Enjoy this 4 minute interview with General Mills' SVP and Chief Marketing Officer Mark Addicks about the history, present strategy, and future direction of General Mills' support and sponsorship of nonprofits and causes. Key take-away: it all focuses on the customer.
Want to ensure that your sponsorship of an event or cause really delivers the ROI you intend? That requires one step.
Be an active sponsor.
Don't just send a check and a logo and sit back and wait for the results to tally. Instead make a deep organizational commitment and investment so that the check and logo you do send off are in service to the results you're trying to achieve.
Let me show you what I mean. Today is the first day of one of the best sponsored events in Philadelphia –– the Philadelphia International Flower Show –– and it also happens to be one of the most renowned flower shows in the country, this year celebrating Hawaii. (I'm heading there tomorrow so check back later in the week for photos and more on what I experience.) Here's a sneak peek.
I decided to check out what a handful of the sponsors are doing to activate their sponsorship investments outside of the event. Prognosis: inactive sponsors not fully taking advantage of an enormous opportunity.
Of the five sponsor web sites I surfed (yes, that's a tribute to the Hawaii theme), only one, SugarHouse Casino, mentions the sponsorship on its home page, linking to a page describing transportation services the casino is offering. Park at its giant lot and ride for free, which is a great service. Driving, much less parking, is tough around the event site.
While I did not expect to see the event on Subaru's national site, since this is a regional event, I was surprised it wasn't listed on any of the regional dealers' sites, especially since Subaru is celebrating spring in a promotion.
Three other sponsors, Acme Markets, PA Wine & Spirits, and Bank of America, each had zip on their sites. The PA Wine & Spirits (@PAWineSpirits) did, however, have a couple messages on Twitter:
Visit our store at the @PhilaFlowerShow March 4-11 to sample wines & spirits from around the world (21+). For more info ow.ly/9qRKf
PA's first to have new @Bethenny @SkinnygirlCKTL #wines, #spirits. Try them at free on-site tastings (21+) next week @PhilaFlowerShow!
While I was glad to see to see this social media tie, it did seem strange to me that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which runs the retail outlets here for wine and liquor, is actively promoting liquor sampling.
Further disappointment was Acme, to which I gave "Best of Show" two years ago for their lovely display and cause marketing effort. Proceeds from an official bouquet benefited the Pennsylvania Horticulture Society, producers of the Flower Show. I couldn't wait to see what they were doing in store.
However, if you walked into this Acme, less than two miles from the show, you'd never know they were a sponsor. There are no signs, banners, end aisle displays, mentions, references –– nothing. I expected to see the official bouquets on display, signs or banners when I entered –– something that would reference and honor the partnership.
When I headed to the check out line, I expected to see promotion at the cash register. They have Acme TV, but again, nothing about the sponsorship or the fact that you could purchase tickets at the store. I asked the cashier about the tickets, and he wasn't too sure, but thought I could buy them at the customer service counter, which I did.
The in-store fun they could have had! And an opportunity missed. Don't waste your dollars sponsoring an event if you're not going to take full advantage of it. No wonder some corporations question the value of sponsorship or say "it doesn't work" (yes, I've actually been told this). You have to sieze the opportunity. And be active.
As you head out for the weekend, here's some inspiration on how you might engage corporations in your cause or in your community. Norte Beer of northern Argentina flips social conventions, cleans up towns, and makes girlfriends fall in love with their guys, out with the guys. Enjoy!
Earlier this year, I issued a set of predictions for 2011 about causes and corporations, including one that stated that corporate sincerity would be questioned. On Friday, a research study reveals that only 37 percent of Americans have purchased a product tied to a cause, even though 96 percent of Americans note two or three causes important to them.
Researchers cite Americans' "skepticism" that businesses are supporting causes that are aligned with their brands. Seventy-four percent of the individuals surveyed said there is a disconnect between the brand and the cause, while 67 percent believe that businesses are only supporting a cause to sell products.
