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.

As we see more and more sponsors leaving sponsorship programs, the industry will need to commit to developing stronger protection and promotion of sponsors and their value of the experience. Collaboration will be critical to exploring and developing useful measurement structures and sponsorship benefits that deliver a stronger engagement with the consumer. The ISC will be holding to conferences during the first half of 2009 to look at the legal issues regarding sponsorship as well as the impact of the economic crisis and how it is changing the industry with a new set of sponsor needs. We need to reinvent or at least commit to deepening the value of sponsorship as we are sure to see a major change in the direction for sponsors to engagement fans.

Sponsors are under greater scrutiny for justifying value from their sponsorship commitments. For many sponsors, budgets and staffing are contracting. Executives involved in sponsorship at corporations have a unique feel for the public pulse. They are crucial employees for navigating through these unchartered waters.

The ISC is a facilitator for sponsor executives to collaborate on regional, national and global levels. Companies that do not collaborate are at a disadvantage. They are potentially doing a disservice to their company, stockholders and consumers. Two quotes from Thomas Friedman’s The World Is Flat that I take to heart are:

“The best companies are the best collaborators. … The next layers of value creation – whether in technology, marketing, biomedicine, or manufacturing – are becoming so complex that no single firm or department is going to be able to master them alone.” –The World is Flat, Thomas L. Friedman, pg 353

“And the small shall act big … the key to being small and acting big is being quick enough to take advantage of all the new tools for collaboration to reach farther, faster, wider, and deeper.” –The World is Flat, Thomas L. Friedman, pg 345

The ISC would like to thank those executives for your support and impact you are making on the industry.

The sponsorship industry is driven by the passions of people. Fans. Fanatics. Unfortunately in today’s world, it is a luxury for many fans of sports, the arts, and music to enjoy their passions due to the hardship and uncertainty that the economy has thrust upon us.

Sponsorship can play an important role in getting people through these difficult times.

Our industry is an industry because of the fans and we must be sensitive to their current economic strife they are experiencing. There are expectations that some fans will not accept and be frustrated at the concept of paying hundreds of dollars to be entertained for two to three hours. The cost of supporting events as well as multi-million dollar salaries

In the two cases of sports and music, they are mediums that provide an escape, a burst of pride and sense of stability for many. A global concern for the world is the deepening of the chasm between the haves and have-nots. In a world threatened by desperation, the psyche of the fan is fragile and needs relevancy.

We’ve had the luxury of taking ourselves too seriously. Entertainment mediums, as important as they are, do not compare with the angst of healthcare affordability, the security of retirement, and being able to keep the lights on or heating your home.

In the days and months ahead, properties, athletes and musicians should dedicate their efforts to developing experiences for fans that enhance their passions and reward them, not take advantage of them. There should be a commitment to increase social responsibility initiatives. More meet & greets with fans. No threat of lockouts. Commit to Fiscal responsibility. Our industry needs to have an open-mind for change. Find a way to integrate sponsors deeper into the offering.

Although Chuck Fruit had a huge impact on sponsors and the sponsorship industry, his influence went far beyond the business sector. His personality and character made an impact on so many individual on a personal level. He was a great leader in life. Charlie Rose had Chuck on his show. I enjoyed watching the segment, aptly named “An Appreciation of Chuck Fruit”, and felt very proud to be a part of this industry. The link to the show is http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/05/28/2/an-appreciation-of-chuck-fruit.

There are many opinions about ambush marketing. Whether you refer to it as “ambush” or as Michael Payne called it, “Parasitical”, it certainly has very negative overtones.

In the U.S.A., ambush marketing has often been applauded as creative and innovative marketing. In South Africa, Directors of a company guilty of ambushing can actually be sent to jail. Hosts of major events - such as South Africa with the 2010 World Cup and London with the 2012 Olympics - are showing that they are committed to protect sponsors.

It is shocking that NBC would allow Vizio to show its ad, “Splash” during the broadcast of the 2008 Olympics. The youtube link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nza0d3Ab-Co. Someone needs to figure out how NBC can sell “broadcast sponsorships” that conflict with the IOC TOP Partners,

Matshushita Electric / Panasonic has been a valuable Olympic TOP Partner since 1988. It secured the category of “Audio, TV and Video equipment, and recording media relating to audio and moving images, including broadcast and professional use”.

