Sport and sponsorship news reports that 60% of sponsorship managers have made, or plan to make changes to their sponsorship agreements to guard against negative brand impact caused by inappropriate off-field player behaviour.
On the flip side, a number of sponsors believe that the public is able separate player behaviour from sponsor brands.
So what does this all mean?
I believe the public does separate player behaviour from sponsor brands. When images of Michael Phelps were released smoking marijuana, the average punter at home didn’t stop buying Kelloggs. The public are smarter than that. What really matters here is HOW the sponsor REACTS to a player behaving badly.
This reaction by the sponsor is what the public is more interested in. The public want to know if this type of behaving is acceptable in the eyes of the sponsor? Sometimes a sponsor has no choice but to cancel a contract because of public backlash. Other times, the public is looking for a sponsor to have compassion. A brand can win votes both ways.
The reason why sponsorship managers want to amend agreements in this area is because tighter contractual control, gives brands flexibility to strategise the best approach to every crisis. The key word here is flexibility. A one glove fits all approach doesn’t work when it comes to dealing with a crisis. Sponsors need breathing room to craft the most appropriate response or action. Remember their customers are watching closely.
