Comments on: Sponsorships vs. Partnerships

By: Julia

Julia — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 03:21:18 +0000

This is a really late response. I am researching this at the moment for my organisation as we seem to have an enormous amount of ‘partnerships’ that aren’t being leveraged or proving to have any benifit. I am finding it difficult to get a clear definition of a partnership in the context we are discussing. Therefore, I am thinking that the word partnership is too broad to be interchanged with sponsorship. A sponsorship should always relate back to an organisation’s marketing objectives, however a partnership may not always need to do this. Often, a community partnership relates to the organisation’s strategic objectives and is not necessarily about communicating certain messages to a target audience. I think the term sponsorship needs to remain so we are clear we are talking about marketing and branding. ‘Sponsorship’ can come under the umbrella of ‘partnerships’ in addition to ‘community partnerships’ and ‘charities or philanthropy’. They are all different ‘partnerships’ but require two-way relationships.

By: JR

JR — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:19:57 +0000

We keep it simple:
Partnership is when we are buying products/services from each other. This can include check swaps or trade. Includes everything from official sign providers to concession vending deals. The key element is the commerce between companies.

Sponsorship is when we sell marketing services to a client. This can include advertising, promotion, PR campaigns and merchandising. The key differentiator is that they are paying cash for these services.

By: Stewart

Stewart — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 12:25:20 +0000

From what I understand, Parnerships entale a certain legal responsibility, Brands would rather keep it at a sponsorship level.

I have talked extensively with major brands and they understand that partnering with private enterprise has legal risk, especially with the assumption of endoresement.

I am interested in what others think?

Stewart

By: Brenton Gieser

Brenton Gieser — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 23:03:28 +0000

Jason makes a good point when he says more then ever sporting brands, events and/or whatever… needs to leverage eachother’s marketing efforts. As the internet has been suggesting for the past decade, transparency is going to benefit us all. This all meaning that partnerships are a very powerful biz dev vehicle.

By: David Rachell

David Rachell — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:50:23 +0000

Good information Jason. My sense is that the industry terminology is MUCH more fragmented than these two terms because there are so many varying tactics – with each tactic being part of one or both ideas.

For example, is cause marketing is a form of a partnership, or is it wide spread enough to stand on its own? While each term invokes a different connotation, each results in a different consumer reaction. I think the terminology should be defined BASED on the consumer reaction more so than the tactics that lie within the agreement between sponsor and property.

Take a look at my blog on the subject…
http://pinpointsponsor.blogspot.com/2009/05/best-kept-secrets-in-sponsorship_07.html

By: Jason

Jason — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:08:03 +0000

Thanks for all your comments and insights. I guess the bottom line is people will still use whatever term they like best, and like you mentioned, relationships need to specify that both sides deliver value so things are mutually beneficial.

By: TimNATC

TimNATC — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:57:04 +0000

Jason – This is very thought provoking, and the comments have definitely added to the discussion. From my perspective when I talk to students about sponsorships I am really talking about building a mutually beneficial partnership. That means that the way the industry approaches sponsorships and the inventory that is being sold should really be looked at on an individual basis. I am preparing for the fall semester now and this will be a topic of conversation. I particularly liked your comment that it was hard to find the actual sponsors. That is not good & I would not be happy if I was the sponsoring organization. Keep up the good work!

By: Shabbat Shalom: Friday Wrap-Up (7/17/09) | Breaking News Fast

Shabbat Shalom: Friday Wrap-Up (7/17/09) | Breaking News Fast — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 06:08:44 +0000

[...] I prefer partnerships, although not the legal definition [Sponsorships vs. Partnerships] [...]

By: dan beeman

dan beeman — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:34:23 +0000

As usual Jason, you comments are insightful and thought-provoking. Sorry I am a bit slow on the uptake in responding but but have been doing some business travel. This is a central question to our industry that merits discussion. I have blogged about this and will make this a featured discussion on our LinkedIn Group – Sponsorship Insights.

It is particularly timely you bring up this discussion in that you will be featured in our next e-newsletter going out to our membership next week.

My take: When pitching sponsorship opportunities, I often find myself explaining the benefits of sponsorship in general versus more traditional media for more than half of the presentation before I even get to the specifics of the pitch. I think the term “sponsorship” carries a certain amount of baggage and and ambiguity. In the REIT sector, many in house sponsorship units are re branding as “partnership marketing” to emphasize the partnership aspect.

By: John Owens, CFE

John Owens, CFE — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:04:45 +0000

In my book “Opening Night” Creating Successful Events, I touch on this subject. Sponsors ARE our Partners and if we do not treat them as such, they will not be participating in our event for very long. It is a truism that really helps us to more accurately define the relationship between our partners and our events/venues.

By: Shabbat Shalom: Friday Wrap-Up (7/17/09) – SportsAgentBlog.com | Sports Agent News

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:02:00 +0000

[...] I prefer partnerships, although not the legal definition [Sponsorships vs. Partnerships] [...]

By: MJMunson

MJMunson — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:48:56 +0000

The word “sponsor” comes from the Latin “spons,” meaning to pledge, promise, and “or,” meaning person or thing that. So we can take “sponsor” to mean one that pledges. “Sponsorship” would then be the act of pledging. This is a pretty simple definition and can apply to a whole range of activities.

The thing is, any successful endeavor with another party is partnership. While the definition of “sponsorship” is wide, “partnership” is even more broad. So it goes without saying that any successful sponsorship has to be a partnership. Changing the word used, to me, is like changing the definition of what pollution is so you can say you don’t pollute even when you are emitting the same pollution as before the definition was changed. In other words, it’s a total cop-out to run away from “sponsorship.” Execute and quantifiably generate great value from sponsorship and you can call it “shit on a shingle” and nobody would care.

By: Mike M

Mike M — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 03:04:36 +0000

In reality the terms are almost interchangable now. Sponsors or brands should expect a return on their investment. Properties hope they get one and work toward that end. From the property/team persepctive sponsors should be helping to keep costs down for fans and produce a better product on the field. Properties must deliver value for sponsors and sponsors must help teams in areas where they need help as well. Right now every brand would like interactivity since its best to measure return but stadiums still have signs and teams have radio/tv networks with ad time to sell in order to have a broadcast for fans to hear/see. There must be give and take and that is what actually happens on a day to day basis in the sponsorship/partnership trenches.