I write about this because as recently as last week, one of our team members paid and registered to attend the Centre of Excellence for Public Sector Marketing’s Municipal Forum on Sponsorship in conjunction with the Strategic Sponsorship Marketing Conference – The Canadian Summit and The Sponsorship Report being held in Toronto. Because we are not a municipality, we were sent an email (months after registering) informing us that we were not welcome to attend and that our money would be refunded. In fact, when we registered, there was nothing in the printed materials or on the website indicating that this event was closed to all except actual municipalities. But they did change their website to say this and then sent us the email!
When we indicated that we were there representing two municipalities that were paying for our attendance, we were still refused entry. Upon further investigation, we discovered that this was because we are a “competitor” of the people hosting and delivering the workshop. This was astounding! Agencies, sponsors, and properties make up this industry and, without one of the legs, the stool will collapse. But to these organizers, it was about “secrecy,” “worry that the competition would eat our breakfast,” and so on. Perhaps that is why they are struggling. They live in a silo and not in the real world, which is collaborative and supportive.
At the Western Sponsorship Congress™ of which we (Partnership Group – Sponsorship Specialists™) are the presenting sponsor, our competition is welcome. In fact, we have marketing agreements with two of our direct competitors. With another, we promote their conference. We have our competitors speaking at the Western Sponsorship Congress™. Why do we allow this as a presenting sponsor? Because we believe it makes a better conference and educational experience. Neither The Western Sponsorship Congress™, nor the Canadian Sponsorship Forum, nor the SMCC Conference or training workshops, nor the Canadian Sport Marketing Conference, nor the Atlantic Sponsorship Forum prevent the competition from paying to attend. In fact, they invite their competition to participate and be presenters. This is what makes our industry special. It is collaborative. It is all about the “true partnerships” that I discussed last week. It is about letting all industry professionals learn. It is about delivering the best product to the most people possible. It is about doing what is right with integrity and not living in the closed-world silo of yesteryear or refusing to be transparent.
At our one-day workshops, we even provide our proprietary information (valuations, proposal templates, etc. as applicable to the topic being delivered) to those who attend. Often, our competition attends to learn, and garner knowledge and information. We do not turn them away. Nor does IEG hold back when it delivers its workshop at which it provides proprietary information. This is all about moving the industry forward and enabling individuals from across the industry to learn and become better. I guess that is the way I (and the majority of the industry) thinks, but not the organizers and promoters of last week’s Municipal Forum on Sponsorship in Toronto at the Grand Hotel and Suites.
Last May, when we announced the inaugural Municipal Forum on Sponsorship in partnership with the Centre of Excellence for Public Sector Marketing (CEPSM), one of our first responses was from you, Brent. You emailed your congratulations, then added:
“I was really disappointed that you did not include us in this opportunity as well or even chat with me about it because along with Bernie [Colterman, Managing Partner of CEPSM] we could have added a great deal to it and also that would have really allowed us to promote your two day Summit in conjunction with the Municipal Forum to our 800+ people who open up the weekly commentary and 900+ who open Congress emails from our 3800 person data base. We are also finding using our network on LinkedIn with 1500 contacts linked to me specifically and my 1100 followers on Twitter really are help [sic] drive registrations already for WSC and is doing wonders to promote other events I am speaking at where they are getting registrations from people they did not know.”
I’m quoting you at some length because it may provide context for your commentary. You say we live in a silo. We’re all about secrecy. We’re concerned that competition will eat our lunch. And we’re struggling.
And here I thought we were doing okay. How had we fallen so heavily from our lofty perch?
We accepted a registration from a Partnership Group associate for the Municipal Forum, then cancelled it and refunded the registration fee in full.
Let’s be clear. That is 100% true.
The registration was for both the Sponsorship Summit and the Municipal Forum. It was made online, and the system accepted it. When we issued the cancellation to your associate for the Municipal Forum component, I made a point of phoning him personally to apologize, and ensure that he understood what had happened, and why. At the conclusion of the call, in subsequent emails, and in person while he enjoyed the Sponsorship Summit, he said he understood why we acted as we did. You chose not to include that in your piece, so I’ll add it here:
It never occurred to us that someone outside the municipal sector would register, and we only wanted municipalities in the house.
