Website review
Websites of 58 national sporting organisations (NSOs) and 250 regional sporting organisations (RSOs) were located and searched for evidence of food or beverage company sponsorship. Results are presented in Table
1. The logos of food or beverage company sponsors appeared 186 times on 74 websites (24% of websites accessed). The logos represented 131 individual food or beverage companies or brands. No logos appeared on 234 websites (76%). Of the websites sponsored by food and beverage companies, nine belonged to NSOs and 65 to RSOs.
Table 1
Food and beverage sponsors of national and regional sporting organisations
Bars/restaurants
| 63 | (48) | 0 | 0 | 63 |
Food companies
| 36 | (27.5) | 25 | 10 | 1 |
Brands
| 17 | (12.9) | 4 | 7 | 6 |
Quick service restaurants
| 12 | (9.2) | 0 | 12 | 0 |
Supermarkets
| 3 | (2.4) | 0 | 0 | 3 |
Total
| 131 | | 29 | 29 | 73 |
The review identified logos from thirty-six individual food and beverage companies and we classified most (n=25) as healthy, 10 we classified as manufacturing unhealthy food products, one was not classified as a full product list was not available. Seven of the 17 logos from individual food or beverage product brands we classified as unhealthy, four as healthy, and six were unclassified.
Fifteen food or beverage brands/companies sponsored more than one sport (see Table
2). Four sponsored both NSOs and RSOs. Eight of the 15 we classified as unhealthy brands or companies. New World Supermarket’s logo appeared on 15 websites, sponsoring more sports than any other company, the majority being RSOs. Other frequent sponsors included Pak n’ Save supermarkets (n=9), McDonalds (n=9) and Coca Cola (n=8).
Table 2
Food and beverage brands/companies sponsoring more than one NSO/RSO
New World
| Supermarket | 15 | 1 | 14 | 6 |
Pak n’ Save
| Supermarket | 9 | 0 | 9 | 4 |
McDonalds
| Quick service restaurant | 9 | 2 | 7 | 4 |
Coca Cola
| Beverage company | 8 | 1 | 7 | 4 |
Anchor
| Dairy company | 6 | 0 | 6 | 1 |
Mad Butcher
| Butcher | 4 | 0 | 4 | 3 |
Subway
| Quick service restaurant | 4 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
Milo
| Beverage | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
Powerade
| Beverage | 3 | 0 | 3 | 2 |
Mizone
| Beverage | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
Heavens Bakery
| Bakery | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
Hubbards
| Cereal company | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
Eta
| Snack food company | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
Cadbury
| Confectionery company | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
Fresh Choices
| Supermarket | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
Of the total of 186 logos that appeared on the websites, logos of bars and restaurants (n=63) appeared most often, followed by logos of unhealthy brands or companies (n=52) and healthy brands/companies (n=38). Most of the 33 unclassified logos belonged to supermarkets.
Rugby had more food and beverage sponsors than other sports. The majority of these were restaurants and bar. See Table
3 for results of frequency of sponsor’s logos by type. Most food and beverage sponsors in rugby league and cricket were classified as healthy. Only two sports, touch rugby and badminton, had more unhealthy than healthy sponsors; however these sports had few sponsors overall.
