Tag: Sponsorship

Slingshot Sponsorship signs Carphone Warehouse as Headline Sponsor of Award-Winning Spring Online Campaign 18th February, 2013

Digital Unite has announced that Carphone Warehouse will act as headline sponsor for Spring Online, one of the nation’s largest, annual digital inclusion campaigns which runs between April 22-26 2013.

Over 7.5million people have never used the internet, of which around 6.5 million are aged over 55 years and many more don’t have basic online skills such as searching the web and sending and receiving emails. Spring Online is an award-winning campaign that provides a unique platform to help people understand, explore and enjoy digital technology. The campaign supports people and individuals to throw open their doors and hold free digital taster events for their local communities. This year, around 2,500 Spring Online events are expected to be held across the UK helping thousands of older people and other less confident users, to take their first steps online.

Carphone Warehouse’s CEO, Andrew Harrison, said: “We are delighted to support Digital Unite’s Spring Online campaign which complements our vision to help make people’s lives better through technology. Digital exclusion is something we all should be addressing and with our presence on every high street coupled with friendly, knowledgeable store colleagues, we’re ideally placed to facilitate this leading initiative. Furthermore, this campaign compliments our other corporate responsibility activity, Tablets for Schools, and of course our own Geek Squad.”

Now in its 12th year, Digital Unite’s Spring Online campaign has been instrumental in successfully helping tens of thousands of people make digital technology a part of their everyday lives. Joyce, a previous Spring Online attendee, was moved to tears when she saw photographs online of where she used to live.  “I never knew you could see things like this on the internet, this is wonderful, coming here today was the best thing I could have done.”

The local community approach of the campaign also enables people to integrate with the resources and support closely available to them and helps to enhance the foundations of a more connected society. Carphone Warehouse’s sponsorship of the Spring Online campaign will be administered by Digital Unite’s charitable arm, the Digital Unite Trust.

Emma Solomon OBE, Founder of Digital Unite expressed: “We are absolutely thrilled to have Carphone Warehouse as our headline sponsor for Spring Online this year. Having access to digital technology and being equipped with the skills to use it, is a must-have in today’s digital society. It enables people to become more active citizens and more discerning consumers and it can also help to reduce loneliness and open new avenues to pursue hobbies and interests.

With the fantastic support of our event holders Spring Online has helped to reach tens of thousands of people from a wide cross-section of society and inspired them to make digital technology an everyday part of their lives. Having Carphone Warehouse on board with us for 2013 will undoubtedly help to extend the reach and impact of the campaign even further and we look forward to making this the best year yet.”

Are naming rights getting out of hand? 31st January, 2013

Naming rights aren’t a modern introduction to the world of sport, brought in as an additional revenue stream over the past twenty years to help pay the inflated wages of our beloved superstars.  In fact, stadiums named after an associated corporation or sponsor far precede the internationally broadcast versions of basketball, football, rugby and baseball that we know and watch today.

Fenway Park, home of the Boston Red Sox, was named after its owner’s realty company all the way back in 1912. Perhaps more commonly known, William Wrigley, founder of the chewing gum company and owner of the Chicago Cubs, aptly named his club’s stadium Wrigley Field in 1926. Since then hundreds of stadiums have followed the naming rights model, from the Veritas Arena in Finland to the De Beers Diamond Oval in South Africa to UK properties as the Etihad and the Reebok Stadium.

Yet despite this illustrious history, a couple of recent stories surrounding potential name changes to Wembley Stadium and Ibrox, two of the most revered institutions in British football, have made me question – have naming rights gone too far?

Naming rights deals are a fantastic marketing medium, but they have to be implemented in the right way, on a suitable property, for them to be perceived as a success.  In my eyes, there are five essential factors for any brand considering a naming rights deal:

1. Longevity: Sponsorship is all about developing and changing perceptions and simply renaming a stadium for four years is not going to make anyone think differently about a brand.

Football grounds are considered ‘home’ for millions of fans worldwide, a feeling developed over years of shared memories with fellow supporters  – as an Arsenal fan it took me a long time to call The Emirates home, but as the stadium has been so-called for so many years the name now rolls of the tongue as naturally as Highbury ever did.

