vi.property perceptionsp. 52 table of contents i.methodologyp. 3 iii.respondent profilep. 13...

VI. PROPERTY PERCEPTIONS p. 52

Table of ContentsI. METHODOLOGY p. 3

III. RESPONDENT PROFILE p. 13

IV. SPONSORSHIP SPENDING & INVOLVEMENT p. 17

V. RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS p. 41

II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY p. 5

Methodology

From a sample of over a thousand sponsorship decision makers invited worldwide, a total of 105 participants completed an online questionnaire about their 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 of 2012.

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/

Decision-Makers Survey: Old Habits Do Die – Sponsor Survey Sees Less Reliance on Ads, Signage

While they embrace ways to engage better, sponsors still come up short on measurement.

The 12th annual IEG/Performance Research Sponsorship Decision-makers Survey indicates that sponsors are letting go of some of the more traditional and less engaging ways to communicate and evaluate their partnerships.

In terms of activation, traditional advertising was used far less as a leveraging tool than in any previous year. Although 72 percent of sponsors still buy media to activate, that figure is a long way from the high of 86 percent in 2005.

The survey added social media as an activation channel this year and not surprisingly it appears as one of the five most popular leveraging tools, alongside public relations, internal communications, advertising and hospitality.

6

Source: IEG Sponsorship ReportMarch 19, 2012 www.sponsorship.com/IEGSR.aspx

Decision-Makers Survey: Old Habits Do Die – Sponsor Survey Sees Less Reliance on Ads, Signage(continued…)

Hospitality was significantly more popular this year (75 percent of sponsors using it vs. 63 percent last year), pointing to its resurgence after falling out of favor during the recession, especially among financial services companies.

Another old standby that fell somewhat out of favor this year was on-site signage. Just over half of respondents said it was a highly valuable benefit (giving it a score of 9 or 10 on a 10-point scale) compared to 63 percent in 2011.

Another exposure-related benefit—identification in the property’s media buy—fell out of the top 10 benefits this year, replaced by the right to promote co-branded products and services. Category exclusivity remained the most valuable sponsorship benefit.

7



Also, generating awareness is no longer alone at the top in terms of how sponsors are evaluating success. Two other measures—attitudes toward the brand and sales—moved into a virtual tie for the top spot among most valuable metrics.

Also of note, measuring televised logo exposure fell out of the top ten metrics, replaced by the response of trade/channel partners.

Finally, when assessing the importance of various objectives, increasing brand loyalty joined creating awareness and visibility as the top goals of sponsors.

When asked about their 2012 plans, sponsors demonstrated the cautious attitude noted in IEG’s projections of slowed spending growth this year.

8



Although still a majority, the number of sponsors who said they were considering new sponsorships in 2012 dropped six percentage points from 2011.

Similarly, the number of decision-makers who indicated they were looking to drop current deals not up for renewal rose six percentage points from last year, although remained in the minority.

Responses about the direction of 2012 spending were nearly identical to 2011’s, with just about half of sponsors holding budgets steady, while 36 percent will spend more and 17 percent plan to spend less.

Overall, spending on sponsorship fees—not including activation—will account for a smaller portion of total advertising, marketing and promotion budgets than last year—17 percent versus 19 percent.

9



When asked specifically about activation spending, about half of sponsors said they would shell out the same for leveraging this year as last, while 42 percent will allocate more money and 11 percent will lay out fewer dollars.

The average ratio comparing activation spending to the amount spent to acquire sponsorship rights rose for the third year in a row to $1.70 on leveraging for every $1 spent on rights fees. In 2011, the comparison was $1.60 to $1.

Despite other signs that sponsors are growing savvier about sponsorship, the survey reveals that more than one out of five still spend nothing on activating their partnerships.

10



More sponsors than ever indicated that their return from sponsorship was growing, with nearly six out of 10 seeing better results over the past few years, while just five percent saw a decline in their return.

Another one out of five sponsors reported they had not determined whether their return was improving or not.

That’s despite the vast majority of sponsors who say the need for meaningful results continues to grow.

