One part of a recent RFP focused on sponsorship assessment: how would Redmandarin create an assessment framework to compare two properties?
It was a thorough RFP and a pleasure to respond but the framing of the brief contained a few assumptions worth unpacking if you’re really looking to understand assessment.
The first assumption was that a sponsorship assessment framework is the best way to compare the two. Now clearly, any assessment of two properties needs to compare metrics, so an assessment framework clearly has a role to play – but our issue here is with the implication that everything can be delivered via an assessment framework.
Some data relating to sponsorship is easily quantified, namely live and remote audience numbers, demographics, touchpoints, geographies, airtime (to some extent) and costs. But assessment of other key factors is either hard to quantify, subjective or escapes even subjective assessment.
Take ‘brand alignment’ for example. The importance of brand alignment is a commonplace in sponsorship selection – but there are many dimensions packed into those two words. Does it refer to the extent to which perception of the property aligns with the key brand attributes of the sponsor? Or alignment at the level of (presumably) its stature? And what if those two are at odds – for example, a sporting brand such as the PGA which easily represents stature but less easily stands for innovation or dynamism?
Or sponsorship noise, namely the challenge presented by other sponsor activity to the ability of the client to cut through. Can that be measured by the number of sponsors? Or should it be measured by the number of related sponsors, FMCG for example or financial services? Or perhaps by a single sponsor which has taken a dominant position?
And in this case, how to factor in – simply – the ability of the client to cut through, with or without clutter?
For sure, everything, ultimately, can be measured – but very few clients will go to the length of measuring all the key variables which influence future success. Nor should they, when they can draw on the expertise of external consultants or internal judgement to discern the key factors.
The largest and most critical variable – particularly in the example I’m describing – was the nature of the rights that were available. And, working backwards, the flexibility and willingness of the rightsholder to engage with the client to deliver the platform they needed.
Our response was predictably to flip the brief on its head, and question the value of both the properties on the table. Because there are many more factors at play: the operational ability of the client to cope with year round activation; the creative ability of the client to deliver cut-through messaging; the funding model, namely, who exactly is paying?; and the cultural willingness of the brand to focus communications on one platform when their agile use of tactical promotions has underpinned much of their growth.
Sponsorship assessment frameworks are great – but beware anyone who sells you an assessment framework as the answer. Assessment frameworks have a role to play – in pre-qualifying a longlist of potential partnerships. The task of identifying the best partner however requires a level of expertise which isn’t best expressed in a matrix. Our approach to sponsorship search and assessment is better described here.
For more posts relating to sponsorship selection or procurement, see Media. Value.Cabbage, and Sponsorship Rights Valuation.