I think the key point to remember from this week's readings was the way in which organizations use the specific tactics of sponsorship and special events to achieve their goals.
Sponsorship is the purchase of specific rights and benefits associated with an event, organisation or individual. Sponsorship expects a return thus it cannot be considered as charity. Sponsorship is popular as it generates goodwill for the company and provides awareness and opportunity to enhance the image and reputation of the organisation by association.
Events, which always include careful planning and timing, can demand the greatest attention to detail of all available tactics. The larger the event, the more likely it is to require some form of sponsorship, often requiring these two tactics to be considered in tandem.
The readings made me think more about public relations practice in that special events and sponsorship represent a high profile aspect of public relations that focus public attention on an event, organisation or product intensely over a short period if time. They are often highly visual, and for that reason offers strong media opportunities. But sponsorship can back-fire too. There is no guarantee of recall by the public. As sponsoring an event can give a brand tremendous exposure and in the case of tobacco companies, sponsorship lends social acceptability to smoking and neutralizes health concerns held by the consumers. Tobacco companies associate their products with healthy and desirable activities, instead of with disease and death which is required by the law. The "glory" ended soon when a ban on tobacco sponsorships was imposed as health concerns arises. It drills down to the ethnic problem as tobacco companies is using the PR tactics to improve on its image but ultimately the product which is the tobacco will not turn healthy with the amount of sponsorship. By making the consumer of less guilt or silly admiration of sport stars endorsing the product is a serious health problem.

2 comments:
Dear Yen Ting,
I think you brought up an interesting point through the example of the tobacco company.
You mentioned:
"in the case of tobacco companies, sponsorship lends social acceptability to smoking and neutralizes health concerns held by the consumers. Tobacco companies associate their products with healthy and desirable activities, instead of with disease and death which is required by the law. The "glory" ended soon when a ban on tobacco sponsorships was imposed as health concerns arises".
Hence, I believe your point above confirms the importance of finding the right fit between a firm’s specific associations and a sponsored cause.
I have illustrated on this point in my blog(wk8) and glad that your blog contains reference highlighting the same aspect of finding the right fit for sponsorship causes.
There are pieces of text in this blog that have come from other sources and they need to be attributed.
For example the paragraph starting "sponsorship lends social acceptability ..." is taken out of a book titled "Smoke and Mirrors: The Canadian Tobacco War" by Rob Cunningham, published 1996
(viewed on http://books.google.com.au).
Post a Comment