Ninth Annual IEG / Performance Research Sponsorship Decision-Makers Survey.
Post on 14-Dec-2015
241 Views
Preview:
Transcript
Ninth AnnualIEG / Performance Research
Sponsorship Decision-Makers Survey
VII. PROPERTY PERCEPTIONS p. 50
Table of ContentsI. METHODOLOGY p. 3
III. ASSERTIONS p. 10
IV. RESPONDENT PROFILE p. 12
V. SPONSORSHIP SPENDING AND INVOLVEMENT p. 16
VI. RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS p. 40
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY p. 5
3
I. MethodologyNinth AnnualNinth Annual
IEG / Performance ResearchIEG / Performance ResearchSponsorship Decision-Makers SurveySponsorship Decision-Makers Survey
Methodology
A total of 110 participants were contacted, via email, by Performance Research and asked to complete an online questionnaire about the sponsorship decision-making process.
Respondents were screened by IEG, Inc. to be sponsorship decision-makers from small, medium and large corporations worldwide.
Data collection was conducted in January and February 2009.
Research objectives included, but were not limited to, determining the benefits and services that are most important to companies when making sponsorship decisions and estimating how companies are budgeting for measurement and activation. The margin of error for this study is approximately + 5%.
This study was conducted in conjunction with IEG, LLC. www.sponsorship.com
4
5
II. Executive SummaryNinth AnnualNinth Annual
IEG / Performance ResearchIEG / Performance ResearchSponsorship Decision-Makers SurveySponsorship Decision-Makers Survey
Cold Hard Facts: IEG/Performance Research Study Documents Economy’s Effect On Sponsors
In case you need proof that the downward spiraling economy is having an impact on sponsors, here it is, courtesy of the ninth annual IEG/Performance Research Sponsorship Decision-makers Survey.
Fifty-one percent of the survey’s respondents said their companies’ spending on sponsorship fees will decrease this year from 2008 levels. Only 14 percent of sponsors plan to spend more, while 36 percent said their budgets would stay the same as last year (see chart on pg. 19).
The survey for the first time asked sponsors specifically about the direction of their activation spending, and the numbers were only marginally better than the answers to fee spending. Forty percent of sponsors say they will decrease activation spending this year compared to last, while 17 percent will increase it and 43 percent will hold their leveraging budgets steady from ’08 (see chart on pg. 25).
6
Source: IEG Sponsorship ReportMarch 09, 2009 Volume 28, Number 5www.iegsr.com
Cold Hard Facts: IEG/Performance Research Study Documents Economy’s Effect On Sponsors (continued…)
On an even more ominous note, slightly less than half of sponsors–47 percent–said they were seeking to get out of some of their current sponsorships even though those deals were not currently up for renewal (see chart on pg. 22).
One bright spot among the survey responses was the revelation that 60 percent of sponsors say they would consider signing first-time sponsorships in ’09 (see chart on pg. 23). That figure contradicts industry buzz that many sponsors had declared moratoriums on new deals this year.
However, the finding may not be as positive as it seems, if it means those companies are simply looking to abandon higher fee sponsorships and replace them with less expensive opportunities.
7
Source: IEG Sponsorship ReportMarch 09, 2009 Volume 28, Number 5www.iegsr.com
Cold Hard Facts: IEG/Performance Research Study Documents Economy’s Effect On Sponsors (continued…)
Two barometers of the industry’s health declined in this year’s survey. The average percentage of overall marketing budgets claimed by sponsorship fell from a record high 19.5 percent to 17.6 percent, while the average amount spent on activation relative to rights fees slipped for the second straight year to $1.40 for every $1 spent on rights fees from $1.50-to-$1 in the ’08 survey.
8
Source: IEG Sponsorship ReportMarch 09, 2009 Volume 28, Number 5www.iegsr.com
Research Spending Up, But Many Still Don’t Know ROI
Perhaps because of the constraints of the economy, sponsors are devoting more resources to evaluate sponsorship opportunities and to measure the success of their deals.