2.  Sponsor integration: For all the criticism they receive, media impressions are obviously still a huge factor in any naming rights deal. However, it is now essential for a brand to develop a relationship with fans both at the ground and online on an emotional level more than before to achieve true value on a naming rights deal. Whether that be through priority on concert tickets (O2), discounted flights for members (Emirates) or even free orange juice (Minute Maid Park), the sponsor is engaging with the potential customers it spent so much money to reach.

3. Emotional attachment to the stadium: One of the reasons Arsenal fans were more inclined to give ‘The Emirates’ a chance was the fact that they were moving to a brand new stadium.  I would have been far more sceptical, and potentially opposed, to any corporate sponsor coming in and renaming Highbury.  As Wonga were well aware, any plans they had of naming Newcastle F.C’s stadium to something suitably daft (Wonga Arena) would have been met with derision from the club’s supporters and they (cleverly) reinstated St James’ Park as the stadium’s official name.

4. The Name: Too long and the fans will simply shorten it (Friend’s Provident St Mary’s to St Mary’s) or too corporate and the fans will revert to a more familiar name (Capital One Field to Byrd Stadium)

5. The Investment: Sports fans (myself included) are by and large fickle creatures.  If they believe that the money invested by sponsors is helping the club pay wages and higher transfer fees, then they are far more likely to accept the brand as part of the club.

Given the five factors listed above, I think any naming rights deal of Rangers’ Ibrox Stadium would be greeted with a resigned acceptance from its fans.  Ibrox obviously has a long and cherished history, but if a well-aligned naming-rights sponsor comes in and invests money that could potentially save the club from further financial strain, then I don’t think there will be too many dissenters.

In contrast, I can’t see a proposed partner (Everything Everywhere) and Wembley fulfilling any more than 3 and 5 of the above and as such can’t see it working particularly well. It is only suggested that it will be Wembley ‘in association with EE’ anyway, which media and fans alike will inevitably shun. Lastly and  in this instance most importantly, Wembley, more than any stadium in the world, evokes memories and emotions of a by-gone era that many people still cherish. As such any potential naming rights partner will face far more opposition to get past than on a regular stadium.

I’m not sure it’s worth it.

The Increasing Importance of Sponsorship in Winning the Right to Host International Sporting Events 28th January, 2013

Last week Olympic bidding city Istanbul announced the signing of 7 leading Turkish companies as sponsors of their bid for the 2020 Olympic games, a $20m deal that organizers feel could swing momentum away from the favourite Tokyo. While to some extent this announcement was simply a show of financial strength and a dig at Japan’s stagnant economy, it raises a question that has been increasingly important in the bidding for the Olympic Games and World Cup in recent years;

How important has the ability to attract, and successfully handle sponsorship become in winning the right to hold these two major international sporting events?

Speaking at the recent announcement, Istanbul bid chairman Hasan Arut used the successful acquisition of sponsorship to push home their ability to host the Games;

‘The Olympic Movement should take great confidence that Turkey will be able to deliver a significant amount of high quality sponsors should we win the rights to host the games.’

This claim has been widely backed by public opinion, UK bookmakers signalling the change in momentum by the cutting odds on the Turkish capitals bid in half, making them a close second behind Tokyo.

Istanbul is by no means the first city to use sponsorship as an early show of strength in an Olympic bid. Our own London 2012 team publicly announced the support of 25 national sponsors to the tune of £6m back in May 2004, 8 years before the event and over a year before the final vote.

It is not only a bid’s ability to bring in national sponsorship that has become increasingly important in securing an event, but also the ability to provide the optimum platform for international sponsors within a host city/country.

The agreement of both Olympic and World Cup bids to provide the events sponsors tax waivers is needed for an organization to even enter the process. While in London this was actually declined by all sponsors within the Olympic Park due to the economic decline, it highlights the necessity for a bid to be willing to yield significant power to sponsors.

