The PGA Tour and Sponsorship ROI

     One of the issues confronting the PGA Tour right now is it's teetering relationship with some of its sponsors. While the Official 2011 Schedule won't be released for another month or so, there are a handful of tournaments that remain sponsor-less and a game of musical chairs has ensued to try and fill various gaps in next year's schedule. The Heritage Classic has moved, Memphis' status is uncertain, The Bob Hope Classic is without a sponsor and Deutsche Bank is rumored to be questioning its financial commitment, to name a few. The short-term impact is a non-issue for us fans; there will be golf next year, regardless. But the long-term issues facing the Tour's business model are hard to ignore and how Finchem and Co. deal with these issues will shape the tour's development and success over the next decade.
     The economic crunch has obviously forced corporate partners to re-evaluate their financial commitments and think long and hard about sponsoring future events. Pretty basic stuff, right?  Taking this closer look, however, has raised bigger questions than just the advertising and sponsorship budgets of big name sponsors.  Now they're investigating the true ROI on these dollars. The sophistication and complexity of sponsorship in the global marketplace make it extremely difficult to decipher one's return on investment (ROI), especially when using what SponsorMap call 'antiquated' ROI valuations. These techniques simply can't keep up with the new complexities. In short, it's  harder and harder for companies to value and quantify the ROI of sponsorship and now they're thinking twice. Just like the consumer, corporations have become more mindful of where the dollars are going.  Corporations are operating leaner than ever and the good ole days of throwing money around - when regulations were far more lenient - are over.  It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out.

Nike's Waiting Game

A new poll from Harris Interactive lists golfer Tiger Woods as "America's favorite sports star." At the same time, a survey from E-Poll Market Research in June listed Woods as one of the "most disliked people in sports."

These polls raise tough questions for marketers when trying to determine who they should hire to endorse their products. Nike has remained loyal to Tiger through all the turmoil which was really their only move. In the long run, Nike needs Tiger a lot more than Tiger needs Nike. They couldn't drop him. They wouldn't have a golf brand if it weren't for him. But unlike Gatorade, Accenture and AT&T - who's brands were more sensitive to off course behavior - Nike could hang on to Tiger because his on-course dominance was what drove their image and demand for their product. Now his golf is suffering and no one knows for how long. Like most of us, Nike thought he'd be back to form by now.

As if essentially losing your #1 endorser wasn't enough, Anthony Kim has been sidelined most of the year with an injury. He returned at Bridgestone this past week and fired rounds little better than Tiger. With two of their top horses out the race, it's surprising they've done so little to raise positive awareness for their brand. The best move for Nike could have been to do nothing. Perhaps they were being fiscally conservative. But while TaylorMade-adidas picked up Camilo Villegas to balance out the "dislikable" Sergio Garcio, Nike Golf 's quiet summer playing a waiting game for Tiger has hardly paid off. They're still left will Stewart Cink, Paul Casey, Lucas Glover, K.J. Choi and Justin Leonard as endorsers and while they aren't disliked like Tiger and are surely playing better golf than Tiger, they aren't close to being called "American's favorite sports stars."