ninth annual ieg / performance research sponsorship decision-makers survey

Ninth AnnualIEG / Performance Research

Sponsorship Decision-Makers Survey

VII. PROPERTY PERCEPTIONS p. 50

Table of ContentsI. METHODOLOGY p. 3

III. ASSERTIONS p. 10

IV. RESPONDENT PROFILE p. 12

V. SPONSORSHIP SPENDING AND INVOLVEMENT p. 16

VI. RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS p. 40

II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY p. 5

3

I. MethodologyNinth AnnualNinth Annual

IEG / Performance ResearchIEG / Performance ResearchSponsorship Decision-Makers SurveySponsorship Decision-Makers Survey

Methodology

A total of 110 participants were contacted, via email, by Performance Research and asked to complete an online questionnaire about the sponsorship decision-making process.

Respondents were screened by IEG, Inc. to be sponsorship decision-makers from small, medium and large corporations worldwide.

Data collection was conducted in January and February 2009.

Research objectives included, but were not limited to, determining the benefits and services that are most important to companies when making sponsorship decisions and estimating how companies are budgeting for measurement and activation. The margin of error for this study is approximately + 5%.

This study was conducted in conjunction with IEG, LLC. www.sponsorship.com

4

http://www.sponsorship.com/

5

II. Executive SummaryNinth AnnualNinth Annual


Cold Hard Facts: IEG/Performance Research Study Documents Economy’s Effect On Sponsors

In case you need proof that the downward spiraling economy is having an impact on sponsors, here it is, courtesy of the ninth annual IEG/Performance Research Sponsorship Decision-makers Survey.

Fifty-one percent of the survey’s respondents said their companies’ spending on sponsorship fees will decrease this year from 2008 levels. Only 14 percent of sponsors plan to spend more, while 36 percent said their budgets would stay the same as last year (see chart on pg. 19).

The survey for the first time asked sponsors specifically about the direction of their activation spending, and the numbers were only marginally better than the answers to fee spending. Forty percent of sponsors say they will decrease activation spending this year compared to last, while 17 percent will increase it and 43 percent will hold their leveraging budgets steady from ’08 (see chart on pg. 25).

6

Source: IEG Sponsorship ReportMarch 09, 2009 Volume 28, Number 5www.iegsr.com

Cold Hard Facts: IEG/Performance Research Study Documents Economy’s Effect On Sponsors (continued…)

On an even more ominous note, slightly less than half of sponsors–47 percent–said they were seeking to get out of some of their current sponsorships even though those deals were not currently up for renewal (see chart on pg. 22).

One bright spot among the survey responses was the revelation that 60 percent of sponsors say they would consider signing first-time sponsorships in ’09 (see chart on pg. 23). That figure contradicts industry buzz that many sponsors had declared moratoriums on new deals this year.

However, the finding may not be as positive as it seems, if it means those companies are simply looking to abandon higher fee sponsorships and replace them with less expensive opportunities.

7


Cold Hard Facts: IEG/Performance Research Study Documents Economy’s Effect On Sponsors (continued…)

Two barometers of the industry’s health declined in this year’s survey. The average percentage of overall marketing budgets claimed by sponsorship fell from a record high 19.5 percent to 17.6 percent, while the average amount spent on activation relative to rights fees slipped for the second straight year to $1.40 for every $1 spent on rights fees from $1.50-to-$1 in the ’08 survey.

8


Research Spending Up, But Many Still Don’t Know ROI

Perhaps because of the constraints of the economy, sponsors are devoting more resources to evaluate sponsorship opportunities and to measure the success of their deals.

In the first case, the percentage of sponsors spending nothing on pre-selection research shrank from 47 percent to 41 percent (see chart on pg. 48), while sponsors spending nothing on evaluating return decreased from 33 percent to 29 percent (see chart on pg. 49).

However, the percentage of sponsors who said they did not know how their return on investment was trending grew from 24 percent to 31 percent (see chart on pg. 54).

The survey was conducted online in February and received 110 responses.

9


10

III. AssertionsNinth AnnualNinth Annual


Assertions As usual, the IEG/Performance Research Sponsorship Decision-Maker Survey offers a number of important insights into what sponsors are looking for. Of note, a shift in the top benefits the are seeking from their deals. Two benefits made the top 10 listfor the first time: access to property content for digital and other purposes, along with obtaining a platform for experiential branding. On the other hand, receiving sponsor identification on property collateral materials – a perennial benefit on the list and one that was at number four last year – dropped off altogether.

