Tom Demerly. - 2012-02-29 6:05 PM
As you guys can likely tell I'm trying to flush out some metric or insight into the value of sponsorsing athletes.
My employer does that, and it is the topic of debate in marketing meetings.
One thing I'm growing increasingly adverse to is any response that starts with phrases like, "Well... you can't really measure the response..."
I'd like to do one of the following:
1. Find out a way to measure the response to sponsored athletes, and do it. I have a notion that NASCAR, sponsorship of Michael Phelps, etc.- very high level sponsorships do have some quantifiable element to them. I'd like to impliment that.
2. Gather insights on what works: What do consumers want? What drives a buying decision? Do athlete sponsorships contribute to a buying decision?
3. If athlete sponsorships do work, what about them drives a consumer to the cash register? And, the $64 dollar question: How do we tailor that control to provide a better, more exciting, more enjoyable buying experience.
Big questions. There is a ton of literature on this and a few dissenting opinions. Not too much consensus.
Hmmmph.
Emotionally I think everyone wants to say, "Well... you can't meaure that", "It's good will", etc. Pragmatically I think the bar needs to sit higher.
Tom you need to go talk with an experienced commercial banker. What you are looking for and the term(s) they use are 'goodwill' or 'blue sky' and they work to put a value on that on many business sales or business financing. In the bank world, a company that has mostly goodwill to it will be valued less. For instance, you have a consultant or real estate company in which the vast majority of the sales are because of the owner or a key man and few other assets. If the keyman dissapears then the sales do too. Compare that to a factory or big box retail, where there is still lots of goodwill because there is a strong book of businness and sales are built in (along with actual assets), but it is not hinged on the presence of a single person. If you look at valuations of companies in those categories you might see that a company with goodwill based on a person is something like 1 X revenue or a year of sales, where a company that doesn't rely on a single keyman may be 3-10 times that value (or more). In your case, the opposite is true. You're looking at the keyman value being a greater asset. I would start breaking it down like this based on the responses.
btw, just throwing numbers out there. ymmv
Ironman athletes are mentioned say 15 to 1 in this survey
So Ironman is 15 times more valuable than not.
Men racing get 1.7 times more television/magazine coverage, so men get 1.5 greater value
X factor would be a particular name that pulls a product. Certainly Stadler put his bike on the map, and crowie seems to be hitting a home run for Specialized. I would imagine there are companies on the web that can reference the number of searches (google adwords perhaps) or articles (lexus nexus) that could give you figures.
I'm sure there are lots of other good matrixes out there to use as well, because Nike didn't just pick XX million dollars for XX Athlete out of the air.