Kevin Roberts argues that sports marketing could benefit from better PR – particularly when economic times are tough. And getting tougher.
The spectre of recession inevitably hovered over certain elements of the inaugural Sports Marketing 360 conference, held in London in mid-October.
When the programme was being prepared earlier this year it had been impossible to foresee the extent to which turmoil in the banking sector, allied to underlying weak economic data from many of the world’s leading economies, would contribute to the climate of commercial fear which currently stalks the land.
In part it is the sheer unpredictability of the markets which makes commercial life so difficult right now. As one contributor to this issue of SportBusiness International points out, you’d have to be Nostradamus to want to have a shot at guessing what’s coming next. All of which made life particularly difficult for those panellists tasked with ‘Charting The Future Of Sports Marketing’, although they broadly agreed that the fundamental conditions on which sports marketing works remain as solid as ever, and most concurred that recessionary times would force a ‘Spring Clean’ of the sector, washing away some participants but leaving those who come through in better shape than ever to build for the future.
The conference also raised a number of issues around the way the public reacts to sponsorship in hard times. At its heart the argument goes something like this. How can you, Mr CEO of Megaglobal Inc, possibly sanction spending $1 million (the actual figure is more or less irrelevant) to sponsor a football team racing car/stadium/tennis tournament, when you are in the process of laying off great chunks of your workforce to save money.
It’s a straightforward and superficially compelling argument but one which gets to the heart of some of the lingering insecurities one can detect around sports marketing. The conundrum lies in the fact that the objection is rooted in all the things which make sports marketing work in the first place.
The problem here is that sport is sexy, it’s fun and for most people it is the polar opposite of anything which they are ever likely to consider being work. The second issue is that there appears to be an undercurrent of resentment building over the amounts of money paid into sport. The perception is that football clubs are rich and if they’re not it’s their own fault because they pay ludicrous, almost unimaginable, sums of money to players for doing something which Joe Bloggs would happily do for nothing.
Quite simply there is a disconnect between public perception of sports marketing and the business realities. And that disconnect, it was suggested, may drive some brands away from sport out of fear of upsetting and alienating the public.
Think about it. Would you want to be the Chairman photographed toasting his guests in champagne in a sponsor’s box at a big race meeting while your company is restructuring to meet the new economic realities, or the CEO proudly holding a football jersey bearing his company’s logo, having signed a deal which will help make wealthy footballers even richer?
Of course you wouldn’t. It would almost certainly be considered inappropriate by the public whose angst would be fed by media grateful for an easy story. Fat Cats are always sitting targets when times are tough.
But perhaps its time to look at the sport marketing industry’s attitude in these cases. There’s a huge fear factor in operation here and it might be argued that sports marketers should be less inclined to back off in the face of that fear and more bullish about the way they present their proposition to audiences beyond the boardroom. Because if public perception is going to play even the smallest role in influencing sports marketing spend, that perception needs to be shaped by real knowledge and an understanding of how the game works.
That’s not to say that conspicuous consumption and flaunting of sports-related privileges (this goes way beyond the occasional prawn sandwich at Manchester United) is a bright thing to do in these times. It’s simply that if the public understood sponsorship and sports marketing better they might not resent it. And it follows that if some of those negative public perceptions can be dealt with, spending decisions can be made on the basis of long term brand and business objectives rather than being influenced by the possibility of brand damage resulting from bad publicity.
I can’t remember ever reading about an outcry among a company’s staff and the wider public because they had spent money on advertising or direct marketing to drive the business forward during hard times. But spend that money on sponsorship and there is an underlying suspicion it is all about providing ollies for the boys - generally senior management and their mates.
Perhaps its time for those who work in this sector to do a little PR on their own account. If, as the audience at Sports Marketing 360 was told, the fundamental principles driving sports marketing are sound and its results measurable and accountable, there should be nothing to fear.
If a company decides to spend millions on a sponsorship deal there should be an understanding that this is money which is being spent because it has been determined that it is the most effective means of delivering very specific results against precise business objectives… not because it looks a lot of fun.
Those who work in sports marketing live in a world in which there is no time, room or money for Nice To Dos. It’s about business; on activating a programme which delivers a return on investment. If it doesn’t do that it simply shouldn’t happen.
Sports marketing has made enormous strides in the last decade or so as it has become assimilated as a specialist skill set amid the marketing mainstream. The fact is that this is largely a hard-nosed and accountable business run by professionals and serving the needs of professionals.
That’s a great story and one which deserves to be shouted from the rooftops rather than kept as our special little secret