In the first case, the percentage of sponsors spending nothing on pre-selection research shrank from 47 percent to 41 percent (see chart on pg. 48), while sponsors spending nothing on evaluating return decreased from 33 percent to 29 percent (see chart on pg. 49).
However, the percentage of sponsors who said they did not know how their return on investment was trending grew from 24 percent to 31 percent (see chart on pg. 54).
The survey was conducted online in February and received 110 responses.
9
Source: IEG Sponsorship ReportMarch 09, 2009 Volume 28, Number 5www.iegsr.com
10
III. AssertionsNinth AnnualNinth Annual
IEG / Performance ResearchIEG / Performance ResearchSponsorship Decision-Makers SurveySponsorship Decision-Makers Survey
Assertions As usual, the IEG/Performance Research Sponsorship Decision-Maker Survey offers a number of important insights into what sponsors are looking for. Of note, a shift in the top benefits the are seeking from their deals. Two benefits made the top 10 listfor the first time: access to property content for digital and other purposes, along with obtaining a platform for experiential branding. On the other hand, receiving sponsor identification on property collateral materials – a perennial benefit on the list and one that was at number four last year – dropped off altogether.
Although it didn’t make the top 10, sponsors also were much more interested in obtaining access to survey audiences on-site – 33 percentrated the benefit a nine or a 10 on a 10-point scale, compared to 19 percent who rated it that highly last year.
Source: IEG Sponsorship ReportAssertions: Jim AndrewsMarch 09, 2009 Volume 28, Number 5www.iegsr.com
11
80%
80%
86%
87%
79%
82%
83%
78%
78%
78%
86%
77%
79%
77%
81%
82%
83%
87%
88%
87%
78%
82%
89%
86%
75%
77%
83%
79%
Implementingmarketing plans /activation supp.sponsorships
Selecting marketingplans / activation
supp. sponsorships
Selecting newproperties / events
to sponsor
Evaluate existingproperties
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
Decision Making Responsibilities
"Within your organization, which of the following describes your
responsibilities regarding sponsorship?13
5%
10%
11%
13%
17%
5%
12%
10%
16%
20%
92%
2%
2%
5%
2%
18%
64%
5%
8%
16%
10%
21%
88%
4%
9%
12%
12%
18%
94%
8%
5%
17%
7%
16%
72%
5%
9%
12%
12%
24%
78%
85%
Africa
South America
Australia / NewZealand
Asia / Pacific Rim
Europe
North America
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
Sponsorship ProgramsBy Region
“In what regions do your sponsorship programs operate?”14
0%
1%
2%
4%
5%
82%
1%
2%
2%
2%
3%
90%
2%
2%
0%
5%
6%
76%
0%
1%
1%
5%
6%
87%
0%
0%
1%
4%
4%
92%
0%
6%
0%
12%
13%
68%
1%
1%
2%
5%
12%
76%
South America
Africa
Asia / Pacific Rim
Australia / NewZealand
Europe
North America
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
Personal LocationBy Region
“In which region are you personally based?”15
16
V. Sponsorship Spending & InvolvementNinth AnnualNinth Annual
IEG / Performance ResearchIEG / Performance ResearchSponsorship Decision-Makers SurveySponsorship Decision-Makers Survey
2%
6%
12%
78%
13%
28%
73%
75%
17%
26%
61%
73%
8%
25%
71%
73%
9%
28%
72%
77%
13%
19%
72%
74%
16%
28%
71%
77%
Consult sponsorshipspecialist to
determine strategy
Receive detailsabout property from
a sales agency
Approached directlyby property owners
Set strategy andseek the right
property
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
Choosing Property to Sponsor
“How do you typically go about choosing a property to sponsor?”