When it comes to partnerships, the challenges faced by the municipal sector are unique. Municipalities are under close scrutiny and enormous pressure. In order to ensure that attendees could be perfectly candid in their discussions, it was essential that the Municipal Forum on Sponsorship be closed to all but municipal sector representatives and the facilitator, Bernie Colterman.
I respected this rule myself. I introduced Bernie to attendees, told them all they should take out a subscription to The Sponsorship Report if they hadn’t done so already, then left the room. I’m a publisher. I didn’t belong there. I didn’t set foot in the room again until the session was over.
The sole objective behind any of the professional development events we run or support is to maximize the benefit to the attendees. We’re not an agency, so we don’t look at conference attendees as potential five-figure and six-figure consulting contracts. We thrive and sometimes suffer based solely on the quality of information we provide in the pages of The Sponsorship Report and at our conferences and workshops.
Brent, you have assembled a powerful promotional engine for your consulting business, your conference and your seminars. It’s an efficient model where each piece feeds the next. I admire you for it. I even envy it. And you may be right that, had I partnered with you instead of with Bernie we could have leveraged that powerful engine to drive additional registrations to the Municipal Forum and to the Summit and our bank accounts would have been much better off for it.
But we partnered with Bernie Colterman and CEPSM. We did it firstly because Bernie approached me with a concept that I thought would deliver exceptional value to the municipal sector. We did it secondly because I knew no one could hold a candle to Bernie on this subject matter. I had reported on Bernie’s groundbreaking work with the City of Ottawa and knew that his template was being held up as a model North America-wide. We did it thirdly because I had worked with Bernie in the past on professional development events and knew first-hand that he was an exceptional workshop leader.
Evaluations from the Municipal Forum confirm that we chose wisely. The learning was relevant and meaningful. Workshop discussions were open and candid. Attendees, the only people who should matter if you’re in the professional development business, emerged from the Forum well prepared to meet the unique challenges of sponsorship in the municipal sector.
What we didn’t do was make great gobs of money by filling the house with people whose presence might have hampered the free-flow of ideas. But that was never on our list of objectives.
Brent, when you sent me your congratulatory email last May, I replied that following a post-mortem of the 2011 Municipal Forum on Sponsorship, I’d discuss with Bernie the possibility of involving Partnership Group in a 2012 event.
I think I’ll give Bernie a call right now and ask him what he thinks.
Mark,
Thank you for your comments. I still agree with what I said to you last spring. I think the opportunity to have us involved (collaboratively or singularly) would have not only enhanced the event but would have clearly allowed it to be more open and more people could have benefited from the municipal sector. I also believe such collaboration would have enhanced more awareness of your Summit so more people could attend it and be part of the professional development you offer the industry. Not everyone can attend our Congress or the Canadian Sponsorship Forum and others. To get more people to your event that cannot travel outside the GTA would be great for the industry. When we all work together, we all benefit. When we work in silos no one benefits in the long run.
I still believe that our industry, of which you are an important part with your publication The Sponsorship Report (which I have subscribed to for over six years and encourage others to subscribe to because I believe it is a valuable part of our industry and very informative) and the Canadian Summit (which again I have attended several times and encourage others to attend and have sent my staff to as well over the years) needs to be collaborative. Your publication and event always have been. The Municipal Conference was not. There is no two ways about it. Especially when agencies represent properties or brands and when the municipality is paying us (or another agency) to attend on their behalf, that agency is a proxy for the municipality and represents them. To be refused entry because we (or another agency) are a competitor is not good for anyone.
You are also correct, Randy felt the speakers at your conference were great and he enjoyed the Summit. He or someone from our organization like me will attend again next year. It is a worthwhile event. My point was clear. It was about the “closed door” and “changing the rules” on the Municipal Conference that I (and so many others) hold issue with. The industry needs to be collaborative. It needs to be open and transparent. We all need to work together (properties, agencies and sponsors) to move it forward. We have always done this and always will. If others choose not to there is nothing we can do. I received more direct emails to me yesterday on that commentary than the normal 10-15 I receive each week. They all agree that collaboration is essential to our future growth as an industry.
Brent, on the issue of the Municipal Forum on Sponsorship, I think we must simply agree to disagree. I will continue to exclude myself from the Municipal Forum because of my firm belief that in that room, for that group, discussions must be peer-to-peer. It is that very promise that sets this session apart from all others and allows us to deliver value unmatched elsewhere.
Enjoy Day 2 of the Congress.