10-1 Chapter 10 Postevent Evaluation McGraw-Hill/Irwin©2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, All Rights Reserved

10-2Introduction Preevent Evaluation Provided a Projection of How Effective a Potential Sponsorship Could Be if Implemented Postevent Evaluation Provides an Assessment of How Well a Sponsorship Actually Performed – Was It a Productive Investment?

10-3 Sponsorship Accountability Cost versus Benefits Best Use of Scarce Resources Lack of a Standard Measure

10-4 Postevent Evaluation Methods Qualitative Assessments Market Response –Change in Sales –Impact on Trade Participation –Change in Consumer Attitudes Media Equivalencies –Comparable Value –Share

10-5 Qualitative Assessments Judgment & Perception Example: AT&T Indicates that Its Sponsorship of the USOC Is a Good Investment because of the High-Impact, Emotional Appeal of the Olympic Games to American Consumers

10-6 Market Response: Change in Sales How Much Did Sales Increase as a Result of the Sponsorship? Measures: –Before-and-After Measurements –Comparison to “Same Period” Sales –Compare Sponsorship Region to Rest of Market –Tie Sales Directly to the Sponsored Event

10-7 Example: Calculation of Change in Sales (and ROI)

10-8 Market Response: Impact on Trade Participation “Trade” Represents the Intermediaries, Especially the Retailers,” that Operate within the Sponsor’s Distribution Channel Measure The Trade’s Increased Involvement with the Sponsor and the Sponsor’s Products

10-9 Market Response: Impact on Trade Participation Increase in POS Display at Retail Stores Increase in Shelf Space Increase in Number of Stores Selling the Sponsor’s Products Investments in Cooperative Advertising

10-10 Example of Market Response: Impact on Trade Participation Listerine Sponsored “Taste of Chicago” Number of Displays in Retail Stores In the Chicago Area Increased By 112% Retailer Participation in Cooperative Advertising Reached the Highest Level in the History of the Listerine Brand

10-11 Market Response: Change in Consumer Attitudes What Attitude Is to Be Measured Requires a Measurement of that Attitude Prior to the Implementation of the Sponsorship Program (Prior to the Initiation of the Leveraging Effort

10-12 Market Response: Change in Consumer Attitudes What Percentage of Consumers Anticipate Purchasing the Sponsor’s Products? What Percentage of the Consumers Have a Favorable Opinion of the Sponsor? How Has the Sponsor’s Image Changed in the Eyes of the Consumers?

10-13 Example of Market Response: Change in Consumer Attitudes Lloyd’s Bank Sponsored the Lloyd’s Bank Theatre Challenge in the United Kingdom Attitudes Regarding the Following Issues Improved by 30% on the Scale: –Lloyd’s is a place to bank –Lloyd’s is Friendly –Lloyd’s is keeping up with the times

10-14 Media Equivalencies Sponsorships Result in Exposure Of Particular Interest is the Viewers’ Exposure to the Sponsors’ Trademarks and Logos as Well as the Number of Times the Sponsors are Mentioned During the TV Broadcast that Features the Sponsored Property

10-15 Media Equivalencies The Key Question Is: How Do We Assign a Monetary Value to that Exposure? One Answer Is to Determine How Much It Would Have Cost the Sponsor to Have Purchased an Equivalent Amount of Exposure Using Traditional Advertising during the Broadcast

10-16 Media Equivalencies: Comparable Value One of the More Popular Measurement Methodologies is Used by Joyce Julius & Associates Value of Exposure Value of Mentions

10-17 Joyce Julius & Associates Consider the following Example of a Sponsorship for a College Football Game Cost for a traditional 30-second TV ad during the Broadcast is $210,000 That Equates to $7,000 per Second

10-18 Joyce Julius & Associates The Sponsor’s Logo Appeared on Camera and In-Focus for the Viewers’ to See for a Total of 3Minutes and 23 Seconds During the Broadcast of the Game 203 Seconds in Total Value of That Component of the Sponsor’s Exposure = ($7,000 x 203) = $1,421,000

