When Sponsors Go Rogue

In our last post, we examined a few instances of brands dealing with the fallout emerging from their sponsored properties falling on the wrong side of law and/or public opinion. This time, let’s take a look at the other side and see what properties do when the brand that’s sponsoring them meets the same fate. 

Northern Rock was the jersey sponsor for Newcastle United from 2003 to 2012. In 2007 the bank had to be bailed out by the UK government after the sub-prime mortgage crisis, the aftermath of which led many to question the ethics of such financial institutions spending public money on sponsorships. The outcry was heightened further when the bank spent £10 million to renew the deal in 2010. The backlash did hurt some of the PR surrounding the club, which at the time was not finding great amounts of success on the pitch. When the bank finally decided to end the deal, the club was left looking for sponsors within a very short time frame considering that jerseys for the new season had to go into manufacturing.

The case with Manchester United was not very different when they had to wear the AIG logo on shirt for an entire season, despite the bank’s reputation suffering massive blows due to the multiple bailouts it was handed by the US government.

Closer to home, NASCAR had to state that they needed more oversight into sponsor selection when the NRA was announced as the naming rights partner for the Sprint Cup event. While the political aspect of this deal is something that we as a sports marketing firm cannot comment on, the fact that the deal was announced mere days after the Sandy Hook massacre was a definite blunder for all parties.

While these incidents demonstrate that sponsor selection can sometimes lead to unhappy fans, sports properties and teams also need to make sure they are financially viable, which thus requires them to often handle situations such as these delicately. The best way to navigate such proverbial minefields is to know and build relationships with their consumers, or in this case, fans. Keeping an active dialogue with the fan community and conducting research are two ways that will help keep fans updated and will give the property enough time to craft their justification for controversial sponsorship decisions.

Corporate Sponsorship of Municipal Properties

Over the years, municipal and public facilities such as parks, beaches and sporting facilities have witnessed a decline in government funding which as a result has led to difficulties in conducting maintenance and upkeep.

In order to combat this, properties have historically looked towards donors and more recently, corporate sponsors. This brings up an interesting debate about over-corporatization, with commentators on both sides of the fence making their opinions heard, including prominent personalities like Bill Maher in this video. 

Now, while we won’t comment on the political aspect of this debate (we’re a marketing firm!) what we can comment on is public perception on this issue and how facilities can pursue corporate sponsorship whilst shielding citizens from overt and intrusive branding. On the other side, we think that corporations can benefit immensely from this practice and can increase their presence amongst consumers without being invasive. If done correctly, it can be a win-win for both sides and will keep the general public happy.

To begin with, let us begin be examining how public attitudes towards sponsorship of park facilities has changed. In 2014, IEG published results from a research study conducted by Virginia’s Fairfax county park authority. The key takeaways from the study included perceptions on the kid of facilities that should pursue sponsorship and the overall levels of support/opposition to facilities pursing sponsorship. They are listed as under – 

• Support for sponsorship is high and has increased over the years
• That being said, there are still concerns over commercialization
•  Pursuing sponsorship and Naming Rights deals is considered acceptable depending upon the type of venue/facility 
• Coupons and special offers for park users and logos on publications are appropriate forms of sponsorship activities
•  Of course, the industry categories that are considered appropriate also differ with regards to the type of property. In the case of parks, sporting goods and home and garden categories were considered most appropriate
•  People are for sponsorships if it is eased into and is done tastefully

Although, this study was done on a small scale, the results do show promising signs for corporations. Although tasteful and understated execution of activities may not provide corporations with the same high profile that they receive from sponsoring, lets say a major stadium, what it does provide is a boost in local presence and an unobstructed share of mind, which can prove to be valuable.

As far as the park authorities are concerned, it will help inject much needed funds in a system that, as analysts predict, currently needs $12 billion dollars (in the USA alone) worth of repairs across the board. It doesn’t help that the US Congress set an annual budget of only $2.85 billion this year. While facilities may not be able to raise such high levels of cash from sponsors, it will be a start. They also need to make sure that activation is done right. For example, by putting up North Face branded trail markers in some parks, Virginia is showing how it can be done.

So what is our verdict? We feel that the hyperbole around inappropriate sponsors is a little unjustified and parks and municipal facilities can pursue sponsorship in a successful, yet tasteful way.

BWA has worked with and continues to work with numerous municipal properties in order to help them achieve their sponsorship goals.