While reviewing my news feeds a week or so ago, I came across an announcement that Qantas had taken up naming rights sponsorship of the Australian Formula 1 Grand Prix. It was a short announcement, but the implications are much bigger.

The first consideration is that Qantas is already the official airline partner of the Australian Grand Prix, giving them a credible and appropriate platform around this event. In 2001, they actually downgraded from naming rights to that level.

I believe they’ve got this wrong and should have stayed at the official partner level, as they were in the perfect position to do what is referred to as “ambushing up”. The thinking is similar to ambush marketing, but not the mechanics. In an ambushing-up situation, a sponsor takes their perfectly legitimate sponsorship and leverages it so effectively – creating so much target market connection and meaning – that they get the marketing results you would expect from a much bigger sponsor.

While there are plenty of good reasons to take up naming rights sponsorship, in most situations, it is unnecessary. Being thorough and creative and focusing on the connection with the target market, not the property, can create huge results – much bigger than your typical naming rights sponsor, who concentrates on visibility, not creating real returns for the brand.

Every sponsor can benefit from ambushing up, and the airline category is in the ideal position to do it. They have planes full of bored people reading their magazines and watching their videos. They have lounges, terminals, and gates. They have ongoing relationships with millions of frequent flyers to nurture. They have travel agents and corporate accounts who need fostering. They send millions of emails to their customers and frequent flyers. Their online experience is heavily used, but virtually commoditised, and could do with some interesting, relevant content.

Airlines have so many customer touchpoints – and most of them provide a comparatively lengthy and captive opportunity to enhance the customer experience. They have countless opportunities to create real, meaningful wins for all or most of their target markets, so why aren’t they doing it? Why does Qantas they think having a bigger sponsorship is a better approach than actually… you know… using the one they’ve got?

As a Qantas customer who both flew with them and bought tickets online just last week, I can tell you firsthand that what they are doing is pretty standard, old school stuff. Case in point, if you go to their website – www.qantas.com.au – you’ll notice a that you could “win a trip to the Grand Prix”. Hoo-wee, now there’s some innovation! I get to give them my details for the slim chance of being the one person who wins two economy class tickets to Melbourne to watch the racing for the weekend!! Yawn.

Oh, and any frequent flyer can pay almost $2000 to use the Qantas Skydeck at the race. Any frequent flyer – you don’t have to be loyal or important to Qantas, you don’t have to be invited to participate, and it’s not in any way exclusive. You just have to have $2000 and a frequent flyer number. Their most frequent flyers can’t even cash in any of their millions of points to get a spot.

Seriously, it’s two weeks before a huge international event they’re sponsoring – now at an even higher level – and that’s the best they can do? They should be embarrassed.

Naming rights of an event of this size is a huge financial commitment and provides a commensurately huge platform to leverage. If a sponsor is prepared to fully leverage the opportunity – investing the time, creativity, and resources required – then naming rights is a viable option. On the other hand, if a sponsor can’t be bothered getting a lower level sponsorship right, stepping up is an opportunity wasted.

There is also the issue of timing. The announcement was dated 24 February. The race weekend is 25-28 March. Even if Qantas is justified in spending up for this bigger platform – and I’m not at all convinced that they are – all they’ve done is bought a larger opportunity. Leverage is what turns that opportunity into results for a brand. What kind of leverage program will create a result from a platform of that scope? One that takes a lot longer than a month to plan and implement!

As canvassed in my recent blog, Bad Idea #77: Sponsor the Olympics Three Weeks Before the Games, strong leverage planning takes time to build buy-in and go though the creative process. It also takes time to implement. Does Qantas have time to create in-flight content? A new ad? Create and launch a loyalty promotion? Anything of meaning that is above and beyond what they could have done with the lower level sponsorship, and do it in the space of four weeks? Doubtful.

This leaves the question of why they bumped up the investment, when it was both unnecessary and unworkable, from a marketing point of view. Without being a mind-reader, experience tells me there are three main options:

1. They have let their corporate ego get the best of them
2. They are under the impression that potential inbound passengers (people coming to Australia) are unaware that Qantas exists and that simply seeing the name Qantas ad infinitum during the telecast will somehow magically make people understand why they should choose Qantas for their travels. (It would have to be magic, because reams of research have proven that visibility does not change the perceptions or behaviours around a brand.)
3. They are trying to position themselves in a positive light with state and local government by stepping in with major, white knight funding at the last minute.

I’m very interested in your take on this. Why do you think they’ve done it? Do you think this major sponsorship increase is justifiable and why? Please post your answers below. Comments are moderated, but only because there are some real creeps in this world. Go ahead and fire away!

