Upload
poppy-bradley
View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Table of Contents
3
I. Methodology
Methodology
A total of 165 participants were contacted, via email, by Performance Research and asked to complete an online questionnaire about the sponsorship decision-making process.
Respondents were screened by IEG, Inc. to be sponsorship decision-makers from small, medium and large corporations worldwide.
Data collection was conducted in January and February 2008.
Research objectives included, but were not limited to, determining the benefits and services that are most important to companies when making sponsorship decisions and estimating how companies are budgeting for measurement and activation. The margin of error for this study is approximately + 4%.
This study was conducted in conjunction with IEG, LLC. www.sponsorship.com
4
II. Executive Summary
5
• Decision-maker Survey Shows Confidence In Sponsorship Remains High
Despite unstable economic conditions roiling around them, corporate marketers remain committed to sponsorship, according to the eighth annual IEG/Performance Research Sponsorship Decision-makers Survey.
In fact, the average share of overall marketing budgets captured by sponsorship has hit a record high of 19.5 percent. Just six years ago, the average company devoted only 12 percent of its marketing dollars to sponsorship. In addition, for the first time ever, the majority of survey respondents-57 percent-allocated 11 percent or more of their overall budgets to the medium (see chart on pg. 20).
The reason for that sponsorship bullishness may be seen in another high water mark from the survey: Fifty-six percent of sponsors reported that their return on sponsorship is increasing, versus 15 percent who said it was unchanged and six percent who said returns were diminishing. Another 24 percent said they did not know how their ROI was trending (see chart on pg. 49).
Source: IEG Sponsorship ReportMarch 17, 2008 Volume 27: Number 5www.iegsr.com
6
• Decision-maker Survey Shows Confidence In Sponsorship Remains High (Continued…)
With a recession looming over their heads, expectations might be that a greater number of sponsors would be belt tightening, but their self-reporting on spending actually shows a slight increase in the number of sponsors who said their companies’ spending would rise this year (40 percent as opposed to 38 percent in the ’07 survey). Forty-one percent of sponsors were keeping budgets steady and 19 percent said they would spend less in ’08 (see chart on pg. 18).
• Gut Still Rules, As Little Is Spent On Research
Nearly half of survey respondents said their companies spend nothing on evaluating the appropriateness of potential sponsorships (see chart on pg. 45), and one-third said nothing was spent to measure the success of existing partnerships (see chart on pg. 43).
Only 20 percent spent more than one percent of a sponsorship’s total budget on pre-deal evaluation, while only 23 percent spent that amount on measuring return.
Source: IEG Sponsorship ReportMarch 17, 2008 Volume 27: Number 5www.iegsr.com
7
• Gut Still Rules, As Little Is Spent On Research (continued)
On a similar note, only 19 percent of sponsors said they had a dedicated budget for sponsorship research.
The average amount spent on activation relevant to rights fees (see chart on pg. 19) declined this year after increasing for the past three years. Activation spending slipped to $1.50 for every $1 spent on rights fees after reaching a record high 1.9-to-1 ratio in the ’07 survey.
In terms of what sponsors hope to achieve through their partnerships, increasing brand loyalty distanced itself as the most important objective, as 71 percent of sponsors rated it a 9 or a 10 on a 10-point scale (see chart on pg. 26).The ability to capture contact information for lead generation and database marketing grew in importance this year, now ranking as the sixth most important objective.
Source: IEG Sponsorship ReportMarch 17, 2008 Volume 27: Number 5www.iegsr.com
8
III. Assertions
9
• Assertions Some might be disappointed that the latest IEG/Performance Research Sponsorship Decision-makers Survey shows a decline in the activation-spending-to-rights-fee ratio from 1.9-to-1 last year to 1.5-to-1 this year (see Executive Summary). However, we don’t believe this result indicates that sponsors are less inclined to activate their deals. More likely, the drop reflects that leveraging activities are moving toward lower-cost media and communication tools, especially online, and away from costly traditional advertising. As evidence, note the survey’s finding that while advertising remained the top activation method, online promotions rose to the fifth most popular leveraging tool, with 62 percent employing Internet tie-ins versus 51 percent who said in last year’s survey that they activated online. Another reason for the lower activation ratio is that targeted sponsorship opportunities such as associations, B2B partnerships and local properties require lower levels of activation spending than do mass-market deals.