The importance of event holders working for official sponsors has most dramatically been shown in Brazil, where legislation banning alcohol consumption in football stadia was overturned last summer. The ban, put in place in 2003 to tackle domestic fan violence, was overturned in Brazilian Congress under FIFA’s request due to Budweiser’s positions as the exclusive alcohol brand of the World Cup. Commenting on the ‘Budweiser Bill’ FIFA General Secretary Jerome Valcke could not have been clearer on the importance of this sponsorship to the event and the need for the hosting country to acquiesce; ‘Alcoholic drinks are part of the FIFA World Cup, so we’re going to have them. Excuse me if I sound arrogant, but that’s something we won’t negotiate’.

As each event passes the importance of sponsorship to both bidding cities/countries and governing bodies will only grow as the revenue provided by sponsorship becomes even more central in funding the creation of the vast infrastructure needed. As this happens, the ability to both attract national sponsorship and work well with the events official partners, will increasingly be at the heart of all successful bids for these major sporting events.

What Car? Car Of The Year Awards 2013 15th January, 2013

After much anticipation, the What Car? Car of the Year Awards in association with Warranty Direct took place on Wednesday 9th January 2013 at the prestigious Grosvenor House Hotel on Park Lane. The event was by far the biggest and best to date with all of the leading manufacturers from the motoring industry in attendance.  The Awards were visually spectacular with the stage placed in the middle of the room amongst the tables and entertainment from comedian Al Murray had the audience in stitches.

The Awards presented by the BBC’s Kate Silverton and What Car? Editor in Chief Chas Hallet revealed the best cars on the market in 2012. The category winners were selected from an incredibly high standard of contenders, with the Audi A3 Sportback taking the prestigious title of What Car? Car of the Year. To view the full list of the 2013 contenders and winners click here.

The 2013 event was a resounding success for the What Car? Awards sponsors with Warranty Direct coming onboard as headline sponsor for the first time, Kwik-Fit joining Associate Sponsors Hankook and TRACKER and Category Sponsors Allianz Global Assistance and Cobra continuing their support for the Awards. For further information on this year’s sponsors click here.

Over 300 people engaged with the What Car? Awards on Twitter and gave a strong indication of the buzz surrounding the 2013 Awards:

Has sport sponsorship finally come of age? 20th December, 2012

Sport is the best known platform for sponsorship, and sadly often the least inventive –money exchanged for logo awareness on kits, stadia and perimeter boards. However, the recent £150 million sponsorship deal between Emirates and Arsenal F.C. is a great example of a shift from traditional sponsorship to a relationship where shared resources drive mutual benefits – what all sponsorship should be aiming for. Is this creation of a genuine partnership a one-off or might we be seeing a wider move in this direction across sport?

Arsenal & Fly Emirates

Arsenal’s agreement to share its advanced CRM system with the Dubai based airline was integral to the sponsorship deal going ahead. Head of Communications at Emirates Boutros Boutros outlined the importance of this saying:

‘Data on customers is important to us… detailed data on customers allows us to work out where we spend our ad budgets and who we target as well as what markets we focus on.’

While Emirates did purchase kit and stadium rights the CRM data deal constructed a two way channel of exchange that benefits both parties. This new approach to sponsorship is by no means exclusive to Arsenal; other Premier League clubs have also moved towards this model .

Manchester City/EA Sports – Finding a fit

Since its takeover by the Abu Dhabi United Group Manchester City has led the football world in creating meaningful partnerships through sponsorship – the creation of a Head of Partnerships role at the club in 2009 signalling this. Luis Vicente – the man holding this role – outlines the clubs belief:

‘(…)for us it is not about where you place the logo of your partner. It is not about the size of the financial commitment with us. It is about how we can find a fit.’

A great example of the club finding a fit is its partnership with EA sports, a relationship so integrated the gaming company employs two people solely to produce content for the club. The partnership has led to permanent gaming installations put inside the Etihad for fans, the team’s kit being launched virtually by EA and exclusive and in depth club content for City fans. In the last few days the club has extended this through the creation of branded corporate boxes and non-matchday events.

Formula 1

It is not just football within the world of sport that has moved in this way. The deal struck between Infiniti cars and the leading F1 team Red Bull Racing mentioned by Ben Fuchs is another example. As part of the deal Infiniti are assisting the F1 team in the development of its Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS), along with the team using Infiniti’s Scratch Heal paint for aerodynamic purposes. In return Red Bull is helping Infiniti in the creation of a new High Performance road car to follow the Infiniti FX Sebastian Vettel. Chelsea FC’s unconventional partnership with the F1 team Sauber is another example. While output has been minimal so far the two are promising to embark on the next stage of their partnership very soon.

