Transcript 2011 IEG B2B Research

Table of Contents
I.
METHODOLOGY
p. 3
II.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
p. 5
III.
RESPONDENT PROFILE
p. 12
IV.
SPONSORSHIP SPENDING & INVOLVEMENT
p. 16
V.
RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS
p. 40
VI.
PROPERTY PERCEPTIONS
p. 53
I.
Methodology
3
Methodology
A total of 120 participants were contacted, via e-mail, by Performance Research and asked to
complete an online questionnaire about the sponsorship decision-making process.
Respondents were screened by IEG, Inc. to be sponsorship decision-makers from small,
medium and large corporations worldwide.
Data collection was conducted in February of 2011.
Research objectives included, but were not limited to, determining the benefits and services
that are most important to companies when making sponsorship decisions and estimating
how companies are budgeting for measurement and activation. The margin of error for this
study is approximately + 5%.
This study was conducted in conjunction with IEG, LLC. www.sponsorship.com
4
II. Executive Summary
5
Source: IEG Sponsorship Report
March 14, 2011
www.iegsr.com
Decision-Makers Survey: Sponsors Favor Activation Budgets In 2011
Sponsors are bullish on the medium, but lingering questions about how to measure
return persist.
Corporate marketers are wasting no time putting the days of sponsorship spending
cuts behind them, according to the 11th annual IEG/Performance Research
Sponsorship Decision-makers Survey.
When asked about their spending this year, sponsors painted a very rosy picture,
especially in terms of funding leveraging platforms.
The number of sponsors saying they would increase activation spending rose 16
percentage points from 2010 and is 27 points higher than 2009.
6
Source: IEG Sponsorship Report
March 14, 2011
www.iegsr.com
Decision-makers Survey: Sponsors Favor Activation Budgets In 2011
(continued…)
The bigger commitment to activation outshines the love sponsors are showing to
sponsorship rights fees, although the news is positive there as well.
Over one-third of marketers will spend more on sponsorship deals this year, with just
less than half allocating the same as they did in 2010. Last year, nearly one-third
(30 percent) said they would cut spending, while only 20 percent were set to grow
budgets for fees.
Some of the new money for rights fees likely will go to new partnerships, as opposed
to renewals or mid-term escalation: 78 percent of sponsors said they are considering
new sponsorships in 2011. Two years ago, that figure was just 60 percent.
Survey respondents reported that spending on sponsorship fees—not including
activation—accounts for 19 percent of their overall expenditures on advertising,
marketing and promotion.
7
Source: IEG Sponsorship Report
March 14, 2011
www.iegsr.com
Decision-makers Survey: Sponsors Favor Activation Budgets In 2011
(continued…)
The average ratio comparing activation spending to the amount spent to acquire
sponsorship rights rose to $1.60 on leveraging for every $1 spent on rights fees
from $1.40 to $1 in 2010. The survey’s high water mark for activation spending was
$1.90 to $1 in 2007.
Hospitality has yet to climb back into the top three most popular activation tools,
after falling to fifth last year in the wake of TARP-related scrutiny of financial-services
sponsors.
A significantly higher number of sponsors are seeking assistance from PR firms in
helping to promote sponsorships this year. While more than half of the 2011
respondents said they work with PR agencies to support sponsorships, only 38
percent did so last year.
8
Source: IEG Sponsorship Report
March 14, 2011
www.iegsr.com
Decision-makers Survey: Sponsors Favor Activation Budgets In 2011
(continued…)
The number of sponsors who said they do not use any agencies to assist with
sponsorship programs dropped 10 percentage points to one-third of respondents,
marking the lowest proportion in the 11 years the question has been asked.
The 2011 survey included more questions than ever about sponsors’ approach to
evaluation and measurement of their partnerships. Charts 6 through 10 paint a
familiar picture of a medium that recognizes the importance of measuring return on
investment and return on objectives, but continues to struggle with finding the
resources to do so and determining what the right things to measure are.
The good news is that the percentage of marketers who cannot say whether they are
earning a return on their sponsorship investments has hit a low point in the survey’s
history of 18 percent.
