The Winter Olympics are in full swing and the organisers are busy implementing draconian “anti-ambush” laws. Too bad they won’t work.

Anti-ambush legislation is mainly about tightening existing IP laws, bolting on a few proximity laws, and trying to control old-school communication channels. It is pedantic to the point of restricting freedom of expression – just ask the people of Vancouver – but still doesn’t stop ambush marketing.

Rather than “we’ve got you covered” platitudes, major events should front up with some home truths. They won’t, however, so I will. There are three major things that a sponsor can do to protect themselves.

Ensure your brand is a natural match

The first thing you need to do, before you commit to any major sponsorship, is to ensure that your brand is a natural match to the sponsorship – better than your competitors. One exercise for determining the fit (and your competitors’) goes like this:

First, make a list of all of your brand’s attributes and values. Describe your brand really thoroughly. Then do the same for your key competitors. Go through the lists and cross out any attributes and values that you share with your competitors, because they don’t count. Now, you’re left with the ways in which you are different. Compare these lists with a list of all of the attributes and values of the event you’re considering to determine which brand is the best match.

If your brand is clearly the best fit, it will be hard work for any of your competitors to create a strategic ambush. On the other hand, if one or more of your competitors is a better natural match than your brand, don’t invest. You will be a sitting duck for ambush. Even if they don’t do any overt ambush activity, people will tend to assume they’re the sponsor. That’s what is referred to as a “natural ambush”.

Think outside the event

Major events cost a lot of money, so it’s easy to think that’s where the value lays and concentrate your leverage on the event itself. Bad idea.

Of course, you should leverage the event itself, but do not ignore the larger event experience. There is a whole world of event experience outside of the major event you’re sponsoring. Just ask the people of Vancouver whether they’re having an event experience. I’ll be having an event experience watching those nuts on luges on TV at the pub. All the chatter in social media is part of the event experience. The real value is in the personal experiences, the stories, of the people you are targeting. That isn’t controlled by the event and laws can’t control it either. The winner in the sponsor vs ambusher competition is the one who leverages the entire event experience.

Add value

The question is then, how do you leverage that entire event experience. Do you try to “own” the experience? Turn your message up to eleven? Again, that’s a bad idea.

First off, it won’t work, because the whole point of the larger experience is that it is owned and controlled by the people, making it the most authentic forum around the event. Disrespect that – try to “own” it – at your own peril.

Instead, concentrate on adding value to that event experience. Improve the not-great stuff and amplify the best stuff, with the goal being to provide small, meaningful benefits that will demonstrate your understanding of your target markets, enhance their experience, and make your brand a welcome and appreciated part of it. If you don’t, an ambusher will.

A good example of this in Vancouver is the Bell Ice Cube, hosted by Bell (Canada). They have created a purpose-built venue that will operate as a free live site and host a live show every afternoon with Olympians. Yes, they will certainly be showcasing their products, but they are also creating an epicentre where people who may not have got tickets to the events can meet Olympians and immerse themselves in the Olympic experience. A number of Games sponsors are doing live sites, some are embarking on great social media campaigns – the key for them, and for you, is to think outside the event.

Ambush prevention really isn’t that tough, but it’s not the law or the event that will save you. In fact, ambush prevention has very little to do with defence and everything to do with your choices, your creativity, and your thoroughness. Sponsor well and there is no room for ambush.

There have been a few great questions on LinkedIn groups lately, particularly the Sponsorship Insights group. I put my two cents in on the discussion boards, but thought other readers might find them useful.

One question I found was about the five key factors sponsors take into account when selecting sponsorship. Great question! The problem is, the factors some sponsors do use for selection are a long way from the factors sponsors should use for selection.

Being a best practice sponsorship zealot, I’ve gone the route of what sponsors should be taking into consideration, and these are my top five:

1.

Did the event/property do any homework before they contacted me? Was the proposal customised? Was it about my brand at all, or simply about their worthiness or need? Customisation is not an absolute requirement, but in the initial stages, will tell you a lot about how professional and astute this potential partner is.

From here on in, they are absolutes…

2.

Is the event/property relevant and meaningful to my target market? Note, I didn’t say “does it reach my target market”. Getting in front of a market is old school thinking, connecting with them in a meaningful way is where it’s at now.

