It is irresponsible of Marketing Week to give credence to the RSL research into the impact of recent sponsorships (MW February 28).
I suspect that among responses to your assertion that ten of the 11 sponsors of Euro 96 “wasted their money” will be some sharp ripostes from brand owners whose sales took a significant hike as a result of their investment.
The research provided some good copy, but a different picture would have emerged if at least some of those companies mentioned had been asked whether they thought their money had been wasted.
All the brands involved will have had evaluation mechanisms in place which extended far beyond consumer awareness.
In fact, with Olympic TOP sponsor packages only giving the right to use the Olympic rings, awareness would only be a minor consideration.
At the 3.5m level of Euro 96, consumer awareness is likely to be one of the criteria but will always be subsidiary to increased sales. Boards of major companies – particularly quoted companies – would not allow it any other way.
Perhaps a follow-up on what sponsors felt about their investment would go some way towards rectifying the distorted picture created by RSL’s research and your coverage of it.
The coverage of the RSL Research survey was neither irresponsible nor distorted. In light of a number of stories the magazine has investigated in recent weeks, and conversations we have had with various sponsors, there is concern about the increased cost of deals and their value. RSL’s findings on Euro 96, and we did accept in the Leader that awareness is not the only criterion, adds to that debate. – Editor