I agree and suggest two additional explanations:
Some causes are undermining their trusted positions by accepting dollars from and full cause marketing campaigns with businesses that are misaligned with their missions. Buckets for a Cure comes to mind. If the corporate partner and nonprofit mission are not aligned in terms of values, among other points, consumers register cognitive dissonance and ultimately distrust, cynicism, and skepticism towards both the cause and corporation.
In the waning days of the recession and into the slow economic recovery, we heard lots of news about causes needing our assistance, especially because of the negative toll the economy had on their funding sources and the lives of constituents. At the same time, with corporate and institutional trust down, many corporations turned to cause marketing and partnering with the nonprofit sector or, generically, a cause to build trust, enhance reputations, and ingratiate their brands among consumers. The result? Cause fatigue.
Cause marketing and partnership between nonprofits and corporations is by no means over, but as a tactic, both parties would be wise to ensure an optimum alignment and clear strategy.
Nonprofits: does the tie enhance your brand? Foster your mission? Excite your constituents and donors? Or does it make you feel a little uncomfortable, even queasy? If you don't feel good about this partnership, if there is no strategic imperative, do not move forward and do not accept this money.
A nonprofit leader said to me earlier this year, "We don't need policies [around corporate sponsorship]. We'll accept money from anyone." Not for long, you won't.
Corporations: check your intentions. Are your customers and/or employees truly passionate about this cause? Are the opportunities offered by your potential partners' business changing, for your brand and for the nonprofit? Or are you unclear about why you should work with this cause? Or are your intentions a little more selfish?
A young nonprofit fundraiser asked me whether it was a good idea for her organization, which preserves farmland, to accept sponsorship from a real estate developer. Can you see that it's all about intentions here?
It's not easy saying no to an opportunity, but when it's not a good, solid fit, the tie will backfire, causing more harm than good, destroying trust. It's perfectly acceptable to say, "no."
Today's post continues with part two of a two-part Q&A with writer Michael J. McDermott for his article on improving the effectiveness of event sponsorship for ANA Magazine, a publication of the Association of National Advertisers. You'll find Part 1 here.
Michael J. McDermott (MJMcD): How should marketers measure the success of a sponsorship campaign? What metrics should they be using and how accessible is the data they need?
Gail S. Bower (GSB): Businesses market for only 2 reasons: to build awareness and to generate sales. So these are the fundamental metrics.
What many marketers become confused about is how to evaluate sponsorship using these metrics and often resort to one of the only measures they know – cost per thousand – which is inappropriate.
Sponsorship is a qualitative medium – not a quantitative one, like advertising. The most important characteristic of sponsorship is that it is experiential. It allows marketers to have face-to-face interactions with customers or clients in a more relaxed setting and in ways that foster higher degrees of emotional resonance and connection. Think relationship-building, conversations about products or services, and sensory experiences of a product. Or communicating something highly nuanced.
Therefore, marketers must be very clear about what their objectives are from the outset and work with their partners to co-create the sponsorship opportunity so it is designed to meet these metrics. Don’t make the property guess. (Unfortunately many corporations have silly online applications, which prohibit the quality co-development of an opportunity.)
If a company needs sales results, traffic building (either online or to a retail location), or product usage, for example, as a measure for success, the property (sports team, event, cause, festival, etc.) needs to design the opportunity accordingly.
Then it will likely take time to build equity into the effort, refine and evolve the execution, and see truly meaningful results. Marketers should build quality relationships with their partners and intend to grow and evolve the sponsorship over time. Conversely, investing in a one-day or one-weekend event and expecting sales miracles is unrealistic. All internal parties – from the C Suite to the retail level – should be educated about what to expect, how to participate to really bring forth the results, and why being passive is ineffectual.
The marketer should expect the property to have an understanding of its audiences, hopefully based on research; a solid branding and marketing strategy and operation; and competence to assemble its assets in a way that addresses the marketer’s objectives. In addition, the property can provide documentation of how the sponsorship was executed, but it’s really up to the marketer to measure results.
MJMcD: Can you suggest an example of a sponsorship opportunity that has worked well for the sponsoring marketer and discuss why it has been successful?
