measure success?”

Rights Fee % Spent on Concurrent / Post-event Research

43

VI. Property Perceptions

44

12%

16%

26%

32%

35%

37%

46%

10%

18%

21%

27%

27%

27%

42%

15%

23%

25%

29%

31%

35%

49%

17%

22%

30%

41%

39%

48%

59%

28%

28%

39%

45%

50%

48%

57%

22%

18%

29%

38%

33%

48%

52%

Sponsor Workshop

Third-party evaluation statement

Research on Audience Buying Habits

Leveraging Ideas

Research on Sponsor Loyalty

Research on Sponsor Recall

Post Event Report / Fulfillment Audit

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

“Please rate the following ‘property-provided services’ as to how valuable they are to your organization?"

Value Placed On Property Provided Services [“9&10” Ratings]

45

18%

13%

15%

13%

15%

7%

4%

15%

9%

9%

13%

18%

26%

5%

2%

17%

13%

11%

12%

11%

12%

6%

16%

19%

12%

17%

18%

7%

25%

5%

6%

9%

6%

10%

7%

6%

15%

14%

14%

28%

7%

17%

9%

11%

18%

9%

11%

19%

Highest ratings - 9 & 10 [NET]

8

7

6

5

4

3

Lowest ratings - 1 & 2 [NET]

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

“To what degree do you depend on properties to help you measure your ROI during / after your sponsorship involvement?”

Average Ratio of Activation Spending to Rights Fees

2003 Mean=5.2

2004 Mean=4.4

2005 Mean=5.9

2006 Mean=5.2

2007 Mean=5.4

2008 Mean=5.9

Extent You Depend OnProperties To Measure ROI

46

73%

27%

71%

30%

73%

27%

69%

32%

67%

33%

70%

30%

No

Yes

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

“Are properties meeting your expectations in delivering ROI measurement or research information?"

Properties Meeting Expectations

47

24%

6%

15%

56%

24%

4%

21%

52%

18%

6%

22%

54%

14%

13%

26%

47%

Don't know

Decreased

Stayed the same

Increased

2004; N=110

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

“In general, over the past few years has your ROI from sponsorship…?"

Perceived ROI FromSponsorship Over Past Few Years

48

Company Profile

49

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: Anheuser-Busch, Coca-Cola, Citi-Financial, R.J. Reynolds, Sony-Ericsson and

UBS.

Performance Research

25 Mill Street

Newport, RI USA

02840

401-848-0111

www.performanceresearch.com

contact: Bill Doyle, Vice President

[email protected]

50

http://www.performanceresearch.com/

Table of Contents 3 I. Methodology Methodology A total of 165 participants were contacted, via...

Documents

Transcript of Table of Contents 3 I. Methodology Methodology A total of 165 participants were contacted, via...