We’ve been saying for some time now that with the possible exception of a scant few categories, product category exclusivity is for all intensive purposes on life support.
Sure, brands still do shell out for this intangible benefit, ostensibly for the ability to lock out any competitors from leveraging the same intellectual property at the same time.
But in this age of a convergence between sponsorship rights, media rights, digital rights and talent rights, can exclusivity still realistically be achieved? Is it worth the investment?
Now comes word that the latest products from the most cutthroat of competitors, auto manufacturers, are now sharing the very same grounds at many of International Speedway Corporation’s tracks.
It’s not surprising that the auto category, given its struggles of late, would be one of the first to embrace this sort of arrangement at heretofore exclusive events.
The question is whether this is part of a larger trend towards an absence of exclusivity across many of the same product categories that for years fought so mightily to ensure their competitors were nowhere near their sponsored events and venues.
We would suggest that it is, and would not be surprised if the trend continues in other highly competitive categories that have traditionally embraced exclusive partnerships.
In this fractured environment, our feeling is that exclusivity is not worth the price premium being charged unless your brand is in a category that benefits considerably from an exclusive business relationship with the property, such as soft drink category partnerships that deliver exclusive pouring rights at venues and events.
Check out Media Post’s Karl Greenberg’s take on ISC’s new approach in the article below:
ISC Ends Exclusivity at NASCAR Races
No comments:
Post a Comment