It is hard to imagine how Olympic sponsors can fully maximize and leverage their Olympic sponsorships when their competitors are broadcasting ads during the Games. What is very disturbing is the creative of the Vizio ad which portrays the company as having an involvement in the Games and positions itself as an official sponsor.

The sponsorship industry continues to build on its sophistication, but this is a setback. I understand everyone has to justify their financial commitment and NBC has made a substantial financial commitment to the Games, but this practice is damaging to sponsors and threatens the future of sponsor investment. Going forward, official broadcasters must protect the official sponsors and sponsors should refrain from misleading the public. As companies increasingly embrace social responsibility initiatives, it is important for all to work on adhering to a higher standard of ethics.

The situation in Darfur is depressing and tremendously saddening. The answer to solving Darfur, however, is not in attacking sponsors and using them as a leverage point. Sponsors and the sports and entertainment industry have the opportunity to make a positive impact on society and they continually do so. Attack this valuable medium, and we destroy the ability to make a difference.

Sponsors are corporations which are made up of many employees who care deeply about the world, people who are friends, family and neighbors.

The Olympic sponsors support and commit to the Olympic ideals and the value they provide to the world. It is important for the Olympic movement to stay neutral in political matters or it could cease to exist.

Attacking sponsors is not the answer to Darfur, in fact, due to the detrimental exposure, it very well may force sponsors to cease to support events and programs that can make a difference. Sponsorship efforts of corporations can help deliver hope to the world. It was one of the main reasons FIFA awarded the World Cup to South Africa.

Collectively, what should the role of the ISC be and what can sponsors do to assist on the Darfur situation and what can we do to contribute to the prevention of future Darfurs?

Let’s come up with impactful solutions. Please share your thoughts.

In recognition of the crucial importance of the corporate CFO, the ISC has created the ISC CFO Advisory Committee. The purpose of the Committee is to develop the CFO perspective on sponsorship. Due to a need for increased accountability and justification, this process will benefit sponsors and the industry by formulating a better understanding of the financial needs and responsibilities of the sponsor. This historic approach will be launched at the ISC SponsorCamp hosted by King & Spalding in Atlanta on February 27th by a CFO panel featuring:

- Duane Still, CFO of North America for The Coca-Cola Company
- Joe Keane, CFO for Reebok
- Cynthia Jamison, National Director of CFO Services for Tatum LLC

The Internet is obviously a major consumer engagement point for sports and entertainment and huge benefit value for sponsors. The ISC often researches Web sites and the positioning of sponsors. An alarming situation that plagues our industry is the omission of title sponsors from their respective properties. There is a mixed sentiment within media on whether to include title sponsors. In recent conversations with major media, the ISC was told “our media company does not participate in the economics of the deal, so if we don’t benefit from the sponsorship… we won’t include sponsor”, “the public doesn’t care about sponsors”, “including the sponsor makes the reading appear clunky” and “if we included one, we would have to include them all”.

Depositioning a sponsor is harmful to all sponsors. It creates the perception that sponsors are a necessary evil…only there as a check book. This is one example of why industry must do a better job at consistently protecting sponsor interests. Sponsors are under increasing pressure to deliver ROI measurements and justify the resources committed to sponsorships.

The three BCS sponsors (Allstate, FedEx and Tostitos) do a fantastic job with their BCS sponsorships. They deserve and have paid to be listed by media as the title sponsor. In fact, I would argue that they are part of the intellectual property created by the Bowl (see sponsors inclusion in Bowl logos). Look at the updated charts on Bowls published by online media and you will see what I mean regarding omission. The irony is that these online media companies make their revenue through advertising and sponsorships professing to be a safehaven for brand messaging, yet they are definitely not brand friendly.

It is up to sponsors to collaborate to protect their collective interests. The digital age has created hardships for the protection of intellectual property. Brands are losing control and some say ‘let it ride, don’t fight it”. Consumer continue to “be in control” of the creation and distribution of content. We better get a handle on it now.