Source: IEG Sponsorship ReportAssertions: Jim AndrewsMarch 17, 2008 Volume 27: Number 5www.iegsr.com
10
• Assertions (continued) In a couple of additional survey findings, sponsors noted a slight decline in their reliance on agencies. Fifty-nine percent of sponsors reported that they used an agency to help support their sponsorship programs, reversing a three-year trend in which a growing number of sponsors (52 percent in ’05 to 62 percent in ’07) reported that they used agencies. Also, the percentage of sponsors who said they consulted with a sponsorship specialist to help determine their strategy and select opportunities declined from 17 percent last year to 13 percent this year.
11
Source: IEG Sponsorship ReportAssertions: Jim AndrewsMarch 17, 2008 Volume 27: Number 5www.iegsr.com
79%
82%
78%
83%
78%
78%
77%
86%
79%
77%
82%
81%
83%
87%
87%
88%
78%
82%
86%
89%
75%
77%
79%
83%
Implementingmarketing plans /activation supp.sponsorships
Selecting marketingplans / activation
supp. sponsorships
Evaluate existingproperties
Selecting newproperties / events
to sponsor
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
Decision Making Responsibilities
"Within your organization, which of the following describes your
responsibilities regarding sponsorship?13
5%
12%
16%
10%
20%
92%
2%
2%
2%
5%
18%
64%
5%
8%
10%
16%
21%
88%
4%
9%
12%
12%
18%
94%
8%
5%
7%
17%
16%
72%
5%
9%
12%
12%
24%
78%
Africa
South America
Asia / Pacific Rim
Australia / NewZealand
Europe
North America
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
Sponsorship ProgramsBy Region
“In what regions do your sponsorship programs operate?”14
1%
2%
2%
2%
3%
90%
2%
0%
2%
5%
6%
76%
0%
1%
1%
5%
6%
87%
0%
1%
0%
4%
4%
92%
0%
0%
6%
12%
13%
68%
1%
2%
1%
5%
12%
76%
South America
Asia / Pacific Rim
Africa
Australia / NewZealand
Europe
North America
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
Personal LocationBy Region
“In which region are you personally based?”15
13%
28%
73%
75%
17%
26%
61%
73%
8%
25%
71%
73%
9%
28%
72%
77%
13%
19%
72%
74%
16%
28%
71%
77%
Consult sponsorshipspecialist to
determine strategy
Receive detailsabout property from
a sales agency
Approached directlyby property owners
Set strategy andseek the right
property
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
Choosing Property to Sponsor
“How do you typically go about choosing a property to sponsor?”
16
IV. Sponsorship Spending And Involvement
17
19%
41%
40%
19%
43%
38%
18%
44%
38%
17%
47%
36%
20%
47%
33%
18%
42%
40%
Decrease
Stay the same
Increase
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
Likely Sponsorship Spending Compared to Prior Year
“How will your overall sponsorship spending in [current year] compare to
[prior year]?”18
0%
3%
7%
7%
15%
26%
0%
2%
1%
5%
7%
13%
13%
56%
2%
1%
1%
5%
3%
7%
17%
47%
17%
1%
0%
10%
6%
12%
19%
49%
3%
0%
7%
4%
1%
10%
21%
54%
3%
0%
2%
3%
5%
12%
29%
43%
3%
43%
75%-100%
51%-75%
41%-50%
31%-40%
21%-30%
11%-20%
1%-10%
0%
2003; N=102
2004; N=72*
2005; N=73*
2006; N=149*
2007; N=84*
2008; N=61*
[*Based on those who responded]
“Approximately what % of your org’s overall marketing budget do sponsorship
rights fees represent?”
Percentage of MarketingBudget Spent On Sponsorship
19
9%
12%
14%
48%
17%
11%
9%
26%
38%
16%
8%
15%
21%
43%
14%
7%
8%
21%
45%
19%
7%
9%
16%
46%
23%
12%
7%
20%
47%
13%
$4 to $1 or More
$3 to $1
$2 to $1
$1 to $1
0 to $1
2003; N=138*
2004; N=103*
2005; N=111*
2006; N=146*
2007; N=117*
2008; N=157*
Leveraging/Spending Ratio
“As best as you can estimate, what is your company’s typical promotional
spending ratio?”
Average Ratio of Activation Spending to Rights Fees
2003 – 1.7:1
2004 – 1.3:1
2005 – 1.5:1
2006 – 1.7:1
2007 – 1.9:1
2008 – 1.5:1
[*Based on those who responded]
20
41%
10%
32%
30%
44%
50%
38%
8%
27%
33%
40%
50%
42%
9%
17%
25%
43%
51%
48%
10%
13%
37%
50%
53%
43%
7%
23%
34%
43%
51%
46%
18%
24%
31%
39%
52%
None, manage in-house
Sponsorship specialist agency who soldrights
Independent sponsorship specialist
Property / rights holder
Public relations agency
Advertising agency
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
Agency Used for Support
“What types of agencies, if any, do you use to help leverage/support your sponsorship program?"