17
47%
21%
9%
23%
46%
26%
9%
20%
Fourth Quarter(October -December)
Third Quarter (July -September)
Second Quarter(April - June)
First Quarter(January - March)
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
“During which time period does your company determine its sponsorship
budget?”18
When Sponsorship Budget is Decided
51%
36%
14%
19%
41%
40%
19%
43%
38%
18%
44%
38%
17%
47%
36%
20%
47%
33%
18%
42%
40%
Decrease
Stay the same
Increase
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
Likely Sponsorship Spending Compared to Prior Year
“How will your overall sponsorship spending in [2009] compare to [2008]?”
19
6%
9%
15%
17%
7%
26%
$30 million andabove
$15 million - $30million
$5 million - $15million
$1 million - $5 million
$500,000 - $1 million
Up to $500,000
2009; N=110
Sponsorship Spending in Prior Year
“About how much did your company spend on sponsorship in 2008?”
20
2%
2%
4%
8%
4%
37%
2%
0%
3%
7%
7%
15%
26%
0%
2%
1%
5%
7%
13%
13%
56%
2%
1%
1%
5%
3%
7%
17%
47%
17%
1%
0%
10%
6%
12%
19%
49%
3%
0%
7%
4%
1%
10%
21%
54%
3%
0%
2%
3%
5%
12%
29%
43%
3%
42%43%
75%-100%
51%-75%
41%-50%
31%-40%
21%-30%
11%-20%
1%-10%
0%
2003; N=102*
2004; N=72*
2005; N=73*
2006; N=149*
2007; N=84*
2008; N=61*
2009; N=52*
[*Based on those who responded]
“Approximately what % of your organization’s overall marketing budget do sponsorship rights fees represent?”
Percentage of MarketingBudget Spent On Sponsorship
21
Considering Dropping Any Current Sponsorships Not Up for Renewal
53%
47%
No
Yes2009; N=110
“Is your company seeking to drop out of any current sponsorships (those not up for renewal)?"
22
Considering New Sponsorships in 2009
40%
60%
No
Yes2009; N=110
“Is your company considering new sponsorships in 2009?"
23
7%
8%
16%
54%
16%
9%
12%
14%
48%
17%
11%
9%
26%
38%
16%
8%
15%
21%
43%
14%
7%
8%
21%
45%
19%
7%
9%
16%
46%
23%
12%
7%
20%
47%
13%
$4 to $1 or More
$3 to $1
$2 to $1
$1 to $1
0 to $1
2003; N=138*
2004; N=103*
2005; N=111*
2006; N=146*
2007; N=117*
2008; N=157*
2009; N=110*
Leveraging/Spending Ratio
“As best as you can estimate, what is your company’s typical promotional spending
ratio?”
Average Ratio of Activation Spending to Rights Fees
2003 – 1.7:1
2004 – 1.3:1
2005 – 1.5:1
2006 – 1.7:1
2007 – 1.9:1
2008 – 1.5:1
2009 – 1.4:1
[*Based on those who responded]
24
“How will your spending, specifically on sponsorship leveraging and activation in 2009,compare to 2008? Will it…?"
25
40%
43%
17%
Decrease
Stay the same
Increase
2009; N=110
Likely Direction of Leveraging & Activation Spending in 2009
49%
14%
41%
10%
32%
30%
44%
50%
38%
8%
27%
33%
40%
50%
42%
9%
17%
25%
43%
51%
48%
10%
13%
37%
50%
53%
43%
7%
23%
34%
43%
51%
46%
18%
24%
31%
39%
52%
26%
35%
36%
45%
None, manage in-house
Sponsorship specialist agency who soldrights
Independent sponsorship specialist
Property / rights holder
Public relations agency
Advertising agency
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
Agency Used for Support
“What types of agencies, if any, do you use to help leverage/support your sponsorship program?"
