CSR Partnerships: A Win Win 14th March, 2019

In January, Slingshot wrote a blog predicting that – amongst other things – CSR Partnerships will play a bigger part in the sponsorship industry for 2019. This was highlighted by Sky pulling their sponsorship of Team Sky in favour of increasing their efforts with Sky Ocean Rescue. It was widely speculated that Sky made this decision to target a younger demographic: millennial and gen Z purchase intention is influenced by brand’s philanthropy and purpose more than any other generation.

Beyond purchase intention sponsorship can be a tool to make real change, whether that be on an organisational level, or worldwide. Not only that, CSR partnerships provide a whole host of other benefits. Below Slingshot breaks down 3 key benefits of cause related sponsorship, and how they can be achieved.

 

Engagement:

  • Employee

CSR Initiatives provide an excellent platform for employee engagement. Whether it be cleaning beaches, building schools in underprivileged countries or caring for abandoned animals. Through sponsorship of charities, companies benefit by not only decreasing the time and resource they’d have to dedicate by creating their own initiative but also by increasing employee satisfaction through allowing employees to volunteer, fundraise and support initiatives that have meaning.

  • Client

What better way of communicating that your company has a cause than sharing it with clients? Being able to host clients, or potential clients at events like Sport Relief is a huge advantage over competitors with run-of-the-mill corporate hospitality programs, particularly as corporate transparency and CSR has been shown to encourage loyal and trusting client relationships.

 

Alignment:

Most brands have CSR, whether those initiatives be: plastic pollution, reduction in carbon emissions or commitment to equality there will be the perfect platform or charity to align with to amplify impact. Sky Ocean Rescue, their own initiative to prevent ocean-plastic pollution, teamed up with Project 0 a global marine charity for the #PassOnPlastic campaign to produce co-branded merchandise through Project 0’s ambassador network. As previously mentioned, charity partnerships can provide fantastic PR and marketing footprints for brands. In this case: Sky got access to numerous celebrity ambassadors who are usually near-impossible to reach and in return Project 0 received 25% of all proceeds from the merchandise sales, to go towards their goal of putting 30% of the world’s oceans under protection by 2030. A win-win.

 

Innovation:

Climate change and consumers are causing companies to re-think how the produce, distribute and use their goods, and sustainability has become a driver for innovation. Levi’s make jeans that use up to 96% less water in the manufacturing process and Adidas have started to make trainers from recycled plastic. Here’s the kicker: both products came from cause related partnerships driven by consumers. By forming strategic partnerships with not-for-profits, corporation can produce new products that not only save the planet but save their profit margin too. Imagine the money Levi’s are saving on their water bill!

 

Cause-related partnerships – if maximized – are a fantastic strategic tool for solving supply and manufacturing issues, saving money, raising money, and for reaping a whole host of promotional benefits along the way. They make good business sense; It’s just an added bonus that partnerships can be used in corporate communications and marketing to make consumers engage more. On a more sombre note: corporations are often the cause of environmental and social issues, such as fast fashion with child labour and carbon emissions and Oil corporations for most environmental issues. Therefore, these corporations should be investing in cause related partnerships, to help mitigate the negative effects they are having on the earth.


My Sponsorship Predictions 2017.  23rd January, 2017

I predict a big year for sponsorship.  It’s been steadily gaining a bigger seat at the big boy table, but this year I anticipate it will accelerate at great speed.  We have seen big brands slowly start to pull away from badging and into more integrated experiential campaigns – lead by partnerships, whether in a traditional rights holder/sponsor sense or through multi-agency collaboration.  The value of Big Data is finally being understood by the ‘every brand’ and implementation of data is finally getting into Star Wars territory (A.I. and more).  As a bit of a geek myself, I am truly excited for 2017.

But at the heart of sponsorship and at the heart of sales for any business is the audience – which is why I predict 2017 to be big for our industry like never before.

Here are the trends I think we’ll see:
1.    Young blood, new ideas: Sponsorship as an industry has grown and more university students are realising that if they can’t be the next David Beckham, then they could perhaps work in football through sponsorship.  We’ve seen a significant increase in university students applying for internships and placements in the last year.  Once these kids are out and start working, I think we’ll see a shift in process with some of the more traditional sponsorship agencies – and the creative that comes out of them.

2.    Consolidation makes way for the little guy: A number of long-established sponsorship agencies got bought, sold and acquired last year (Brand Rapport, Brand Meets Brand, Generate Sponsorship) and I predict we’ll see a number of new start-ups in the sponsorship space launching in the next 6 months.

