Comments in reply to Challenging The Idea of Category Exclusivity:

1. Interesting perspective. I think it can no longer be assumed that every sponsor wants to pay a premium for or needs cat exclusivity, and conversely that a property can get a quick and easy mark-up for offering it. With that said, in a free marketplace some sponsors are willing to pay for the right and should be rewarded with exclusive benefits (while others aren't). At the Sports Sponsorship Symposium today, marketers from AmEx & AT&T said they want exclusive deals for "full mindshare," while Anheuser-Busch said it's not needed.

   Dan Mchugh from A-B said the company has gone from 84% category-exclusive deals with teams to 54% this yr saying "There used to be a time where you had to make sure the competition was on the sideline. We still do that in certain markets, but you can't be afraid to use marketing wherewithal now. If we do half-exclusive deals we will get out there and activate them."

   I love the cases where a property and sponsor grow together to create a synonymous association that would be defensible to ambush. These stories are in nearly all cases engendered through value creation and activation, which I believe is your thesis, not b/c they were anointed with an exclusive arrangement. While the case you throw out may be a bit extreme, I think you bring up some good points. While we see a lot of companies wanting a "sense of ownership" (seen in many forms: category, owning the entire event, limiting # of sponsors, etc), it runs much deeper than a stamp of approval.

   Here's an interesting read on category exclusivity from Red Mandarin as well:

   http://www.redmandarin.com/resources/strategy-creation-and-development/usefulness-of-category-exclusivity

2. Mike and Kris bring great points up on this topic. I'd say that, yes, for many sponsors and properties along certain product/service categories, exclusivity is useless. Now, of course, exceptions would exist. For example, in NASCAR, if you're Sprint, you've paid a ton of money to be the title sponsor of the sport's highest circuit, and I think they're right to want some protection for that kind of sponsorship spend. I think exclusivity also is important with certain types of products/services in conjunction with certain properties, maybe particularly on a more localized type of property (e.g., minor league baseball). Across the board, though, I think it's probably just as Mike said: it's largely a waste of time and money for both the brand and the property, particularly if that exclusivity doesn't deliver/drive results somehow. Additionally, with international/national entertainment/sport properties, like Mike said, why should they limit themselves when they could bring in several major brands into one category? Limiting certain categories is cutting one's nose off to spite one's face. Why, for example, should the NFL limit its beer sponsor category to Coors, especially when individual teams can cut deals with their own beer brands? Better still, why would Coors be gullible enough to sign that deal when 1) Jerry Jones can plaster Lite logos all over his stadium, undercutting any ad activation Coors might do, and 2) when the Super Bowl advertising deal can be a different one altogether? I just don't get it, and I think that's one area where NASCAR has shot itself in the foot sponsor-wise (in addition to cherry-picking the elite brands as "league" sponsors instead of funneling them to car owners; I have no idea what most "official" NASCAR sponsors are, but I dang sure know that Burger King and Old Spice are backing Tony Stewart). I hate to question the expertise of some sponsorship folks (both on the brand and the property sides), but these concepts aren't difficult to understand, yet you'd never know that by looking at the evidence of weak sponsorship deals that pervade the sport marketplace today.