MEASURING sponsorship value is crucial to proving its viability as a marketing channel. High profile events like the Rugby World Cup are a good litmus test.
Now that the Rugby World Cup has been fought and won on Australia turf, the question for marketers is who won the sponsorship battle?
To answer this, we have to go to the very heart of sponsorship’s eternal fight for credibility. That always comes down to how do we measure the value of sponsorship.
The answer is no different to how we might evaluate any other investment.
It involves setting objectives; measuring results; analysing costs and benefits; establishing return on investment; and comparing sponsorship with alternative marketing options.
One of sponsorship’s strengths is its ability to deliver multi-faceted benefits such as exposure, image/association, hospitality, tickets and of course actual sales.
However at the same time these are are often seen as impediments to measurement of ROI. This mindset is not good enough.
Sponsorship ROI is derived from considering all the returns from the package—tangibles and intangibles—and then measuring these against pre-determined objectives to assess the effectiveness of the investment.
A vital first step, not only for sponsorship but for any type of communications plan, is to establish the level of exposure generated from the activity.
While we are not privy to the objectives, leverage activities and investment levels of the Rugby World Cup sponsors, we can provide a snapshot of how successful each was in maximising their exposure opportunities during televised game time.
S-COMM Australia’s Spindex® sponsorship evaluation system has a patented methodology which determines the relative effectiveness of televised exposure by measuring frequency, duration and type of exposure as well as measuring the number of people watching.
In addition to providing a dollar value derived from the sponsorship market, the Spindex® system effectively measures the quality of exposures within the broadcast and ranks them using the Spindex® Rating Point (SRP).
This is calculated at both the macro total sponsor return level, as well as at the micro level—that is jersey versus board versus on field advertising versus product placement.
Who kicked their goals?
So which sponsors scored best on exposure opportunities?
While all Rugby World Cup sponsorships were customised packages, the exposure opportunities for the top-tier partners were similar during the RWC games.
The major points of difference were actually to be found in the leverage of the sponsorship incorporated within the broadcast programs.
Graph one shows that Suncorp group was the clear leader, with 24% of the total television exposure value from the 48 games.
Suncorp’s GIO Man of the Match segment, which recorded the best value of any of the sponsored in-game leverage activities, enhanced Suncorp’s sponsorship value.
Qantas ranked second with its Qantas Replay in-program property providing additional brand exposure to venue signage for the brand.
The viewer at home was also reminded of Qantas’ official sponsorship association through its broadcast sponsorship deals with both Channel 7 and Fox Sports.
Telstra came in third in the sponsorship stakes.
Significantly, like Qantas, Telstra’s basic RWC sponsorship benefits were also leveraged well through the Telstra Half Time Stats property as well as through deals with both Channel 7 and Fox Sports.
Who had the best sign?
S-COMM Australia’s sponsorship analysts found the Visa sign to be the most effective.
It had simple and clear presentation and was aided by the incorporation of the actual product to reinforce the message—the Visa logo was centred between two Visa credit cards.
Visa’s board recorded the highest Spindex® Rating Point SRP of 10,778—32% more than the next contender Heineken.
The scoresheet
How did the RWC rate against other major Australian sporting events?
S-COMM Australia’s Spindex® system tracks and analyses all televised sponsorship activity in both Australia and New Zealand. We can therefore utilise this database to compare relative performances across all codes and major events.
Graph three looks at three other major events held in Australia in 2003: the AFL Grand Final, the NRL Grand Final and the Bledisloe Test in Sydney—and analyses the performance of these events for their major participating sponsors.
While both the AFL and NRL Grand Finals provided greater value to their respective major sponsors, this is largely attributable to the far greater inventory selection available to the major partners for these events.
Traditionally sport clothing sponsorship and on-field/grass signage are two of the most valuable categories in the sponsorship market.
However these two forms of sponsorship were not allowed during the RWC.
The upshot is that while the presence of a major sponsor can’t be missed in the AFL Grand Final, NRL Grand Final and Bledisloe Test, the Rugby World Cup was shared between a larger number of major partners.
This meant limited branding opportunities.
Although the data provided here only deals with one element of sponsorship ROI, it does demonstrate how brands and sponsors, together with their agencies, can assess and plan both existing and future sponsorships for maximum effectiveness.
The ultimate goal is to deli-ver ever-increasing returns.
This can be done by systematically measuring and analysing as much as possible of the tangible and intangible elements of a sponsorship.
is director of S-COMM Australia, an Australian evaluation and research company in the sponsorship field.