11



Continuing a long-term pattern of wanting better measurement but not allocating resources for it, this year’s survey found nearly one-third of sponsors allocating no money to measure the success of a given partnership, while another 44 percent spent an amount equal to one percent or less of the sponsorship fee to evaluate their return.

As for how properties can best service their partners beyond delivering the rights and benefits committed to, sponsors placed more value on property-provided research into audiences’ attitudes toward and images of sponsors, as well as research on the audiences’ propensity to purchase sponsor products.

12


81%

77%

80%

82%

78%

80%

81%

81%

79%

76%

75%

77%

80%

87%

80%

86%

79%

78%

82%

83%

Implementingmarketing plans /activation supp.sponsorships

Evaluate existingproperties

Selecting marketingplans / activation

supp. sponsorships

Selecting newproperties / events

to sponsor

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

Decision Making Responsibilities

“Within your organization, which of the following describes your responsibilities regarding sponsorship?”

14

7%

18%

13%

19%

29%

89%

8%

13%

12%

14%

23%

88%

7%

11%

14%

17%

27%

5%

10%

11%

13%

17%

85%

5%

12%

10%

16%

20%

92%

83%

Africa

South America

Australia / NewZealand

Asia / Pacific Rim

Europe

North America

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

“In what regions do your sponsorship programs operate?”15

Sponsorship Programs by Region

2%

2%

2%

1%

10%

84%

1%

1%

1%

3%

9%

86%

1%

1%

2%

3%

9%

82%

0%

1%

2%

4%

5%

82%

1%

2%

2%

2%

3%

90%

South America

Africa

Asia / Pacific Rim

Australia / NewZealand

Europe

North America

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

“In which region are you personally based?”16

Personal Location by Region

19%

25%

70%

84%

19%

23%

69%

83%

14%

23%

62%

76%

19%

28%

70%

78%

13%

28%

73%

75%

Consult sponsorshipspecialist to

determine strategy

Receive detailsabout property from

a sales agency

Approached directlyby property owners

Set strategy andseek the right

property

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

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

18

Choosing Property to Sponsor

43%

23%

14%

20%

45%

18%

9%

28%

48%

19%

9%

19%

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

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

“During which time period does your company determine its sponsorship

budget?”19

When Sponsorship Budget is Decided

17%

47%

36%

18%

48%

35%

30%

47%

19%

51%

36%

14%

19%

41%

40%

Decrease

Stay the same

Increase

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

“How will your overall sponsorship spending in [2012] compare to [2011]?”

20

Likely Sponsorship Spending Compared to Prior Year

8%

9%

11%

21%

8%

31%

5%

8%

9%

19%

9%

26%

9%

9%

8%

18%

9%

32%

6%

9%

15%

17%

7%

26%

7%

4%

13%

24%

12%

26%

$30 million andabove

$15 million - $30million

$5 million - $15million

$1 million - $5 million

$500,000 - $1 million

Up to $500,000

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

“About how much did your company spend on sponsorship in [2011]?”

21

Sponsorship Spending in Prior Year

3%

1%

3%

7%

9%

22%

56%

0%

3%

3%

5%

4%

12%

22%

50%

1%

4%

4%

17%

4%

25%

38%

0%

2%

2%

4%

8%

4%

37%

2%

0%

3%

7%

7%

15%

26%

43%

0%

42%42%

76%-100%

51%-75%

41%-50%

31%-40%

21%-30%

11%-20%

1%-10%

0%

2008; N=61*

2009; N=52*

2010; N=24*

2011; N=74*

2012; N=81*

1

[*Based on those who responded]

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

22

Percentage of Marketing Budget Spent on Sponsorship

55%

45%

58%

42%

47%

48%

53%

47%

No

Yes

2009; N=110

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

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

23

Considering Dropping Any Current SponsorshipsNot Up for Renewal

28%

72%

22%

78%

33%

64%

40%

60%

No

Yes

2009; N=110

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

“Is your company considering new sponsorships in [2012]?”

