I think the key points to remember from this week’s reading were that of how organizations use different tactics of special events and sponsorship to achieve their aims and goals. These could be ranging from how organizations grow its trust through communicating with values, positioning themselves in special forms to differentiate themselves from competitors and cultivating strategic alliances with the internal and external publics.
Sponsorship is the underwriting of a special event to support corporate objectives by enhancing corporate image, increasing awareness of brands, or directly stimulating sales of products and services. Sponsorship can be individual or joint; the event can be a one-time affair or a continuing series of activities. Why organizations are interested in sponsorship then? I believed this is because of the perception of how beneficial sponsorship can be. When done well, it offers significant opportunities for distinct marketing and competitive advantages, as well as showing support of the event.
The types of sponsorship that were highlighted in the text were interesting facts to be understood as well. Namely the three types of sponsorship are: philanthropic, corporate and marketing sponsorship. The third example is the most well-liked form of sponsorship, and is a common inclusion as a cost effective sales and marketing strategy. A company can benefit from sponsorship in many ways, such as for example, enhancing its image or shaping consumers’ attitudes. Often, companies are looking to improve how they are perceived by their target audience. Sponsoring events that appeal to their market are likely to shape buying attitudes and help generate a positive reaction. Coca Cola, for instance, is always looking to generate a positive influence of their products in the minds of their consumers and as such regularly support events they feel can influence consumer opinions.
However, organizations do have to take notice and beware of “ambush marketing” stealing the limelight of an official sponsor or an event. Ambush marketing occurs when one brand pays to become an official sponsor of an event (eg. athletic events) and another competing brand attempts to cleverly connect itself with the event, without paying the sponsorship fee and, more frustratingly, without breaking any laws. Ambushing, is as undeniably effective as it is damaging, attracting consumers at the expense of competitors, all the while undermining an event’s integrity and, most importantly, its ability to attract future sponsors. While getting ambushed is as inevitable, I guessed there are still tactics that a brand can take to minimize the damage. For example, organizations that sign a sponsorship deal should always proof read the details carefully. They have the need and capabilities to negotiate for every potential right to block out competitors as well.
The readings made me think more about public relations theory and practice in that organizations should not expect totally that sponsorship should drive sales. Sponsorship is about values and visibility. Participation may lift organization’s reputation and exposure but there are still needs to attend to the other marketing elements. Additionally, I think that organizations should not keep up a sponsorship deal that has run its natural course. Organizations should monitor the feedback from their sponsorship and beware of sponsorships that can turn “bad” overnight. On the other hand, before organizations start to plan an event or even think of whom to get their sponsorship from, it is important to research on the fundamentals to check the feasibility of the event. Important factors that can be analyzed include:
• How much the event is going to cost;Sponsorship is the underwriting of a special event to support corporate objectives by enhancing corporate image, increasing awareness of brands, or directly stimulating sales of products and services. Sponsorship can be individual or joint; the event can be a one-time affair or a continuing series of activities. Why organizations are interested in sponsorship then? I believed this is because of the perception of how beneficial sponsorship can be. When done well, it offers significant opportunities for distinct marketing and competitive advantages, as well as showing support of the event.
The types of sponsorship that were highlighted in the text were interesting facts to be understood as well. Namely the three types of sponsorship are: philanthropic, corporate and marketing sponsorship. The third example is the most well-liked form of sponsorship, and is a common inclusion as a cost effective sales and marketing strategy. A company can benefit from sponsorship in many ways, such as for example, enhancing its image or shaping consumers’ attitudes. Often, companies are looking to improve how they are perceived by their target audience. Sponsoring events that appeal to their market are likely to shape buying attitudes and help generate a positive reaction. Coca Cola, for instance, is always looking to generate a positive influence of their products in the minds of their consumers and as such regularly support events they feel can influence consumer opinions.
However, organizations do have to take notice and beware of “ambush marketing” stealing the limelight of an official sponsor or an event. Ambush marketing occurs when one brand pays to become an official sponsor of an event (eg. athletic events) and another competing brand attempts to cleverly connect itself with the event, without paying the sponsorship fee and, more frustratingly, without breaking any laws. Ambushing, is as undeniably effective as it is damaging, attracting consumers at the expense of competitors, all the while undermining an event’s integrity and, most importantly, its ability to attract future sponsors. While getting ambushed is as inevitable, I guessed there are still tactics that a brand can take to minimize the damage. For example, organizations that sign a sponsorship deal should always proof read the details carefully. They have the need and capabilities to negotiate for every potential right to block out competitors as well.
The readings made me think more about public relations theory and practice in that organizations should not expect totally that sponsorship should drive sales. Sponsorship is about values and visibility. Participation may lift organization’s reputation and exposure but there are still needs to attend to the other marketing elements. Additionally, I think that organizations should not keep up a sponsorship deal that has run its natural course. Organizations should monitor the feedback from their sponsorship and beware of sponsorships that can turn “bad” overnight. On the other hand, before organizations start to plan an event or even think of whom to get their sponsorship from, it is important to research on the fundamentals to check the feasibility of the event. Important factors that can be analyzed include:
• Whether it offers an opportunity to raise revenue;
• What the organization can gain from it;
• The effect of the even on the organization’s key publics and etc.
This make me ponder on my team’s upcoming debate topic.
“Sponsorship does not generate authentic value for PR and is a poor cousin of advertising”.
What are your says then? :)
2 comments:
Your blog is very good. Very insightful and shows you are understanding the key points from the readings.Well done.
Melanie
Hey Juli…
I think the paragraph that you wrote on “ambush marketing” was very well explained. I believe ambush marketing dose ruin someone else spotlight for the event. It is not an ethical thing to do and taking a risk o the organisations behalf as they are braking laws. I agree with your statement “They have the need and capabilities to negotiate for every potential right to block out competitors as well,” this was organisations might be reducing some risks of being AMBUSHED!
Post a Comment