Is there more to sponsorship than the rights market?

Does ESA wants to represent the past or the future?

Ever since Patrick Nally corralled the global TV and stadia signage rights together on Coke's behalf for the 1974 FIFA World Cup, sponsorship has been dominated by rights. And, with the IOC’s announcing it expects to reach the mythical figure of US$1 billion for its TOP programme, rights certainly aren't going away.

Ultimately, the contractual relationship between a ‘sponsor’ and a ‘rights-holder’ will always described in terms of rights. But to understand, to conceive of sponsorship in the same terms - as comfortable as it might be - doesn't begin to equip us to understand how brands are beginning to think - and act. More damagingly, the emphasis on rights restricts our ability to represent the real value sponsorship can bring to business. And, ultimately, it limits the value of sponsorship for both sponsors and rights-holders.

The big question for the sponsorship industry, as represented by ESA, is do you want to represent the past, or the future?

Unless we’re prepared to discriminate between good and bad, more clearly; unless we’re prepared be self-critical, to own up to the bad sponsorships, the duds, the errors of judgment, the wastage and the idiocy; unless we define what to us as an industry represents the best, the optimum model, the reason to believe which is uniquely ours, we'll remain powerless to defend ourselves and advance the very real cause of sponsorship as a serious, credible and increasingly appropriate response to brands’ needs to build deeper relationships with consumers.

Patrick Nally, speaking at Future Sponsorship, said: 'I watched the model we created continually being replicated - almost with disbelief. The ‘rights package’ was never intended to be the definitive answer – every brand’s needs are different.' Patrick drew a distinction between agencies which activate and agencies which sell sponsorship: 'The influence of the sales culture was incredibly formative on thinking of sponsorship at this early stage of development.' The rights package was a sales package.

And as Helen Day, Vice President of ESA explained, the International Chamber of Commerce'sdefinition of sponsorship which ESA still uses embraces the contractual nature of aponsorhip for a very good reason: 'The ICC's definitions are used by governments around the world as a foundation to underpin legislation. Sponsorship had to be defined contractually, as an exchange.'

But is that any reason - or excuse - for sponsorship to stay there?

For Lucien Boyer, CEO of Havas Sport and Entertainment, the rights are just the beginning: 'The rights often don't represent the real value for the sponsor. What is important is the creativity. A smart brand - or smart agency - can build a campaign out of almost nothing if it successfully identifies a powerful emotional insight.'

Nike and Red Bull of course are everyone's favourite paradigm busters. In Nike's most memorable campaigns - Scorpion, Joga Bonita - the endorsement talent is simply the supporting cast for Nike's vision. These are activations in the classic sense: multi-channel, multiple touch-point, driving sales.

But look at Saatchi and Saatchi’s work with T-Mobile's for its recent 'Life's for sharing' Trafalgar Square spot: multi-channel, multiple touchpoint, driving sales, with Pink the backing singer to TMO's world brandview. Pure Nike with a difference - the spot did not sit in the centre of a web of endorsements and team sponsorships. But it could have done.

As Lucien Boyer argued, the ability of a business to derive value from sponsorship demands immense creativity. But for as long as rights remain the dominant framework for this industry, sponsorship’s ability to demonstrate its full potential will be restricted to the few brands comfortable thinking outside of the rights box.

Sponsorship should be arguing its case as intelligently and as forcefully as digital or experiential. And to do that, we need a more meaningful foundation for the industry. Defining sponsorship is one logical place to begin the debate - but it's not the only place. What if ESA were to publish an unequivocal set of best practice criteria, standards which begin to make it clear we, the industry, view sponsorship as an absolutely accountable business practice? What message would we send about sponsorship to brands, the media and CMOs, if ESA publicly recognised that:

• evaluation budgets on sponsorship spend over, say, £50k

• independent evaluation

• disclosure of commission arrangements to client brands

• a standard business case template for sponsorship investment above £50k

- were considered best, no, just good practice. Or that Equivalent Advertising Value, from our perspective, deserves a standard valuation at 1%?

There are challenges, obviously, to standard-setting: challenges of making them practical, and workable. But at the very least they would create some firm foundations, and give us collectively a base from which to lever the greater accountability we all want and need.

Come on ESA, how about it?