Tag: BP


Sponsorship in CSR – Is it effective or a ruse? 15th August, 2016

Some of the biggest players in the sponsorship market are either moving away from traditional sporting platforms or are bolstering their CSR policies with social and cultural sponsorship. CSR used to be about managing areas that a brand could twist in their favour to generate positive headlines and is typically solely focused on public image. It could be said that some brands simply invest into platforms as they think it will make them look like they are making a difference.

With the increased focus on the environment, businesses are invested in embedding the sustainable, charitable, cultural and social sponsorship in their CSR policies. This can bolster their offering and help increase customer loyalty, public perception and employee engagement.

The primary objective of sponsorship in this space is generally not to drive revenue for the brand, but this can of course happen. In essence, these CSR policies are used to communicate to the wider audience that the business i.e. Banks, Oil Companies and Hedge Funds are giving back to the community and the wider ecosystem.

A large majority of CSR sponsorship takes place geographically close to the sponsors HQ. The main reason for this is so the brand can be seen to be involved with its local community and help encourage local or smaller not for profit businesses. Brands will also use these sponsorships to encourage employees to partake in wholesome activities to enrich their lives and ultimately, for effective employee engagement.

But can sponsorship within CSR actually make a difference to public image of the brand, benefit the rights holder and, in turn, help the wider community?

A perfect example of how this can backfire is BP’s recent withdrawal from sponsorship of their 27 year relationship with the Tate Gallery.

From the very beginning the partnership was tainted with regular protests and criticism. It was difficult to see how BP were involved with these institutions other than to try to improve public perception of the company. A company that is seen to only care about profits and continually harm the environment.

It was revealed that BP’s financial contribution to the gallery was between £150k-£330k per year, and their main reason for withdrawal was due to tightened budgets. So, it can be forgiven that the public didn’t really see this as a real reason when in 2015 BP’s CEO was awarded a $1.4m cash bonus! In this case, it also reflects negatively on the rights holder. They have the power whether or not they approve a brand as a sponsor and it must be more than just the money.

For a successful sponsorship to happen, not just within CSR, there must be a genuine alignment and a visible proof the brands involvement is benefiting the rights holder. These sponsorships can naturally unlock unique assets from the rights holder such as providing the opportunity to offer money can’t buy experiences to client’s such as late night gallery viewings, interviews with artists or even just a different space to conduct board meetings.

Once a strong proposition has been created and integrated then the sponsor can start to think about generating an ROI. Otherwise it is essentially sponsoring with the hope it can make a difference to the brands public image.


Should the Tate Gallery have refused BP’s corporate sponsorship following Deepwater Horizon? 16th December, 2015

On 20th April 2010, BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded, sinking the rig and causing the largest marine oil spill in history. Following the disaster, the news coverage surrounding BP thrust the spotlight on the oil conglomerate’s sponsorship programme – most notably their 26-year long relationship with the Tate Gallery in London.

Since Deepwater Horizon, pressure has built for the Tate to end this relationship. The greatest criticism has been levelled by pressure groups Platform and “BP or not BP”, whose argument centres around the premise that cultural institutions like the Tate should not be accepting sponsorship from corporations with debatable environmental records.

 

Corporate sponsorship v corporate philanthropy

BP or not BP’s argument that the conglomerate is “not doing this (sponsoring the Tate) out of the goodness of its heart” is correct. Corporate sponsorship involves no philanthropic element yet pressure groups leverage their argument around this demonstrating how misunderstood the relationship between corporates and the art world is.

Corporate sponsorship is a business transaction and differs markedly to corporate philanthropy, which is where a corporation makes a charitable donation with no expected return. Sponsorship, on the other hand, is entered into by corporations for the rights available through the fee they pay. These could be naming rights which, in BP’s case, have been activated through the BP Displays series.

 

Benefits v reputational damage

As an indication of the benefits of BP’s quarter-of-a-century long sponsorship, 37 million people have visited BP Displays, BP’s free collection displays across the Tate group of galleries. Of those, 6m schoolchildren have visited the Displays and BP’s Art Exchange, which provides access to the Tate’s collection and archives, has reached 10,000 schoolchildren in 50 countries since its launch in September 2013.

Despite the short-term reputational damage to the Tate through being associated with the Deepwater Horizon spill and the subsequent fall-out, it is clear the benefits of BP’s long-standing commitment to the gallery far outweighed the temporary reputational damage. This was reiterated by the Tate’s trustees who concluded the “benefits of BP’s support far outweigh any quantifiable risk to our reputation.” They added “BP fit within our (sponsorship policy) guidelines and their support has been instrumental.”

 

Corporate sponsorship of public bodies

There has been little evidence of overwhelming public rejection of BP’s support for the Tate, particularly after Deepwater Horizon. The public response to BP’s sponsorship has been led by marginal environmental pressure groups combined with a smattering of Tate members and artists.

As a non-departmental public body, funded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and home to the national collection of British art, the public have a right to be involved in the debate surrounding corporate sponsorship of the Gallery. However, BP’s sponsorship has been scrutinised a number of times by the Tate’s Ethics committee who have concluded that “taking a moral stance on the ethics of the oil and gas industry remains outside of the Tate’s charitable objectives”.

This lack of public support to end the sponsorship was most apparent this summer when protest group Liberate Tate spent 25 hours scrawling climate change messages on the floor of a Tate exhibition. Thousands of visitors passed through believing them to be part of the exhibition, with the protest not even registering on the public’s consciousness.