Although it didn’t make the top 10, sponsors also were much more interested in obtaining access to survey audiences on-site – 33 percentrated the benefit a nine or a 10 on a 10-point scale, compared to 19 percent who rated it that highly last year.

Source: IEG Sponsorship ReportAssertions: Jim AndrewsMarch 09, 2009 Volume 28, Number 5www.iegsr.com

11

80%

80%

86%

87%

79%

82%

83%

78%

78%

78%

86%

77%

79%

77%

81%

82%

83%

87%

88%

87%

78%

82%

89%

86%

75%

77%

83%

79%

Implementingmarketing plans /activation supp.sponsorships

Selecting marketingplans / activation

supp. sponsorships

Selecting newproperties / events

to sponsor

Evaluate existingproperties

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

Decision Making Responsibilities

"Within your organization, which of the following describes your

responsibilities regarding sponsorship?13

5%

10%

11%

13%

17%

5%

12%

10%

16%

20%

92%

2%

2%

5%

2%

18%

64%

5%

8%

16%

10%

21%

88%

4%

9%

12%

12%

18%

94%

8%

5%

17%

7%

16%

72%

5%

9%

12%

12%

24%

78%

85%

Africa

South America

Australia / NewZealand

Asia / Pacific Rim

Europe

North America

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

Sponsorship ProgramsBy Region

“In what regions do your sponsorship programs operate?”14

0%

1%

2%

4%

5%

82%

1%

2%

2%

2%

3%

90%

2%

2%

0%

5%

6%

76%

0%

1%

1%

5%

6%

87%

0%

0%

1%

4%

4%

92%

0%

6%

0%

12%

13%

68%

1%

1%

2%

5%

12%

76%

South America

Africa

Asia / Pacific Rim

Australia / NewZealand

Europe

North America

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

Personal LocationBy Region

“In which region are you personally based?”15

16

V. Sponsorship Spending & InvolvementNinth AnnualNinth Annual


2%

6%

12%

78%

13%

28%

73%

75%

17%

26%

61%

73%

8%

25%

71%

73%

9%

28%

72%

77%

13%

19%

72%

74%

16%

28%

71%

77%

Consult sponsorshipspecialist to

determine strategy

Receive detailsabout property from

a sales agency

Approached directlyby property owners

Set strategy andseek the right

property

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

Choosing Property to Sponsor

“How do you typically go about choosing a property to sponsor?”

17

47%

21%

9%

23%

46%

26%

9%

20%

Fourth Quarter(October -December)

Third Quarter (July -September)

Second Quarter(April - June)

First Quarter(January - March)

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

“During which time period does your company determine its sponsorship

budget?”18

When Sponsorship Budget is Decided

51%

36%

14%

19%

41%

40%

19%

43%

38%

18%

44%

38%

17%

47%

36%

20%

47%

33%

18%

42%

40%

Decrease

Stay the same

Increase

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

Likely Sponsorship Spending Compared to Prior Year

“How will your overall sponsorship spending in [2009] compare to [2008]?”

19

6%

9%

15%

17%

7%

26%

$30 million andabove

$15 million - $30million

$5 million - $15million

$1 million - $5 million

$500,000 - $1 million

Up to $500,000

2009; N=110

Sponsorship Spending in Prior Year

“About how much did your company spend on sponsorship in 2008?”

20

2%

2%

4%

8%

4%

37%

2%

0%

3%

7%

7%

15%

26%

0%

2%

1%

5%

7%

13%

13%

56%

2%

1%

1%

5%

3%

7%

17%

47%

17%

1%

0%

10%

6%

12%

19%

49%

3%

0%

7%

4%

1%

10%

21%

54%

3%

0%

2%

3%

5%

12%

29%

43%

3%

42%43%

75%-100%

51%-75%

41%-50%

31%-40%

21%-30%

11%-20%

1%-10%

0%

2003; N=102*

2004; N=72*

2005; N=73*

2006; N=149*

2007; N=84*

2008; N=61*

2009; N=52*

[*Based on those who responded]

“Approximately what % of your organization’s overall marketing budget do sponsorship rights fees represent?”

