I was recently reading an article in a decidedly non-business magazine. It was about “designated problems”, and the premise was that people who may have a whole host of emotional or physical issues sometime focus on just one of them and miss the underlying causes altogether. An example would be a person who is focusing relentlessly on her insomnia and missing (or ignoring) the anxiety and depression disorders that are behind it.

As I was reading the article, I thought how this whole idea related to the sponsorship industry. Both sponsors and sponsorship seekers hang onto their “designated problems” while overlooking or conveniently ignoring the real issues. And while any given organisation may have their own version of a “designated problem”, there are two that I’m seeing over and over.

The “designated problem” for sponsors

Without any question, the most prevalent “designated problem” for sponsors is measurement. They search for formulas, they hire logo counters, they do reports all about the mechanism of various sponsorships and then complain that the problem with sponsorship is that it’s impossible to accurately measure the results.

Here’s the thing: Measurement is not the problem. Leverage is the problem. If sponsors took a best practice approach with their leverage programs, measurement would be easy.

• If leverage plans were designed specifically to move the pin on perceptions of the brand, rather than passively increasing the “feel good” factor, results would improve dramatically and they’d be measurable using research against the benchmarks of existing customer research.
• If leverage plans were designed specifically to add value to the brand’s relationship with the target markets, results would improve dramatically, and the engagement with the brand could be measured with both research (see above) and many other methods (see below)
• If departments, business units, and regional offices were involved in the selection of key sponsorships, had input into the benefits they need you to negotiate for them, and were part of the creative leverage planning process, your results will improve dramatically. Sponsorship would suddenly become a catalyst that makes all of your other media work harder, not an investment that needs to be supported. Your incremental leverage funding will drop. And all of those other stakeholders will be able to measure the results of their involvement in achieving their overall objectives, against their existing benchmarks, and using the methods your company already trusts.

Focusing on measurement is a cop out. Measurement is eminently doable and can render a more complete picture of the real impact for your brand and target markets than almost any other media, but the mindset and how you use it – your leverage program – need to be working first.

The “designated problem” for sponsorship seekers

To quote the 1992 Clinton campaign, “it’s the economy, stupid”. Ask most sponsorship seekers and they’ll tell you, the economy is the reason they’re not raising as much cash these days.

I’m not arguing that the economic situation doesn’t exist or that it hasn’t affected our industry, but blaming financial shortfalls solely on economic factors is dodging the real issue: Your skills are letting you down.

Yes, of course there are exceptions – the giant sponsor who went bankrupt and crippled the little event, etc – but by and large, sponsorship seekers can really only blame themselves for the effect the economy is having on their bottom lines.

The hard truth is that sponsors are still spending money. They are still investing in new sponsorships, they’re just being very smart about it. Across the industry, we’re seeing a greater degree of sophistication in the selection of sponsorship, and higher expectations of the sponsorship seekers, than I’ve ever seen in my 24-year career.

As for renewals, the lion’s share of sponsors aren’t dumping all of their sponsorships, so it’s less of a panicked exodus and more of a rationalisation – a cleaning out of dead wood. If you’ve had exits that weren’t driven by catastrophic situations with your sponsors, I hate to have to break it to you, but you were put in the “dead wood” column.

There are sponsorship seekers – big and small – who are sailing through the GFC. Why? Because they have the skills and approach that make them appealing to these very picky sponsors.

• If every single proposal you prepared were customised for that sponsor, and provided ideas for how they could use (leverage) that sponsorship to achieve their objectives and create meaningful bonds with their target markets, your proposals would be at the top of the pile.
• If your proposal included ideas for how various departments and business units could benefit from (leverage) the sponsorship, it will make it easier for the sponsor to sell the proposal internally.
• If you approached the brand manager with your fabulous, customised proposal, you would have a clearer run to the ultimate decision-maker.
• If you add value to your sponsor relationships, putting yourself in the position of “problem solver”, rather than “contract enforcer” or “arse kisser”, you will showcase your value as a partner, not just a communication channel.
• If you help your sponsors create amazing leverage plans and show flexibility with benefits when a great idea demands it, your sponsors will find you a refreshing joy to work with.
• If you invest in educating your sponsors, creating networking events, and showcasing the work of your most effective sponsors, you are adding value not only to their results with your sponsorship, but giving them skills and ideas that they can use across their whole portfolio.

The best sponsorship seekers in the world are not necessarily the biggest or sexiest, they are the ones who balance strategic skills and creativity to help their sponsors achieve their goals, thus differentiating themselves from the hoard of sponsorship seekers who can’t be bothered. Let them fill the “dead wood” column, because you don’t have to be there, no matter what the economy does.