26
65%
72%
75%
76%
79%
62%
77%
69%
80%
71%
51%
77%
67%
79%
71%
59%
77%
65%
73%
76%
63%
87%
74%
86%
82%
58%
71%
77%
73%
76%
62%
75%
65%
72%
73%
Internet tie-ins
Public relations
Hospitality
Traditionaladvertising
Internalcommunications
2003; N=1532004; N=1102005; N=1112006; N=1502007; N=1322008; N=1652009; N=110
“During the past 12 months, which of the following marketing communication channels have you used to leverage your sponsorship programs?"
Marketing CommunicationChannels Used [Top 5 Results]
27
44%
46%
55%
58%
47%
50%
62%
60%
41%
56%
61%
49%
55%
50%
57%
57%
45%
51%
64%
47%
52%
45%
46%
37%
53%
46%
54%
44%
Sales promotionoffers
Business-to-business
Direct marketing
Sampling on-site
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
“During the past 12 months, which of the following marketing communication channels have you used to leverage your sponsorship programs?"
Marketing CommunicationChannels Used [Results 6-9]
28
9%
12%
13%
19%
23%
31%
23%
27%
12%
16%
41%
27%
15%
28%
11%
20%
36%
22%
20%
36%
14%
21%
31%
25%
12%
23%
9%
26%
36%
27%
8%
28%
17%
21%
29%
24%
15%
24%
16%
23%
31%
27%
Online sponsorship
Community events /festivals / fairs
Arts
Entertainment
Sports
Causes
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
“Compared to [2008], how much do you expect your company to be involved in the following types of sponsorship in [2009]?"
More Likely to be Involved in Sponsorship Category than Prior Yr.
29
16%
22%
22%
27%
33%
44%
10%
12%
21%
15%
26%
20%
12%
14%
17%
10%
18%
26%
15%
13%
27%
13%
25%
31%
9%
12%
21%
8%
15%
23%
11%
13%
15%
12%
14%
22%
11%
12%
18%
11%
18%
26%
Causes
Sports
Arts
Community events /festivals / fairs
Entertainment
Online sponsorship
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
Less Likely to be Involved in Sponsorship Category than Prior Yr.
30
“Compared to [2008], how much do you expect your company to be involved in the following types of sponsorship in [2009]?"
39%
53%
60%
66%
67%
32%
39%
58%
67%
71%
39%
42%
58%
64%
64%
43%
51%
51%
63%
68%
39%
51%
60%
70%
73%
51%
52%
71%
79%
71%
40%
43%
66%
75%
75%
Stimulate sales / trial /usage
Drive retail / dealertraffic
Change / reinforceimage
Create awareness /visibility
Increase brand loyalty
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
Sponsorship Objectives[Top 5 “9” & “10” Ratings]
"Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all and 10 is extremely, please rate the following objectives as to their importance to you or your marketing team's decisions when you evaluate which sports or properties to sponsor?"
31
16%
27%
35%
44%
13%
29%
38%
32%
16%
23%
38%
33%
21%
21%
35%
35%
20%
25%
37%
32%
14%
25%
46%
43%
19%
29%
44%
38%
Gain on-site salesrights
Entertain clients /prospects
Showcase community/ social responsibility
Sample / displays /showcase products /
services
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
Sponsorship Objectives[Other top “9” & “10” Ratings]
"Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all and 10 is extremely, please rate the following objectives as to their importance to you or your marketing team's decisions when you evaluate which sports or properties to sponsor?"
32
7%
13%
11%
16%
27%
53%
7%
10%
10%
19%
29%
39%
11%
7%
6%
14%
23%
42%
7%
6%
9%
13%
21%
51%
12%
14%
8%
13%
25%
51%
12%
10%
10%
9%
25%
52%
11%
9%
14%
15%
29%
43%
Excite employees
Incent sales force
Network withcosponsors
Sell to sponsee
Entertain clients /prospects
Drive retail / dealertraffic
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
"Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is ‘Not at all’ and 10 is ‘Extremely,’ please rate the following objectives as to their importance to you or your marketing team's decisions when you evaluate which sports or properties to sponsor?"