Percentage of MarketingBudget Spent On Sponsorship

21

Considering Dropping Any Current Sponsorships Not Up for Renewal

53%

47%

No

Yes2009; N=110

“Is your company seeking to drop out of any current sponsorships (those not up for renewal)?"

22

Considering New Sponsorships in 2009

40%

60%

No

Yes2009; N=110

“Is your company considering new sponsorships in 2009?"

23

7%

8%

16%

54%

16%

9%

12%

14%

48%

17%

11%

9%

26%

38%

16%

8%

15%

21%

43%

14%

7%

8%

21%

45%

19%

7%

9%

16%

46%

23%

12%

7%

20%

47%

13%

$4 to $1 or More

$3 to $1

$2 to $1

$1 to $1

0 to $1

2003; N=138*

2004; N=103*

2005; N=111*

2006; N=146*

2007; N=117*

2008; N=157*

2009; N=110*

Leveraging/Spending Ratio

“As best as you can estimate, what is your company’s typical promotional spending

ratio?”

Average Ratio of Activation Spending to Rights Fees

2003 – 1.7:1

2004 – 1.3:1

2005 – 1.5:1

2006 – 1.7:1

2007 – 1.9:1

2008 – 1.5:1

2009 – 1.4:1


24

“How will your spending, specifically on sponsorship leveraging and activation in 2009,compare to 2008? Will it…?"

25

40%

43%

17%

Decrease

Stay the same

Increase

2009; N=110

Likely Direction of Leveraging & Activation Spending in 2009

49%

14%

41%

10%

32%

30%

44%

50%

38%

8%

27%

33%

40%

50%

42%

9%

17%

25%

43%

51%

48%

10%

13%

37%

50%

53%

43%

7%

23%

34%

43%

51%

46%

18%

24%

31%

39%

52%

26%

35%

36%

45%

None, manage in-house

Sponsorship specialist agency who soldrights

Independent sponsorship specialist

Property / rights holder

Public relations agency

Advertising agency

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

Agency Used for Support

“What types of agencies, if any, do you use to help leverage/support your sponsorship program?"

26

65%

72%

75%

76%

79%

62%

77%

69%

80%

71%

51%

77%

67%

79%

71%

59%

77%

65%

73%

76%

63%

87%

74%

86%

82%

58%

71%

77%

73%

76%

62%

75%

65%

72%

73%

Internet tie-ins

Public relations

Hospitality

Traditionaladvertising

Internalcommunications

2003; N=1532004; N=1102005; N=1112006; N=1502007; N=1322008; N=1652009; N=110

“During the past 12 months, which of the following marketing communication channels have you used to leverage your sponsorship programs?"

Marketing CommunicationChannels Used [Top 5 Results]

27

44%

46%

55%

58%

47%

50%

62%

60%

41%

56%

61%

49%

55%

50%

57%

57%

45%

51%

64%

47%

52%

45%

46%

37%

53%

46%

54%

44%

Sales promotionoffers

Business-to-business

Direct marketing

Sampling on-site

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

“During the past 12 months, which of the following marketing communication channels have you used to leverage your sponsorship programs?"

Marketing CommunicationChannels Used [Results 6-9]

28

9%

12%

13%

19%

23%

31%

23%

27%

12%

16%

41%

27%

15%

28%

11%

20%

36%

22%

20%

36%

14%

21%

31%

25%

12%

23%

9%

26%

36%

27%

8%

28%

17%

21%

29%

24%

15%

24%

16%

23%

31%

27%

Online sponsorship

Community events /festivals / fairs

Arts

Entertainment

Sports

Causes

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

“Compared to [2008], how much do you expect your company to be involved in the following types of sponsorship in [2009]?"

More Likely to be Involved in Sponsorship Category than Prior Yr.

29

16%

22%

22%

27%

33%

44%

10%

12%

21%

15%

26%

20%

12%

14%

17%

10%

18%

26%

15%

13%

27%

13%

25%

31%

9%

12%

21%

8%

15%

23%

11%

13%

15%

12%

14%

22%

11%

12%

18%

11%

18%

26%

Causes

Sports

Arts

Community events /festivals / fairs

Entertainment

Online sponsorship

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

Less Likely to be Involved in Sponsorship Category than Prior Yr.

