Matthew Leopold
Head of Sponsorship, British Gas
www.britishgas.co.uk
What’s your favourite ever sponsorship activation?
Although I did not see it in action, I heard about Just Eat’s sponsorship of the Taste Festival in Dublin. Customers could order festival food through the Just Eat app and have it delivered to their picnic table. That was a brilliant example of how to bring a sponsorship to life by demonstrating the product whilst solving a real customer need. Such a simple way of activating their sponsorship, but very clever and effective.
What do you consider has had the biggest impact on sponsorship in recent years?
I think the recent growth of “content marketing” has changed how sponsorship is amplified. Brands are spending more and more money creating more and more content. As a result, we have seen some superbly creative activations and amplifications of assets.
However, with the glut of content available, it is getting harder for the customer to find things that are interesting and relevant to them. I think we are reaching a tipping point. Sponsorship needs to stop creating content for content’s sake. Instead, we need to look carefully at the target audience and create relevant content that adds value.
What’s going to be the next disruptive event that takes place within our industry?
I believe that sponsorship is most impactful when it taps into the emotive power of the consumer. Sport has always been a winner in this regard. eSports is going to be a massive disrupter to the world of sponsorship. The industry will need to work out how to create and then leverage the emotional connection between player, brands and game. I’m excited to see how the industry evolves and meets this challenge.
Are we, as an industry, using data and the insight it provides, in the best way?
Far from it. This will always be the biggest challenge that faces sponsorship. There is no single metric with which to measure sponsorship. It needs a range of metrics to help understand what is working and what is not. It can be easy to get lost in the amount of data available. I think it is really important to have an outcome focus rather than an output focus. This means deciding what it is that you hope sponsorship will achieve for your brand (outcome). Then, track the KPIs (outputs) that contribute to that outcome. With this information, you can gain new insights and drive improvement. It can be so tempting (I’ve been there) to track and report on the metrics that perform well, rather than the ones that matter and will help you improve your sponsorship.
What 3 key learnings can we take from other industries in order to be better at what we do?
Integration. Sponsorship needs to shake off the impression that it is “just” a spoke on the marketing wheel. When sponsorship is at the core and supports the main brand promise, it can be amplified through other, existing marketing channels. This makes it so much more effective.
Rigor. Let’s treat sponsorship as we would any other marketing activity. It needs a clear brief, clearly defined metrics and a test and learn approach. Let’s be brave. Sponsorship can be a brilliant marketing tool. Let’s treat it with the same process and analysis as other marketing tools. That means recognising that it has limitations. Sponsorship is not the right answer for all brands all the time.
Customer centricity. Sponsorship offers brands a little bit of magic. The customer actually cares about the rights holder! We should regularly ask ourselves “why would the customer care that I’m doing this”? If sponsorship can add value to customers in a meaningful way, the opportunities are huge.
Which term do you prefer using – partnership or sponsorship?
I prefer partnership. Sponsorship can be misunderstood as a one way branding exercise. It also carries a boardroom stigma that is outdated. The term ‘partnership’ reinforces the importance and necessity of two-way relationships. It is increasingly common for businesses to use partnerships to drive sales. These sorts of partnerships are carefully measured, managed and audited. Sponsorship should be treated in the same way. If using the term ‘partnership’ rather than ‘sponsorship’ reinforces a new way of thinking, measuring and evaluating, the discipline will be all the better for it.