GSB: Automotive sponsorships are great examples. I’ve worked with Subaru, Toyota, Mercedes-Benz, Chevrolet, and others over the years, both directly and indirectly. It’s no secret that people can have an aversion to the whole car-buying experience – pushy sales people; big, costly investments for which many people lack sufficient knowledge to make; and it can be stressful (fear of buying a lemon etc.). Most people I know do not relish the idea of going to a car dealership.
However, when an automotive company sponsors an event, if it’s executed well with an onsite experience of the car – ranging from displays to actual test-drives – the dynamic changes entirely. Eventgoers want to sit in the car, look under the hood, touch all the doodads in the car, and even ask the representative questions. The eventgoer may not buy the car on the spot, but the marketer has enhanced its chances for consideration when the big purchase time comes around. It’s very powerful.
MJMcD: Can you provide an example (real or hypothetical) of a sponsorship campaign that has not (or probably would not, if hypothetical) work out so well and discuss why?
GSB: Sponsorships that don’t work are in one of the following broad categories:
Poor alignment of strategy and/or branding. One example that comes to mind is KFC’s recent breast cancer sponsorship, Buckets for the Cure. In this cause marketing effort, consumers were encouraged to buy pink buckets of grilled or fried chicken. Neither is a particularly healthy eating choice, and the benefactor organization had information on its web site stating that midlife weight gain can contribute to higher risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. I wrote about this on my blog: here and here. [NOTE: Since the interview occurred, a new KFC example has come out: buy a $2.99 "mega jug" of Pepsi at KFC and $1 goes to Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. Wow!]
Confusion about sponsorship. Marketers are inundated with sponsorship requests, thus the online application process. I’ve heard recently about companies sending all such requests to philanthropic/foundation offices, even if the sponsorship is marketing in nature and/or executed by a for profit entity. Marketers need a better understanding of what sponsorship is and how it differs from a corporate gift. If it’s marketing-driven, execute it as I’ve mentioned above and in the previous post; if it’s a gift or strategically philanthropy execute that appropriately.
Failure to execute; being passive. Building on what I just said above and earlier, sponsorship or philanthropy can each drive business results in particular ways. Many corporations send off checks, do little else to take advantage of their investments, and then seem confused about ROI.
MJMcD:In brief, what would you say are the four or five (or whatever number) of best practices marketers should keep in mind when considering, executing and evaluating the performance and ROI of a sports/event sponsorship?
In 2004, shortly after seeing Morgan Spurlock's first film, Supersize Me, his cinematic experiment eating nothing but McDonald's three meals a day for 30 days, I headed off to New Orleans to the Essence Music Festival. I served as managing director for the daytime activities at the New Orleans Convention Center of the festival, the "Purpose" part of the "Party with a Purpose."
McDonald's was a major sponsor (and still is) and that year focused its activation on promoting its new healthier menu options. According to news reports at the time, McDonald's new menu had nothing to do with the film, and the company's history notes the introduction of Premium Fresh Salads to its menu in 2003. Still, I imagine not even company spokespeople could deny the synchronistic timing.
The vague trepidation I felt heading off to the 2004 Festival, wondering what impact the film might have for the Festival and its sponsor – would people rally? would festivalgoers protest? would there be a firestorm of media condemnation? – returned for me Thursday night when I went to see Spurlock's newest film, POM Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold. What would Spurlock say about marketing and sponsorship, the fields I'm in? What impact would it have?
In both cases, my trepidation was unfounded. No one protested McDonald's or the Essence Music Festival, and whether the film had any influence or not on McDonald's menu, who cares? The film raised excellent points; McDonald's has evolved its menu; and we each, as individuals, still must take responsibility for our own eating and nutritional information-gathering habits.
The new film is hilarious. Every industry has absurdities about it, and marketing is right up there. Spurlock pokes fun at it all – including at himself. POM Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold is the story of Spurlock's attempts to secure sponsors for the film while bringing us a glimpse behind the scenes of the sophistication of modern day marketing and uncovering the dark side.
What a different film this would have been in the hands of another filmmaker, like Michael Moore, for example. Consistent with his own branding profile, Spurlock is equal parts "mindful" and "playful" about the story and issues, right down to the musical score. Sergei Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf, about the hunter and the hunted, couldn't be a more perfect composition. Take a look at the trailer.