9
Source: IEG Sponsorship Report
March 14, 2011
www.iegsr.com
Decision-makers Survey: Sponsors Favor Activation Budgets In 2011
(continued…)
Sixty-one percent of sponsors said the need for good measurement had increased a
lot, while another 23 percent said it had increased a little. But when asked the
follow-up question, “Does your company actively measure return from its
sponsorships?” a full one-third of sponsors said no.
While there has been a gradual movement in the right direction, still more than
seven out of 10 sponsors spend either nothing or below the minimum accepted
standard of one percent of spending on evaluating whether their sponsorships are
having the intended impact.
Sponsors’ ranking of measurement metrics implies that they are evaluating what is
easiest to calculate (awareness) and not always going after the harder-to-determine
impacts further down the purchase funnel.
10
Source: IEG Sponsorship Report
March 14, 2011
www.iegsr.com
Decision-makers Survey: Sponsors Favor Activation Budgets In 2011
(continued…)
Marketers also continue to rely on their property partners for evaluation assistance,
with survey respondents ranking their dependence on rightsholders to help them
measure return as a 6 on a 10-point scale.
Two-thirds of sponsors said properties generally do not meet their expectations in
helping them measure their return from partnerships.
Among the top five benefits properties can offer, sponsors continue to value
exclusivity and on-site exposure highly, while broadcast ad opportunities, presence
on a property’s Web site and the ability to “own” a portion of a property through title
of a proprietary area or program have both risen dramatically.
Another benefit that was determined to be much more important this year was
access to property content for digital and other uses, which came from outside the
top 10 to place sixth on the list.
11
Decision Making Responsibilities
86%
83%
86%
Selecting new
properties / events
to sponsor
77%
81%
78%
82%
80%
75%
81%
Selecting marketing
plans / activation
supp. sponsorships
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
77%
78%
Evaluate existing
properties
2010; N=106
87%
2011; N=120
76%
80%
78%
79%
80%
79%
78%
Implementing
marketing plans /
activation supp.
sponsorships
“Within your organization, which of the following describes your responsibilities regarding sponsorship?”
13
Sponsorship Programs
By Region
64%
92%
85%
83%
88%
North America
18%
20%
17%
Europe
27%
23%
2%
16%
13%
17%
14%
Asia / Pacific Rim
Australia / New
Zealand
5%
2007; N=132
10%
11%
14%
12%
2008; N=165
2%
South America
Africa
2009; N=110
12%
10%
11%
13%
2010; N=106
2%
5%
5%
7%
8%
2011; N=120
“In what regions do your sponsorship programs operate?”
14
Personal Location
By Region
76%
90%
82%
82%
86%
North America
Europe
Australia / New
Zealand
Asia / Pacific Rim
Africa
South America
6%
3%
5%
9%
9%
5%
2%
4%
3%
3%
0%
2%
2%
2%
1%
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
2009; N=110
2%
1%
0%
1%
1%
2011; N=120
2010; N=106
“In which region are you personally based?”
15
IV. Sponsorship Spending & Involvement
16
Choosing Property to Sponsor
73%
75%
78%
76%
83%
Set strategy and
seek the right
property
61%
73%
70%
Approached directly
by property owners
62%
69%
Receive details
about property from
a sales agency
Consult sponsorship
specialist to
determine strategy
26%
28%
28%
23%
23%
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
2011; N=120
17%
13%
19%
14%
19%
“How do you typically go about choosing a property to sponsor?”
17
When Sponsorship Budget is
Decided
22%
20%
23%
First Quarter
(January - March)
19%
28%
8%
Second Quarter
(April - June)
2007; N=132
9%
9%
2008; N=165
9%
9%
2009; N=110
24%
Third Quarter (July September)
2010; N=106
26%
21%
2011; N=120
19%
18%
46%
Fourth Quarter
(October December)
46%
47%
48%
45%
“During which time period does your company determine its sponsorship budget?”