24

Considering New Sponsorships in the Coming Year

12%

11%

17%

39%

22%

12%

10%

13%

43%

23%

9%

7%

17%

44%

24%

7%

8%

16%

54%

16%

9%

12%

14%

48%

17%

$4 or More to $1

$3 to $1

$2 to $1

$1 to $1

0 to $1

2008; N=157*

2009; N=110*

2010; N=105*

2011; N=120*

2012; N=105*

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

ratio?”

Average Ratio of Activation Spending to Rights Fees

2008 – 1.5:1

2009 – 1.4:1

2010 – 1.4:1

2011 – 1.6:1

2012 – 1.7:1


25

Leveraging/Spending Ratio

“How will your spending, specifically on sponsorship leveraging and activation in [2012],compare to [2011]? Will it…?”

26

11%

47%

42%

15%

41%

44%

20%

47%

28%

40%

43%

17%

Decrease

Stay the same

Increase

2009; N=110

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

Likely Direction of Leveraging & Activation Spending in 2012

34%

11%

18%

30%

51%

54%

33%

15%

22%

26%

43%

52%

43%

12%

49%

14%

26%

35%

45%

36%

41%

10%

32%

30%

50%

44%

38%

47%

30%

27%

None, manage in-house

Sponsorship specialist agency who soldrights

Independent sponsorship specialist

Property / rights holder

Advertising agency

Public relations agency

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

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

27

Agency Used for Support

75%

60%

77%

77%

72%

63%

66%

72%

76%

77%

67%

74%

78%

78%

77%

75%

65%

79%

72%

76%

69%

62%

71%

77%

80%

Hospitality

Internet tie-ins

Internalcommunications

Public relations

Traditionaladvertising

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

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

28

Marketing Communication Channels Used [Top 5 Results]

74%

51%

44%

43%

41%

51%

52%

55%

47%

47%

56%

47%

46%

44%

58%

55%

50%

47%

60%

62%

59%

Social Media

Business-to-business

Sales promotionoffers

Sampling on-site

Direct marketing

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

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

29

Marketing Communication Channels Used [Results 6-9]

NA

24%

31%

31%

27%

28%

36%

37%

15%

18%

22%

23%

30%

31%

36%

17%

21%

12%

19%

23%

26%

26%

19%

19%

13%

9%

12%

31%

23%

12%

16%

12%

23%

27%

27%

41%

Associations and membershiporganizations

Entertainment

Arts

Online sponsorship

Community events / festivals / fairs

Causes

Sports

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

“Compared to [2011], how much do you expect your company to be involved in the following types of sponsorship in [2012]?”

30

More likely to be Involved in Sponsorship Category than Prior Year

11%

20%

13%

8%

19%

10%

14%

7%

13%

13%

15%

16%

17%

23%

13%

21%

15%

17%

22%

26%

19%

16%

22%

27%

44%

33%

22%

38%

10%

21%

15%

20%

26%

12%

20%

Causes

Arts

Community events / festivals / fairs

Online sponsorship

Entertainment

Sports

Associations and membershiporganizations

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

31

“Compared to [2011], how much do you expect your company to be involved in the following types of sponsorship in [2012]?”

Less likely to be Involved in Sponsorship Category than Prior Year

“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

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

42%

39%

66%

70%

43%

53%

53%

65%

68%

38%

43%

55%

70%

68%

39%

53%

60%

67%

66%

32%

39%

58%

71%

67%

72%

Stimulate sales / trial /usage

Drive retail / dealertraffic

Change / reinforceimage

Increase brand loyalty

Create awareness /visibility

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

12%

29%

36%

43%

17%

33%

34%

40%

15%

29%

41%

42%

16%

27%

44%

35%

13%

29%

32%

38%

Gain on-site salesrights

Entertain clients /prospects

Sample / display /showcase products /

services

Showcase community/ social responsibility

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

“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.”

33

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

11%

8%

9%

25%

29%

39%

13%

13%

14%

21%

33%

53%

7%

8%

11%

20%

29%

43%

11%

13%

7%

16%

27%

53%

10%

10%

7%

19%

29%

39%

Network withcosponsors

Incent sales force

Excite employees

Sell to sponsee



2008; N=165

2009; N=110

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

“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.”