10-19 Joyce Julius & Associates The Sponsor’s Name Was Also Mentioned a Total of Eight Times during the Broadcast Each Mention is Valued as Equal to 10 Seconds of Exposure Value of that Component of the Sponsor’s Exposure = ((8 x10) x 7,000) = $560,000

10-20 Joyce Julius & Associates Comparable Value Exposure = $1,421,000 Mentions = $560,000 Total Comparable Value = $1,981,000

10-21 Joyce Julius & Associates Was this a Good Sponsorship Investment? We Need to Compare the Results to the Cost in Terms of the Rights Fee Paid by the Sponsor

10-22 Joyce Julius & Associates The Rights Fees Paid in this Example Were $1,000,000 The Comparable Value for the Sponsor Was Calculated to be $1,981,000 Was It a Good Investment?

10-23 Joyce Julius & Associates Sponsorship Should Produce $3 in Comparable Value for Every $1 Spent on Rights Fees The Ratio in this Example Is: (1,981,000 / 1,000,000) = $1.981 The Sponsor Achieved Less than $2 in Comparable Value for Each Dollar Spent

10-24 Joyce Julius & Associates Why is a $3 Return Needed? Why is $1 for $1 Not Sufficient? Sponsorship Does Not Convey Persuasive Message; Not as Effective as Advertising In Addition to Rights Fees, the Sponsor Should be Using Additional Resources for Its Leveraging Program

10-25 Media Equivalencies: Share (of Time) Another Measure Is to Use the Exposure Time to See How the Sponsor Fared Against The Rest of the Sponsors Out of the Total Exposure Time Achieved by All Sponsors, What Percentage Was Attained by the Sponsor in Question?

10-26 Media Equivalencies: Share (of Time) Recall that The Sponsor of the Football Game Received 203 Seconds of Exposure The Total Exposure Gained by All of the Sponsors Was 3,904 Seconds The Sponsor’s Share of Time Can Be Calculated as (203 / 3,904) =.052 or 5.2%

10-27 Media Equivalencies: Share (of Comparable Value) Takes the Comparable Value Concept One Step Further Starts By Calculating Comparable Value for the Sponsor Continues by Calculating Aggregate Comparable Value Achieved by All Sponsors for the Event

10-28 Media Equivalencies: Share (of Comparable Value) Finishes by Calculating a Sponsor’s Comparable Value as a Share of the Total Comparable Value Attained by All of the Sponsors of that Event Number Will Differ Slightly from Share of Time Figure because Comparable Value Also Takes Mention into Account

10-29 Media Equivalencies: Share (of Comparable Value) Sponsor’s Comparable Value: $1,981,000 Aggregate Comparable Value: $34,750,000 Sponsor’s Share of Comparable Value = (1,981,000 / 34,750,000) =.057 or 5.7%

10-30 Using Share Results Compare Your Sponsorship to Others for the Same Event Compare Different Levels of Sponsorship Compare Sponsorship of One Property to Sponsorship of Other Properties

10-31 Concerns About Postevent Evaluation Other, Perhaps Better, Techniques Are Available Different Methodology Produces Different Result Exposure May Not Translate into Sales New Sponsors Often Overlook ROI What Constitutes a Viewable Image

10-32 New and Improved Measures Recognition Grade (Joyce Julius) –Reduces Value for Small Images and for Cluttered Screen When Exposure Exists NTIV Analysis (Joyce Julius) –Incorporates Other Media Exposure such as Radio, Print Media, and Venue Signage

10-33 New and Improved Measures Spindex (S-Comm) –Provides More Detailed Information Sponsorshipp Scorecard (A.C. Nielsen) –Internet-Based; Considers Alternative Media SPORTSi (TNSSport) –Electronic Measurement of Exposure

10-34 Closing Capsule Postevent Evaluation is Essential Sponsors Likely to Request It It as Part of a Fulfillment Report from the Sponsee Will Help Sponsor Decide Whether to Renew or Terminate a Sponsorship