18
Likely Sponsorship Spending Compared to Prior
Year
38%
40%
Increase
14%
19%
35%
2007; N=132
43%
2008; N=165
41%
Stay the same
2009; N=110
36%
47%
48%
19%
19%
Decrease
51%
30%
18%
“How will your overall sponsorship spending in [2011] compare to [2010]?”
19
2010; N=106
2011; N=120
Sponsorship Spending in Prior Year
28%
26%
Up to $500,000
26%
32%
26%
$500,000 - $1 million
13%
12%
7%
9%
9%
2007; N=132
18%
$1 million - $5 million
$5 million - $15
million
$15 million - $30
million
$30 million and
above
17%
18%
19%
24%
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
11%
13%
2010; N=106
15%
8%
9%
2011; N=120
5%
4%
9%
9%
8%
5%
7%
6%
9%
5%
“About how much did your company spend on sponsorship in [2011]?”
20
Percentage of Marketing
Budget Spent On Sponsorship
2%
0%
0%
2%
0%
1%
56%
43%
42%
42%
1%-10%
50%
13 %
26%
11%-20%
37%
38%
22%
13 %
15 %
21%-30%
4%
25%
12 %
1
7%
7%
8%
31%-40%
4%
4%
2007; N=84*
2008; N=61*
5%
7%
41%-50%
2009; N=52*
4%
17 %
5%
2010; N=24*
1%
3%
2%
4%
3%
51%-75%
2011; N=74*
2%
75%-100%
[*Based on those who responded]
0%
2%
4%
3%
“Approximately what % of your organization’s overall marketing budget do sponsorship rights fees
represent?”
21
Considering Dropping Any Current Sponsorships Not
Up for Renewal
2009; N=110
47%
Yes
2010; N=106
48%
2011; N=120
42%
53%
No
47%
58%
“Is your company seeking to drop out of any current sponsorships (those not up for renewal)?”
22
Considering New Sponsorships in the coming year
2009; N=110
60%
Yes
2010; N=106
64%
78%
40%
No
33%
22%
“Is your company considering new sponsorships in [2011]?”
23
2011; N=120
Leveraging/Spending Ratio
16%
17%
16%
0 to $1
24%
23%
38%
48%
$1 to $1
54%
44%
43%
26%
Average Ratio of Activation Spending to
Rights Fees
14%
16%
17%
13%
$2 to $1
2007 – 1.9:1
2008 – 1.5:1
9%
12%
$3 to $1
$4 or More to $1
2007; N=117*
8%
7%
10%
2009 – 1.4:1
2008; N=157*
2010 – 1.4:1
2009; N=110*
2011 – 1.6:1
11%
9%
7%
9%
12%
2010; N=105*
2011; N=120*
[*Based on those who responded]
“As best as you can estimate, what is your company’s typical promotional spending ratio?”
24
Likely Direction of Leveraging & Activation
Spending in 2011
17%
Increase
28%
44%
2009; N=110
43%
Stay the same
47%
41%
40%
Decrease
20%
15%
“How will your spending, specifically on sponsorship leveraging and activation in [2011],
compare to [2010]? Will it…?”
25
2010; N=106
2011; N=120
Agency Used for Support
40%
44%
Public relations agency
36%
38%
52%
50%
50%
45%
47%
43%
Advertising agency
33%
30%
35%
30%
26%
Property / rights holder
27%
32%
26%
27%
22%
Independent sponsorship specialist
Sponsorship specialist agency who sold
rights
2007; N=132
8%
10%
14%
12%
15%
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
38%
41%
None, manage in-house
49%
43%
33%
2010; N=106
2011; N=120
“What types of agencies, if any, do you use to help leverage/support your sponsorship program?”
26
Marketing Communication
Channels Used [Top 5 Results]
79%
80%
76%
77%
77%
Traditional
advertising
77%
77%
Public relations
72%
78%
76%
71%
71%
Internal
communications
79%
78%
72%
51%
62%
65%
Internet tie-ins
74%
66%
2008; N=165
67%
69%
Hospitality
75%
67%
2007; N=132
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
63%
2011; N=120
“During the past 12 months, which of the following marketing communication channels have you used to
leverage your sponsorship programs?”
