Tony Copeland and Jan Gamon -The Real Value Of Broadcast Sponsorship

Millward Brown International first started monitoring the broadcast sponsorship medium on behalf of ITV in April 1995. At that time, we were uncertain what the outcome of the study would be and, in particular, how easy it would be to separate out the effects of broadcast sponsorship from other media.

When we checked on the preliminary results from a handful of deals back in November 1995 it became apparent that there were both tangible and measurable effects from sponsorship. That the tool to evaluate them was sensitive enough to identify these effects was reassuring and promised great things for the future. Since then we have continued to conduct an annual overview on behalf of ITV and have presented the results at these conferences.

Last year, we were able to make something of a leap forward in terms of our learning. Suddenly, we were no longer struggling with the results for a handful of deals, but had results for around 25. From these deals it became clear that broadcast sponsorship can deliver unique awareness, additional to the awareness which, in many cases, spot advertising was already generating for the brand. It became clear that sponsorship has the power to alter the way that people think about brands.

We are now two years into the ITV Sponsorship study and we’ve interviewed 30,000 people about 45 deals. This very substantial database persuaded all those involved with the study that we probably had sufficient data reliably to assess the true value of broadcast sponsorship.

In terms of the awareness generated by sponsorship, this meant a direct comparison between the awareness generated by sponsorship compared to spots for equivalent ratings. So perhaps first we should discuss the concept of ‘value’. What do we mean by it? At the value sponsorship offers in generating awareness of the activity and of the brand. And at the value represented by its ability to influence brand identity. Finally, the broadcast sponsorship medium is growing in momentum. The rate of growth in sponsorship revenues and the number of ITV network deals it has been necessary for us to monitor bears witness to this.

Is it possible that the value derived by the sponsor diminishes as the medium matures? We have reviewed this for this presentation and, I suspect, will continue to do so.

An evening of watching ITV is sufficient to persuade anyone that the objectives of spot campaigns vary hugely, from informing about product advances to image advertising for high status brands. One of the key benefits ITV anticipated when they committed to a systematic measurement system for broadcast sponsorship was the scope that gave for making comparisons across deals. The other main benefit is the valuable feedback the study provides to sponsors, most of whom are keen for some evidence of how the deal is performing against their objectives.

For an individual sponsor, the value of a deal is expressed in terms of the deal’s ability to deliver against the objectives behind the sponsorship. For this conference we will be focusing on three key aspects of the value debate:

Firstly, at the value of broadcast sponsorship in reaching a separate but relevant audience compared to spot advertising. In particular, we are able to go so far as to be able to look at the efficiency of sponsorship in generating awareness and making direct comparisons with spot advertising. We believe this to be the first time that sponsorship has been put under this scrutiny.

And we will examine the role for sponsorship in affecting perceptions about brands.

Let’s look first at sponsorship’s ability to reach a separate audience compared to spot advertising. Perhaps the first aspect we should examine is simply the ability of sponsorship to be noticed and associated with the brand. We know from this study that sponsorship deals vary hugely in the levels of awareness they generate

Whilst awareness of sponsorship activity peaks at less than 20% for some brands, for others this reaches 80%, with a large spread in between. Understanding what is responsible for the range in awareness or, more specifically, for generating high levels of awareness would be a reasonable next step. We will cover this very shortly, but before we do this we’d like to move on from a consideration simply of sponsorship awareness to a tougher test. The majority of the brands which have sponsored television programmes already invest in spot advertising. It is probable that these sponsors are looking for an additional benefit from sponsorship. One of these benefits would be if sponsorship reached an audience which is not reached by spot advertising or, in other words, if it were capable of delivering awareness which is incremental to spot advertising awareness.

We see clear evidence from this study that in most cases, sponsorship does deliver incremental awareness. That, whilst some of its audience inevitably overlaps with that of spot advertising, a proportion of its audience is unique.

Doritos started sponsoring the Films on ITV in the Summer of ’96. The yellow squares on this chart make reference to the timing of some of the films featured. Awareness of the sponsorship amongst 16-34 year olds rises fast in response to the deal being first aired as shown by the yellow line on the chart.

However, Doritos was also supported via more conventional spots around this time. We are now showing the accompanying ratings for the spots in yellow at the bottom of the chart. Awareness of the spot advertising is consistently higher than awareness of the sponsorship. So does the sponsorship entirely overlap with the reach achieved by the spots, or is it delivering awareness which is incremental to the spots?

If we look at the percentage of people who are aware of either the spots or the sponsorship, it becomes clear that sponsorship can claim responsibility for delivering unique awareness on top of that achieved by spot advertising, demonstrated here by the yellow shading.

A static picture perhaps shows the size of the incremental awareness more clearly. 37% of respondents have seen both the spots and sponsorship activity. 19% have been exposed to the spots only. The sponsorship accounts for an additional 13% in awareness.

