Social Media Impact on Sponsorship

A few weeks ago @JimAndrews_IEG  IEG’s Jim Andrews wrote in his blog—a must read of insights into the sponsorship and branding business—about the impact of Social Media on sponsorship.  Jim, who I consider a good marketer and a better friend, and I exchanged some emails on the subject. I have thought more about the impact and thought I would share.

The fascinating part of Social Media on sponsorship is that ironically it may actually drive shorter deals, lower rights fees and even lessen the reason for sponsorship.   Why?  If, for examples AMICA Insurance as a sponsor the Boston Celtics gains access to season ticket lists or names via on site promotions.   If AMICA does a good job of engaging consumers, starts a two way conversation via blogs, Facebook, managed content newsletters and a continued dialogue ensues.. AMICA has a few choices when their deal concludes  1) Our social platform worked well and we want to lasso further Basketball fan/ consumers  2) we already have the access we need, we can email or tweet Basketball fans without the need for sponsorship. The conversation is unfolding… and we are really a sponsor of that

I believe it will be closer to #2)    what is the impact?  Due to Social Media, I believe sponsorship deals will continue, but will shorten to two or three year deals.  Shorter deals are an issue for properties (category too closely affiliated with first mover brand, energy and resources to sell a new partner etc.)  The bigger issue is that the value of X Category may drop as the initial sponsor in the category has already developed social media access and owned a conversation with the consumer/fan.

My recommendation for Brands?  I would recommend thinking not for your brand..But think like your competitors.. What would they do?

Dan

Sponsorship You Thought was Safe at Home

Paging through Sports Illustrated a few weeks ago, I saw the Bigelow Tea @bigelowtea ad featuring Terry Francona and Joe Torre.  It is funny, with professional athletes being indicted, shooting themselves in the foot (literally) or driving while intoxicated, you would think Managers are safe? Mature, leaders, buyers and retailers can identify with them. 

 Bigelow is a great brand, owned by a great parent company and a strong culture that adds to the earth the community , growers and people around them.  So a brand manager that says "what can happen? Managers are a great fit for a brand endorsement"

But in the case of Bigelow, their brand's mission statement is "satisfied employees", "strong relationships" , "satisfied consumers" and "good corporate citizen".  Their imagery is one of "serenity".

I am sure you laughed as you read those words above. Poor Bigelow. This is a teaching moment for all on the challenges of signing celebrities.  Terry Francona, who I have met a number of times, is a great guy and was the right person at the right time in Boston.  But "satisfied employees" is not the word we would use this week. And neither is "strong relationships"  And as far as being a good corporate citizen, John Henry may disagree.  For Torre, I am not sure if he and A-Rod have a "strong relationship" after his book came out a two years ago.

There have not been many soothing tea moments this week. Torre and Francona may plan a cup of tea together over the winter, but they will share stories of "betrayal", "tough bosses" and "frustration". 

You know what?  this week's Sports Illustrated Bigelow Ad?  Features Wayne Gretzky :)

I hope Bigelow doesn't become the EA Sports or Sports Illustrated Cover Curse.

DS

Marketing "Win Win" Putting Yourself in Someone's Shoes; Why are people so Myopic?

So I am on a bit of a rant tonight.  I teach a film class at a Senior Home once a month-- I learn more from them than they learn from me-- and I saw the movie "win win" tonight.  I am doing the film as a center piece to a discussion about Paul Giamatti. 

But the film got me on a late night rant. 

So why am I on a rant?  

Here is my bedtime story for you...

We are building a partnership between two companies-- a property (event) and a brand. 

We presented the proposal to the property to review.  This is a property with limited sponsors. The reaction?  The property executive tore back the pages, interrupted me and said they "were being screwed" by the other party.  "We are giving away too much value"  "They are screwing us"

Yes. You got them. That was an element of this billion dollar brand's strategic plan.  Among objectives to expand globally into Russian and China, evaluate production facilities and start a new packaging division, their goal was to "screw Bill from the XYZ Marathon".

