The Feedback

The Feedback

A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of moderating an open mic/town hall discussion about corporate sponsorship and municipalities. The panel included Councillor Gillis from the City of Sarnia, Councillor MacKenzie from the City of Leduc, and Fiona Story with Yellow Pages. It was a terrific panel with great insights and experience. In addition, there were over 250 mayors and councillors in the amphitheatre providing thoughts, questions, stories, feedback, and experiences. It was an amazing discussion!

A week before this conference session, I noted in the TMC how terrific it was that the municipalities, which are latecomers to the sponsorship game compared to sport, charities, and events and festivals, have created this discussion to better understand sponsorship and pave the way for its future. They wanted to talk about what they had heard. They discussed how sponsorship fitted or didn’t fit into their communities. It was amazing. The real key, though, was that it was not folks down the ladder—it was the leaders of our municipalities from coast to coast to coast in Canada. It was the mayors and the councillors. They set policy, they set direction, and they were engaged in this future revenue channel.

I also noted in that past TMC that sport, charities, festivals, events, member associations—all these groups—need to do the same. They need to have their top level people—the EDs, CEOs, and board members—at the table in these discussions, not just the development officers and sponsorship coordinators of an event. Leadership is essential and I believe these other sectors need to step up and do what the municipalities have done—discuss corporate sponsorship marketing at the highest levels of their organizations.

I thought I would share with you some of the thoughts and outcomes from this 90-minute session at FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities) 2016. One of the most interesting outcomes was that much of the discussion and queries from these municipal leaders extended beyond just municipalities and associated sponsorship. They were applicable to sport organizations, charities, festivals, and events—all sectors of our sponsorship industry including the brands that are sponsors. Here is some of what came from this session.

  • There is a concern around clutter, signage, and banners. How can/do we control this so our towns and cities do not look like NASCAR or highway billboards?
  • How do we create policy that is inclusive of all stakeholders, including the sponsors, the venues, and the citizens?
  • How do we truly know what our assets—building naming, program association, signage, etc.—are and what they are truly worth in the marketplace?
  • How important is transparency and asset valuation so that there is not a perception of having sold a sponsorship and the “getting less money than we should have” regret or that we need to understand the real market value of the assets versus our “personal belief valuation” system? What role does third party validation play?
  • Who and how will we deliver on fulfilment? How do we ensure that sponsors get what they were promised?
  • How do we measure ROI? Should we even be in this game? Is there enough revenue to make it profitable, is it cost efficient to operate, or are we looking at a pipe dream?
  • How do we ensure that we are being fair to all and not just doing deals with companies we want to do business with?

Perhaps now the leaders in our sport organizations, our national, regional, and local charities, festivals, events, exhibitions, conferences and programming, and post-secondary institutions will do the same. Perhaps now they will recognize that a discussion is essential—a discussion that embraces the highest level of these types of organizations, not just the staff associated with revenue generation. These people already see the future. It is the organizational leadership outside the fund development or sponsorship sales departments that needs to sit around that table, as our country’s mayors and councillors did! We were glad to be a part of this discussion with municipalities and to provide our leadership, expertise, and experience to this sector, just as we are with any sector. As industry leaders, we know this is critical for the future of properties, brands, and the industry!

© 2016. All rights reserved.

2 Comments

  1. I remain very concerned about municipalities vying for the ever more elusive sponsorship dollars against actual charities who existence relies on corporate and donor support. When cities are in the business of awarding huge contracts for services and products, it becomes a very uneven playing field. A lucrative contract with a city could be perceived as contingent on a “partnership” from that supplier.

    I do not think that tax supported governments should be competing against our social and charitable agencies, now or in the future.

    Reply
    • Alida,
      Thanks as always for reading and your feedback. I agree there might be a fear and concern, but in every community where the city has moved further to professionalize their sponsorship program it has elevated the sponsorship programs in the community as a whole, especially for the smaller organizations. It is also very important to note that over 2/3 of municipalities in Canada are already in this game; transit advertising, rink boards etc. – the move to professionalize and make the programs more effective for citizens, sponsors and the city actually helps non profits so that there there is not competition for “community investment and philanthropic dollars”.

      Most charities seek out gifts and community investment. When municipalities run their sponsorship programs correctly they are seeking sales dollars, marketing dollars HR dollars. This makes the pie bigger for everyone.

      And finally municipalities have rigid procurement policies. over 75% of Canadians believe sponsorship should not influence procurement process, politicians and administration agree. They need to be squeaky clean. Big charities and non profits like attractions and something like the Stampede or Heritage Park or Science Centers with multi million dollar operating budgets and capital campaigns have some pretty big influence that can especially affect the well being of the smaller charities in the marketplace and they are not scrutinized like a municipality would be for procurement process and policy. As well those organizations have undue influence from Board members with power and clout that affect bottom line dollars for smaller non profits and charities. I think those should be concerns as well.

      Reply

Submit a Comment

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

 
Share This