 

When approaching potential corporations for sponsorship, arts organisations should be mindful of these issues. Furthermore, when a deal is struck, they should seek to communicate the nature of the sponsorship, the benefits to the organisation and the wider public in order to directly challenge detractors.

 

 

@SimonBinks_


Much Taboo About Nothing – Engaging new theatre fans through sponsorship 26th March, 2014

An emphatic drop in arts funding over the last decade has forced public funded organisations to re-think their commercial strategies in a bid to remain profitable. The ever increasing pull of the purse strings, combined with an overcrowded marketplace has lead theatres across the land to seek sponsorship in order to keep up. Yet with most discerning customers around who cannot be fooled or cajoled, the trick it seems, is bagging the right sponsor.

 

Barriers to entry for sponsors within theatreland have come from different directions; firstly, many see sponsorship as a taboo that can drive away the younger audience, and therefore brands trying to reach this demographic. Secondly, scepticism from the industry plays a vital role, with many wishing to retain ‘artistic independence’ from sponsors, choosing ones which don’t undermine the ethics they promote. However, over the past ten years with the ever increasing need to adjust, and with the need to attract new audiences, there has been an increase in more corporate sponsorships – has this brought the right brands in and has it benefitted the industry?

 

Subsiding theatre tickets in order to bring in a younger, and larger crowd has been the corner stone of many partnerships in recent years. Travelex’ssponsorship of the National Theatre has lasted for over ten years, offering over 2 million reduced priced tickets, 360,000 of these have been to first time theatre goers. Travelex themselves may not be recognised as the most  desirable sponsor, if you only remember them as taking a large commission off your holiday money at the departure lounge; they do, however, offer a break from a corporate dominated market. Whether you like it, don’t like it or are ambivalent, there is no denying that PWC’s investment in The Old Vic has had a considerable impact on the theatre, especially their investment which focusses upon nurturing young talent. Accenture have also been big supporters of the National, choosing to support more grass roots theatre, and showcasing their tech credentials by designing a touch screen behind the scenes tour of the theatre.

 

Sponsorship by corporates such as Shell and BP, have attracted plenty of criticism over the years with the feeling that this positive publicity is only there to service their corporate image, shining the spotlight away from their environmental records . BP has come under considerable criticism with their sponsorship of the Globe, which has famously been undermined by theReclaim Shakespeare Company who regularly publicise BP’s global mishaps.

 

Sponsorship is part of today’s theatre makeup, and its clearly better off for it financially; however, if their objectives are to be attracting new, younger or more customers then surely they should be looking for brands which represent this. Travelex is a step in the right direction, and shows this can be built by creating more engaging campaigns.

Corporate Sponsorship Of The Arts: Double-Double Oil Is Trouble 10th December, 2012

Following my recent visit to the Tate Britain, sponsored by BP, I wanted to delve further into the energy giant’s return to the media spotlight after outlining its controversial plans to continue funding the arts.  The company has reiterated that it wishes to use sponsorship, alongside advertising, as a tool to improve brand reputation.  Since 2010, BP have been haunted with repercussions within the media, being named, shamed and fined ($4.5bn to be exact). Now, almost 3 years later, the company has emphasised that after its hiatus from the media, it wishes to increase its social responsibility initiatives, returning with a campaign showcasing contributions the company makes to society; all in the hope that it will ‘make people feel more positive’ about the brand.

To do this, BP intends to build upon its long-standing cultural sponsorships that were renewed last December with the Royal Opera House, British Museum, The National Portrait Gallery and the Tate. Yet one year on, despite BP’s hopes, protests are still occurring across the Capital.  

Only a few weeks ago, the ‘Reclaim Shakespeare Company,’ protested outside the British Museum to intervene in the BP-sponsored exhibition ‘Shakespeare: Staging the World.’  Indeed, BP is not the only oil giant receiving criticism; Shell’s sponsorship of London’s South Bank Centre, and Lundin Petroleum’s sponsorship of the Astrup Fearnley Museum in Oslo have both been under media fire.  In light of these protests, I want to raise the question, will there always be cynicism attached to sponsorships of this nature or can brands such as BP do more to demonstrate the benefits of their funding?

The rationale behind the cynicism shown by protestors is by no means unreasonable.  BP caused a disaster, and the damage that was created is irreparable but should this still be associated with their philanthropic initiatives? The brand is coming into its 21st year sponsoring the Tate and 11th year sponsoring some of the other most treasured cultural landmarks in the UK.  Through their continued funding, the British Museum is able to further cultural programmes, and the Tate Britain, for example, is able to extend it’s access to wider audiences (the Tate alone attracts 5 million visitors each year).

There is no doubt that BP’s decision to continue its various cultural sponsorships is driven by the motive of improving brand perception via ‘contributions to society’. Whilst this could be, and is by many, perceived as a way of averting attention from BP’s previous mistakes, there is no denying that the money donated through these cultural sponsorships supports the sustainability of British cultural heritage.  Indeed, the arts have endured serious government funding cuts over recent years, with a call from many, including the National’s Nicholas Hytner, for the government to reconsider its decisions.  Only last week, it was announced that the Newcastle City Council plans to cut its entire arts budget, with landmarks such as The Sage and Baltic Gallery wondering what to do next.  So long as this continues to be the case, cultural institutions such as these will have to consider alternative sources for revenue, Corporate sponsorship being one of them, and I’m all for it.