The truth about chess sponsorship in Canada

[Marc Poulin]

Re: The truth about chess sponsorship in Canada

Your argument is based on a series of false assumptions.

First, the motivations of sponsors are rarely based on prestige. I will reprint a passage of my exposé (the one where you complained about me misinterpreting your words) “Even if we were to accept Mr. Hébert’s argument,i.e. that we can make chess prestigious, if nobody watches, understands or cares,chess has little to offer for this type of sponsorship dollars. Totally different story in Russia, of course." The key drivers of sponsoships are marketing value, cause value, relationship value or community involvement value.


Second, you assume “that a big part of the prestige of the event depends on the money prizes going to the winner”. I beg to differ. Think about the Olympics, no prize money, yet lots of prestige. Prestige may come from the field of competitors but may also come from the prestige of the issuer (ex. Governor General Art prizes) or from the scope of the venue. (ex. You winning the Canadian Championship last year is more prestigious than Mr. Castellanos win in the P.O.M. Québec Élite Championship despite more money at stake in the latter.)

Third, the affirmation that attendance at an event depends LARGELY on the amount of money prizes advertised is also to be disputed. Attendance depends on various other factors such as locations, dates, playing conditions advertising, etc… Also, many well attended tournaments in Quebec do well because they DON’T skew their prize structure towards the top section (ex Championnat Ouvert de la Mauricie). It is true that professional players are influenced by the prizes in their decision to play, but amateurs are not influenced by the top section prizes as they know they will not win any of it. Further, there is no proven correlation between the presence of high level players and participation from the amateurs. The presence of high level players seem to influence only spectator attendance, but the number are so small anyway that it does not influence sponsor decisions . The only case where this does not hold true is if the sponsor is a knowledgeable chess player himself such for the TIM.

In any event, M. Hébert, I can guarantee you that none of the numerous sponsors I was able to enlist ever asked me a thing about prize structure or top player participation. To the contrary, in some cases, I had to explain why we were giving money in prizes. I believe that this is because giving away prizes is associated with professional sport, and that professional sport is more the realm of marketing sponsorship, an area where chess cannot compete. For other type of sponsorship, sponsors feel more comfortable with the ideal of amateur sport as described by Pierre de Coubertin.

[Marc Poulin]

Re: The truth about chess sponsorship in Canada

I would be curious to know what you believe are the duties of the players who benefit from the moneys collected by organizers through sponsorships?
Is helping in the search for sponsors one of them?

[Jean Hébert]

Re: The truth about chess sponsorship in Canada

I would be curious to know what you believe are the duties of the players who benefit from the moneys collected by organizers through sponsorships?

Your question is fairly vague but I will do my best to satisfy your curiosity. All players from top to bottom benefit in different ways from sponsorships. From that point of view they have no individual duty to perform, besides playing. If one or several players directly benefit from that sponsorship (example: paid accomodation, appearance fee, etc.), they sometimes may have extra duties that are agreed upon beforehand. From my experience, there are no problems there and no cause for misunderstanding when things are clearly spelled out in advance.

Is helping in the search for sponsors one of them?

Any player, regardless of his strenght may have useful contacts to share in order to find sponsors. This is not something that is linked to top players. But for this to happen, we first need organizers eager to use and develop these contacts for sponsorship purposes.

Last year I was instrumental in putting together the FQE and one such potential sponsor. I almost regretted it because when the time came to meet that person (after almost a year of waiting for the FQE executive to make a move forward), the FQE representative was too busy playing his "very important" chess game in the C section. Afterwards it was decided that we could more conveniently go forward without the FQE, and as a result I signed a deal with that person (which included some advance payment). The thing is that this person still has a strong will to be involved with different chess projects. However doing them in partnership with the FQE has proven in that case to be too complicated and frustrating.

However in other cases I am delighted to see that you have been much more efficient and successful in enlisting sponsors for our tournaments. Your record speaks for itself and deserves recognition.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: The truth about chess sponsorship in Canada

Your argument is based on a series of false assumptions.

Like the rumours of my death, this is slightly exaggerated.

First, the motivations of sponsors are rarely based on prestige. The key drivers of sponsoships are marketing value, cause value, relationship value or community involvement value.

Are you saying that "prestige" in all its forms is in no way a component of "marketing value" ?

Second, you assume “that a big part of the prestige of the event depends on the money prizes going to the winner”. I beg to differ. Think about the Olympics, no prize money, yet lots of prestige. Prestige may come from the field of competitors but may also come from the prestige of the issuer (ex. Governor General Art prizes) or from the scope of the venue. (ex. You winning the Canadian Championship last year is more prestigious than Mr. Castellanos win in the P.O.M. Québec Élite Championship despite more money at stake in the latter.)

I did not write that "prestige" depended exclusively on prize monies and I fully agree with you that certain events have no prestige at all despite the prizes. Your comparing the Canadian Championship with the "Championnat Élite du Québec" is not quite convincing though. Actually there was more money at stake in the more "prestigious" Canadian championship (first prize 1500$, plus World Cup spot worth about 4000$).

Third, the affirmation that attendance at an event depends LARGELY on the amount of money prizes advertised is also to be disputed. Attendance depends on various other factors such as locations, dates, playing conditions advertising, etc…

You are absolutely right. Many other factors are in play here. Over the years I have written it many times...
But why do you defeat your own argument in the very next sentence:

Also, many well attended tournaments in Quebec do well because they DON’T skew their prize structure towards the top section (ex Championnat Ouvert de la Mauricie).

As you said in your preceeding sentence, there are other factors at play here... :) And it is I believe the ONLY example to give, and one that has suffered a great drop in attendance this year... despite their skewing of their prize structure towards the lower sections made of players who should be especially concerned about the Pierre de Coubertin spirit.

Further, there is no proven correlation between the presence of high level players and participation from the amateurs.

Amateurs like to play in "big" or/and "important" events. They like crowds and also the chance to meet and share their passion along some chess "stars". Proving or disproving correlation between this and attendance is a tricky business and one that is not necessarily needed. For example, all tournaments advertised in HPE (Tournois semi-rapides d'Ahuntsic, Ch. ouvert de Montmagny, Ch. ouvert de Saguenay) seems to be very successful. The question then is: are they successful because they are advertized in HPE or are they advertized in HPE because they have excellent organizers who understand that to be successful you sometimes need to go out of the usual ways ? :)

In any event, M. Hébert, I can guarantee you that none of the numerous sponsors I was able to enlist ever asked me a thing about prize structure or top player participation. To the contrary, in some cases, I had to explain why we were giving money in prizes.

It is perfectly normal that you have some explaining to do on the nature of chess: you are dealing with potential sponsors not chess players. By the way I would be curious to know your ways of explaining why we are giving prize monies in chess tournaments. Maybe this is an area where i could help.:)

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Giving money in prizes

[I]n some cases, I had to explain why we were giving money in prizes. I believe that this is because giving away prizes is associated with professional sport, and that professional sport is more the realm of marketing sponsorship, an area where chess cannot compete. For other type of sponsorship, sponsors feel more comfortable with the ideal of amateur sport as described by Pierre de Coubertin.

It would be interesting to know if there is any convincing argument to explain that to non-marketing sponsors without arguing from habit (what chess players do) or from profit (what some or most chess players want).