34

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

11%

8%

9%

25%

29%

39%

13%

13%

14%

21%

33%

53%

7%

8%

11%

20%

29%

43%

11%

13%

7%

16%

27%

53%

10%

10%

7%

19%

29%

39%

Network withcosponsors

Incent sales force

Excite employees

Sell to sponsee



2008; N=165

2009; N=110

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

35


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

38%

43%

66%

72%

70%

38%

40%

53%

65%

68%

40%

42%

55%

70%

68%

35%

35%

60%

67%

66%

29%

38%

58%

71%

67%

Access platform forexperiential branding

Showcase community/ social responsibility

Change / reinforceimage

Increase brand loyalty

Create awareness /visibility

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

36


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

44%

39%

45%

51%

62%

44%

44%

49%

63%

63%

35%

37%

43%

50%

61%

38%

44%

41%

49%

58%

38%

41%

45%

54%

64%

Presence on propertywebsite

Title of proprietaryarea

Broadcast adopportunity

On-site signage

Category exclusivity

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

“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.”

37

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

39%

30%

39%

45%

33%

39%

41%

42%

43%

43%

40%

38%

33%

39%

37%

29%

36%

32%

38%

46%

26%

39%

43%

31%

36%

Right to promote co-branded product /

service

ID in property's mediabuy

ID property collateralmaterials

Right to propertymarks / logos

Access to propertymailing list / database

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

38


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

25%

28%

31%

27%

29%

31%

31%

31%

33%

34%

26%

30%

34%

30%

28%

33%

25%

30%

25%

22%

19%

30%

23%

25%

30%

Rights to surveyaudience on-site

Tickets / hospitality

Access to propertyprovided research

Opportunity toparticipate in turnkey

retailer promos.

Ad in program book

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

39



16%

10%

24%

20%

23%

15%

18%

21%

28%

29%

18%

19%

17%

18%

30%

16%

11%

17%

19%

23%

11%

7%

18%

14%

23%

Pass through rightsto your own retailers

Access to propertymerchandise

Intro to cosponsors /cross-promotion

opportunities

Nonprofit / causeoverlay

Spokesperson /access to

personalities

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

40



“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?”

42

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

11%

0%

13%

22%

29%

32%

42%

13%

21%

23%

23%

29%

41%

44%

14%

14%

17%

21%

22%

36%

43%

5%

16%

13%

21%

19%

38%

40%

5%

15%

15%

18%

19%

29%

42%

Syndicated consumer research

Print media analysis / Clipping

TV exposure analysis

Dealer / Trade response

Primary consumer research

Sales / Promo bounce-back measures

Internal feedback

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

47%

76%

73%

88%

46%

68%

76%

95%

43%

68%

75%

88%

46%

68%

81%

85%

49%

73%

82%

92%

Psychographics

Fan Passion / Affinity

Attendance

Demographics

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=103*

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

43

Information Sought Pre-Sponsorship [Top 4 Results] [Based on those who responded]

48%

35%

50%

45%

35%

38%

45%

46%

39%

31%

41%

43%

39%

36%

46%

42%

42%

36%

49%

50%

Interest in propertyamong trade / dealers

TV ratings

Growth trends inproperty category

What yourcompetition sponsors

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=103*

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

44

Information Sought Pre-Sponsorship [Results 5-8] [Based on those who responded]

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

0%

19%

36%

45%

1%

19%

40%

40%

1%

16%

39%

43%

1%

14%

43%

41%

1%

19%

33%

47%

More than 5%

1% to 5%

1% or Less

None

2008; N=162*

2009; N=104*

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

45


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

1%

23%

44%

32%

0%

28%

44%

28%

0%

23%

40%

36%

3%

23%

38%

29%

5%

18%

44%

33%

More than 5%

1% to 5%

1% or Less

None

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

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

46

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

1%

1%

0%

13%

32%

53%

86%

3%

1%

3%

13%

23%

61%

83%

DECREASED [NET]

Decreased a lot

Decreased a little

Remained the same

Increased a little

Increased a lot

INCREASED [NET]

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

“How has the need for validated results from sponsorships changed in the past one

to two years?”47

Change in Need for Validated Results in Past 1-2 Years

34%

66%

33%

67%

No

Yes

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

“Does your company actively measure return from its sponsorships?”