Conclusion

As the value of sponsorship deals continues to grow within sport the expectation from brands will only increase that sponsorship partnerships will become exactly that, partnerships. Luis Vicente highlights this as something that sport should embrace, saying:

‘Sponsorship in its traditional form is dead. You have to come up with something that is an embedded, engaging experience with your partners.’

This desire to create an engaging experience through a genuine partnership is a model that is becoming increasingly popular, suggesting sport as a platform for sponsorship is finally coming of age.

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.

Red Bull Challenges F1's Sponsorship Stallion 5th December, 2012

In the last couple of weeks, the Red Bull Racing and Sebastian Vettel vs. Ferrari and Fernando Alonso rivalry has dominated sporting headlines. In the end it was yet again the former who took both the Constructers’ and the Drivers’ World Championship titles in the thrilling Formula 1 season finale in Brazil. This nail-biting end to the season has prompted a closer look at the team’s and driver’s success off the track and their contention for the commercial crown.

The Constructers’ (Sponsorship) Championship:

Despite prize money being in the millions, sponsorship is by far the key source of revenue for both teams and their drivers which begs the question: who is leading the commercial championship?

According to Forbes’ latest list of the ‘Formula One’s Most Valuable Teams’ Ferrari’s total revenue is estimated to be around £240m with £190m being generated from sponsorship alone. Nearly £155m is generated via three major deals with Shell, Santander and title sponsorship partner Marlboro. These three deals are worth more than any other team’s total sponsorship revenue.

But what about Red Bull Racing? Out of all teams on the grid, they are surprisingly down in fourth in the overall revenue standings at £100m in 2011. 60% of this revenue comes from Red Bull’s success on the track earning them more prize money than any other team in the championship however the contribution from sponsors falls significantly shorter than Ferrari, coming to £38m positioning the team in the middle of the sponsorship field. The main reason for this is that the brand does not seek sponsors for most of their advertising space as this is generally used for self-promotion. As opposed to Ferrari (whose title sponsor is Marlboro at £100m) and other leading teams like McLaren Mercedes (Vodafone, £47m) and Mercedes AMG F1 (Petronas, £35m), Red Bull is sacrificing a significant amount of commercial opportunity in this area. However, this may all be about to change with the constructors’ champions securing their first title sponsorship deal with Nissan’s luxury arm, Infiniti.

When reviewing the revenue potential of both teams, Ferrari should still be out of reach in the short-term with regards to team value however with Red Bull being the fastest growing team in the paddock, the commercial gap is certainly narrowing.

The Drivers’ (Sponsorship) Championship:

Are Vettel and Alonso also competing for a sponsorship title? In his latest blog post, Mark Mylam asked whether sports men and women as brand ambassadors were really worth the money from a sponsor’s perspective as there is always a risk associated with their image deteriorating and affecting the image of the endorsed brand. An almost risk-free sportsman for instance could be Sebastian Vettel. The driver is unarguably one of the most charismatic Formula 1 drivers, as demonstrated at last year’s Autosport Awards and although his interview at the podium ceremony of Abu Dhabi included some strong words, nothing seems to be able to tarnish his image. This is why Sebastian Vettel, who manages his endorsement deals himself, enjoys lucrative sponsorship deals with Casio and Procter & Gamble’s Head & Shoulders worth around £2m in total, according to a study carried out by Sport + Markt.

Fernando Alonso, on the other hand, seems to have a completely different persona. One could perceive him as being rather introverted although he is not one to shy away from commercial opportunities with earnings upwards of £6m through his deals with Santander, Tag-Heuer and Puma in 2011. This positions Alonso at the top of the sponsorship leaderboard with Michael Schumacher way behind at £3.5m and Lewis Hamilton (£2.5m) ahead of both Sebastian Vettel and Jenson Button, both at £2m. Marcel Cordes, Executive Director at Sport + Markt, points out that it is unlikely that Vettel will be able to close this gap as “he (Vettel) is already very strongly associated with the Red Bull brand”. Also, Sebastian Vettel is not interested in signing sponsorship deals just for the sake of securing a higher income. He’s already stated in the media: “It is not a goal for me to earn more money. For me, it is important that the brand is ideally suited to me”.

