How much should a brand owner spend activating its sponsorships?
It is one of the most persistent questions in sponsorship.
And for good reason.
Buying sponsorship rights is only part of the investment. Those rights need to be activated if they are going to connect with audiences, support business and brand objectives, and create value.
A target activation-to-rights ratio helps organizations plan for that reality.
Our 2025 research with the World Federation of Advertisers found that brand owners invest an average of $0.76 in activation for every $1 invested in rights, down slightly from $0.81 in 2023. At the same time, visibility into activation spending has improved, with the proportion of respondents unable to identify their activation investment falling from 41% to 22%.
But an industry average isn’t the answer to how
much your organization should spend.
Because the value of an activation-to-rights ratio isn’t in providing a formula.
It’s in providing a guideline.
The ratio matters
We recommend that brand owners establish activation-to-rights targets.
Without them, organizations can commit significant dollars to sponsorship rights without adequately planning for the investment needed to activate them.
The rights fee is contracted. Activation outside of the deal structure comes later.
Without that discipline, activation can be underfunded for any number of reasons, from budget pressure and competing priorities to simply underestimating what it will take to make the partnership work.
That creates an obvious risk. A brand owner can hold valuable rights without investing enough to realize their potential.
A ratio target puts the total investment required to make a sponsorship work into the conversation from the outset.
That’s an important planning discipline.
But it doesn’t mean every sponsorship should carry the same ratio.
There is no universal ratio
Industry benchmarks provide useful context. They can help organizations compare their approach and assess whether activation is adequately funded.
But a global average reflects different markets, categories, objectives and property types. It can’t tell an individual organization what its ratio should be.
And even within one organization, applying the same ratio to every sponsorship ignores important differences between investments.
Start with geography and property type
Activation economics vary by market. Media, production, labour and experiential costs can differ significantly, as can the ways a sponsorship can be activated.
Property type matters too. A major sports sponsorship, music partnership, community platform or individual athlete can create very different activation opportunities and requirements. Some rights packages include significant media, content or consumer touchpoints. Others require more investment from the brand to create meaningful engagement.
Activation-to-rights targets should reflect these differences, without creating unnecessary complexity.
Then look at the opportunity
Even two properties of the same type, in the same market, may require different levels of activation. Their objectives, rights and opportunities can be very different.
The activation investment should reflect what the brand is trying to accomplish and what it will take to realize the opportunity. That may mean investing above or below the relevant ratio target.
More isn’t inherently better. The ratio should guide the investment decision, not make it.
Guideline, not formula
There is value in knowing that respondents to our research with the World Federation of Advertisers invest an average of $0.76 in activation for every $1 of rights. It provides a useful external reference point.
Your own activation-to-rights targets provide an important planning discipline. But neither should become a formula. Set targets that reflect your markets and property types, then let the individual opportunity determine the investment required.
A ratio should guide the investment conversation, not answer it.