The film takes us through the whole process of sponsorship development, though in this case in the form of "brand integration," modern lingo for product placement, a tactic used by major brands to have their products embedded into the storylines of films and television shows. (Seinfeld was a master at this. Can you name all the brands, from Rice Krispies to Junior Mints, woven into the storylines? Sometimes the scripts read just like the press releases, making it even funnier.)
Throughout the sponsorship sales and execution process, Spurlock shares with us, the viewers, and his advisors his concerns, especially where to draw the line between selling out and not. Of course Noam Chomsky and Ralph Nader portend a dreadful future of Corporatized Morgan Spurlock, imploring him to rise above. With a mischievous sparkle in his eyes, Spurlock counters by hawking his sponsored shoes, Merrell's, to Nader. (Film tip: don't leave before the credits end for a great interaction with Nader.)
Spurlock keeps it light and defines the line quite clearly for his own work. In a post-screening discussion on Thursday, the closing film for Philadelphia's Cinefest, Spurlock said he pushed back on sponsor requests to approve the film before it opened and to see a financial return.
"Being in the film" was the sponsors' return, he said. Exactly!
Overall, I found the film thoroughly enjoyable, laugh-out-loud funny, with plenty to learn for both sponsorship buyers and sellers, as well as life-long students of marketing. It opens next weekend, and I urge you to see it.
I will say, however, that one critique I have is also where Spurlock did sell out. Or rather, enabled someone else's sell out. One of the more serious threads in the film is about marketing messages in places where maybe they don't belong – public schools.
"Schools should be sacred," a Broward County school representative says, while she discusses with Spurlock the challenges of balancing a decreasing budget with demands for new programs. Banner advertising on the school fence line and truck fleet and in school buses is one solution. By the end of the film, POM Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold joins the ranks of the district's advertisers by purchasing all three vehicles.
(It also bought the naming rights to the city of Altoona, Pa., home to another sponsor, Sheetz. The filmmakers reportedly purchased the rights for $25,000, and for 60 days, a drive through Pennsylvania, 130 miles west of Harrisburg and about 40 miles southwest of State College, will take you to POM Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold, Pa. As the New York Times reports: “Clearly, the people of Altoona have a sense of humor,” Bill Schirf, the mayor, said in a statement, “and an asking price.”)
Apparently Google doesn't know about Altoona's temporary name change; as of this writing, you can still find Altoona. View Larger Map
By advertising through the school's banner and bus billboard program, the filmmakers stepped on those sacred grounds at the same time they exposed the problem. Wouldn't it have been better for the film to simply have made a contribution to the school system, even an anonymous one? Or developed a cause marketing campaign?
Perhaps this seems like a minor infraction in an overall enjoyable film, but a donation or cause marketing campaign would have been more aligned with the point of the film's social side.
POM Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold opens next weekend. Go see it, have fun, and feel free to share your thoughts by clicking on "comments" below to let me know what you think!
[In honor of transparency: I paid full price for movie tickets for my friend and me, and I own several pairs of Merrell's that I paid for on my own. I have drunk POM Wonderful I paid for, eaten foods from Amy's I bought, have been in the airport on Aruba enroute to Granada on business, never worn Ban (that I'm aware of), don't own Carrera's, never shopped at Solstice, never heard of Get It for Free Online till now, have paid for my own rooms at Hyatt, don't live in a city served by jetBlue, never purchased a KDF car wrap, never purchased Mane 'n Tail (nor do I have a kid or Shetland pony to try it on), have purchased a few items at Old Navy, have never shopped at Petland, have purchased my own Seventh Generation products, have purchased my own gas and snacks at Sheetz, own no clothing by Ted Baker, may have dabbed at teenage blemishes with Thayer's Witch Hazel purchased by my mother, and was not influenced by any of these film sponsors while writing this blog. I did just enjoy mentioning them all however!]