Sponsorship Objectives -Business To Business [“9” & “10” Ratings]
33
16%
39%
44%
46%
13%
32%
32%
36%
16%
39%
33%
30%
21%
43%
35%
31%
20%
39%
32%
30%
14%
51%
43%
34%
19%
40%
38%
36%
Gain on-site salesrights
Stimulate sales / trial /usage
Sample / display /showcase products
Capture database /lead generation
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
Sponsorship Objectives -Sales & Promotional [“9” & “10” Ratings]
34
"Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is ‘Not at all’ and 10 is ‘Extremely,’ please rate the following objectives as to their importance to you or your marketing team's decisions when you evaluate which sports or properties to sponsor?"
35%
35%
60%
66%
67%
29%
38%
58%
67%
71%
33%
38%
58%
64%
64%
29%
35%
51%
63%
68%
34%
37%
60%
70%
73%
36%
46%
71%
79%
71%
40%
44%
66%
75%
75%
Access platform forexperiential branding
Showcase community/ social responsibility
Change / reinforceimage
Create awareness /visibility
Increase brand loyalty
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
Sponsorship Objectives -General [“9” & “10” Ratings]
35
"Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is ‘Not at all’ and 10 is ‘Extremely,’ please rate the following objectives as to their importance to you or your marketing team's decisions when you evaluate which sports or properties to sponsor?"
41%
46%
44%
49%
58%
45%
36%
41%
54%
64%
39%
33%
42%
54%
55%
39%
42%
39%
53%
67%
50%
36%
53%
56%
78%
55%
44%
52%
57%
61%
56%
39%
46%
62%
69%
Broadcast adopportunity
Access to propertymailing list / database
Title of proprietaryarea
On-site signage
Category exclusivity
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
"Using the same scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is ‘Not at all’ and 10 is ‘Extremely,’ please rate the following benefits as to how valuable they are to your organization?"
Value of Benefits[Top 5 “9” & “10” Ratings]
36
33%
35%
36%
38%
38%
19%
19%
39%
31%
38%
21%
40%
32%
32%
25%
45%
28%
35%
22%
45%
38%
32%
27%
48%
38%
36%
28%
53%
35%
38%
Rights to surveyaudience onsite
Access to propertycontent for digital &
other uses
ID in property's mediabuy
Right to propertymarks / logos
Presence on propertywebsite
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
Value of Benefits[“9” & “10” Ratings 6-10]
37
NA
"Using the same scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is ‘Not at all’ and 10 is ‘Extremely,’ please rate the following benefits as to how valuable they are to your organization?"
25%
25%
29%
30%
32%
25%
30%
26%
23%
43%
21%
25%
23%
29%
35%
29%
27%
27%
24%
37%
32%
33%
32%
41%
33%
32%
35%
35%
42%
41%
25%
30%
34%
37%
44%
Opportunity toparticipate in turnkey
retailer promos.
Tickets / hospitality
Right to promote co-branded product /
service
Access to propertyprovided research
ID property collateralmaterials
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
Value of Benefits[“9” & “10” Ratings 11-15]
38
"Using the same scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is ‘Not at all’ and 10 is ‘Extremely,’ please rate the following benefits as to how valuable they are to your organization?"
11%
16%
17%
19%
22%
23%
7%
11%
18%
14%
30%
23%
6%
14%
14%
16%
28%
23%
5%
15%
21%
15%
29%
19%
11%
18%
22%
19%
30%
29%
18%
16%
29%
23%
39%
32%
16%
14%
21%
22%
40%
28%
Access to property merchandise
Pass through rights to your own retailers
Intro to cosponsors / cross-promotionopportunities
Nonprofit / cause overlay
Ad in program book
Spokesperson / access to personalities
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
39
Value of Benefits[“9” & “10” Ratings 16-21]
"Using the same scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is ‘Not at all’ and 10 is ‘Extremely,’ please rate the following benefits as to how valuable they are to your organization?"
