Power of Three

Here’s one… A trend I’m predicting to gather momentum this year is the inclusion of a third party to partnership marketing. As the creative standards grow within the sponsorship sector, the demands for uniqueness and originality grow with it. 

I’m not suggesting that a conventional Brand x Rights Holder engagement is insufficient - far from it. What I’m seeing is a greater opportunity to connect and inspire by folding a third ingredient into the mix. 

Like many trends, this is one I’ve seen bubbling up under the surface within various subcultures. One of particular note is the masterful work of the Shoe Surgeon. This artist has forged an incredible niche by dismantling our favourite sneaker brands and re-building them with a bespoke twist. Be that another fashion brand, or even a confectionary brand, the results are captivating and unique. 

So what can this third element look like? In my opinion, it doesn’t always need to be another brand - it could be - but another element that brings additional equity to the outcome. It could be a person, a media channel, another property or indeed another brand. 

Arguably, we’ve seen examples of this third pillar for a while, but I’d also argue this was more default than design. The role of ambassadors sitting across multiple sponsorships is a good example. Where I see the potential value is by building these outcomes from the ground up and thereby adding specific elements together with a clear idea in mind. 

I’ve been working with a business in the US recently and have made this third element a core part of their partnership marketing strategy. It’s a simple addition to a strategy that acts as a turbocharger, not a straightjacket. We’re currently working on some exciting campaigns that bring these two other elements into play, and I’ll share outcomes when it’s suitable to do so. 

In the meantime, have a think about what brand, person, channel or technology you can add into your campaigns to bring a new and unique element to the execution. I’m fairly certain it’ll pay dividends.

Why Reach Keeps Me Up…

Here’s one… I’ve wanted to write about ‘reach’ for a while. It’s the single biggest concern I have with our industry, and one I think we all need to be well aware of.

With NSW in the midst of a lockdown due to last god-knows-how-long, and other states experiencing their own ‘squeaky bum time’ now feels like the right time to talk about reach. So why does it concern me as much as it does? The answer lies in a number of places, and I’ll do my best to outline them.

1. Selling sponsorship based on the audience it reaches, while important, allows the marketing industry to view sponsorship as a media channel and therefore compare it to other media channels. While many of our top properties come with huge audiences, none of them can reach as many consumers as other channels can for a fraction of the cost. Ergo - we’re wrongly educating the industry that the strength of sponsorship is its ability to reach an audience vs. its ability to persuade an audience. 

2. When sport grinds to a halt, sponsors run for the hills. We saw this at the outset of Covid, and we’re at risk of seeing it again now. Marketeers want make-goods, refunds or terminations because they’re no longer reaching fans in the numbers they were sold. Fans are fans regardless of whether an event is cancelled or not. Clearly this is a case by case thing, but I’d bet the majority of brands with grievances were just logo slapping in the first place. 

3. Focussing on reach takes the focus away from actually using sponsorship. If you’re justifying sponsorship spend based on reach and therefore media value, it’s highly likely you’re not leveraging IP or integrating the sponsorship into your business or value chain (hint: this is where sponsorship will crush any other media channel for performance). Sponsorship isn’t a media channel, it’s a business strategy. Logos mean nothing without a proposition behind it. 

4. Reach blurs the lines of logic. It’s like a crack pipe for the sponsorship industry. You just want more and more of it regardless of whether there is a better-placed property to help solve your problem, albeit with a smaller reach. Are we overlooking opportunities to partner with more niche properties in search of others with maximum reach? I reckon we are…  

So if reach really does worry me, what do I propose we do about it? Well, it’s actually quite simple. Don’t start with it, don’t focus on it and don’t justify against it. 

Instead, focus on finding the property with the best potential to solve your problem. Then, build the sponsorship proposition that aligns the property with your business and/or brand strategy. Finally, get creative and design a solution that can be integrated into your business. 

Only once you’ve done this, can you then use what reach is available to hit your audience. If you need more reach than the property provides, top it up with paid spend. You will end up with a far more powerful approach that isn’t impacted if an event is postponed. 

I’m super passionate about this topic and hope my concerns and suggestions have been clearly articulated. Selling/buying reach is a race to the bottom. We have a mountain to climb to get the collective marketing industry to see sponsorship for its myriad advantages and to use it to its best to solve problems. Reach is always going to be important, but it can also be our demise...