27
Marketing Communication
Channels Used [Results 6-9]
61%
62%
Direct marketing
55%
47%
55%
49%
60%
58%
56%
52%
Sampling on-site
41%
47%
44%
47%
51%
Sales promotion
offers
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
56%
50%
46%
47%
Business-to-business
41%
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
2011; N=120
“During the past 12 months, which of the following marketing communication channels have you used to
leverage your sponsorship programs?”
28
More Likely to be Involved in Sponsorship Category than
Prior Yr.
36%
41%
Sports
23%
26%
36%
22%
27%
31%
26%
31%
Causes
Community events / festivals / fairs
28%
27%
12%
23%
30%
15%
Online sponsorship
Arts
23%
9%
19%
23%
11%
12%
13%
12%
2007; N=132
22%
Entertainment
Associations and membership
organizations
20%
16%
19%
21%
18%
12%
12%
19%
17%
15%
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
2011; N=120
“Compared to [2010], how much do you expect your company to be involved in the following types of
sponsorship in [2011]?”
29
Less Likely to be Involved in Sponsorship Category than
Prior Yr.
24%
20%
Associations and membership
organizations
Sports
38%
19%
23%
14%
12%
22%
26%
17%
18%
26%
Entertainment
33%
22%
16%
26%
20%
Online sponsorship
44%
17%
15%
10%
Community events / festivals / fairs
Arts
Causes
15%
27%
15%
13%
17%
21%
22%
21%
13%
12%
10%
16%
13%
7%
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
2011; N=120
“Compared to [2010], how much do you expect your company to be involved in the following types
of sponsorship in [2011]?”
30
Sponsorship Objectives
[Top 5 “9” & “10” Ratings]
64%
67%
66%
68%
68%
Create awareness /
visibility
64%
71%
67%
70%
65%
Increase brand loyalty
58%
58%
60%
55%
53%
Change / reinforce
image
2007; N=132
42%
39%
Drive retail / dealer
traffic
53%
2008; N=165
53%
2009; N=110
43%
39%
Stimulate sales / trial /
usage
2010; N=106
32%
39%
38%
2011; N=120
43%
“Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all and 10 is extremely, please rate the following objectives as to their
importance to you or your marketing team's decisions when you evaluate which sports or properties to sponsor.”
31
Sponsorship Objectives
[Other top “9” & “10” Ratings]
38%
38%
35%
42%
40%
Showcase community
/ social responsibility
33%
32%
Sample / displays /
showcase products /
services
44%
41%
34%
23%
29%
27%
29%
33%
Entertain clients /
prospects
Gain on-site sales
rights
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
16%
13%
16%
15%
17%
2010; N=106
2011; N=120
“Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all and 10 is extremely, please rate the following objectives as to their
importance to you or your marketing team's decisions when you evaluate which sports or properties to sponsor.”
32
Sponsorship Objectives Business To Business [“9” & “10” Ratings]
42%
39%
Drive retail / dealer
traffic
53%
43%
53%
23%
Entertain clients /
prospects
29%
27%
29%
33%
14%
19%
16%
20%
21%
Sell to sponsee
11%
Excite employees
7%
7%
11%
14%
2007; N=132
7%
Incent sales force
2008; N=165
10%
13%
8%
13%
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
6%
Network with
cosponsors
10%
11%
2011; N=120
7%
13%
“Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is ‘Not at all’ and 10 is ‘Extremely,’ please rate the following objectives as to
their importance to you or your marketing team's decisions when you evaluate which sports or properties to
sponsor.”
33
Sponsorship Objectives Sales & Promotional [“9” & “10” Ratings]
39%
32%
Stimulate sales / trial /
usage
39%
38%
43%
30%
36%
Capture database /
lead generation
46%
39%
42%
33%
32%
Sample / display /
showcase products
services
44%
41%
34%
Gain on-site sales
rights
16%
13%
16%
15%
17%
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
2011; N=120
“Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is ‘Not at all’ and 10 is ‘Extremely,’ please rate the following objectives as to
their importance to you or your marketing team's decisions when you evaluate which sports or properties to
sponsor.”
