More marketing objectives mean better results when it comes to sports sponsorship campaigns, according to an analysis of 92 case studies.
An analysis by the Sponsorship Effectiveness Forum (SEF), which aims to introduce more rigour to sports sponsorship marketing, found that the most successful case studies averaged 5.6 objectives each, while those outside of the top tier averaged 4.5.
The correlation between objectives and effectiveness in sports sponsorship runs counter to findings across other channels. A 2020 report on US case studies by The Effie Awards and Ipsos found that, on average, Gold-winning case studies had 3.6 objectives while non-winners had 4.3. Another study by The Effie Awards and Ipsos, which analysed data from Danish case studies in 2023-2024, also showed that winners were more likely to have fewer objectives.
According to the SEF, a breadth of objectives in sponsorship campaigns may be an advantage because of the channel’s structural complexity, which includes multiple stakeholders and touchpoints: ‘Broader objectives tend to force broader activation — internal engagement, fan participation, partner leverage — which in turn multiplies effect types.’
A large collection of incoherent objectives won’t produce the same benefits, though, warns the report.
‘The most effective cases expressed their aims as a hierarchy of objectives, from Business → Brand → Behaviour → Sales, ensuring that every layer reinforced the next. This pattern suggests sponsorship rewards connected ambition rather than single-minded focus,’ it states.
Rory Natkiel, chair and co-founder of the SEF, also told MediaCat it was important to keep in mind that the findings come from a relatively small sample of case studies. That said, he added they suggest that, ‘Even over relatively short time frames (most case studies are 12 months due to annual sports cycles) sponsorship can achieve a lot at once.’
The SEF report used case studies from the IPA, Warc, Effie, APG and ESA awards databases, and coded them in line with ‘IPA conventions and the frameworks established by [Les] Binet & [Peter] Field.’
The case studies did not include marketing spend data, which precluded the possibility of measuring the campaigns’ ROI.