1. Challenge:
Over an extended period of time, Sponsor X had been investing in a large and diverse range of partnership
programs including community initiatives, individual athletes, national sporting teams, venues and media
sponsorships. A new corporate strategy, requirement for greater accountability and austerity measures
required the portfolio to be objectively assessed to ensure it met the ongoing needs/ challenges of the
organisation, and objectives of the brand.
Action:
To achieve these requirements, Sponsorium applied PerforMind:
1. Created a set of weighted criteria in order to assess the performance of all partnerships against the new
corporate strategy.
2. Designed an online partnership audit and assessment process based upon this new criteria.
3. A link to the online audit and assessment form was then sent to the relevant partnership managers and
store managers with instructions to submit their programs, events or projects.
4. The online form asked for key information (property contract details, expenditure, etc), but also, asked
questions relevant to the new criteria of which the weightings sit behind the question.
5. The recipient filled out the form and submitted the partnership to the PerforMind database. An
automated notification of a new record was then sent to HQ.
PerforMind Audit Example; European based Retailer

2. 6. Sponsorium project managed this process, advised on the form design and content and provided local
support to those who needed help with form filling.
7. The audit was given a deadline for all submissions to be made, after which all partnership records were
centralised in a consistent format.
8. PerforMind then generated automatic summary reports on every partnership and a custom macro report
on issues such as number and type of partnerships by sector, region, date, length, expiry date, expenditure
(in cash and value in kind).
9. PerforMind had also automatically assessed each partnership on three dimensions – score (against
weighted criteria) – cost per point (dividing score by budget), and a grid comparing each partnership to the
average.
10.With all partnerships centralised the next step was to use PerforMind as an approval process for renewals
and any future partnership deals. The evaluation process also ensured that all new partnerships were
aligned to the corporate objectives and the scoring and cost per point system was used to help negotiate
deals.
11.Now PerforMind provides the process, transparency and governance for all future decision making and
expenditure.

3. Result:
• The entire portfolio was ranked in accordance to the brand’s partnership & corporate objectives
• The brand team and management received objective information as to how the existing portfolio (and
properties) could be improved to meet business objectives via either/ or rights enhancement, fee
negotiation or property removal.
• The re-balanced and prioritised portfolio was then more aligned with the objectives and requirements of
the brand and organisation.
• Local partnership and store managers engaged the process and found the results fed back to them helpful
in terms of assessing new proposals.

4. • The overall portfolio rights expenditure decreased by 60%, with both rights fees and leverage costs either
placed back into the marcomms budget to optimise key properties or accrued with overall budget. The rights of
the existing (new) portfolio now improved its delivery of the Return on Objectives (ROO) by 40%
• The company also aligned their buying model on the Cost Per Point. Whereas previously their sponsorships
ranged from 500 to 150 Cost Per Point they now work off a lower average of 100 Cost Per Point and have
introduced this as a Group policy.
pts
1000 ● ●
● ●
800 ● ● ●
● ●
600 ● ●
● ●
400 ● ●
200
0 €/pt
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
pts
1000
800 ●
● ● ● ●
600 ● ●
400 ● ● ● ●
● ● ●
200 ● ●
● ●
0 €/pt
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Portfolio Pre Audit Portfolio Post Audit