Once again the title sponsors of BCS Bowl games have been omitted by sports media. This is not a reference to omissions in the verbal mentions during broadcast nor deep in the body of an article. The sponsors are being omitted in updated charts that run for several weeks and viewed by an estimated fan base that must run in the millions.

It would be very simple to include the sponsors, but this particular has given several reasons for not doing so including:

- We do not share in the revenue opportunity
- We don’t want to give sponsors “free advertising”
- No one cares about sponsors
- Sponsors create clutter

The ISC is working with media to change this mindset and not only for the participating sponsor. Anytime a sponsor is depositioned as in this case, it damages the entire industry by showing that “sponsors are a necessary evil” and “they shouldn’t be there”.

What’s interesting regarding this topic, is that the media that is guilty of the omissions positions itself as a safehaven and valuable medium for brand messaging - they receive a large portion of their revenues from advertising and sponsorship.

David Stern, NBA Commissioner, has indefinitely suspended Gilbert Arenas without pay for his recent action involving guns. The ISC applauds and supports the Commissioner’s decision. This event obviously could have a detrimental effect on the sponsors of the league and teams and is completely counter to the objectives of sponsors. Events like this not only affect the official sponsors, but can have a negative impact on the entire industry by challenging its value perception by media, executives and fans.

The ISC wishes the best to Tim McGhee in 2010. While serving as Executive Director of Corporate Sponsorships for AT&T, Tim helped launch and guide the ISC and the organization owes a great deal of gratitude to him. Tim is returning to IMG in the role of SVP of IMG Consulting. The ISC looks forward to working with Tim in our continued mission of serving sponsors and raising the effectiveness of sponsorship.

As a trade organization, the ISC creates opportunities of collaboration for networking, knowledge sharing and achievement recognition. In the past, our industry has relied on face-to-face events.

Today’s constraints on budgets, time, sickness and travel challenges have led us to cut back on the ability to attend many of the events we would otherwise support. It is not a prudent concept for today’s business world.

In recognizing this dilemma, the ISC has partnered with G2Events in launching Virtual Summits that will provide a optimum solution by – in the words of G2Events’ CEO, Mark Barounos - “redefining reality”.

In the first of a series of virtual summits on sustainability, the ISC will be hosting its ISC Impact Pavilion on March 23 through 25 as part of the Sustainability Virtual Summits: Smart ICT virtual conference and exhibition.

The event, which is supported by Cisco, Orange, Alcatel-Lucent and the United Nations Global Compact, will allow for global industry collaboration through online participation and telepresence. The event will feature presentations, attendee interactivities and virtual exhibit booths – every aspect that a face-to-face event would offer, save one…..human touch.

The attendance of the event is projected into the thousands and it is an opportunity for sponsors and the industry to take a leadership role in what is perhaps the world’s most important topic: sustainability.

Many leading corporations have initiatives that are crucial to their future success and very existence. These SEE initiatives (social, economic and environmental) are essentials to their corporate DNA.

The ISC is developing programs that will feature and position SEE initiatives of sponsors within sponsorship and endorsements.

Please visit www.sustainabilityvirtualsummits.com to experience the event’s offering through the ISC Impact Pavilion. Please contact the ISC for information on how you can attend, exhibit or sponsor this groundbreaking event.

The NFL has taken action to an incident that occurred during the game between the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys and Philadelphia Eagles on Sunday, November 8th, and has identified the celebration action by a player to be an act of ambush marketing.
The tight end for the Eagle’s, Brent Celek, scored a touchdown on an 11-yard pass and proceeded to position himself in front of the cameras and seemingly emulate the “Captain Morgan” pose by putting his hands on his hips and raising his right leg. A fellow Eagle helped him lift his leg in place. What went unnoticed by officials was the unrelated and most likely inadvertent punch to the face by Celek on a defender to get clear for the pass. Here is a link to Youtube for review.

Although Celek denied any official connection with the rum brand through an Eagles spokesperson, it has been reported that Captain Morgan representatives have admitted to creating a campaign for touchdowns scored featuring the pose including prior discussions with Celek.