34
Sponsorship Objectives General [“9” & “10” Ratings]
64%
67%
66%
68%
68%
Create awareness /
visibility
64%
71%
67%
70%
65%
Increase brand loyalty
58%
58%
60%
55%
53%
Change / reinforce
image
38%
38%
35%
Showcase community
/ social responsibility
42%
40%
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
33%
Access platform for
experiential branding
2010; N=106
29%
35%
40%
38%
2011; N=120
“Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is ‘Not at all’ and 10 is ‘Extremely,’ please rate the following objectives as to
their importance to you or your marketing team's decisions when you evaluate which sports or properties to
sponsor.”
35
Value of Benefits
[Top 5 “9” & “10” Ratings]
55%
64%
58%
61%
63%
Category exclusivity
54%
54%
On-site signage
49%
50%
63%
39%
45%
41%
43%
Broadcast ad
opportunity
49%
42%
41%
44%
Title of proprietary
area
37%
44%
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
32%
Presence on property
website
2010; N=106
38%
38%
35%
44%
2011; N=120
“Using the same scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is ‘Not at all’ and 10 is ‘Extremely,’ please rate the following
benefits as to how valuable they are to your organization.”
36
Value of Benefits
[“9” & “10” Ratings 6-10]
33%
36%
Access to property
mailing list / database
46%
37%
43%
Right to property
marks / logos
32%
31%
38%
39%
43%
35%
ID property collateral
materials
43%
32%
33%
42%
40%
39%
36%
38%
41%
ID in property's media
buy
Right to promote cobranded product /
service
23%
26%
29%
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
40%
39%
2011; N=120
“Using the same scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is ‘Not at all’ and 10 is ‘Extremely,’ please rate the following
benefits as to how valuable they are to your organization.”
37
Value of Benefits
[“9” & “10” Ratings 11-15]
28%
30%
Ad in program book
22%
28%
34%
Opportunity to
participate in turnkey
retailer promos.
21%
25%
25%
30%
33%
29%
Access to property
provided research
23%
30%
34%
31%
2007; N=132
25%
30%
Tickets / hospitality
25%
30%
31%
Rights to survey
audience on-site
21%
19%
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
33%
26%
31%
2011; N=120
“Using the same scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is ‘Not at all’ and 10 is ‘Extremely,’ please rate the following
benefits as to how valuable they are to your organization.”
38
Value of Benefits
[“9” & “10” Ratings 16-20]
23%
23%
23%
Spokesperson /
access to
personalities
30%
29%
16%
14%
19%
18%
Nonprofit / cause
overlay
28%
14%
Intro to cosponsors /
cross-promotion
opportunities
Access to property
merchandise
Pass through rights
to your own retailers
18%
17%
17%
21%
2007; N=132
6%
7%
11%
2008; N=165
19%
18%
2009; N=110
14%
11%
16%
18%
15%
2010; N=106
2011; N=120
“Using the same scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is ‘Not at all’ and 10 is ‘Extremely,’ please rate the following
benefits as to how valuable they are to your organization.”
39
V. Research Considerations
40
Importance of Various Types of Analysis [“9” & “10”
Ratings]
36%
42%
40%
43%
44%
Internal Feedback
33%
29%
38%
36%
41%
Sales / Promo bounce-back measures
21%
19%
19%
22%
Primary Consumer Research
29%
16%
18%
21%
21%
23%
Dealer / Trade response
TV exposure analysis
11%
15%
13%
17%
23%
12%
15%
16%
14%
21%
Print media analysis / Clipping
Syndicated consumer research
8%
5%
5%
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
2011; N=120
14%
13%
“Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is ‘not at all’ and 10 is ‘extremely’, please rate the importance of the
following types of analysis in evaluating whether to change or renew a sponsorship?”