This is coming up daily at S2F-- why have people become so myopic?  Is it that they are trying to do more with less? it is because of the economy?  technology?  lay offs occurring? Narcissism?  Does it matter?  The issue is that people/companies are not putting themselves in other people's shoes to set up "win win" relationships.  Some may say "win win" is a cliche-- but how can something that is a champion formula be a cliche? Saying to people in a meeting that you want to talk "off-line" is a cliche.

If this property had put "themselves in the other brand's shoes" they would have learned the brand was  doing a regional test for a national deal.  The other party needed test data before scaling the relationship nationally and this was very high quality/ low quantity marketing than they were use to.  They are also a big brand and they had to pull different functional groups into the meeting at each stage.  During that process, the partnership proposal had some things taken out and some added.  But all in all, the brand was offering a very strong package compared to what the property was getting from other sponsors.

So what happened?  The Property eventually took the deal.  They included a lot of "best efforts" contract language--eliminating accountability-- and entered the relationship with a "we are getting less than we should" attitude.  Meetings were tense. Execution was slow.  And most frustrating, the people at the property spent more time reading the contract and citing what they were not required to do. They said they had a lot on their plate --which they did--but they came out and said that the brand was offering less than originally promised-- and they would make best efforts to deliver.  This was even though the final offer/proposal was more than anyone at the time in the category was paying for these rights.

The brand? The brand came in with  "we want to meet all our commitments, under promise and over deliver" attitude.

What happened next?  The property started getting into jams --vendors not showing up, additional event dates-- and they needed help from sponsors.  Without asking, the brand swooped in to help.  The brand understood the nature of relationships in the field.   

Well.... the property ice melted.  The property calls with last minute opportunities/ fire drills (depending on whose shoes you are in)  -- but to their credit the tone has changed.  Even though it was not everything the property wanted from the start, the partnership blossomed and they found "win wins" that were never in the contract.  There are more smiles, more phone calls greeted with  "it's us again" with laughs.  And the property provided more ROI measures--if even only a picture or video from an event.  Guess who else won? The consumer/participant.  The consumer loves the brand and the product..and they loved coming to these events. 

So I will give you a KISS good night.  Keep It Simple Stupid.   Isn't this all so simple?  If the property had put themselves in the other parties shoes (the brand), they would have seen that the brand was launching a number of new products this year.  This particular brand/ product was not a focus in 2011 at the company-- and their budgets were seriously cut--but in 2012 the budgets for the brand are tripled.

For the brand, they are learning the benefit of quality engagement vs mass advertising.

I recently heard someone say that a successful negotiation is when "both sides leave the table unhappy"-- that is ridiculous.  His point is understood.. no one party should leave unhappy and if both parties leave happy, then one is bound to say "he/she is too happy..what did I miss?". 

But I don't agree.  Both parties should come into the discussion with the same understanding; more often than not, we have to work together.  Putting yourself in someone else's shoes allows for you to understand key elements such as- How is this person evaluated? When this person sits down with a family member of friend..what do they tell the person about their job?  What business issues is he/she having and how can you help solve for them?   What is this person fearful of?

If the property had taken time to put themselves in the other persons shoes they would have asked questions and learned that the executive at the other party did not commit to additional elements of the partnership because he knew there were lay-offs coming and it was going to be very difficult to commit to things that he knew would be more difficult to fulfil.  He was "setting things up to succeed" from the start.

So what to learn from this late night good night story..
1.  Pick up the phone. Email makes things so much more difficult.  A phone, or better, a Skype conversation makes things more human
2.  Don't take things so personally--trust me
3.  Ask questions
4. Share how both of you are being measured and why this deal/partnership is so important to you. If it isn't  --leave

O.K. this bedtime story is not "Good Night Moon".. but if more properties and brands thought this way... we would all sleep better

DS