A couple weeks ago I presented a new workshop for a private organization as part of their ongoing professional development efforts. The team had lots of great questions, and one, responding to my recommendation to abandon Gold, Silver, and Bronze (or otherwise generic) sponsorship approaches, really stood out.
The association this gentleman represents produces a professional event with 300 attendees and 50 sponsors, all of which are Gold, Silver, or Bronze. Some are small companies and even start up businesses that struggle to invest in the organization’s sponsorship program.
With a puzzled face, he asked his question, curious about how wise it would be to customize 50 sponsor packages. Behind the puzzlement, you could practically see the dollar signs adding up in his head as he considered the labor costs involved.
What I said surprised him: “Why do you want 50 sponsors?”
Now that may sound like heresy. After all isn’t the goal to secure as many sponsors as possible?
Actually, no. Not if doing so diminishes value.
The more sponsors you have — especially if they are investing in generic sponsorship packages, which already have very little value — the less value you’re actually delivering.
For a nonprofit or association, sponsorship is a source of revenue. But a better way to look at what sponsorship is all about is from the perspective of the corporation making the investment. For corporations and other businesses, sponsorship is a marketing activity. Your event creates a world where few if any of their competitors exist.
Therefore, the fewer sponsors, the better. The companies you do have involved will:
- stand out memorably,
- better engage your audiences, and
- have better experiences that meets their goals.
Plus they’ll pay more for the opportunity.
On your side of the equation, you’ll invest
- more quality time with fewer partners,
- enrich your relationships, and
- develop stronger ideas and strategies.
Ideally you’d also generate more revenue.
So, what do you think? Is more really more?
Comments