3.    Consolidation lends to campaigns rather than ad hoc projects: With a number of long-established sponsorship agencies merging/selling into larger agencies with additional disciplines, the aim will be to create a more integrated approach for their clients.  This type of business is more beneficial to clients through a long-term approach so I predict the desire of these agencies to focus on campaigns and retainers.  This may create opportunities for other agencies to scoop up the ad hoc projects throughout the year.

4.    Big brands taking on transformational sponsorship: Transformational sponsorship is sponsorship that shifts an entire business practice.  Rather than being stuck moving the needle in the marketing department, Boards are starting to realise that integrating sponsorship can impact the entire organisation.  We have had more requests from brands last year to help them integrate transformational sponsorship (or sponsorship without logos) than we have had in our 6-year history.  This trend is sure to continue.

5.    The ‘British Brand’ of sponsorship agency makes bigger waves overseas: Slingshot now has more than 35% of our retained clients headquartered overseas, with 60% of our clients international and the remaining national in the UK.  This is a radical change from a couple of years ago when we only worked with local clients on local programmes with maybe a handful of smaller international projects.  As technology makes the world smaller, there is greater opportunity to expand and grow market share elsewhere.  I believe this trend will continue with both an influx of international agencies working in the UK and UK agencies getting brought in for more international pitches.

However you look at it, I think 2017 will be a very exciting year – best of luck!

*I was 4/5 on last year’s predictions, to see last year’s predictions click here.


#Ad Spells Fear for Brands 24th November, 2016

Use of celebrity endorsements on social media have arguably become one of, if not the most craved sponsorship asset for many millennial-focused brands. Whether it be sport stars, pop stars, or people just famous for being famous, the upper echelon of these role models has such power and influence over society, and brands have benefited hugely from alignments since the social boom.

With certain role models boasting multi-million figures in terms of followers it’s easy to understand why brands are happy to pay out such significant fees to these influencers for product endorsements on social platforms such as YouTube, Twitter and Instagram, and it has proved a winning tactic dating back to the 1760’s where Wedgwood, producers of pottery and chinaware, used royal endorsements – in a time of divine right you can only imagine the influence that had on society.

The power of having someone you admire and look up to endorse a certain product or service is unquestionable, yet brands understand that to fully maximise the commercial potential there is a need to develop a stronger, longer term association with their chosen influencer so that all endorsements come across as authentic. Hence why brands decide to strike up sponsorship arrangements, partly because it is cost effective but also to change the perceptions of these influencers from a celebrity endorser to more of a brand ambassador.

Through sponsorship, brands can purchase rights to access these influencers across a variety of platforms creating a much stronger connection with the ambassador, which resonates better with the influencers’ audience. Within the terms of such sponsorship agreements, brands will add in exclusivity clauses effectively banning the ambassador from promoting a rival brand whilst contracted, again adding to the illusion that the millionaire role model really does shop at H&M!

However, recently the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) have been clamping down on this clear attempt by brands to subtly influence society – the 21st century version of subliminal messaging. ASA have stated that “if content is an advertisement, it should be obviously identifiable to consumers using the hashtag #ad” and there have already been several high-profile cases whereby brands and celebrities have been reprimanded.

Although this seems like a small formality to add onto the end of a Tweet, Instagram post or vlog, brands now need to ensure that this clause is written into contracts to avoid hefty fines. In addition to this extra bit of housekeeping, the hashtag has the capability to cause a much bigger problem for brands. These two letters have the potential to completely spoil the illusion for consumers and ruin the authenticity that a brand may have invested in for years. Therefore, it will be interesting to see how brands look to counter and gloss over this in future.


You’ve got to do your research! 19th October, 2016

In an extremely over-crowded market, sourcing sponsorship requires skill, patience and of course, research. The majority of rights holders looking for sponsorship will approach a brand and tell them how their event is the best, but do they know that for sure.

Scope it out

There are thousands of sports teams, events and charities all competing for the same sponsors, therefore, it is crucial to actively look at what others are doing in the market.

If a company were looking to release a new product, the first thing they would do is ensure the market is thoroughly analysed, assessing what their competitors are offering and at what price.

What’s in their basket?

Understanding your competitors offering is the best start point for any rights holder. In this cluttered market, it is important to know what you are up against and how you can then position your own offering, focusing on your unique assets.

Go along to events, visit other teams/properties and even try to get your hands on their proposals. If you do this and find that you haven’t got any unique assets to offer then you need to invest time into uncovering them, as every rights holder will have something unique to offer. Without this insight, you will be entering the market blind, with no idea of whether you are over-selling, under-selling, or if your offering can provide a brand with something no-one else can.

Make sure you identify the correct competitors when doing research. It isn’t just cross-industry or direct competitors; sponsorship is a universal industry so you will be competing with rights-holders from multiple sectors. A local sports team might be competing with a national event, if they approach the same brand. Think outside the box and broaden your research.

