Zoo exec slams sports sponsorship in controversial blog piece
The sports marketing industry has been ripped pretty good this year from lawmakers to late night talk shows, but few go so far as to call it the "the last sanctioned bases of corporate corruption." In what we can assume, will be a pretty controversial piece, zoo and acquarium industry veteran Rudy Socha ripped the sports industry in a recent post for everything from pumping demographics to buying off agencies with VIP treatment. Let me just first say, I personally feel there are some pretty misguided and outdated generalizations in this piece that at one time may have had some truth, but in today's environment are scattered if existent at all. The argument that women do not hold a significant presence in the viewing demographics of most major sports seems largely outdated. Independent...
Sorry, but I've had about enough of so-called "experts" continuing to sling mud at the industry over their version of how they think business is done. The reasons for sponsoring sports go way beyond getting tickets and getting to hang out at swanky parties, and he darn well knows it (and no, just because it is posted on TMZ or in the NYT, that doesn't always mean it is true). I think this article is nothing more than a shout out of "look at me", in an attempt to show some support to a fledgling industry (Zoos and Aquariums) that has suffered in recent years due to the economic climate - also an industry that by and large has done very little creatively with sponsorships in years - at least beyond "This polar bear exhibit sponsored by X", that is. He pretty much comes out and says as much when he says, "Many companies make token buys and donations to local community animal shelters, arts, zoos, food banks, charity events, etc. in an attempt to pacify critics." No, I'm sorry, but that thinking here is wrong too. Companies do it because in that form, it resonates with their audience (you know, the demographics thinga-magingys); the same reason they use sports sponsorship and make larger media buys. It works for them, and helps meet company objectives. It's not always about reaching the largest audience, as he so claims either.
One final note: it's pretty laughable that someone can criticize Bank of America's measurement practices and ask "Where are the facts?", then turn around and start making up his own numbers about, well, pretty much everything. Good job stating your case there (yes, sarcasm was intended).
On one hand, everyone is entitled to their opinion. On the other, are you kidding me?
Clearly, the author doesn't work in corporate sponsorship, as his views of how deals are done - and how hard industry professionals work - are so incredibly flawed. In fact, the whole article is balancing between two decidedly inexpert views of sponsorship: The populist view, concocted to sell newspapers and prop up political agendas; and sponsorship circa 1987. Combine that with the giant chip that seems to have taken residence on the author's shoulder, and this is what you get.
I also agree with JW that zoo and aquarium sponsorships have not exactly been at the vanguard of creativity. But, apparently, the answer to the industry's flagging fortunes is to take amateurish pot-shots at sponsors of major sports, not raise the bar for his own sector. Plus, wrapping hard-sell promotion of the zoo and aquarium industry in all of this wrongheaded hooey looks desperate and ridiculous.