Sponsorship needs time to reap rewards

The debate on sponsorship effectiveness, entertaining though it may have been, has not been illuminated by recent correspondence from the gurus, as Malcolm Stuart rightly notes in his letter (MW June 10).

Sponsorship is a relatively simple form of commercial communication that can achieve a limited number of objectives extremely well. When asked to perform more complex tasks on its own, it almost always fails.

This is not the fault of sponsorship per se, but of management seeking a quick-fix, relatively cheap solution to marketing problems that need to be addressed in a more holistic fashion. Blame may also be laid at the door of sponsorship executives – both in-house and agency – who seek to promote the discipline that provides their livelihood beyond its competence.

Good sponsorship is like an iceberg: the visible portion can be awe-inspiring but the real mass and strength is in the nine-tenths that lie below the water. All too often sponsorship is asked to perform a task without sufficient supporting investment, and it sinks without trace.

Recent coverage in Marketing Week has reported that, without such support, some 80 per cent of sponsorship investment is wasted because it lacks extensive exploitation and research (the M&C Saatchi sponsorship, for example) and that the support costs for sponsorship can easily total eight times the rights fee expenditure (The Australian Sweeney Report).

Unfortunately for sponsorship as a whole, there is a handful of international brands capable of supporting massive investment of a few sports and personalities, and which has created an aura of omnipotence for the discipline. Lacking the brand, budget or single-mindedness of this select few, mere mortals in the sponsorship business seek to live and peddle the dream of total marketing solutions through sponsorship. They do not exist.

The reality of sponsorship is similar to that of branding, which is succinctly summarised by Al and Laura Ries in their book The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding: “Your brand has to stand for something simple and narrow in the mind. This limitation is the essential part of the branding process.”

Substitute sponsorship for brand and you have the one immutable law of sponsorship.

Returns on sponsorship investment are thus long term. It provides the proven, but unfashionable, benefits of compound interest in a world that is more concerned with the flashy attractions of a stock market killing.

The glamour of many sponsorships should not mask the prosaic nature of the work involved in making it effective. It may also explain why no “self-proclaimed gurus” have so far joined the fray: they are too busy at the coal-face.

Martin Cannon


Cannon Communications


Latest from Marketing Week


Access Marketing Week’s wealth of insight, analysis and opinion that will help you do your job better.

Register and receive the best content from the only UK title 100% dedicated to serving marketers' needs.

We’ll ask you just a few questions about what you do and where you work. The more we know about our visitors, the better and more relevant content we can provide for them. And, yes, knowing our audience better helps us find commercial partners too. Don't worry, we won't share your information with other parties, unless you give us permission to do so.

Register now


Our award winning editorial team (PPA Digital Brand of the Year) ask the big questions about the biggest issues on everything from strategy through to execution to help you navigate the fast moving modern marketing landscape.


From the opportunities and challenges of emerging technology to the need for greater effectiveness, from the challenge of measurement to building a marketing team fit for the future, we are your guide.


Information, inspiration and advice from the marketing world and beyond that will help you develop as a marketer and as a leader.

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3703 or email customerservices@marketingweek.com

If you are looking for our Jobs site, please click here