30

“Compared to [2008], how much do you expect your company to be involved in the following types of sponsorship in [2009]?"

39%

53%

60%

66%

67%

32%

39%

58%

67%

71%

39%

42%

58%

64%

64%

43%

51%

51%

63%

68%

39%

51%

60%

70%

73%

51%

52%

71%

79%

71%

40%

43%

66%

75%

75%

Stimulate sales / trial /usage

Drive retail / dealertraffic

Change / reinforceimage

Create awareness /visibility

Increase brand loyalty

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

Sponsorship Objectives[Top 5 “9” & “10” Ratings]

"Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all and 10 is extremely, please rate the following objectives as to their importance to you or your marketing team's decisions when you evaluate which sports or properties to sponsor?"

31

16%

27%

35%

44%

13%

29%

38%

32%

16%

23%

38%

33%

21%

21%

35%

35%

20%

25%

37%

32%

14%

25%

46%

43%

19%

29%

44%

38%

Gain on-site salesrights

Entertain clients /prospects

Showcase community/ social responsibility

Sample / displays /showcase products /

services

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

Sponsorship Objectives[Other top “9” & “10” Ratings]

"Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all and 10 is extremely, please rate the following objectives as to their importance to you or your marketing team's decisions when you evaluate which sports or properties to sponsor?"

32

7%

13%

11%

16%

27%

53%

7%

10%

10%

19%

29%

39%

11%

7%

6%

14%

23%

42%

7%

6%

9%

13%

21%

51%

12%

14%

8%

13%

25%

51%

12%

10%

10%

9%

25%

52%

11%

9%

14%

15%

29%

43%

Excite employees

Incent sales force

Network withcosponsors

Sell to sponsee

Entertain clients /prospects

Drive retail / dealertraffic

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

"Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is ‘Not at all’ and 10 is ‘Extremely,’ please rate the following objectives as to their importance to you or your marketing team's decisions when you evaluate which sports or properties to sponsor?"

Sponsorship Objectives -Business To Business [“9” & “10” Ratings]

33

16%

39%

44%

46%

13%

32%

32%

36%

16%

39%

33%

30%

21%

43%

35%

31%

20%

39%

32%

30%

14%

51%

43%

34%

19%

40%

38%

36%

Gain on-site salesrights

Stimulate sales / trial /usage

Sample / display /showcase products

Capture database /lead generation

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

Sponsorship Objectives -Sales & Promotional [“9” & “10” Ratings]

34


35%

35%

60%

66%

67%

29%

38%

58%

67%

71%

33%

38%

58%

64%

64%

29%

35%

51%

63%

68%

34%

37%

60%

70%

73%

36%

46%

71%

79%

71%

40%

44%

66%

75%

75%

Access platform forexperiential branding

Showcase community/ social responsibility

Change / reinforceimage

Create awareness /visibility

Increase brand loyalty

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

Sponsorship Objectives -General [“9” & “10” Ratings]

35


41%

46%

44%

49%

58%

45%

36%

41%

54%

64%

39%

33%

42%

54%

55%

39%

42%

39%

53%

67%

50%

36%

53%

56%

78%

55%

44%

52%

57%

61%

56%

39%

46%

62%

69%

Broadcast adopportunity

Access to propertymailing list / database

Title of proprietaryarea

On-site signage

Category exclusivity

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

"Using the same scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is ‘Not at all’ and 10 is ‘Extremely,’ please rate the following benefits as to how valuable they are to your organization?"

Value of Benefits[Top 5 “9” & “10” Ratings]

36

33%

35%

36%

38%

38%

19%

19%

39%

31%

38%

21%

40%

32%

32%

25%

45%

28%

35%

22%

45%

38%

32%

27%

48%

38%

36%

28%

53%

35%

38%

Rights to surveyaudience onsite

Access to propertycontent for digital &

other uses

ID in property's mediabuy

Right to propertymarks / logos

Presence on propertywebsite

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

Value of Benefits[“9” & “10” Ratings 6-10]

37

NA


25%

25%

29%

30%

32%

25%

30%

26%

23%

43%

21%

25%

23%

29%

35%

29%

27%

27%

24%

37%

32%

33%

32%

41%

33%

32%

35%

35%

42%

41%

25%

30%

34%

37%

44%

Opportunity toparticipate in turnkey

retailer promos.