VI. Research ConsiderationsNinth AnnualNinth Annual
IEG / Performance ResearchIEG / Performance ResearchSponsorship Decision-Makers SurveySponsorship Decision-Makers Survey
40
5%
13%
16%
19%
21%
38%
40%
5%
15%
15%
19%
18%
29%
42%
Syndicated consumer research
TV exposure analysis
Print media analysis / Clipping
Primary Consumer Research
Dealer / Trade response
Sales / Promo bounce-back measures
Internal Feedback
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
“Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is ‘not at all’ and 10 is ‘extremely’, please rate the importance of the following types of analysis in evaluating whether to change or renew a sponsorship?"
Importance of Various Types of Analysis [“9” & “10” Ratings]
41
0%
0%
3%
6%
14%
20%
20%
34%
1%
2%
3%
8%
10%
14%
20%
35%
1%
6%
5%
5%
11%
11%
18%
35%
1%
1%
2%
13%
17%
9%
20%
27%
2%
1%
0%
7%
18%
10%
15%
40%
4%
1%
0%
10%
16%
5%
6%
31%
Newspapers
Independent agencies
Conferences
Colleagues
Industry press / journals
Sports Business Journal
Internet
IEG
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=88*
2008; N=95*
2009; N=110
“What is your primary source of sponsorship industry news?"
Primary Source ofSponsorship Industry News
[*Based on those who responded]
42
66%
72%
75%
75%
77%
68%
71%
70%
68%
76%
56%
55%
71%
64%
74%
60%
65%
65%
68%
81%
55%
81%
63%
82%
82%
41%
66%
68%
68%
76%
40%
70%
58%
69%
78%
Internet
Colleagues andcontacts
Sponsorship Websites
Sponsorship industrynewsletters
Advertising /marketing magazines
and journals
2003; N=151*
2004; N=108*
2005; N=108*
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=164*
2009; N=110
“From the following list, which sources would you say you rely on to provide you with sponsorship industry news?"
Sources of SponsorshipIndustry News [Top 5 Sources]
[*Based on those who responded]
43
20%
36%
32%
54%
15%
31%
42%
52%
14%
27%
37%
53%
15%
27%
40%
44%
21%
32%
40%
62%
24%
28%
58%
48%
20%
22%
46%
42%
Radio / TV
E-mail circulars
Newspapers
Industry conferences
2003; N=151*
2004; N=108*
2005; N=108*
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=164*
2009; N=110
[*Based on those who responded]
44
Sources of SponsorshipIndustry News [Sources 6-9]
“From the following list, which sources would you say you rely on to provide you with sponsorship industry news?"
46%
68%
81%
85%
49%
73%
82%
92%
54%
64%
77%
91%
47%
65%
77%
87%
53%
69%
86%
90%
64%
69%
79%
94%
52%
61%
67%
88%
Psychographics
Fan Passion / Affinity
Attendance
Demographics
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
"Which of the following do you typically analyze when making your decision?"
Information Sought Pre-Sponsorship [Top 4 Results]
45
36%
39%
42%
46%
36%
42%
50%
49%
36%
36%
43%
47%
33%
35%
40%
45%
41%
41%
50%
54%
45%
46%
55%
59%
41%
36%
30%
31%
TV ratings
Interest in propertyamong trade / dealers
What yourcompetition sponsors
Growth trends inproperty category
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
"Which of the following do you typically analyze when making your decision?"
46
Information Sought Pre-Sponsorship [Results 5-8]
73%
27%
81%
19%
75%
25%
81%
19%
78%
22%
83%
17%
74%
26%
No
Yes
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
Have A Budget forSponsorship Research
“Do you have an on-going budget for sponsorship research?"
47
“Approximately what % of a sponsorship’s total budget is typically spent on pre-selection research to evaluate fit?”
