|Sponsorship valuation is driven by rightsholders. The simple fact is that they tend to be the ones paying for the analysis, and whoever pays the piper calls the tune.|
It makes complete sense for the rightsholders to be leading this particular charge. They have sponsorship properties to create and sell. They not only need to know where to price them but also need to be able to justify that price during the sales process.
A whole industry has grown around this proposition. In fact, just yesterday ESP Properties, a new “super-agency” born out of IEG, GroupM and Two Circles was formed to focus on exactly this. They will be taking the fight to IMG, CAA, Wasserman, Repucom and the many others who all have their sights trained firmly on this space.
There is no doubt that these are all great agencies doing some pretty sophisticated things to help rightsholders better understand and maximise the amount of money they can command for their sponsorship properties on the open market. Because, at the end of the day, the value of a sponsorship property from the rightsholder’s perspective is the same as the value of a house: it is worth what someone is willing to pay for it…and you only need one party to be willing to pay that. Effectively that means that rightsholder consultants are like estate agents, helping the rightsholders determine the “list price” based on market benchmarks and the property’s features (rights) and helping them find a buyer.
|But in this rush to help the rightsholders monetise their properties, who is helping brands understand the value of their sponsorship, independently and without any conflicts of interest?|
This is particularly important, because, as we argued in our Synergy Decisions White Paper, a sponsorship does have a real, economic value to the sponsor: the increase in the company’s value as a result of increased revenue or decrease costs. But this value is entirely contextual of the sponsor and their activation campaign.
To put it bluntly, the exact same sponsorship property with the same basic rights would have a completely different value to Coca-Cola, McDonald's, P&G, Samsung, Panasonic, Visa, Toyota, Bridgestone, Omega, GE, Dow, Atos. That’s because each of those companies has different business models, audiences, products, routes-to-market, marketing channels, purchase drivers and competitive environments.
Further, the exact same property would be worth a different amount to the same brand depending on how effectively they activated it. For example, I don’t think it’s too controversial to say that the London Cycle Hire scheme could have been worth far more to Barclays (and no doubt will be worth far more to Santander) had they done more with it.
The challenge for brands is to determine the economic value their sponsorship does or could create. And this requires a completely different approach to the one that rightsholders use – one like Synergy Decisions.