Sponsorship and Event Management

Sponsorship and Event Management

It’s interesting I am doing a presentation on PR for another subject tomorrow and after doing the research for that, my views regarding PR have changed. Maybe not as substantially for me to re-evaluate where I think the PR function should be in an organisation but enough for me to say that PR certainly does and should have a place in the organisation and perhaps that place is independent of a marketing department because from there an organisation’s PR is likely to gain more credibility. But anyway enough of the confessional and onto this weeks readings…

It made me think about PR in that…it seems that in this chapter more than ever the lines between the marketing and PR functions are blurred. It has been put to me that PR doesn’t involve the transactional aspect that marketing does (meaning that the over-arching objective of marketing involves the push to a transaction). However with this chapter, and more so with sponsorship than event management (although there is still a hint of transactional push in events) there is an influence on the transactional aspect to the messages and arguments presented. There is even a suggestion that integrated marketing must take place to enhance an events profitability!

I was a little bit surprised to read this week’s chapters (for those that have read this blog before you can probably guess why). In previous weeks I have been somewhat surprised when reading about the Public Relations function and how closely related it is to the Marketing function but this week was perhaps the most blatant.

Sponsorship – much like Public Relations itself – is simply an extension of the ‘promotional mix’ from the marketing 4p’s (or for 8p’s). Johnson and Zawawi (2004) indicate that events must fit within an overall PR strategy – this might be so but the research seems to indicate that sponsorship (and events) must fit within not only marketing objectives but also an organisation’s objectives (Shank, 2005). Shank suggests that a sponsorship will only be successful if there is conceived congruence between the sponsored event and the organisation sponsoring the event. Congruence is important because it helps people retain the information after the event. If congruence is limited then the sponsorship can be viewed as ineffective and the organisation wouldn’t have achieved its objectives.

Another questionable point that Johnson and Zawawi make is in regards to the over-arching reasons why organisations employ sponsorship. They make assertions that marketing sponsorships are the only type that are invested in with the primary objective being ROI. I dispute this assertion because, with regards to the responsibility that organisations owe shareholders, surely any sponsorship entered into has the objective of ROI; it may not be short-term direct return, but definitely long term indirect gain (Shank, 2005).

The third aspect to this chapter I found somewhat interesting was the point made in regards to leveraging the sponsorship. Johnson and Zawawi rather broadly suggest that organisations invest four times the amount in leveraging the sponsorship. I know that Johnson and Zawawi have numerous years more experience than I, but perhaps when they are making assumptions as such it could be backed up with references as it would support their point of view. Research does suggest that for organisations to achieve sponsorship success that they must invest three times the amount (Shank, 2005).

Another interesting point made was in regards to ambush marketing and how organisations can protect their investments from the misrepresentation of other organisations. This is less likely to happen now given the strict laws governing this but certainly at the time of writing this would have been a major concern for organisations looking to sponsorships.

I think the most important part of the readings were….planning is vital (be it marketing or PR planning) and the lack thereof can lead to the downfall of any promotional, sponsorship, event management and even business plan. It is important that these plans take into account SMART objectives and also elements of crisis management. Crisis management is more than just another marketing buzzword but rather an evolution of the world that we live in. Organisations must take into account all manner of things that can go wrong in the execution of a plan and devise strategies for how they will minimise the possible impacts that said crisis might have. O’Toole and Mikolatitis’ framework will become critical for this.

The other aspect to take from this reading concerns the importance of “…selling the sizzle not the steak…” (Johnson and Zawawi, 2004, p351) given the fragmentation that is occurring in the media, and also the competition that events face given the saturation rate, it is critical that PR practioners (or marketers!) must become more and more creative in developing plans and events.

Finally I think that the most prudent part of this reading was the fact there was no reference or discussion with regards to what can go wrong in the sponsorship of events. We have all noticed news of late regarding Andrew Johns but taking it further with drugs in cycling and footballers behaving badly these events all have repercussions on their sponsors none of which have been discussed by Johnson and Zawawi.

References

Johnston, J. and Zawawi, C. 2004, Public relations: theory and practice. 2^nd edition. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin

Shank, M. D. 2005, Sports Marketing: A Strategic Perspective (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.

I have just looked at Emma's blog.....http://cmns1290emmamurphy.blogspot.com/.....Emma makes some good points about the benefits of sponsorship and who is benefits the most (sponsors or the event). She also outlines how important planning is in the sponsorship and event management