The Price is Right

Although valuation is determined on numerous methodologies, the rights fee is also impacted based on the competitive landscape. If your rights fee is to too high then brands will be put off, too low and your platform is undervalued, reducing the revenue you can gain.

Right’s holders need to ensure their whole package is priced correctly within the market, so it is vital to benchmark this against industry standards.

Within a competitive landscape, any rights holder regardless of industry or size, should first research the market, make adjustments and ensure their platform stands out for the right reasons.


Slingshot to run bootcamp in Oslo 7th July, 2016

Slingshot Sponsorship’s MD Jackie Fast will be presenting a one-day sponsorship bootcamp in Oslo on August 26th 2016 hosted by our friends at ANFO Oslo. This is a unique chance to hear from one of the industry’s leading experts on how to successfully secure sponsorship in today’s landscape.
Slingshot Sponsorship’s aim is to help you grow your company through sponsorship programs that create priceless opportunities to consumers and incorporate motivating factors to drive brands investing in sponsorship.

Slingshot Sponsorship has successfully been running sessions to help rights holders increase sponsorship revenue and improve relationships with existing sponsors. To date, Slingshot have hosted over 400 rights holders at sessions run across the world.
The aim of the bootcamp is to help you discover ground-breaking partnerships big or small, which punch above their weight and measurably build your businesses and your sponsor brands.

Key takeaways from the event will include:
1. Current sponsorship practices & how the industry has changed
2. How to create the right sponsorship proposal – including communications strategy planning, audience development & commercialising your social media
3. Understanding your competition, and therefore your USP in the market – including creation of assets, understanding how brands value your opportunity & pricing your package
4. Sales technique & how to close the deal

Jackie Fast commented, “I am looking forward to coming to Oslo to present our agency’s framework for sustainable sponsorship. With an office in Oslo we can help provide further support for our delegates in the long term so I am delighted to be able engage with the Norwegian sponsorship industry.”

Join other forward-thinking leaders to find new and emerging practices and insights to grow your business and sponsorship revenue in an industry where the only certainty is change.

To book your place please click here.


How to Capitalise on Sponsorship 14th July, 2015

One of the most common mistakes brands make when entering sponsorship is expecting that by simply aligning their name and logo with a property the ROI will come. Many brands spend a great deal of time planning and selecting which sponsorship would be most beneficial for their business but once the deal has been signed, brands should focus their efforts into making sure they capitalise on the sponsorship.

Create your own noise

A key reason why brands are often unsuccessful in sponsorship is because they fail to capitalise on the opportunities afforded to them once the deal has been signed. Brands spend months analysing the assets of a property and at the point of the handshake it is then up to the brand to exhaust all assets available to them. Unfortunately, a common trend is that sponsors expect the rights holder to create the ‘noise’ during the partnership – this is not always the case. There is a responsibility on the rights holder to support as much as they can, but it is not the rights holders’ primary focus to truly create the impact. Communications of the brand to the audience should be collaborated on rather than isolated to create the best outcome.

Save budget for activation

Another common error is that sponsors spend the entirety of their budget on the sponsorship fee, leaving no additional budget for brand activation during the partnership, therefore brands are unable to capitalise on the opportunities available to them. In essence, the sponsorship fee is the price for rights to utilise the assets. As part of the planning phase sponsors should weigh up the potential costs involved in order to take advantage of the assets e.g. entertaining, promotional products and activation costs. Sponsors must take this into account before committing to any sponsorship or risk an ineffective investment.

Experiment and be creative

The majority of brands stick to what they know best. If a brand continues a one dimensional approach to sponsorship and fails to experiment with different properties and channels they will inevitably miss out on opportunities to progress and reach new audiences. Sponsors should always make use of every vehicle available to them. Through the use of analytics and measurement tools, brands can now assess their success post sponsorship better than ever – considering a property is only as good as its assets, a brands’ success alongside that property is only as good as their determination to make the best use out of the assets purchased.

The Big Data Divide 26th March, 2013

Data – the four letter word that has been uttered over and over again in recent years.  Mentioning the word data has the ability to cast confusion, spread fear and ignite inspiration throughout brands and agencies alike, all in two syllables.  Indeed, the influx of data has left marketers confused at the best of times, yet slowly but surely more and more are coming to realise its true potential. Yet despite the many upsides to the use of data, a shadow has been cast over it, flagging debate within the industry over its ‘Orwellian’ nature and its misuse by brands. Indeed, there is no denying that Big Data has become a hotbed of conversation, and in many instances has divided opinion.  But there is one thing that everyone is able to agree upon, the era of Big Data is here.

