The effect of social media on sponsorship
The utilisation of technology, and in particular social media, by brands to target consumers is not a new topic. What is new is the way in which brands are getting smarter and more innovative in how they use tech and data to target consumers in their sponsorship activation.
Where previously the rights offered by rights holders were linear, predictable and largely tangible in nature we are now fully immersed in the world of 'influencers', brandter (inter-brand banter) and measurable impressions. Advertising has become a two-way street. Rather than passively engaging with consumers through traditional methods like shirt sponsorship and product placement, brands need to be agile, dynamic and innovative.
Social media is now often regarded a separate category of rights which are paid for in addition to services and other rights offerings. For example, when using an athlete in ads, tweets by the athlete are often an 'add on' for an additional price rather than an assumed part of the deal.
The job of a modern day marketer is an evolving minefield. Negotiating fair terms for sponsorship which incorporate social media is complex. The following are some of the issues currently pre-occupying our clients.
Improved data = shorter term contracts?
A team's lucky striker will likely have more Instagram followers than the team itself and a make-up artist may have more followers than the make-up brand they swear by, but which will more effectively inspire customers to purchase your products or services?
Brands now have access to verifiable data clarifying the impact of their ads. Social media enables impressions and click-through purchases to be counted, used to inform real-time campaign optimisation and be referenced in annual reports.
Knowing your audience and understanding who that audience is listening to has always been key to a brand's strategy - while this remains the case this new verifiable data takes the guesswork out of the equation.
Brands have started demanding shorter term contracts enabling them to collate data and extend only the more successful sponsorship arrangements. One-off engagements relating to a specific campaign or event - or even a single tweet - are also increasingly common. In a world where an individual's popularity fluctuates as often as the wind changes, this trend seems likely to continue.
More flexibility, less control = greater impact
In traditional sponsorship arrangements brands have required approval rights over any content disseminated by any means. As the world becomes increasingly fast-paced and responsive, advertising must keep up. Requiring approval rights over every tweet or Instagram post could seriously reduce the impact of that post.
We are now seeing a more agile framework in sponsorship arrangements that allow for reactive posts and constant engagements rather than the traditional prescribed rights and obligations of each party. In this environment, due diligence on potential partners is more crucial than ever.
Striking a balance between maintaining the reactive appeal of social media and the protection of the brand is complex. One way for brands to manage this is to set out clear parameters in terms of what is acceptable without approval and what is an absolute no-go.
Staying on the right side of the regulator
Social Media sponsored advertising has been a hot topic for the advertising regulator in recent years. Consumers are also becoming more aware of the restrictions put on brands and will report those who fall foul of those obligations.
As a reminder, if an individual or entity has been paid (by money or otherwise) to post content on social media about a brand and the brand has any control whatsoever over the content of the post, it must be clear that the post is an ad.
The following tips should be contractual requirements and standard practices:
(a) Make the disclosure early. A consumer should know immediately they are looking at an ad. Including "#ad", "advertorial" or "ad feature" in a social media post or video title is a simple way to ensure this.
(b) Make the disclosure clear. Use of phrases like "in collaboration with", "with thanks to" and "sponsored by" should be avoided. Simpler terms like "ad" should be used instead.
Exclusivity – what about new technologies?
The extent of exclusivity will always be a hot topic for negotiation in a sponsorship arrangement. As new modes of advertising are created a new topic in the exclusivity discussion has emerged – to what extent will a brand have exclusivity over new technologies and platforms?
Clarity in the contract is essential. Stating that a brand has exclusivity in social media will be insufficient if the latest platform is not classed as social media. Increasingly we are seeing rights of first refusal in sponsorship arrangements that cover new technologies. Whether or not this right will involve additional sponsorship fees is open for debate but this allows both parties a degree of flexibility which is a necessity in this ever-changing landscape.
Reputation management – can your social media history every truly be erased?
Incorporating morality and reputation clauses in sponsorship contracts is nothing new but many brands are becoming increasingly concerned about engaging individuals to promote their brand on social media. The reactive nature of social media means that brands often have less control over content (see above) but, in addition, terminating a sponsorship deal doesn't necessarily give brands the instant separation that they are looking for.
Historic social media posts will exist until they are deleted. Including a 'cleansing' clause in your sponsorship deal which can be activated if the arrangement is terminated for certain reasons might give some comfort here.
Social Media has transformed the sponsorship scene. Contracts for a single Tweet from a pre-eminent individual are heavily negotiated. Where rights and obligations have previously been meticulously described and the parameters clearly set out, we are moving to a contractual standard that is agile, responsive and principles based. Brands are increasingly giving up control – something that the boardroom will undoubtedly struggle with. But it's worth it – one Tweet is worth 1000 branded shirts.
This article was written by Caroline Swain. For more information, please contact Caroline on +44 (0)20 7203 5158 or at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Music to our ears? Well, perhaps not for Apple.
A feud first began when the music streaming giant, Spotify, filed a complaint against music streaming provide rand competitor, Apple Inc.
Risk allocation in commercial leases: the High Court considers rent suspension, insurance and frustration arguments
Read our summary of the full judgement on the latest Covid arrears case.
Competition and Markets Authority announces review of the EU vertical agreements block exemption
The UK Competition and Markets Authority is reviewing the future application of the EU vertical agreements block exemption in the UK.
Playing Copycat – Why have M&S begun legal action against Aldi over Colin the Caterpillar?
M&S’s chocolate caterpillar was the first of its kind to land on our supermarket shelves, over 30 years ago.
Building Back Better: Future Gazing
What’s next for the hospitality industry post-pandemic?
Building Back Better: Re-examining your proposition
Why hospitality businesses should re-examine their proposition now
Building Back Better: Real Estate and Restructuring
How and why should hospitality businesses re-structure post pandemic?
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Fudco Partnership on sale to Exponent-backed Vibrant Foods
Fudco is a family-owned business selling South Asian ethnic foods in UK and Europe.
ESG – Searching for substance behind the acronym
ESG is an acronym much used but perhaps less understood.
Focus Antitrust - 21 April 2021
This week's competition update.
Burn After Redditting – Scottish Court of Session Lays Down Marker for Online Copyright Protection
Sky UK Ltd have successfully obtained interim protection from infringement of their broadcast rights through links posted on Reddit.
Darren Bailey quoted extensively on the legalities of the European Super League proposals
Darren considers the legal questions that exist around the introduction of a European Super League.
Charles Russell Speechlys advises shareholders of Modern Networks on sale to Horizon Capital
Modern Networks is a leading provider of IT support, broadband and telecoms managed services to the UK’s commercial property sector.
Paul Henty writes for New Law Journal on the often-painful experience of tackling rules of origin post-Brexit
Defining provenance post-Brexit: Paul Henty charts the often-painful experience of tackling rules of origin.
Focus Antitrust - 14 April 2021
This week's competition update.
Darren Bailey quoted by the Financial Times on the regulation of the sports betting industry
As the UK moves to a more regulated model, the US is throwing open the doors on the regulation of the sports betting industry.
Focus Antitrust - 7 April 2021
This week's competition update.
No ticket, no merger: Viagogo and StubHub are one step closer to merging but must satisfy the CMA’s conditions
The £3.2bn acquisition of online ticketing company Stubhub by one of its competitors, Viagogo is one step closer to being finalised.
Client alert: Construction under competition law spotlight
We outline the three investigations which have either recently concluded or are ongoing together with what this means for businesses.
Focus Antitrust - 31 March 2021
This week's competition update.