Table 3
Frequency of food and beverage sponsors’ logos by sport and sponsor type*
Rugby
| 27 | 26 | 23 (25.0) | 21 (22.8) | 48 (52.2) |
Other
| 47 | 22 | 2 (22.2) | 1 (11.1) | 7 (66.7) |
Hockey
| 27 | 20 | 1 (20.0) | 0 (0) | 4 (80.0) |
Basketball
| 21 | 15 | 4 (26.7) | 4 (26.7) | 7 (46.6) |
Netball
| 13 | 13 | 1 (11.1) | 0 (0) | 8 (88.9) |
Tennis
| 17 | 12 | 2 (33.3) | 1 (33.3) | 2 (33.4) |
Golf
| 14 | 11 | 4 (40.0) | 0(0) | 6 (60.0) |
Touch rugby
| 13 | 11 | 4 (57.2) | 0 (0) | 3 (42.6) |
Squash
| 11 | 10 | 1 (20.0) | 2 (40.0) | 2 (40.0) |
Cricket
| 7 | 7 | 4 (28.6) | 5 (35.8) | 5 (35.6) |
Football
| 8 | 7 | 1 (33.3) | 0 (0) | 2 (66.7) |
Rugby league
| 5 | 4 | 1 (20.0) | 4 (80.0) | 0 (0 |
Badminton
| 4 | 3 | 4 (100) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
Water Ski Racing
| 2 | 1 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 2 (100) |
Total
| 216 | 162 | 52 | 38 | 96 |
Informants considered food and beverage brands and companies in NZ undertook limited sports marketing and confined their activities to sponsorships with a few high profile sports. Participants thought these sports had a strong competitive advantage as their regular television coverage helped raise their profile, provided exposure for sponsors, and ultimately helped the sport attract more sponsorship. As one informant noted;
"
because we don’t get television coverage there’s not a lot of demand for companies coming in wanting to advertise. It’s slightly different to a rugby, or a soccer [football] or a netball court where there’s lots of television. And a lot of the sponsorship comes back to what sort of coverage they’re getting in the media on television. We don’t get a lot.
"
Informants identified six examples where food and beverage companies supported their sponsorship investment in NZ sports with complementary marketing. Four sponsorships established by the NSO flowed to the RSO and clubs, three of these targeted children; of these, two were classified as unhealthy. These sponsorships included the national junior cricket programme, national sponsorship of netball, and sponsorship of ‘player of the day’ certificates for junior football and touch rugby. ‘Player of the day’ certificates are distributed each week at the conclusion of a game to acknowledge the team’s best player. The award typically includes a voucher for a food item from a sponsor and a branded certificate.
All complementary marketing provided significant brand exposure for sponsors and utilised several techniques to encourage purchase. For example, national sponsorship of an RSO managed junior cricket skills programme provided the sponsor with naming rights and opportunities to distribute branded giveaways (such as caps and cricket balls), product samples, and discount vouchers to participants. National netball sponsorship gave the sponsor naming rights to the national team, national age group representative teams, and international home test series. The sponsor also provided spectator prizes, catering for volunteers, and vouchers for volunteers’ awards, which were distributed on a weekly basis to netball centres nationally. Sponsorship of ‘player of the day’ certificates allowed a fast food chain to provide product vouchers to children playing football and touch rugby at club level each week. A licensed promotion enabled one sponsor to use rugby players’ names and images on collector cards given to purchasers as a reward that encouraged repeat purchase (necessary to obtain a full set of cards).
All informants identified the main benefit of sponsorship as financial. The commercial investment enabled them to allocate more resources to their sport. One informant stated; “clearly it puts more resources into the sport, number one and that’s the key benefit for us. We can do what we want to do easier.” Sponsorship income was usually incorporated into general funds that supported elite teams including: travel and accommodation for teams, officials and referees; and administration expenses. Informants also saw these arrangements as providing opportunities to promote their sport through the associated advertising featuring their players and teams.
Informants described how sports administrators reviewed potential sponsorships, considering the appropriateness of the sponsor, and any potential negative impacts an association might have. Administrators reviewed potential sponsors carefully to ensure the brand, and associated messages, aligned with their sport. They appeared to believe a good ‘fit’ benefitted their sport as well as the sponsor.
A few informants noted that, after internal debate, their organisations had declined quick service restaurant company sponsorship as senior administrators did not consider the relationship appropriate. One informant explained;
a fast food company came to us and offered some reasonable money and it was quite a good intellectual discussion, does it sit with our brand and what would this do to the brand when you’re about healthy lifestyles, and all these other things when suddenly you attach a fast food which has all these other connotations attached to it.
However, other informants indicated that any benefits of being associated with a healthy food sponsor (or the drawbacks of being involved with an unhealthy sponsor) were weighted less than the funding resulting from sponsorship. One informant noted;
I guess that we were looking for healthy foods, healthy sponsors, whatever that might look like. Now, that said, I’d be the first to say if somebody came to us with food that wasn’t quite healthy but had a big cheque book, I’d probably look at the cheque book in preference.