21
62%
69%
71%
80%
77%
51%
67%
71%
79%
77%
59%
65%
76%
73%
77%
63%
74%
82%
86%
87%
58%
77%
76%
73%
71%
62%
65%
73%
72%
75%
Internet tie-ins
Hospitality
Internalcommunications
Traditionaladvertising
Public relations
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
“During the past 12 months, which of the following marketing communication channels have you used to leverage your sponsorship programs?"
Marketing CommunicationChannels Used [Top 5]
22
47%
50%
60%
62%
41%
56%
49%
61%
55%
50%
57%
57%
45%
51%
47%
64%
52%
45%
37%
46%
53%
46%
44%
54%
Sales promotionoffers
Business-to-business
Sampling on-site
Direct marketing
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
“During the past 12 months, which of the following marketing communication channels have you used to leverage your sponsorship programs?"
Marketing CommunicationChannels Used [6-9]
23
12%
23%
16%
27%
27%
41%
11%
15%
20%
22%
28%
36%
14%
20%
21%
25%
36%
31%
9%
12%
26%
27%
23%
36%
17%
8%
21%
24%
28%
29%
16%
15%
23%
27%
24%
31%
Arts
Online sponsorship
Entertainment
Causes
Community events /festivals / fairs
Sports
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
“Compared to 2007, how much do you expect your company to be involved in the following types of sponsorship in 2008?"
More Likely to be Involved in Sponsorship Category than Prior Yr.
24
10%
15%
12%
26%
21%
20%
12%
10%
14%
18%
17%
26%
15%
13%
13%
25%
27%
31%
9%
8%
12%
15%
21%
23%
11%
12%
13%
14%
15%
22%
11%
11%
12%
18%
18%
26%
Causes
Community events /festivals / fairs
Sports
Entertainment
Arts
Online sponsorship
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
“Compared to 2007, how much do you expect your company to be involved in the following types of sponsorship in 2008?"
Less Likely to be Involved in Sponsorship Category than Prior Yr.
25
32%
39%
58%
67%
71%
39%
42%
58%
64%
64%
43%
51%
51%
63%
68%
39%
51%
60%
70%
73%
51%
52%
71%
79%
71%
40%
43%
66%
75%
75%
Stimulate Sales / Trial/ Usage
Drive Retail / DealerTraffic
Change / ReinforceImage
Create Awareness /Visibility
Increase BrandLoyalty
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
Sponsorship Objectives[Top 5 “9&10” Ratings]
"Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all and 10 is extremely, please rate the following objectives as to their importance to you or your marketing team's decisions when you evaluate which sports or properties to sponsor?" 26
13%
29%
32%
38%
16%
23%
33%
38%
21%
21%
35%
35%
20%
25%
32%
37%
14%
25%
43%
46%
19%
29%
38%
44%
Gain On-Site SalesRights
Entertain Clients /Prospects
Sample / Displays /Showcase Products /
Services
ShowcaseCommunity / Social
Responsibility
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
Sponsorship Objectives[Other top “9&10” Ratings]
"Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all and 10 is extremely, please rate the following objectives as to their importance to you or your marketing team's decisions when you evaluate which sports or properties to sponsor?" 27
10%
7%
10%
19%
29%
39%
7%
11%
6%
14%
23%
42%
6%
7%
9%
13%
21%
51%
14%
12%
8%
13%
25%
51%
10%
12%
10%
9%
25%
52%
9%
11%
14%
15%
29%
43%
Incent sales force
Excite employees
Network withcosponsors
Sell to sponsee
Entertain clients /prospects
Drive retail / dealertraffic
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
"Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all and 10 is extremely, please rate the following objectives as to their importance to you or your marketing team's decisions when you evaluate which sports or properties to sponsor?"
Sponsorship Objectives -Business To Business [“9&10” Ratings]
28
13%
36%
32%
32%
16%
30%
33%
39%
21%
31%
35%
43%
20%
30%
32%
39%
14%
34%
43%
51%
19%
36%
38%
40%
Gain on-site salesrights
Capture database /lead generation
Sample / display /showcase products
Stimulate sales / trial /usage
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
"Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all and 10 is extremely, please rate the following objectives as to their importance to you or your marketing team's decisions when you evaluate which sports or properties to sponsor?"
