You wouldn't buy a car without knowing what you're getting out of it, right?

SPONSOR AND GAIN IMMEASURABLE VISIBILITY


I saw this statement as a header instructing email readers to contact someone at an organization about being a sponsor at the national, annual conference. It struck me as strange, because why should any person or business invest in being a sponsor if their return on investment cannot be measured?


Through a quick search on Bing (since it comes standard and I use IE in the office) there were generally two varying definitions. The first was along the lines that immeasurable was impossible to measure. The second definition stated that it referenced something that was too big, huge, or monumental to be measured. My question becomes, is it that this organization cannot measure sponsorship ROI, or is sponsoring so monumentally impactful that it in no way can statistically be measured?

I love statistics and numbers and data, especially in situations that require some sort of decision making. It is something more solid than following a gut feeling. Seeing a statement telling me you can’t measure something doesn’t compel me to open my imaginary corporate wallet.

What about working with companies to see why they do it? Is it an assertion of dominance? For example, sponsors of X have increased their ranking for five straight years after their sponsorship. Does business increase? Does your ability to attract and retain talented employees hinge on sponsorship of some level? Is there a level of sponsorship that pays off while another does not? In other words, does a larger investment yield a better return - $1,000 sponsorship may only increase A by 11%, but the $2,500 sponsorship increases it by 47%. Depending what is being measured (if you measure it!) that could be a compelling argument to upgrade a sponsorship level.

Giving solid facts also helps one person sell the argument to another potentially more powerful decision maker. It provides rationale.

This professional organization is very high on ethical practices, so I could understand hesitance to twisting the ‘damned lies and statistics’ in their favor. But why not present actual, somehow measurable results?