3.

Do we have sufficient lead-time to create and implement a leverage plan? For most major sponsors, we are talking several months, at minimum, and six months to a year or more for major investments.

4.

Do I have buy-in, internally? Sponsorship is no longer supported by huge amounts of incremental support, but is used as a catalyst to make already budgeted activities work harder, or replace less effective existing activities. (Yes, there are exceptions, such as quadrennial events, which are so big as to warrant war-chesting some budget and spending up on extra activity.) The key to using sponsorship in this way – maximising results and minimising incremental spend – is to get buy in and a commitment to leverage before starting negotiations. An extra bonus is that the process of creating that buy-in also creates a brains trust for creativity and troubleshooting.

5.

Can I negotiate the benefits I need, which based on the leverage ideas emanating from my stakeholders, are probably much different that they are offering? Can we get those benefits at a price point that is appropriate and within my budget? If it’s appropriate and desirable, but more that I have to spend, can I access other budgets, offer useful in-kind benefits in lieu of some of the fee, or otherwise get creative without disadvantaging my potential partner?

There are a few more hygiene factors, such as ensuring it doesn’t contravene any category exclusivity you require and that it fits in the context of your whole portfolio, but assuming those areas are in line, those are my top five.

If you want more on sponsorship selection, you can find more specifics in some of my other blogs. I suggest you click on the topics of sponsorship selection and sponsorship leverage.

There are also some good white papers for sponsors, downloadable from the Free Stuff section of this website, http:/www.powersponsorship.com/free-stuff.html-.

Good luck!

It’s early in the year – the time when people wipe the slate, make resolutions, and dedicate themselves to doing better. It’s when people give themselves permission to start over.

What if we applied that thinking to corporate sponsorship? What if sponsors took some time out from dealing with the administration of sponsorship and the improvement of sponsorship, and instead, dedicated themselves to the potential of sponsorship. What if they asked themselves this one question:

If you had the same sponsorship budget, but no commitments,
what would the perfect sponsorship portfolio
for your brand(s) and target markets look like?

I do this for my corporate clients all the time. In its formal iteration, it is called a zero-based audit, and it is often one of the most powerful parts of my recommendation. Strip away the politics, sentiment, history, and headaches, and suddenly my clients can see the true potential of sponsorship. More often than not, a senior decision maker will say, “now, we know what our goal is”. Bingo.

That’s your challenge. Whether your budget is $150,000 or $5 million or $50 million, leave the reality of your portfolio behind, work with your team, and ask yourselves these questions:

• What would you sponsor, if you could sponsor anything?
• At what level? What unique benefits would you want?
• Would you create and own any events or programs?
• Would you create any umbrella programs?
• How would you leverage your investments to meet brand needs?
• How would you integrate your investments across your other marketing and business activities?
• How would you involve your staff and customers in a meaningful way? Create a “win” for the people who are most critical to your success? Make them the heroes?

The process is creative and strategic and fun, but the real moment of truth comes when you compare what you could be doing with your money with what you are doing with your money. Suddenly, settling for improving mediocre sponsorships will seem a lot less appealing, and the ambitious goal of an entire portfolio that operates at peak performance will seem a lot more attainable. Mark my words.

I will say that whether you’re doing a straight audit or a zero-based audit, selling them internally can be a political minefield. Everyone has their pet projects and agendas, and none of them want to hear that their favourite is not the bees knees. You’ve really got two options:

Plan A is to enlist a senior executive (ideally, your head of marketing) in the process, as they will be able to navigate the c-level politics better than you will. If you’ve got that support and a team with even a modicum of creativity, you’re all set.

Plan B is to enlist outside help. For larger, more decentralised companies, as well as those with intractable politics, you are probably better off involving a consultant. A good consultant will bring a lot of expertise and ideas to the table, but one of the biggest bonuses is that some companies trust and accept the objective viewpoint of an outsider more than someone internal. They can deliver unpopular news, out-of-the-box solutions, and by virtue of their role, can present a reinvention on a scale that may be hard to accept if it came from inside.

Zero-based audit – Think clean slate. Think big. You’ll thank me.