Sponsorship Objectives -Sales & Promotional [“9&10” Ratings]
29
29%
38%
58%
67%
71%
33%
38%
58%
64%
64%
29%
35%
51%
63%
68%
34%
37%
60%
70%
73%
36%
46%
71%
79%
71%
40%
44%
66%
75%
75%
Access platform forexperiential branding
Showcase community/ social responsibility
Change / reinforceimage
Create awareness /visibility
Increase brand loyalty
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
"Using a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all and 10 is extremely, please rate the following objectives as to their importance to you or your marketing team's decisions when you evaluate which sports or properties to sponsor?"
Sponsorship Objectives -General [“9&10” Ratings]
30
41%
39%
45%
54%
64%
42%
40%
39%
54%
55%
39%
45%
39%
53%
67%
53%
45%
50%
56%
78%
52%
48%
55%
57%
61%
46%
53%
56%
62%
69%
Title of proprietaryarea
ID in property's mediabuy
Broadcast adopportunity
On-site signage
Category exclusivity
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
"Using the same scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all and 10 is extremely, please rate the following benefits as to how valuable they are to your organization?"
Value of Benefits [“9&10” Ratings] Top 5 Results
31
23%
31%
38%
36%
43%
29%
32%
32%
33%
35%
24%
28%
35%
42%
37%
41%
38%
32%
36%
33%
42%
38%
36%
44%
41%
37%
35%
38%
39%
44%
Access to propertyprovided research
Right to propertymarks / logos
Presence on propertywebsite
Access to propertymailing list / database
ID property collateralmaterials
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
Value of Benefits [“9&10” Ratings] Results 6-10
"Using the same scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all and 10 is extremely, please rate the following benefits as to how valuable they are to your organization?"
32
23%
25%
26%
30%
30%
23%
21%
23%
25%
28%
19%
29%
27%
27%
29%
29%
32%
32%
33%
30%
32%
32%
35%
35%
39%
28%
25%
34%
30%
40%
Spokesperson /access to
personalities
Opportunity toparticipate in turnkey
retailer promos.
Right to promote co-branded product /
service
Tickets / hospitality
Ad in program book
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
Value of Benefits [“9&10” Ratings] Results 11-15
"Using the same scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all and 10 is extremely, please rate the following benefits as to how valuable they are to your organization?"
33
7%
11%
14%
18%
19%
19%
6%
14%
16%
14%
21%
5%
15%
15%
21%
25%
11%
18%
19%
22%
22%
18%
16%
23%
29%
27%
16%
14%
22%
21%
28%
Access to property merchandise
Pass through rights to you ow n retailers
Nonprofit / cause overlay
Intro to cosponsors / cross-promotionopportunities
Access to property content for digital &other uses
Rights to survey audience onsite
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
Value of Benefits [“9&10” Ratings] Results 16-21
NA
"Using the same scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all and 10 is extremely, please rate the following benefits as to how valuable they are to your organization?"
34
V. Research Considerations
35
3%
1%
2%
8%
14%
10%
20%
35%
5%
1%
6%
5%
11%
11%
18%
35%
2%
1%
1%
13%
9%
17%
20%
27%
0%
2%
1%
7%
10%
18%
15%
40%
0%
4%
1%
10%
5%
16%
6%
31%
Conferences
Newspapers
Independent agencies
Colleagues
Sports Business Journal
Industry press / journals
Internet
IEG
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=88*
2008; N=95*
“What is your primary source of sponsorship industry news?"
Primary Source ofSponsorship Industry News
[*Based on those who responded]
36
68%
70%
71%
68%
76%
56%
71%
55%
64%
74%
60%
65%
65%
68%
81%
55%
63%
81%
82%
82%
41%
68%
66%
68%
76%
40%
58%
70%
69%
78%
Internet
Sponsorship Websites
Colleagues andcontacts
Sponsorship industrynewsletters
Advertising /marketing magazines
and journals
2003; N=151*
2004; N=108*
2005; N=108*
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=164*
“From the following list, which sources would you say you rely on to provide you with sponsorship industry news?"
Sources of SponsorshipIndustry News [Top 5 Sources]
[*Based on those who responded]
37
15%
31%
42%
52%
14%
27%
37%
53%
15%
27%
40%
44%
21%
32%
40%
62%
24%
28%
58%
48%
20%
22%
46%
42%
Radio / TV
E-mail circulars
Newspapers
Industry conferences
2003; N=151*
2004; N=108*
2005; N=108*
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=164*
“From the following list, which sources would you say you rely on to provide you with sponsorship industry news?"
Sources of SponsorshipIndustry News [Sources 6-9]
[*Based on those who responded]
38
49%
73%
82%
92%
54%
64%
77%
91%
47%
65%
77%
87%
53%
69%
86%
90%
64%
69%
79%
94%
52%
61%
67%
88%
Psychographics
Fan Passion / Affinity
Attendance
Demographics
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
"Which of the following do you typically analyze when making your decision?"
