Where College Sports Sponsors Should Lean In and Back Off

Partnering with sports and entertainment properties has always been about balance for brands. How to become involved with activities people are passionate about without being intrusive, how to enhance the experience without interrupting it, how to show up without showing off, and so on.

I was reminded of that fact this week in conversations and meetings regarding the championship season for fall college sports. In particular, two areas arose that are especially relevant to current and prospective brand partners.

First is the issue of flag planting in college football. Five major rivalry games were marred by the victorious visiting teams planting their flag at the midfield logo of their opponents, breaking an unwritten sportsmanship rule. Those incidents sparked skirmishes between players, the most serious in Columbus resulting in police using pepper spray and the Big Ten Conference issuing $100,000 fines to both Michigan and Ohio State.

Now the search is on for a solution, with the commissioners of the Power 4 conferences agreeing that something must be done. Here’s where a corporate partner could lend an assist.

Beyond the rules-makers prohibiting the practice and instituting specific penalties for violating such a ban, what if an alternative celebration could be offered—something that would allow the winning team to mark their victory in a positive, fun and less provocative way.

I’m not naïve enough to believe it would be easy to control the spontaneous jubilation of hyped-up college athletes, but seeing how players have embraced post-bowl-game activations such as eating the Pop-Tarts mascot or engaging in the Duke’s Mayo mayonnaise bath for the winning coach suggests there is room to create a sponsor-linked celebration that could become the post-game equivalent of the Allstate field goal nets—ubiquitous, widely recognized and connected to community impact.

And while we are on the subject of bowl games with entitlement sponsors—it is time to consider whether this convention that has been widely adopted by marketers but derided by the public needs a tweak.

Fans nearly always include an eyeroll when discussing the Pop-Tarts Bowl, the Duke’s Mayo Bowl, the GameAbove Sports Bowl, the Rate Bowl, the 68 Ventures Bowl and others. This is a classic example of the target audience viewing sponsorship as merely a commercial exercise and nothing more.

If brands want consumers to not only recognize their sponsorships, but to respond favorably to them, those consumers must see the value in the partnership for the participants, the event and themselves.

For bowl game naming partners that feel they must retain their title status, that means they should double down on educational efforts to ensure fans and others see the relevancy of their role.

Alternatively, those sponsors that already have strong brand recognition should consider stepping down to presenting status, allowing the game itself to have a more dignified moniker while maintaining popular activations and promotions that have been welcomed and enjoyed by fans and non-fans alike.

Less is more is not usually an advisable tactic when it comes to brand building, but given sponsorship’s connection to people’s passions and their sensitivity to overt messaging, it can be a winning approach in this case. One that even could be worth planting a flag over.