48

Company Actively Measures Sponsorship Returns

55%

45%

58%

42%

No

Yes

2011; N=101*

2012; N=105

“Does your company have a standardized process for measuring return from its

sponsorships?”49


Company Has a Standardized Measurement Process

41%

47%

46%

60%

61%

56%

26%

36%

39%

41%

48%

50%

Lower customeracquisition cost

Response of trade orchannel partners

TV logo exposure

Response of employeesor internal constituents

Entertainment of keycustomers or prospects

Lead generation

2011; N=120

2012;N=Varies*

“How does your company measure sponsorship’s return on investment and/or return

on objectives?”50

Information Sought Pre-Sponsorship [Top 6 “4” & “5” Ratings]

[Based on those who responded]

N = 87

N = 93

N = 100

N = 93

N = 93

N = 81

77%

81%

74%

86%

82%

83%

58%

64%

66%

69%

74%

78%

Amount of mediaexposure generated

Product or service sales

Response tosponsorship, event-

related promotions or ads

Attitudes toward brand

Awareness of products,services or brand

Awareness of companyor brand's sponsorship

2011; N=120

2012;N=Varies*

“How does your company measure sponsorship’s return on investment and/or return

on objectives?”51

Information Sought Pre-Sponsorship [“4” & “5” Ratings 7-12]

[Based on those who responded]

N = 97

N = 95

N = 95

N = 99

N = 94

N = 100

“Please rate the following ‘property-provided services’ as to how valuable they are to your organization.” 53

18%

28%

28%

21%

33%

37%

49%

45%

50%

50%

16%

23%

25%

32%

38%

39%

43%

44%

48%

55%

17%

23%

29%

36%

36%

42%

15%

23%

31%

38%

40%

50%

12%

16%

26%

32%

37%

46%

Sponsor workshop

Third-party evaluation statement

Research on audience buying habits

Coupon / promotional offer redemption results

Audience contact information

Leveraging ideas

Audience research on propensity to purchase / loyalty /behavior toward sponsors

Audience research on sponsor recognition/recall [Priorto 2011: Research on sponsor recall]

Audience research on attitudes toward / image ofsponsors

Post event report / fulfillment audit

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

NA

NA

NA

NA

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

6%

18%

16%

12%

17%

4%

7%

20%

11%

18%

13%

11%

23%

6%

8%

11%

16%

16%

9%

7%

11%

11%

11%

15%

23%

11%

23%

4%

6%

8%

18%

13%

15%

13%

15%

7%

4%

15%

16%

9%

Highest ratings - 9 &10 [NET]

8

7

6

5

4

3

Lowest ratings - 1 & 2[NET]

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

“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

2007 Mean=5.4

2008 Mean=5.9

2009 Mean=6.0

2010 Mean=5.8

2011 Mean= 5.7

2012 Mean= 5.1

54

Extent to Which You Depend on Properties to Measure ROI

67%

33%

67%

33%

63%

32%

66%

34%

73%

27%

71%

30%

No

Yes

2007; N=132

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

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

55

Properties Meeting Expectations

20%

5%

17%

58%

18%

6%

27%

50%

23%

3%

23%

49%

31%

6%

12%

52%

24%

6%

15%

56%

Don't know

Decreased

Stayed the same

Increased

2008; N=165

2009; N=110

2010; N=106

2011; N=120

2012; N=105

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

56

Perceived ROI from Sponsorship Over Last Few Years

Company Profile

57

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 27 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]

58

http://www.performanceresearch.com/

vi.property perceptionsp. 52 table of contents i.methodologyp. 3 iii.respondent profilep. 13...

Documents