‘I don’t believe logos have any value’ says founder of the Sponsorship Consultants
Logos don’t have any value and brand awareness is over valued according to Vickie Saunders, founder of The Sponsorship Consultants.
Commenting on how brands can get value from their sponsorship, Saunders, whose company supports the sponsorships and partnerships of individuals and organisations, said simply having a logo on a jersey did not do much for a brand.
“I don’t believe logos have any value. Brand awareness is way over valued. Having a logo on a jersey, what does that do, other than the sponsors that pay for it feel a little warm and fuzzy because they can see their logo – what does that do?
“If we look at sponsorship more holistically, that’s when you start to actually identify the value that’s in it for us and the people that we are involving in that relationship and know that when we are measuring success, it’s based on things that are actually measurable.”
John Nicholl, general manager for commercial and marketing at the Australian Rugby Union agreed at Mumbrella’s Sports Marketing Summit, admitting some big brands probably don’t need brand awareness.
“What we are seeing in terms of value for our sponsors is what’s really becoming apparent is that big brands out there probably no longer need the brand awareness, there’s plenty of ways through other marketing mix on digital platforms now that they can live with that.
“For us what we are finding increasingly is it’s all about product sales, trying to connect with different rights holders to drive sales so that’s the commercial value and ROI you are getting back from that.”
Lisa Connors, manager, corporate relations & programs, Huawei Technologies, said the value was in the relationships between rights holders and sponsors.
“The value for me comes down to relationships and that genuine desire for a property to want to work wholeheartedly with the sponsor to deliver on ideas that form outside of the contract to come up with ideas that will be mutually beneficial for both parties, and without a genuine relationship it’s transactional.”
Also in the session, Nicholl pointed out the importance of data, in order to retain current or win new business.
“From a rugby perspective, the data is incredibly important in terms of either winning new business in terms of sponsors, and retaining business.
“We do provide the Nielsen data in terms of brand metrics, and some partners will find that far more valuable than others.”
Nicholl said data around audiences and trends was vital.
“The interesting thing we are using data for at the moment, with our partners at Nielsen is around looking at the Australian Rugby fan, versus the Australian population, and looking at those brands which want to align and connect with our audience.
“The propensity for the rugby audience to buy their product more so than the Australian population.
“You need that data to make that decision and it’s incumbent on the rights holder to be able to give that to you. It’s a relationship, it’s not going to be a surprise to you what that brand wants.”
Saunders argued that data was only important for 1% of the sports marketing industry, with the other 99%, such as Olympic sports, institutes and brands not using big data.
“Within that 99%, big data doesn’t really have a role.
“The real value is understanding one of the grassroots elements, so the relationships, understanding their customers, target markets, business operations and from the athlete perspective, understanding the way that they can benefit businesses across the different departments and develop their own skills, ability, profile.”
Really? Brand awareness not that important? Data not useful for 99%? Perhaps 30 odd years of marketing teaching, research and quantitative evidence might disagree.
User ID not verified.
So much about this bothers me. It doesn’t give me much faith in sponsorship experts.
User ID not verified.
I agree Brand awareness is probably becoming less and less important in terms of what this article is discussing. However I would say data is the future and of high value. To achieve a great ROI , then partnerships need to be classically ‘win win’ The huge challenge is more and more partnerships are based and valued on such huge brand awareness benefits that so often don’t materialise and certainly don’t convert to sales. For example Garuda and Liverpool partnership which was worth $9 million per year and based on brand awareness value which certainly hasn’t delivered on increased flights to Indonesia. Perhaps if this partnership was based more on data and marketing to that data more flights would have been sold.
User ID not verified.
Amazing this commentary makes s mockery of the marketing profession. Sponsorship of players, events or institutions always considers the entire purchase funnel and awareness is required to create consideration leading to advantage and ultimately bonding or sales. Each brand owner will have their own objectives and the sponsorship will have its own role in the brands communication strategy. Some parts of the funnel will be more important than others and will be dialled up but to say that data is unimportant suggests the author has never been responsible for a sponsorship. Take FIFA sponsorships. To say awareness is no longer relevant suggests that new airlines like emirates didnt need awareness because customers just skip straight to sales. To say Macca didnt need to build awareness of the new create your own taste, that Nike don’t need awareness of the newest shoe suggests the author needs to go back to school and do some work experience. You cannot omit awareness as a sponsorship objective unless unless you have awareness ekevks if the product you are promoting that are higher than the property itself.
User ID not verified.