Let’s move from looking at one deal to considering the wider picture. If we look at the value of the incremental awareness generated by all those deals where spot advertising is also used, it becomes clear that there is a spread in the levels of incremental awareness generated, but that this range is much smaller than when we looked at sponsorship awareness in isolation. So far, the majority of deals have delivered 10% or less incremental advertising awareness, although 1 deal has generated in excess of 20%.

It would be fair to say that, in demanding that sponsorship deliver unique awareness on top of that achieved by spots, we are setting it a fairly hard task. If we return for the moment to the Doritos example, we should note that to move advertising awareness up from 56 – 69% as this deal did, is no mean feat, and is considerably harder than to move it from 0 – 13%. The average deal has delivered an extra 9% of advertising awareness to spot advertisers. What characterises those deals which outperform the average on this measure? One of those deals is Commercial Union’s sponsorship of the second series of London’s Burning. In this instance, consistency appears to have paid off.

Awareness of spot activity for Commercial Union is at 61%, so already very high. Nonetheless, the sponsorship generates 15% incremental awareness, pushing awareness of any TV advertising up to 76%. We have already talked about Doritos, but Diet Coke’s original sponsorship of the Movie Premieres and Midland Bank’s of the Drama Premieres also generated good levels of incremental awareness. These are all showcases and may offer a shifting audience rather than a loyal one. An audience which changes its make up during the season may well offer a good opportunity to maximise reach. The remaining deals all have mass market appeal and are aired on prime time television. 58% of respondents claim to have seen spot advertising for Going Places, with the sponsorship delivering an additional 14% awareness.

But how do we assess the value of this awareness? Does this represent a good pay-back if we compare if directly to the awareness generated by spot advertising? And how do we make that direct comparison? Most important is that we are able to make a direct comparison between levels of awareness generated and spend. Spend on sponsorship is calculated as total ratings per sponsorship credit, with all credits added together, irrespective of length. Spot advertising is represented by ratings which are not weighted, either by rate-card or by length.

This chart shows claimed awareness of sponsorship for Del Monte amongst women with children. The box at the very bottom of the chart shows that Del Monte Fruit Burst had two flights of spot advertising during this period. The first was very small – only 120 gross rating points – and the second more recent burst much larger, with 600 ratings. The box above that shows the ratings corresponding to 2 periods of sponsorship. The tail end of the first has 700 ratings and the second complete burst more than 1700. These elements are all givens – we are not at liberty to alter them.

We should recognise that the majority of brands carry with them a base level of advertising awareness. This is the level to which advertising awareness decays in the absence of support. And for most brands this will not be zero, since some people will recall historical advertising.

For Del Monte we estimate that the base level of awareness is 13%. Recognising the base in this way allows us to focus in on the efficiency of the most recent spot execution or sponsorship activity in generating awareness. We then input into the equation an Awareness Index. The Awareness Index represents the extra awareness generated per 100 ratings.

For Del Monte we arrived eventually at an Awareness Index of 7 for the sponsorship and Indices of between 7 and 9 for various of the spot executions. The Awareness Index works in conjunction with the ratings to generate a modelled line. The aim of the exercise is to adjust the Awareness Indices until the modeled line achieves best fit with claimed awareness of the activity from the survey data.

Here the line generated by the model fits well with claimed awareness from the survey data. Since the sponsorship has an Awareness Index of 7, this means that for every 100 sponsorship ratings awareness of the sponsorship rises by 7%. And for every 100 spot ratings awareness of the spots will rise by between 7 and 9%, depending upon which execution is shown. Millward Brown International has been using this modeling technique for many years to assess the efficiency of spots. We have applied it to many thousands of ads across the world and for many hundreds of brands. We have confidence in its validity. But this is the first time it has been applied to sponsorship. This has made it possible to assess the efficiency of sponsorship in direct comparison to spot advertising. In some instances we have witnessed sponsorship playing a major role in building TV presence for the sponsor. This was certainly the case for Doritos.

We have already shown the response in awareness which attends the Doritos sponsorship of Films on ITV. We are able to model awareness fairly closely with an Awareness Index of 7. So, as for Del Monte, for every 100 sponsorship ratings awareness of the sponsorship rises by 7%. We will show you later that this is in itself a good result. However, in addition, during the course of the sponsorship the base level of awareness pushes up from 10 to 44%.

The same is true for Seat, with the base level of awareness amongst a broad sample of all adults rising from 25 to 38%. It is clearly the sponsorship which can claim responsibility for this rise. In particular the very good ratings achieved by the sponsorship credits. By comparison, the spot ratings are at a low level. In other cases, where household names enter the sponsorship arena with already very high levels of advertising awareness which they have achieved through historical spot advertising, we have seen sponsorship push these levels up higher.

From this study, the base level of awareness for Cadbury awareness prior to their sponsorship of Coronation Street as already at 58%. The start of the sponsorship generated an overall rise in levels of advertising awareness which saw the base level push up to 65%. However, the results also suggest that sponsorship is not the preserve of prime time television.