If you’ve been operating at a frenetic pace, trying to outsmart the economy, you may not have stopped to look around and notice what’s going on in the world around you, the sponsorship world, that is. This special report provides you with five observations I’ve made that absolutely will have an impact on organizations’ abilities to generate revenue through partnerships with the corporate sector. Consider this insider intelligence to help you plan your 2011 sponsorship strategy.
If you are involved with a cause or cause marketing campaign, check out Peggy Orenstein's story in today's The New York Times Magazine, linked above, on pink, the slogans and products we see annually in October, and what this means from the perspective of someone who actually experienced breast cancer.
I recently had a conversation with a woman who, like Orenstein, had experienced the disease. We talked about pink, ribbons, breast cancer, awareness and sponsorship. She told me that she disliked the annual reminder and being called a "survivor." Her feelings about the issue were moving and humbling.
Orenstein provides a broader cultural view. In the process of destigmatizing the cause – a topic I just wrote about for another cause – Orenstein and others she references argue that we've gone too far:
In terms of educating about a self-exam, she says "there is little evidence of its efficacy," and one group "erroneously tout[s] mammography as 'prevention.'"
"Fetishizing of breasts" through certain irreverent and brazen campaigns disconnect the body parts from the body, mind and spirits of the individuals;
Worse, they don't actually provide catharsis or meaningful space for discussion by those who have suffered breast cancer. Orenstein says: "Rather than being playful, which is what these campaigns are after, sexy cancer suppresses discussion of real cancer, rendering its sufferers – the ones whom all this is supposed to be for – invisible."
So perhaps the pink campaigns are really serving people who don't have breast cancer. As humans, it's natural for us to want to have control over our lives. But, let's face it, there is much we have no control over. Perhaps celebrating pink in ever more outlandish ways is a form of hubris.
On my morning walk today, this little piggy stopped me in my tracks.
(And don't worry. It's actually not nibbling on that man's head; no humans were injured in the taking of this photo.)
I don't know where this little piggy was heading (though I hope home), how it will be used, nor what the business goals could possibly be. But symbolically this is a disaster and a sure sign that sponsorship strategy is missing.
Pink
The Susan G. Komen Fund has done an exceptional job at not only raising awareness levels but also engaging individuals and businesses, emotionally and financially, through the power of pink. In fact, in her new book, due out tomorrow, Nancy Brinker, who founded the Komen Fund, honoring a promise to her sister Susan who succumbed to breast cancer, credits corporate sponsorship and the way the organization leveraged partnerships with the corporate sector for the organization's early success. An article in yesterday's Dallas Morning Newsis worth the read, especially if you're wondering about the power of sponsorship for your cause or organization.
The article and readers' comments reference the the pink 'naysayers.' With all due respect and admiration for all Komen has accomplished, I am one of them. There is such a thing as overdoing something, and we've reached that point with pink. I've commented before that while Komen harnesses individuals' energy, emotions, and passion in outstanding ways, Komen does not represent a stand-out opportunity for sponsors. Pink is overdone; people have pink fatigue.
Here's why I think it's no longer effective. Like everyone these days, I have a lot on my mind. I'm a pretty big picture person, but sometimes life is all about the details. I have several systems for helping me keep track of them all, honed over my adult life time. The biggest key I've found to getting me to remember something, no matter how important, is to create a new habit (like getting a mammogram every year) or doing or placing something where I don't expect it. For example, I'll put a video to be returned on the floor in front of the front door. It's not supposed to be there, so it gets my attention.
When the pink ribbons started to hit the street, they were novel and powerful. Now they – and every other color and pattern of ribbon – are everywhere. Enough with the ribbons already. They don't remind us of anything except how mainstream and banal they are. Our eyes glaze over.
Komen, of course, thinks otherwise. More pink – or engaging more women to protect their health, more businesses from which to generate more revenue, etc. - is needed, Brinker notes in the article. They've recently begun alliances with some odd partners, such as KFC in the Buckets for a Cure promotion even though Komen's web site references the link between obesity and high risk of cancer. Komen's director of global corporate relations defends the partnership as a way to reach more people, especially those who are at higher risk who could really benefit.
