At the end of this current economic climate, the sports brand that may be hit the hardest on the sponsorship side may be golf. Long viewed as the ultimate entertaining event, the events are not just being hit hard by companies losing sponsor dollars, but by the lack of long-term star development (the post Tiger era), the cost of play, and now by the hard core scrutiny being placed on those still looking to entertain by the media. John Paul Newport's weekend piece in the Wall Street Journal was a good summary of the latest issue, which surrounded the lavish spend by Northern Trust at a golf event and the subsequent call by Rep. Barney Frank to have all those who received stimulus money to almost eliminate all sports and entertainment expenditures. Newport's piece looked not just at the issue of what was spent, but brought to light how monies were spent and the even larger issue of who will actually be hurt by the cutbacks. Like in other industries, the collateral damage…the corner store and the Little League that lose business because the local car dealer goes down because GM is in trouble is really the biggest concern for the long term. As with past issues, sports marketers need to get creative again in finding ways to justify any spend, and there are ways to get return, entertain those who need to be entertained and still stay involved in sports and entertainment so you can reach the consumer and grow business back. Sports Philanthropy projects, viral campaigns, local activation, economies of scale are all smart ways to go for money already invested and for monies going forward. Taking the easy way out at the suggestion of those not in an industry…cutting all sponsorships, which in effect squanders not just jobs and effort but any forward growth of business…is short sighted grandstanding and will hurt the little guy. Darren Rovell had a great piece with Bank of America on Friday justifying their spend for future growth, and showing how it is not frivolous but investing in its local properties where its consumers do business. Is there excess in spending that needs to g. Yes. Did Northern Trust need Sheryl Crowe in this environmen. Probably not. But if properly explained in the long run as the need for business to do business, the brand spend can be effective, economical and be seen as a way to get all back on track as opposed to throwing money toward elite wine and cheese. Inaction and stagnation at this point in any brand can be a killer, as much a killer as wasteful spending, and those brands who have made investments for the long term need to find effective ways, with smart spending and communications, to keep things going for the long term. Like other sports heavy on hospitality…tennis, NASCAR…golf needs to look inward to partners to sustain and then outward to the public and those at the grassroots to grow and then get the right way to re-channel funds to make sure that the why for the buy is communicated…whether it is with current partners or ones who will look to enter the sport.
Some other good reads…The Washington Post's John Feinstein has a good profile of Loyola (md.) coach Jimmy Patsos…Mark Hyman in the New York Times has a very interesting look at the problems set up by the establishment that hinder the growth of girls who want to play baseball at the high school level…and Sarah Talalay in the Florida Sun Sentinel has a look at how the local pro teams have banded together for tobacco-free week promotions…