Information Sought Pre-Sponsorship [Top 4 Results]
39
36%
42%
50%
49%
36%
36%
43%
47%
33%
35%
40%
45%
41%
41%
50%
54%
45%
46%
55%
59%
41%
36%
30%
31%
TV Ratings
Interest in PropertyAmong Trade /
Dealers
What YourCompetition
Sponsors
Growth Trends inProperty Category
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
Information Sought Pre-Sponsorship [Results 5-8]
"Which of the following do you typically analyze when making your decision?"
40
81%
19%
75%
25%
81%
19%
78%
22%
83%
17%
74%
26%
No
Yes
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
Have A Budget forSponsorship Research
“Do you have an on-going budget for sponsorship research?"
41
“Approximately what % of a sponsorship’s total budget is typically spent on pre-selection research to evaluate fit?”
Rights Fee % Spent on Pre-Event Research to Evaluate Fit
1%
19%
33%
47%
More than 5%
1% to 5%
1% or Less
None
Total; N=165
42
5%
18%
44%
33%
0%
18%
42%
27%
1%
24%
33%
42%
3%
23%
49%
26%
3%
11%
43%
41%
1%
18%
46%
31%
More than 5%
1% to 5%
1% or Less
None
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
“Approximately what % of a sponsorship’s total budget is typically spent on concurrent / post-event research to measure success?”
Rights Fee % Spent on Concurrent / Post-event Research
43
VI. Property Perceptions
44
12%
16%
26%
32%
35%
37%
46%
10%
18%
21%
27%
27%
27%
42%
15%
23%
25%
29%
31%
35%
49%
17%
22%
30%
41%
39%
48%
59%
28%
28%
39%
45%
50%
48%
57%
22%
18%
29%
38%
33%
48%
52%
Sponsor Workshop
Third-party evaluation statement
Research on Audience Buying Habits
Leveraging Ideas
Research on Sponsor Loyalty
Research on Sponsor Recall
Post Event Report / Fulfillment Audit
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
“Please rate the following ‘property-provided services’ as to how valuable they are to your organization?"
Value Placed On Property Provided Services [“9&10” Ratings]
45
18%
13%
15%
13%
15%
7%
4%
15%
9%
9%
13%
18%
26%
5%
2%
17%
13%
11%
12%
11%
12%
6%
16%
19%
12%
17%
18%
7%
25%
5%
6%
9%
6%
10%
7%
6%
15%
14%
14%
28%
7%
17%
9%
11%
18%
9%
11%
19%
Highest ratings - 9 & 10 [NET]
8
7
6
5
4
3
Lowest ratings - 1 & 2 [NET]
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
“To what degree do you depend on properties to help you measure your ROI during / after your sponsorship involvement?”
Average Ratio of Activation Spending to Rights Fees
2003 Mean=5.2
2004 Mean=4.4
2005 Mean=5.9
2006 Mean=5.2
2007 Mean=5.4
2008 Mean=5.9
Extent You Depend OnProperties To Measure ROI
46
73%
27%
71%
30%
73%
27%
69%
32%
67%
33%
70%
30%
No
Yes
2003; N=153
2004; N=110
2005; N=111
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
“Are properties meeting your expectations in delivering ROI measurement or research information?"
Properties Meeting Expectations
47
24%
6%
15%
56%
24%
4%
21%
52%
18%
6%
22%
54%
14%
13%
26%
47%
Don't know
Decreased
Stayed the same
Increased
2004; N=110
2006; N=150
2007; N=132
2008; N=165
“In general, over the past few years has your ROI from sponsorship…?"
Perceived ROI FromSponsorship Over Past Few Years
48
Company Profile
49
Performance Research (Newport, Rhode Island) was organized in 1985 to provide quantitative and qualitative
evaluation of event marketing programs to corporate sponsors, properties and their agencies.
Over the past twenty years, the company has conducted over 1 million, on-site, on-line, and telephone
interviews and more than 500 focus groups regarding corporate sponsorships of sports, leisure activities
and special events. As a leader in custom sponsorship evaluation, Performance Research has in-depth
experience with varied events worldwide, and is a primary research partner with many of the world’s top
corporate sponsors, including: Anheuser-Busch, Coca-Cola, Citi-Financial, R.J. Reynolds, Sony-Ericsson and
UBS.
Performance Research
25 Mill Street
Newport, RI USA
02840
401-848-0111
www.performanceresearch.com
contact: Bill Doyle, Vice President
50