Another partnership is with the Dallas Cowboys, described in the article above as a $1 million promotional partnership. While I'm not sure how the Cowboys will sell more tickets or gain more viewers through their investment, I do find the pairing interesting. And the commonality in both partnerships, with KFC and the Dallas team, is that they both stand out as unusual, which gets our attention. Besides reaching women fans, the Cowboys can raise awareness for men's breast cancer and the need for loving support from and for the men whose lives are touched by women's breast cancer.
The KFC partnership would work better for me if no product or only a healthier product sales were tied to the message. Instead, Bucket buyers are encouraged to buy just the food – and bucket loads of it – that could do them in. That doesn't sound like a Cure to me.
Nevertheless, perhaps an evolution is beginning to take shape for Komen. With the organization's scale and clout internationally, is Komen poised to take another step in making real and permanent change in the lives of women? If so, the strategy involving pink and ribbons also will have to evolve so we take notice. And it should definitely not include a pink pig.
Deli
Like KFC, where could the association with Deitz & Watson, a pink pig, and Komen possibly be going? Ham for a cure? BLTs for a cure? I hope there are messages about healthy eating choices, like maybe a low-sodium Deitz & Watson offering.
Banking
I get the association between piggy banks and banking, and indeed this piggy is intended to be a piggy bank, real or symbolically. However, after all we've been through during the recession, is this the right image? Here are some messages underlying the symbol:
When we think piggy bank, we're thinking about saving small change, which takes us right back to childhood, which feels like starting all over again. Who wants to feel like we have to start at square one with our savings plans?
If it doesn't take us back to childhood, it takes us to the Great Depression. Again, do we want to go there? We have electronic currency now. Do you want to work with a bank that's thinking in piggy bank terms or 21st Century terms?
During the TARP days, if you'll recall, the Obama administration charged bankers everywhere with greedily paying themselves too much. OK, that's really being a "Fat Cat," but greedy and piggy have also been linked.
Surely none of these is the message that Bankcorp Bank wishes to send. (Also, by the way, the pig's face was rather mean looking, another negative message none of these organizations wishes to send.)
When you engage in corporate sponsorship, either as a property and rights holder or as a sponsor, you must develop a strategy. Without it, you run the risk of sending the wrong messages.
More than 1.5 million people around the world will Race for the Cure this month and into the fall to raise funds and awareness for breast cancer. The 27-year effort has been a tremendous success, rallying communities everywhere to think pink.
As I've noted previously, however, over-saturation and overkill of the color pink with seemingly every business jumping on the band wagon cause no business to really stand out. With so much pink, consumers become numb to corporate involvement.
Now we've reached a new problem, and nonprofit organizations and corporate leaders would be wise to take notice. Check out this initiative: the Think Before You Pink campaign, complete with an outreach initiative to KFC and Komen telling them to "stop the pinkwashing." What a nightmare.
Select your partners wisely. Consumers are not idiots, and they are counting on nonprofit organizations to have integrity, to stand for their causes and missions, and to partner with companies in alignment with the organizations' values and brands.
I tell clients and workshop attendees all the time that it's OK to say "no" to a potential partner who may have a check in hand but whose goals and agenda are not in sync with the nonprofit goals. The sponsorship will not be successful; the nonprofit will damage its credibility; and worse, imagine the impact of a social media campaign, like the Think Before You Pink, aimed at your two organizations.
Gail Bower is president of Bower & Co. Consulting LLC, a firm that specializes in dramatically raising the visibility, revenue, and impact of non-profit organizations. She’s a professional consultant, writer, and speaker, with more than 20 years of experience managing some of the country’s most important events, festivals and sponsorships and implementing marketing programs for clients. Launched in 1987, today Bower & Co. improves the effectiveness and results of clients’ marketing, events, and corporate sponsorship programs.
Does the recent economic upheaval that sent seismic shifts through our culture have you wondering what to do next with your sponsorship development efforts? Marketing and sponsorship specialist Gail Bower wrote this short guidebook for you. Get the confidence, perspective, and techniques you need to jump-start your sponsorship strategy today.
“A professional GPS system to keep you on a successful track.”
- Steven Wood Schmader, CFEE,
President & CEO
International Festivals & Events Association (IFEA
World)