41
Primary Source of
Sponsorship Industry News
35%
35%
34%
36%
IEG
11%
10%
14%
16%
Press / Journals / Newsletters
43%
21%
18%
20%
20%
16%
16%
Internet
11%
14%
Sports Business Journal
20%
11%
26%
5%
Colleagues
Independent agencies
Conferences
Newspapers
0%
2%
0%
2%
2%
8%
6%
2007; N=88*
8%
6%
2008; N=95*
2009; N=35*
5%
3%
3%
2%
0%
2010; N=50*
1%
1%
0%
0%
2011; N=63*
[*Based on those who responded]
“What is your primary source of sponsorship industry news?”
42
[Multiple responses were recorded for this table]
Sources of Sponsorship
Industry News [Top 5 Sources]
64%
68%
Sponsorship industry
newsletters
75%
72%
81%
71%
70%
Sponsorship Web
sites
75%
74%
74%
74%
76%
Advertising /
marketing magazines
and journals
77%
74%
73%
2007; N=132
55%
71%
Colleagues and
contacts
72%
72%
67%
56%
68%
Internet
2008; N=164*
2009; N=110
2010; N=102*
66%
60%
65%
2011; N=120
[*Based on those who responded]
“From the following list, which sources would you say you rely on to provide you with sponsorship
industry news?”
43
Sources of Sponsorship
Industry News [Sources 6-9]
53%
52%
54%
Industry conferences
43%
53%
27%
31%
E-mail circulars
36%
27%
36%
37%
42%
Newspapers
32%
2007; N=132
37%
2008; N=164*
24%
2009; N=110
14%
15%
Radio / TV
2010; N=102*
20%
8%
2011; N=120
12%
[*Based on those who responded]
“From the following list, which sources would you say you rely on to provide you with sponsorship
industry news?”
44
Information Sought Pre-Sponsorship [Top 4 Results]
91%
92%
Demographics
85%
88%
95%
77%
82%
81%
Attendance
75%
76%
64%
73%
Fan Passion / Affinity
68%
68%
68%
54%
49%
46%
43%
46%
Psychographics
“Which of the following do you typically analyze when making your decision?”
45
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
2011; N=120
Information Sought Pre-Sponsorship [Results 5-8]
43%
50%
What your
competition sponsors
42%
43%
46%
47%
49%
46%
Growth trends in
property category
TV ratings
41%
45%
36%
36%
36%
31%
38%
36%
42%
39%
39%
35%
Interest in property
among trade / dealers
“Which of the following do you typically analyze when making your decision?”
46
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
2011; N=120
% of Rights Fee Spent on PreEvent Research to Evaluate Fit
47%
41%
43%
40%
None
33%
43%
39%
40%
1% or Less
19%
14%
16%
19%
1% to 5%
More than 5%
2008; N=162*
2009; N=104*
2010; N=106
2011; N=120
1%
1%
1%
1%
[*Based on those who responded]
“Approximately what % of a sponsorship’s total budget is typically spent on pre-selection research to
evaluate fit?”
47
% of Rights Fee Spent on Concurrent / Post-event
Research
27%
33%
29%
36%
28%
None
42%
44%
38%
40%
44%
1% or Less
18%
18%
1% to 5%
23%
23%
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
28%
2009; N=110
0%
More than 5%
5%
3%
0%
0%
2010; N=106
2011; N=120
“Approximately what % of a sponsorship’s total budget is typically spent on concurrent / post-event
research to measure success?”
48
Change in Need for Validated Results in Past 1-2
Years [New Q in 2011]
INCREASED [NET]
83%
Increased a lot
61%
Increased a little
23%
Remained the same
Decreased a little
Decreased a lot
DECREASED [NET]
2011; N=120
13%
3%
1%
3%
“How has the need for validated results from sponsorships changed in the past one to two years?”
49
Company Actively Measures Sponsorship Returns [New
Q in 2011]
Yes
67%
2011; N=120
No
33%
“Does your company actively measure return from its sponsorships?”