% of Rights Fee Spent on Pre-Event Research to Evaluate Fit
1%
14%
43%
41%
1%
19%
33%
47%
More than 5%
1% to 5%
1% or Less
None
2008; N=162*
2009; N=104*
48
[*Based on those who responded]
3%
23%
38%
29%
5%
18%
44%
33%
0%
18%
42%
27%
1%
24%
33%
42%
3%
23%
49%
26%
3%
11%
43%
41%
1%
18%
46%
31%
More than 5%
1% to 5%
1% or Less
None
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
“Approximately what % of a sponsorship’s total budget is typically spent on concurrent / post-event research to measure success?”
% of Rights Fee Spent on Concurrent / Post-event Research
49
50
VII. Property PerceptionsNinth AnnualNinth Annual
IEG / Performance ResearchIEG / Performance ResearchSponsorship Decision-Makers SurveySponsorship Decision-Makers Survey
15%
23%
31%
38%
38%
40%
50%
12%
16%
26%
32%
35%
37%
46%
10%
18%
21%
27%
27%
27%
42%
15%
23%
25%
29%
31%
35%
49%
17%
22%
30%
41%
39%
48%
59%
28%
28%
39%
45%
50%
48%
57%
22%
18%
29%
38%
33%
48%
52%
Sponsor workshop
Third-party evaluation statement
Research on audience buying habits
Leveraging ideas
Research on sponsor loyalty
Research on sponsor recall
Post event report / fulfillment audit
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
“Please rate the following ‘property-provided services’ as to how valuable they are to your organization?"
Value Placed On Property Provided Services [“9” & “10” Ratings]
51
23%
11%
23%
4%
6%
8%
18%
13%
15%
13%
15%
7%
4%
15%
9%
9%
13%
18%
26%
5%
2%
17%
13%
11%
12%
11%
12%
6%
16%
19%
12%
17%
18%
7%
25%
5%
6%
9%
6%
10%
7%
6%
15%
14%
14%
28%
7%
17%
9%
11%
18%
9%
11%
19%
11%
15%
Highest ratings - 9 &10 [NET]
8
7
6
5
4
3
Lowest ratings - 1 & 2[NET]
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
“To what degree do you depend on properties to help you measure your ROI during / after your sponsorship involvement?”
Average Ratio of Activation Spending to Rights Fees
2003 Mean=5.2
2004 Mean=4.4
2005 Mean=5.9
2006 Mean=5.2
2007 Mean=5.4
2008 Mean=5.9
2009 Mean=6.0
Extent To Which You Depend OnProperties To Measure ROI
52
66%
34%
73%
27%
71%
30%
73%
27%
69%
32%
67%
33%
70%
30%
No
Yes
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
“Are properties meeting your expectations in delivering ROI measurement or research information?"
Properties Meeting Expectations
53
31%
6%
12%
52%
24%
6%
15%
56%
24%
4%
21%
52%
18%
6%
22%
54%
14%
13%
26%
47%
Don't know
Decreased
Stayed the same
Increased
2004; N=110
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
2009; N=110
“In general, over the past few years has your ROI from sponsorship…?"
Perceived ROI From Sponsorship Over Past Few Years
54
Company Profile
55
Performance Research (Newport, Rhode Island) was organized in 1985 to provide quantitative and qualitative
evaluation of event marketing programs to corporate sponsors, properties and their agencies.
Over the past twenty years, the company has conducted over 1 million on-site, on-line, and telephone interviews and
more than 500 focus groups regarding corporate sponsorships of sports, leisure activities and special events. As a
leader in custom sponsorship evaluation, Performance Research has in-depth experience with varied events
worldwide, and is a primary research partner with many of the world’s top corporate sponsors, including: Anheuser-
Busch, Coca-Cola, Citi-Financial, R.J. Reynolds, Sony-Ericsson and UBS.
Performance Research
25 Mill Street
Newport, RI USA
02840
401-848-0111
www.performanceresearch.com
contact: Bill Doyle, Vice President
Bill@performanceresearch.com
56
top related