The NFL has banned the pose which culminated in a 15 yard penalty during the game.

According to the NFL as well as other leagues, it is considered ambush marketing for any company to pay a player to represent a brand on the field of play and in other select instances.

Apparently, Captain Morgan was to offer financial support to an NFL charity, the Gridiron Greats Assistance Fund, a non-profit charity that assist former NFL players, but the NFL has made it very clear that despite the intention to help its charity, these types of campaigns will not go unpunished.

“The NFL, as well as other leagues and properties, have a fiduciary responsibility to their official sponsors by protecting against any campaigns launched by any brands that are not official sponsors,” said Terry Cecil, President & CEO of the International Sponsor Council, the trade association for sponsors. “If a brand wants to leverage the NFL on the playing field, they need to become an official sponsor. It diminishes the value offering the NFL delivers to its official sponsors.”
“These types of actions are frowned upon by much of the world. Unfortunately, in the U.S., these displays are many times accepted as creative marketing. In South Africa, a company found guilty of ambush marketing can have its Directors thrown in jail. I assume there will be discussion between the NFL and Captain Morgan step up to the plate and become an official sponsor since it. Brands should take the lead in ethical behavior and, unfortunately, ambush marketing is unethical.”

Fall means football season for many in America. The ISC has been working with media in an area that is a grave disservice to sponsors: title sponsor omissions.

For the next few months, major media Web sites will omit the title sponsors of the three BCS bowls that have title sponsors. One can halfway understand the reasoning for omitting the title sponsors within the text of an article after the bowl has already been mentioned six or seven times. It isn’t right to do so, but we can understand why it is done.

There is no sound reason for these Web sites to omit these Bowl’s title sponsors in a chart that displays and updates the scores for weeks running. The reasons these Web sites have given to the ISC for doing so are “Sponsors don’t matter and no one cares about them”, “We don’t share in the money that title sponsors pay the properties”, “We don’t think the bowls should have sponsors”, “We shouldn’t give the sponsors free advertising”.

The irony of the practice is that these sites that omit the sponsors are financially dependent upon brands to advertise and sponsor their sites. The sites claim to be safehavens for brands – a medium of value for brands and their messaging. Why do accept the unfair practice of omission? The ISC has worked with some of the major media and has had success in convincing them to include title sponsors in the charts. Any media including title sponsors should be recognized and commended for doing so. The sponsorship industry needs to support journalists and bridge the value awareness gap.

The NCAA including the Bowls has created some of America’s premium fan experiences. The industry needs to help the media understand that fans suffer when sponsors are alienated. It becomes a positioning problem. When sponsors are omitted, they can be perceived by fans as “less than important”. These corporations have contracted to be a part of the property and in these cases are actually integrated into the Bowl logos.

When you see any sponsor omitted, please contact the guilty party and share your concern as well as sharing the incident with the ISC.

When any sponsor is depositioned, it negatively affects all sponsors. This year sponsorship was under attack. If the industry wants to defend its value, start with protecting sponsors and their importance.

The state of the economy has often required sponsors to adjust resources committed to sponsorship programming. This is a time when properties need to invest in increasing the value offering. Unfortunately, many properties have instead looked to broaden the reach by creating new messaging and assets, but are offering this up to new sponsors in new categories rather than support existing partners.

The industry needs to strengthen the partnerships, not dilute them. As an example, as more television rights are developed and come up for renewal, we need to consider that this is a strong base for the partnership between sponsor and property. The concept of selling advertising to an official partner’s competitor is destroys the very premise of the partnership. Our industry has accepted this practice purely because of financial opportunity. I doubt the industry will change, but those properties that protect their partners in the television and other broadcast delivery mediums will actually increase the bond with and value for their partners.

For those properties that do sell advertising to the competitors of the official partners, The ISC has created the SPAAM Initiative (Sponsor Protection Against Ambush Marketing) to promote the practice of halting the use of the inherent sport within the advertising creative by competitors of official partners and for them to refrain from using ambushing terms including “sponsor, partner, sponsorship, etc.”.