50
Company Has a Standardized Measurement Process
[New Q in 2011]
Yes
42%
2011; N=101*
No
58%
[*Based on those who responded]
“Does your company have a standardized process for measuring return from its sponsorships?”
51
Way of Measuring Sponsorship Return [New Q in 2011 / Top 2
Box on 5-point scale]
78%
Awareness of company or brand's sponsorship
74%
Awareness of products, services or brand
69%
Attitudes toward brand
Response to sponsorship, event-related
promotions or ads
66%
64%
Product or service sales
58%
Amount of media exposure generated
2011; N=120
50%
Lead generation
48%
Entertainment of key customers or prospects
41%
Response of employees or internal constituents
39%
TV logo exposure
36%
Response of trade or channel partners
26%
Lower customer acquisition cost
“How does your company measure sponsorship’s return on investment and/or return on objectives?”
52
VI. Property Perceptions
53
Value Placed On Property
Provided Services [“9” & “10” Ratings]
42%
46%
50%
42%
Post event report / fulfillment audit
Audience research on attitudes toward / image
of sponsors
Audience research on sponsor
recognition/recall [Prior to 2011: Research on
Audience research on propensity to purchase /
loyalty / behavior toward sponsors
NA
48%
27%
37%
40%
36%
44%
NA
43%
27%
Leveraging ideas
Audience contact information
55%
32%
38%
36%
39%
NA
38%
Coupon / promotional offer redemption results
2007; N=132
NA
32%
21%
26%
Research on audience buying habits
31%
29%
25%
18%
16%
Third-party evaluation statement
23%
23%
23%
10%
12%
15%
17%
16%
Sponsor workshop
“Please rate the following ‘property-provided services’ as to how valuable they are to
your organization.”
54
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
2011; N=120
Extent To Which You Depend On
Properties To Measure ROI
Lowest ratings - 1 & 2
[NET]
3
8%
2%
4%
6%
8%
4
5
17%
15%
11%
11%
11%
5%
7%
4%
7%
6%
15%
9%
26%
Average Ratio of Activation Spending to
Rights Fees
23%
23%
18%
6
2007; N=132
13%
11%
16%
11%
13%
15%
7
16%
13%
2007 Mean=5.4
2008 Mean=5.9
23%
2009 Mean=6.0
9%
8
Highest ratings - 9 &
10 [NET]
13%
15%
9%
18%
2010 Mean=5.8
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
2010; N=106
2011 Mean= 5.7
9%
18%
11% 16%
11%
2011; N=120
“To what degree do you depend on properties to help you measure your ROI during / after your
sponsorship involvement?”
55
Properties Meeting Expectations
2007; N=132
30%
2008; N=165
27%
Yes
2009; N=110
34%
2010; N=106
32%
2011; N=120
33%
71%
73%
No
66%
63%
67%
“Are properties meeting your expectations in delivering ROI measurement or research information?”
56
Perceived ROI From Sponsorship Over Past Few Years
52%
56%
52%
49%
50%
Increased
21%
15%
12%
Stayed the same
23%
27%
Decreased
4%
6%
6%
3%
6%
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
24%
24%
Don't know
2010; N=106
31%
23%
2011; N=120
18%
“In general, over the past few years has your ROI from sponsorship…?”
57
Company Profile
Performance Research (Newport, Rhode Island) was organized in 1985 to provide quantitative and qualitative
evaluation of event marketing programs to corporate sponsors, properties and their agencies.
Over the past twenty years, the company has conducted over 1 million on-site, on-line, and telephone interviews and
more than 500 focus groups regarding corporate sponsorships of sports, leisure activities and special events. As a
leader in custom sponsorship evaluation, Performance Research has in-depth experience with varied events
worldwide, and is a primary research partner with many of the world’s top corporate sponsors, including: AnheuserBusch, Coca-Cola, Citi-Financial, R.J. Reynolds, Sony-Ericsson and UBS.
58
Performance Research
25 Mill Street
Newport, RI USA
02840
401-848-0111
www.performanceresearch.com
contact: Bill Doyle, Vice President
[email protected]
59