The prominence of Big Data in our ever more interconnected world is something that retailers and marketers are unable to continue to ignore.   The internet has become a single space through which hundreds of millions of individuals are able to congregate and where their every action is recorded.  The development of social media within this has added another level to this experience.  Communication channels such as Twitter and Facebook allow the consumer to like, share and engage with brands and products on a personal level like never before.

Indeed Big Data and social CRM provide brands and agencies with bountiful information about the consumer allowing them to direct campaigns, communicate messages and market new products to consumers that really want to engage with them.  In many cases, the use of data and CRM has allowed brands that have the ability to react fast and use Big Data intelligently to create some truly creative content.  Take for example, Samsung and their ‘The Next Big Thing is Already Here’ campaign which saw the brand use real time social listening software.  This enabled Samsung to track consumer reaction to the unveiling of the iPhone 5 as it happened which led them to create a campaign based upon the comments it was seeing.  The campaign featured adverts mocking Apple customers queuing outside the iStore – an advert that was viewed more than 70 million times online.

However, the use of data sets such as these has led to a considerable debate within the industry.  Speaking at Advertising Week Europe this month, Sir John Hegarty, founder of BBH warned brands over their reliance upon collecting data and basing campaigns around it.  Hegarty explains that brand use of personal behaviour data in some instances, verges on the inappropriate.  Taking example from tools such as Nike Fuelband, a devise which tracks and stores individuals running patterns which Nike in turn uses, Hegerty continues, could be viewed as taking away from our personal freedom and too much of an intrusion into our daily lives.

Indeed, it is not only the data itself that has been criticised, but the means through which brands are choosing to use this data.  Speaking at the DataIQ Conference, Jon Cano-Lopez expressed that if brands choose to use Big Data, they must be able to decipher what is useful, what is accurate and most importantly what is acceptable.  Furthermore, the means through which brands choose to transfer this data and communicate it back to the consumer is also critical. It may also be said that brands that have an abundance of data sets lose site of their overall brand picture whilst trying too hard to react to the data at hand and predict behavioural patterns.

It is becoming ever more apparent that Big Data is playing a critical role in marketing and sponsorship industries alike.  Despite the aforementioned pit falls, the benefits that can be gained through the correct use of data are endless.  Big Data allows marketers to identify, measure and manage what is impacting their brand in a way that has never been previously been possible.  However, no matter how much data is available, the overwhelming factor resides upon how a brand chooses to use and communicate it.

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.

Should Alcohol Sponsorship be Banned? 26th November, 2012

The level of irresponsible drinking amongst young people in the UK is an area of constant concern for many with statistics reporting 945,000 hospital admissions a year related to alcohol abuse or injury. Following the ban of tobacco sponsorship in 2005 arose the debate as to whether alcohol sponsorship should follow suit and whether partnerships between alcohol brands and sports events influence young people to drink in excess.

At the Think!Sponsorship Conference on Wednesday 14th November leading sponsorship professionals and representatives from alcohol brands considered the increasingly important topic of whether the alcohol sponsorship ban should be bought into place within the UK. With alcohol sponsorship banned in France, this prompted me to consider whether the UK will be next to follow suit and what impact this could have for the sponsorship industry.

The Argument

There is little doubt that sporting events have a strong association with alcohol. Sports such as rugby and football in particular lead people to view alcohol consumption in a negative light with fans often rowdy and drunk. Alcohol sponsorship could be said to reinforce the association of alcohol with events that are often considered family days out whilst watching sport for many comes hand in hand with enjoying a drink. With this connection already firmly in place it is argued that alcohol sponsorship only encourages young people to view alcohol brands and excessive consumption of their products in a positive light.

However, the opposing argument is that the problem with binge drinking amongst young people in particular at sporting events is as a result of cheap drinks deals and the traditional macho sporting culture rather than the presence of alcohol sponsorship. Furthermore, alcohol sponsors place a strong emphasis on drinking responsibly. The European Sponsorship Association has put numerous guidelines in place to introduce a notion of best practise with alcohol brands, for example, rights holders are advised to only allow sponsorship from alcohol brands if the audience are assumed to be older than the legal alcohol purchase age.

How Would the Alcohol Ban Affect Sponsorship in the Future?

It is estimated that £800 million a year is spent by alcohol brands on sponsorship, if this money was no longer channelled towards sponsorship what would this mean for the sponsorship industry as a whole? Sponsorship agencies could lose key clients and rights-holders would lose a vast amount of revenue and the ability to hold events to the scale and quality they currently are at.

However, through dynamic and creative thinking this could also be an opportunity for new brands to get involved with sport sponsorship.

Whatever the future holds for alcohol brands, I believe the sponsorship industry will have no problem continuing to thrive as seen previously when we encountered the ban of tobacco sponsorship.  If anything it will only force sponsorship professionals to continue to drive innovation forward.