After hundreds of thousands of downloads, I thought it was high time to give my white papers a format that is as professional and well thought-out as I hope the content is. While I was at it, I also did some updates and revisions.

Want to have a look? The download links are below. All are in PDF form and most are around 250kb. “Last Generation Sponsorship” is around 1mb, as it has a lot of diagrams.

You are welcome to share these documents around, but please do not link directly to the PDF download (called “deep linking”) without my permission. You are more than welcome to link to this blog or our Sponsorship Articles and Tools page.

Sponsorship white papers

• “Last Generation Sponsorship” – My blockbuster white paper on best practice sponsorship, downloaded almost 400,000 times, reprinted in many, many industry publications in eight languages. Download it for yourself. Download it for your partners. Download it for your boss, board, or colleague. This article is guaranteed to get anyone thinking more strategically about sponsorship!
• “Sponsorship in a Scary Economy” – A very topical paper with practical skills for both sponsors and sponsorship seekers.
• “Survival Guide for the New Sponsorship” – Practical things you can do to shift your organisation’s approach into best-practice.
• “Don’t Go to Another Sponsorship Conference Until You Read This” – All sponsorship conferences are NOT created equal. This great guide will help you sort the good from the bad (and make organisers of the bad ones really miserable, if you want to).
• “Sponsorship and the Public Sector” – A wake-up call for all government sponsorship seekers.
• “Top Ten Tips for Sponsorship Seekers” – Short and sharp, this is a must read for sponsorship seekers, particularly if you’re new to the game.
• “What Every CMO Needs to Know About Sponsorship” – Aimed at corporate chief marketing officers, this white paper offers advice about the high-level decisions and directives that will impact on sponsorship results.

Sponsorship cheat sheets

• “Cheat Sheet: Questions to Ask Before You Hire a Sponsorship Broker” - This is a compilation of questions that will allow great brokers to shine, expose the shonks, and clarify the weaknesses and strengths of all the brokers in between.
• “Cheat Sheet: Marketing Terms a Sponsorship Seeker Must Know” – This is a list of some of the most common, but confusing, terms that sponsors use when describing their objectives and target markets. If you want to ensure you know what sponsors are talking about, be sure you know all of them!

Please, tell me what you think!

Have you read any of these white papers or cheat sheets? Got a comment? Please, add your comments below. I’d love to see them!

Please note, comments are moderated, but we get through them quite quickly. Spammers just get sneakier and sneakier!

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!

Today is 22 January. The Vancouver Olympics start on 12 February – three weeks from today – and yet, apparently the Vancouver Organizing Committee plan to sell another major sponsorship before the Games, and possibly more. Reports are that they already have a sponsor in mind.

This is just ridiculous. Committing to major sponsorship of an Olympic Games three weeks before it starts is just about the fastest way to waste money I can think of. Okay, maybe Vegas would be faster, but at least you would have the chance of a win. This new sponsor? No way.

When you invest in sponsorship, you are investing in opportunity. It is leverage that provides the results. It is the strategic activity you do with the sponsorship to achieve your goals that will provide the ROI, not the sponsorship itself. Planning and implementing these strategies takes time, and time is exactly what they don’t have.

• What sponsor could integrate this sponsorship across all of their activities – which is what you have to do when you’re spending tens of millions on one event – in three weeks?
• What sponsor could create a media campaign worthy of an Olympic sponsorship and launch it in three weeks? Are appropriate advertising slots even available at this point?
• What sponsor could create a hospitality program of the appropriate calibre in three weeks? Are there any decent hotel rooms or venues still available? Are clients even going to be available? Or have all the big clients been invited to the Games by someone else?
• What sponsor can plan and implement a staff program in three weeks?
• What sponsor could get a social media plan up and running in three weeks? I know social media is fast-moving, but creating something worth paying attention to often isn’t.

No sponsor could do that in three weeks, but that is what it would take to turn this sponsorship from a massive opportunity into any result at all.

So what is driving the interest in sponsoring now, given that sponsorships have been on the market for years? Only three options come to mind: Corporate ego, blinding ignorance, or politics. Of these, only politics could possibly, possibly justify the investment, as I can see where a company that made the investment that put VANOC over their target might be seen favourably by the various levels of Government. That would be an extreme long-shot.

Through all of this, VANOC is being pretty cocky – telling major media that they anticipate signing at least one more sponsor before the Games. Good for them. Unfortunately, not good for the sponsor.

In case you’re interested, here is a list of all of the Worldwide and Vancouver Olympic Sponsors.

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.