Compared to other sports stars like Roger Federer or Kobe Bryant, sponsorship earnings of Formula 1 drivers are minimal because in most cases, the teams control almost all of their driver’s sponsorship rights.

It is interesting to see that championship wins have by no means been reflective of either team’s or drivers’ respective commercial successes but will this continue into 2013? With the pressure mounting on Sebastian Vettel, could we see Ferrari’s sponsorship stallion overtake the Red Bull both on the track as well as off or will the power of the ‘Vettrick’ prove too much to contend with? Let us know your thoughts!

Is Innovation No Longer Innovative? 28th November, 2012

In a recent article, Proctor & Gamble stated that they wish to triple their rate of innovation.  Such a drive towards innovation is motivated by the belief that it will ‘lead to significant share increases, category growth and competitive advantage.’  The term innovation is now used more than ever, with many companies citing ‘innovation’ as a main focus point for profit and growth.  Indeed, the current economic climate has left brands, rights-holders and agencies to re-assess their strategies, with many recognising the need to deliver creative strategies and activations that stand out, or are considered ‘innovative.’

The Chartered Institute of Marketing (CIM) surveyed more than 1,200 UK marketers, 40% of which expect their organisations to embrace more risk and ambition over the next 12 months. This is also emphasised through P&G who, along with the company’s strive towards innovation, has stated that they will cut back on traditional marketing campaigns and focus time and money on high impact based strategies.  In light of P & G’s strategic developments, and the current influx of the term ‘innovation,’ I want to gain a better understanding of what innovation really is.

I want to understand what makes something truly innovative against a strategy or activation that is high in impact or creative.  (I do this in the hope to find a new term that has similar connotations, but is tailored to Slingshot’s own values.)

The problem with defining Innovation

One of the main difficulties when discussing innovation in relation to brands and agencies is finding a consistent definition as innovation varies when discussed between individuals, agencies and industries alike.  Innovation comes from the Latin term innovatus meaning ‘renewal or change.’  As a term, however, innovation has developed to offer a wide range of values brands and agencies want to be associated with.  Innovation implies an amalgamation of creativity, risk taking, the breaking of boundaries.  It refers to changing how an industry works, how an agency works, how individuals conduct their lives or changes what they perceive as normality; innovation implies creativity in an otherwise saturated market.

Whatever the definition, what is most important is that in many cases, agencies and brands that claim to innovate are not innovating and this is diluting the value of the term itself.  A while ago, Synergy asked individuals to vote on their no. 1 sporting innovation of all time.  In the running was the signing of IMG between McCormack and Palmer, with the birth of modern sport marketing.  The overall winner was the signing of Michael Jordan to Nike and the subsequent creation of the Air Jordan.

What is it that makes these examples so special? Well, IMG created one of the largest and lucrative industries in the world; and the launch of the Air Jordan marked the beginning of sports stars as worldwide brand ambassadors, and also defined the way that Nike brand today.  If we go back to the original Latin translation, these examples are true innovations as they both changed the industry.  Of course these examples are on a very large scale, and it can be stated that true innovations such as these occur very rarely, but I believe that the term innovation should be saved for instances that truly change the way people look and think about brands/agencies/industries.

What is important to recognise is that with the advancement of technology, there are so many avenues for brands and agencies to explore new ways to engage with the consumer.  If you look at Outlook Festival’s want for 3D visual artists, architects and designers to get involved to create unique stage experiences for festival goers.  Indeed, human experience is of the utmost importance when assessing sponsorship activations; and new technologies are taking human experiences to a new level.  There is no doubt that over the next decade at least, the industry will be looking for creative and exciting activations; it will be looking for ‘innovation.’  I believe that there are so many regions to explore, and all of the connotations associated with innovation are positive, we just need to find a new word.

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.

OLDER POSTS
NEWER POSTS