Advertising versus Sponsorship

I hear it all the time. I was speaking at the BC Recreation and Parks Association annual conference a couple of weeks ago and it came up there. Later this week, I am speaking at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities AGM in Saskatoon and I know it will come up there as well. I will hear, “Oh we do sponsorship. We sell rink boards, signs, or commercials on our screens.” Unfortunately, that is advertising-not sponsorship.

A few months back, the Sponsorship Insights Group on LinkedIn had great banter about the difference between the two media. (If you are on LinkedIn, I would highly recommend being part of this group if you want to stay on top of the sponsorship discussions around the world.) In my mind, it is quite simple. Advertising is a medium that pushes out messaging. Whether on a billboard, TV, FaceBook, radio, or print, it is one-dimensional. You determine what you have to offer and you let people know about the offer. You are right next to your direct and indirect competition. The only thing that separates you is the voice, color, or offer. It has no emotion. It is a push message. It is tracked by GRPs and seldom equates to sales.

In fact, the most recent studies have shown that 23% of marketing budgets have shifted from traditional marketing and advertising such as newspaper, TV, radio, etc. to sponsorship, event marketing, and experiential marketing. Seven years ago, sponsorship and those media accounted for less than 4% of the total budget. Now they account for almost one out of every four dollars. (Some of the advertising media such as CBC have gotten smart and are now selling sponsorships-fully integrated real sponsorships, not those ones that have commercials with a tag line saying, “This show sponsored by ABC Company,” as well as advertising.)

That brings me to how sponsorship is different. Sponsorship is experiential. It mixes emotion with an offer or message. It draws an affinity between the sponsoring brand and the audience that the selling property delivers (be it sports team fans, donors to a cause, or recipients of services offered by a selling organization). Sponsorship takes traditional advertising and marketing to the next level where its target audience can experience the brand and is integrated with the brand versus being “pitched” by the brand. Sponsorship uses the experience and affinity for the partnership to leverage the opportunity to reach the brand’s goals. That experience is often supported by advertising, but advertising becomes part of the sponsorship package (as may be employee engagement opportunities, PR, GR, or IR strategies and more).

It was probably best described (and in a lot less words) in the discussion I noted in the Sponsorship Insights Group on LinkedIn by Bruce Rosenthal, vice president of corporate partnerships with Leading Age (formerly the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging) in Washington, DC:

Advertising is a monologue with customers; sponsorship is a dialogue with customers. Advertising is scheduled communications; sponsorship is strategic communications. Advertising is informative; sponsorship is collaborative. Advertising is mass communications; sponsorship is targeted communications.

As I have always said, there is definitely a place for both advertising and sponsorship. Both media work and deliver results. As a brand or a selling property, you need to know when you should use each of them based on your target demographic, objectives, and budget.

These are just one person’s thoughts. Yours are welcomed as well. Please add your thoughts or comments below. Thank you for reading and your feedback.

4 Comments

  1. Great column. Sponsorship is much more of a holistic relationship between the property and the corporate, and the best relationships actively recognize the stakeholders the corporate is trying to reach. So it is not about advertising, other than that is one tool in the kit, not the whole kit. This is where so many people on both sides often get twisted up: the client thinking “exposure” is all the corporate wants, the corporate wondering why they are getting the same “package” re: advertising as everyone else, just in smaller or greater amounts. Dialog, dialog, dialog . . . and you said it well.

    Reply
    • Wow Ron, you said it well. I think you are bang on. I like the bit about advertising being a part of the kit, not the whole kit. Thanks for this. Brent

      Reply
  2. Brent, I really liked this article. Forwarded it to our Admin team & BOD. This is the somewhat intangible but key differentiation that I constantly strive to highlight with potential partners.

    Reply
    • Thanks Ken. It truly does recap it well. It is the intangibles that create differentiation for sponsors, not the mass media impressions and advertising. Brent

      Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 
Share This