Tickets / hospitality

Right to promote co-branded product /

service

Access to propertyprovided research

ID property collateralmaterials

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

2009; N=110


38


11%

16%

17%

19%

22%

23%

7%

11%

18%

14%

30%

23%

6%

14%

14%

16%

28%

23%

5%

15%

21%

15%

29%

19%

11%

18%

22%

19%

30%

29%

18%

16%

29%

23%

39%

32%

16%

14%

21%

22%

40%

28%

Access to property merchandise

Pass through rights to your own retailers

Intro to cosponsors / cross-promotionopportunities

Nonprofit / cause overlay

Ad in program book

Spokesperson / access to personalities

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

39



VI. Research ConsiderationsNinth AnnualNinth Annual


40

5%

13%

16%

19%

21%

38%

40%

5%

15%

15%

19%

18%

29%

42%

Syndicated consumer research

TV exposure analysis

Print media analysis / Clipping

Primary Consumer Research

Dealer / Trade response

Sales / Promo bounce-back measures

Internal Feedback

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

“Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is ‘not at all’ and 10 is ‘extremely’, please rate the importance of the following types of analysis in evaluating whether to change or renew a sponsorship?"

Importance of Various Types of Analysis [“9” & “10” Ratings]

41

0%

0%

3%

6%

14%

20%

20%

34%

1%

2%

3%

8%

10%

14%

20%

35%

1%

6%

5%

5%

11%

11%

18%

35%

1%

1%

2%

13%

17%

9%

20%

27%

2%

1%

0%

7%

18%

10%

15%

40%

4%

1%

0%

10%

16%

5%

6%

31%

Newspapers

Independent agencies

Conferences

Colleagues

Industry press / journals

Sports Business Journal

Internet

IEG

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=88*

2008; N=95*

2009; N=110

“What is your primary source of sponsorship industry news?"

Primary Source ofSponsorship Industry News


42

66%

72%

75%

75%

77%

68%

71%

70%

68%

76%

56%

55%

71%

64%

74%

60%

65%

65%

68%

81%

55%

81%

63%

82%

82%

41%

66%

68%

68%

76%

40%

70%

58%

69%

78%

Internet

Colleagues andcontacts

Sponsorship Websites

Sponsorship industrynewsletters

Advertising /marketing magazines

and journals

2003; N=151*

2004; N=108*

2005; N=108*

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=164*

2009; N=110

“From the following list, which sources would you say you rely on to provide you with sponsorship industry news?"

Sources of SponsorshipIndustry News [Top 5 Sources]


43

20%

36%

32%

54%

15%

31%

42%

52%

14%

27%

37%

53%

15%

27%

40%

44%

21%

32%

40%

62%

24%

28%

58%

48%

20%

22%

46%

42%

Radio / TV

E-mail circulars

Newspapers

Industry conferences

2003; N=151*

2004; N=108*

2005; N=108*

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=164*

2009; N=110


44

Sources of SponsorshipIndustry News [Sources 6-9]

“From the following list, which sources would you say you rely on to provide you with sponsorship industry news?"

46%

68%

81%

85%

49%

73%

82%

92%

54%

64%

77%

91%

47%

65%

77%

87%

53%

69%

86%

90%

64%

69%

79%

94%

52%

61%

67%

88%

Psychographics

Fan Passion / Affinity

Attendance

Demographics

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

"Which of the following do you typically analyze when making your decision?"

Information Sought Pre-Sponsorship [Top 4 Results]

45

36%

39%

42%

46%

36%

42%

50%

49%

36%

36%

43%

47%

33%

35%

40%

45%

41%

41%

50%

54%

45%

46%

55%

59%

41%

36%

30%

31%

TV ratings

Interest in propertyamong trade / dealers

What yourcompetition sponsors

Growth trends inproperty category

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

"Which of the following do you typically analyze when making your decision?"

46

Information Sought Pre-Sponsorship [Results 5-8]

73%

27%

81%

19%

75%

25%

81%

19%

78%

22%

83%

17%

74%

26%

No

Yes

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

Have A Budget forSponsorship Research

“Do you have an on-going budget for sponsorship research?"