A major area that the industry can improve on is online. We need to improve co-branded content with sponsors. There are too many Web sites that are void of any positioning of sponsors and we all know the sponsor buttons do not create near enough value for sponsors and lack real fan engagement.

ABC News recently focused on celebrity endorsements and truth in advertising. It was reported that Oprah Winfrey is suing over 40 companies that are involved in products using the acai berry that included her endorsement of the products without her permission. To see the show, please click here.

Brands are under increased scrutiny for truth in advertising. They have a responsibility to uphold the highest standards in their relationship with their consumers. Any brand that shows a disregard for this commitment is severely impacting the opportunity for all brands to use endorsements due to the loss of trust felt by consumers. The ISC is working to create programs that will raise the reputation of brands as sponsors and strengthen the relationship and partnership between brands and consumers.

The NHL’s Chicago Blackhawks were in the playoffs. Unfortunately, the team chose to maximize the appearance of Michael Jordan at the game by damaging its fiduciary responsibility with Reebok, which is an official NHL sponsor.

If the Blackhawks want MJ to don a uniform, he should have to wear it without the patch that was sewn on to cover up the Reebok logo. That or Nike could try to become an official sponsor. If someone secures a jersey and has an official sponsor logo covered up or taken off, it’s hard to stop them, but the property should not do so and it should not take a positional advantage in the effort.

Reebok and all sponsors commit to becoming a “partner” with properties and provide financial and other resources. The attempt to deposition an official sponsor in such a way is unethical and sponsors should strongly consider forming a partnership with any properties that engage in this kind of sponsorship servicing.

I would hope MJ turns down the opportunity in the future and protects the integrity of the industry.

Click for article.

There is an unruly mob out to get anyone they feel is contributing to the downward spiral of our economy. Unfortunately, it is this mob that is contributing to the downward spiral.

This mob consists of government officials, certain media and even a few marketers. This group and their actions are condemning sponsorship and its use by positioning the valuable marketing medium as a “waste of money”.

One proclaimed “marketing guru” said that sports sponsorships were “idiotic”. He was quoted as saying “It’s pretty clear that it’s a complete and utter waste of money, ego-driven”.

Interestingly enough, some of the recent attacks were initialized by TMZ – not exactly a media standard that comes to mind for positive social value. What’s next – having to justify our ROI measurements to Perez Hilton?

It’s disturbing and damaging when the media, politicians and marketing gurus use this negative and baseless platform to create chaos and fuel consumer angst. The marketing guru’s base for this mentality is that he hasn’t seen the data supporting that sports sponsorship works. Not that the data doesn’t exist, it’s just that he hasn’t seen it. How irresponsible is it to publicly attack a marketing medium without exercising due diligence. How does one become a marketing guru with this kind of approach?

Clear minds do not prevail in attacks like this. The attackers don’t care about the facts – they want heads to roll. No guillotine references needed here, but the chaotic mood feels right.

The U.S. government is spending billions of dollars to protect industry and yet one of the most powerful and positive of industries is being attacked. We are canceling ourselves out.

Who out there is creating stability and positivity? Would anyone recognize it? When are brands going to defend their position instead of caving. Any sponsor that announces that it will not activate on its sponsorships is accomplishing two things: (1) Wasting its money, and (2) perpetuating the negative and unfair stigma that sponsorship is a waste of money. Northern Trust took a stance to rightfully defend its sponsorship programming. Bank of America has stated that for every one dollar it spends on sponsorship, it makes three. If we don’t listen to what works, how do we get out of this mess?

The ISC is working to deliver a platform of hope and leadership that brands can join. We are looking to raise millions of dollars for the social responsibility initiatives of sponsors while delivering an event that people will remember for decades to come. Brands will be front and center in delivering this message and impact. At a time when we are surrounded by negativity, this doom & gloom, we are working to organize brands and create a positive impact. I hope you will join and support our efforts.