Sponsorship’s blind spot and how leading brands are addressing it
For decades, the sponsorship industry has relied on a simple rule of thumb. The so-called 2:1 rule, which claims every $1 spent acquiring sponsorship rights should be backed up by $2 of activation spend. The rule has long been used to communicate a fundamental truth about sponsorship: rights alone rarely create value. Value is unlocked through the campaigns, experiences and content that bring those rights to life.
But does the rule miss a fundamental component of successful sponsorship?
The concept has undoubtedly played an important role in shaping sponsorship thinking. For years, agencies have used the 2:1 ratio to shock brands into recognising that signing the rights agreement is only the beginning. If sponsorship is to succeed, the partnership must be supported by meaningful investment in activation.
That message appears to have landed. Most brands entering sponsorship today understand that campaigns must be backed by additional resources to leverage the rights they have acquired. But while the industry has largely absorbed this lesson, another blind spot has remained.
That blind spot is measurement.
The industry’s measurement problem
For all the energy the industry devotes to negotiating rights and developing creative activations, measurement has often been treated as an afterthought. Something addressed through existing brand tracking studies, digital engagement metrics, or anecdotal signals such as increased sign-ups or social media attention.
Rarely is measurement designed with the same rigour as the campaign itself.
According to Paul Pednault, CEO of sponsorship management platform Sponsorium, this is where sponsorship continues to struggle. “Activation may unlock value, but measurement proves it,” he says. “Without credible measurement, sponsorship struggles to justify itself in the boardroom, optimise investment, or demonstrate real business impact.”
The challenge is not simply academic. Sponsorship programmes ultimately live or die based on their contribution to the business. Marketing teams think in terms of creativity, reach and fan engagement. Boardrooms think in terms of customer acquisition costs, churn rates, margins and the impact on earnings.
When sponsorship results are presented through fragmented metrics or loosely connected indicators, scepticism from upstairs is almost inevitable. To overcome this, marketers must be prepared to invest budget into measurement that translates sponsorship activity into a language the boardroom values.
How much should brands invest in measurement?
The natural response to this blind spot might be to propose another ratio. If the industry has debated the balance between rights and activation for decades, perhaps it should also consider a rule for measurement.
A simple framework such as 1:2:1 (rights, activation, measurement) might appear logical. But Pednault again urges caution against simplistic formulas.
“Measurement budgets may vary, but it doesn’t have to cost as high as 50% of the rights fees. In most cases, it will fall somewhere between 1% and 10% of the rights fees.” Pednault’s view is based on real spending data entered into Sponsorium’s platform by global clients, including Emirates, HSBC and Toyota.
In other words, measurement does not need to consume vast portions of the sponsorship budget. The larger issue is that many brands simply do not plan for it properly. Instead, they often hope sponsorship impact will reveal itself through existing research tools or general marketing performance indicators.
The brands that get this right take a different approach. They consider measurement from the very beginning of the partnership, building the evaluation framework before campaigns launch rather than attempting to reconstruct impact afterwards.
From attention to action
A useful example comes from global logistics company DP World, which has developed a structured approach to measuring the impact of its international sponsorship portfolio.
When The Sponsor spoke with Daniel van Otterdijk, the company’s Group Chief Communications Officer, he described how DP World tracks performance across multiple dimensions, from audience attention to audience attitude and ultimately audience action, linking sponsorship exposure to tangible business outcomes.
You can read that interview here.
Not every partnership requires this level of sophistication. But even smaller sponsorships must eventually answer a fundamental question. Not simply whether the partnership generated engagement or visibility, but how much real business impact it created.
Proving sponsorship’s value
Sponsorship is often described as one of the most powerful marketing platforms available to brands. It can build emotional connections, unlock creative storytelling and reach audiences in environments where traditional advertising struggles. But for sponsorship to be recognised across the wider business as a true driver of growth, it must do more than inspire fans and marketers. It must demonstrate impact.
The industry has spent decades debating how much to invest in rights and activation. Perhaps the more important question is whether enough attention is being paid to the systems that allow brands to understand what those investments actually deliver. Until measurement is treated as a core component of sponsorship strategy rather than an afterthought in the process, the industry’s most persistent blind spot will remain.
Demonstrating the value of your sponsorships
Join The Sponsor and your fellow marketing leaders at our upcoming roundtable debates in Dubai, Zurich, and London as we discuss how to demonstrate sponsorship returns and go from investment to impact. Visit our events page below for further information.