Crosse and Blackwell’s sponsorship of Quisine led to a rise in their base level of awareness amongst women from 26 to 32%. Sponsorship can also be a powerful medium for targetting a specific audience. Britannia Music were particularly looking to target 16-34 year olds when they chose to sponsor the Brit Awards in 1996 and again earlier this year.

This chart shows claimed awareness of spots or sponsorship for Britannia Music amongst 16-34 year olds over that period. In fact, Britannia Music have not used spots at all during this period and the sponsorship can therefore claim full responsibility for this rise. In the first year the credits are already highly efficient, working with an Awareness Index of 11. In 1997 Britannia Music changed the credits to very good effect. They managed to increase the visibility of the deal. The new credits worked with an Awareness Index of 14.

We have seen the results from a few individual deals. What happens if we take a broader view of the results as a whole? From this study we have witnessed a range of Awareness Indices for spots from 1 to 10. How does this compare with the range which Millward Brown observes from its much larger database of ads? We have collected many examples of ads which have an Awareness Index in excess of 10. Having said that, we find that 90% of all ads tested do fall within the range 1 to 10. It is not surprising if we have not yet witnessed the exceptional highs from this study. The sponsorship credits range in efficiency from an Awareness Index of 1 to 14. In both cases the average is 5.

Recognising that spots and sponsorship are often bought with different objectives in mind, when it comes simply to generating awareness of the activity on average spots and sponsorship would appear to work with the same efficiency. We should remember, though, that we are using unweighted ratings. The average sponsorship credit is considerably shorter than the average spot. This means that, on average, sponsorship works as efficiently as spots in spite of the time disadvantage. Leaving aside awareness for a moment. Sponsorship also has a value if it shapes brand identity in a way which is addressing specific objectives for the brand.

When we examine the effect of sponsorship on the beliefs that people hold about brands, it is important that we do not simply look at the raw data amongst those aware of the sponsorship compared to those not aware of. This would be an unreliable approach since the group of people aware of the sponsorship is likely to include a greater proportion of buyers of the brand or those aware of spot advertising. We could not be confident, therefore that any differences we were seeing were truly as a result of the sponsorship. They be being influenced by other factors.

What we want to do is to maximise the chances that if we do see any differences as a result of the sponsorship, that these really are due to the sponsorship. A statistical package called ANCOVA allows us to eliminate the influences of being a buyer of the brand and of being aware of spot advertising. The data you will see on the next few charts have been analysed using ANCOVA

Doritos’ sponsorship of Films on ITV had as one of its specific objectives a shaping of the brand identity. Their objectives were centred around images of popularity and momentum (a brand I’ve heard a lot about recently)

The statements shown here are the ones which Doritos particularly wished to target through the sponsorship. The image of Doritos on these and indeed on all of the statements measured was significantly higher amongst those aware of the sponsorship than amongst those not aware of it. So the sponsorship was responsible for significant improvements to image on strategy. Going Places wished to communicate a sense of popularity, but also one of modernity through their sponsorship of Blind Date.

Once again, Going Places benefitted from a significantly enhanced image on all dimensions amongst those aware of the sponsorship.

Wella wished to generate more awareness of the Shockwaves brand when they sponsored Baywatch. The outcome of the sponsorship suggested that his had been achieved. Unaided awareness of the brand was significantly higher amongst those aware of the sponsorship. In addition they hoped to create greater interest around the brand and affinity with it.

Certainly the sponsorship resulted in a greater sense of modernity and of an up-to-date brand which is growing in popularity.

Finally, is there any evidence to suggest, as the medium grows, that the potential for impact diminishes. So far, we have found no evidence of this. We have interviewed 30,00 people and asked about 45 deals. What has this vast database delivered in terms of actionable findings about the medium? In establishing that sponsorship is, on average, as efficient as spots in generating brand linked advertising awareness, we believe that we have made a major contribution to our understanding of the medium in this regard and of how it compares to spots. We have seen that, even for experienced spot advertisers, sponsorship will usually reach an additional audience and add to the brand’s total presence on TV.

And, whilst awareness generation is a valuable contribution, it is not the only potential benefit to the brand from sponsorship. Sponsorship has a role in altering the way that people think about brands and, with careful treatment, can help to meet broader objectives for the brand. We believe that there is more that we can still tease out of this study. Interviewing continues even as we speak. So what more do we feel there is to learn?

Whilst we are very happy with the modeling work that we have undertaken so far, there is very definitely a role for continuing to model the awareness generated by sponsorship activity. Quite apart from the usefulness of this feedback to the individual sponsor, new learning might emerge from greater experience. This is, after all, a very recent advance. We would like to take the work that we have done looking at brand enhancement a step further. If new advertisers are clear about the different objectives behind their spot and sponsorship activity, we could develop appropriate measures up front which would allow us to separate out more the relative effects of spots and sponsorship when it comes to shaping brand identity. Finally, there may still be a role for reviewing the results by different programme genre or product category.