47

“Approximately what % of a sponsorship’s total budget is typically spent on pre-selection research to evaluate fit?”

% of Rights Fee Spent on Pre-Event Research to Evaluate Fit

1%

14%

43%

41%

1%

19%

33%

47%

More than 5%

1% to 5%

1% or Less

None

2008; N=162*

2009; N=104*

48


3%

23%

38%

29%

5%

18%

44%

33%

0%

18%

42%

27%

1%

24%

33%

42%

3%

23%

49%

26%

3%

11%

43%

41%

1%

18%

46%

31%

More than 5%

1% to 5%

1% or Less

None

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

“Approximately what % of a sponsorship’s total budget is typically spent on concurrent / post-event research to measure success?”

% of Rights Fee Spent on Concurrent / Post-event Research

49

50

VII. Property PerceptionsNinth AnnualNinth Annual


15%

23%

31%

38%

38%

40%

50%

12%

16%

26%

32%

35%

37%

46%

10%

18%

21%

27%

27%

27%

42%

15%

23%

25%

29%

31%

35%

49%

17%

22%

30%

41%

39%

48%

59%

28%

28%

39%

45%

50%

48%

57%

22%

18%

29%

38%

33%

48%

52%

Sponsor workshop

Third-party evaluation statement

Research on audience buying habits

Leveraging ideas

Research on sponsor loyalty

Research on sponsor recall

Post event report / fulfillment audit

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

“Please rate the following ‘property-provided services’ as to how valuable they are to your organization?"

Value Placed On Property Provided Services [“9” & “10” Ratings]

51

23%

11%

23%

4%

6%

8%

18%

13%

15%

13%

15%

7%

4%

15%

9%

9%

13%

18%

26%

5%

2%

17%

13%

11%

12%

11%

12%

6%

16%

19%

12%

17%

18%

7%

25%

5%

6%

9%

6%

10%

7%

6%

15%

14%

14%

28%

7%

17%

9%

11%

18%

9%

11%

19%

11%

15%

Highest ratings - 9 &10 [NET]

8

7

6

5

4

3

Lowest ratings - 1 & 2[NET]

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

“To what degree do you depend on properties to help you measure your ROI during / after your sponsorship involvement?”

Average Ratio of Activation Spending to Rights Fees

2003 Mean=5.2

2004 Mean=4.4

2005 Mean=5.9

2006 Mean=5.2

2007 Mean=5.4

2008 Mean=5.9

2009 Mean=6.0

Extent To Which You Depend OnProperties To Measure ROI

52

66%

34%

73%

27%

71%

30%

73%

27%

69%

32%

67%

33%

70%

30%

No

Yes

2003; N=153

2004; N=110

2005; N=111

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

“Are properties meeting your expectations in delivering ROI measurement or research information?"

Properties Meeting Expectations

53

31%

6%

12%

52%

24%

6%

15%

56%

24%

4%

21%

52%

18%

6%

22%

54%

14%

13%

26%

47%

Don't know

Decreased

Stayed the same

Increased

2004; N=110

2006; N=150

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

“In general, over the past few years has your ROI from sponsorship…?"

Perceived ROI From Sponsorship Over Past Few Years

54

Company Profile

55

Performance Research (Newport, Rhode Island) was organized in 1985 to provide quantitative and qualitative

evaluation of event marketing programs to corporate sponsors, properties and their agencies.

Over the past twenty years, the company has conducted over 1 million on-site, on-line, and telephone interviews and

more than 500 focus groups regarding corporate sponsorships of sports, leisure activities and special events. As a

leader in custom sponsorship evaluation, Performance Research has in-depth experience with varied events

worldwide, and is a primary research partner with many of the world’s top corporate sponsors, including: Anheuser-

Busch, Coca-Cola, Citi-Financial, R.J. Reynolds, Sony-Ericsson and UBS.

Performance Research

25 Mill Street

Newport, RI USA

02840

401-848-0111

www.performanceresearch.com

contact: Bill Doyle, Vice President

[email protected]

56

http://www.performanceresearch.com/

ninth annual ieg / performance research sponsorship decision-makers survey

Documents

sponsorship spending

percent of sponsors

ieg sponsorship report

sponsorship decisions

sponsorship fees

research considerationsp

research objectives

activation spending