Does sponsorship deliver bang for the buck? How effective is it as a strategy?

Joe Akaoui, the R&D director of marketing analysis firm Integration has some interesting insights in his paper Brand experience on the pitch: how the sponsors fared in the World Cup.

Drawn from a survey of 10,000 respondents in ten international cities before and after the 2006 football World Cup in Germany, his findings would make any marketing manager worry. Or have them look for another job. According to his study, the influence of the brands displayed during the tournament increased, at least among men and football fans. But that did not last. Brand recognition declined rapidly after the event was over. On average, advertising failed to add much to a brand's perceived value. One possible reason for this is that so many of the advertisers were already well-known companies. But that's cold comfort given the amount of money poured into the sponsorships. "The influence of World Cup contacts started to erode quickly once the event was over. In fact, every World Cup contact declined in influence while all other non-World Cup contacts remained stable in clout."

While sponsors did generate more brand experience out of the World Cup than non-sponsors but that didn't add to the overall brand experience they generated anyway. Only three of the eight firms studied were able to turn their World Cup advertising into greater brand recognition.

This might already confirm we have already long suspected. Still, the findings are significant given the enormous amounts of money companies spend on advertising. The benefits might not long last long enough to make it worthwhile.