| Course | MT243 Sport Sponsorships and Sales |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Seminar reflection |
| Length | About 880 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MT243 Unit 6
One Season on a Hockey Jersey: A Unit 6 Seminar Reflection on Whose Fault a Failed Sponsorship Was
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT243: Sport Sponsorships and Sales
Unit 6 Seminar Reflection
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The hockey club, the home-warranty company, the marathon weekend and the bank are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.
The Case
Our seminar studied a composite minor league hockey club that sold a jersey patch to a regional home-warranty company. The three-year agreement, signed in spring, put the company's logo on the shoulder of every home and away jersey. The contract listed the patch, some arena signage and a set number of social media posts. It did not list any objectives. After the last home game of year one, the club sent the company a recap showing how many people had seen the logo in the arena, on the broadcast and online. A month later the company sent a termination letter, using a clause that allowed it to exit after one year, and gave its reason in one line: no measurable results.
Where I Started
My view at the start was simple. The company had bought a logo and then done nothing with it. It ran no promotions at games, offered nothing to fans and never explained what it wanted. A sponsor that does not activate wastes its own money, and that seemed to be what happened. I said so early in the session, and several classmates agreed. It matched what I had read in Mullin et al. (2014), who stress that sponsors must invest in activating a deal beyond the rights fee, and I took that to mean the failure was the sponsor's alone.
The Turn in the Session
Our instructor asked us to read the contract again and find where the club had asked the company what it wanted. There was no such place. Then she asked us to read the recap and find any figure the company could have used to judge the deal by its own standards. Impressions were the only measure, and the company had never said impressions were its goal.
A classmate, Rosa, who works in marketing for a home services firm, said that a home-warranty company usually wants sales leads, homeowners who request a quote, and that a count of people who saw a shoulder patch would mean almost nothing to her own company's executives. She asked whether the club had ever offered a way for fans to request a quote, a code or a form at the arena. It had not.
The reading for the week was Farrelly (2010), who studied why sport sponsorship relationships break down. He found that many endings trace back to expectations that were never agreed and to a property that stopped engaging with its partner once the contract was signed. The hockey case matched both. The club had sold a patch, delivered a patch and reported on the patch, without ever asking whether the patch did anything for the company.
The sponsor never said what it wanted, and the club never asked.
What I Now Think About the Hockey Case
The company did share the blame. It signed a contract with no objectives and did not activate. But the club was the party with experience in sponsorship and the one that would need to renew the deal, so it had the stronger reason to set objectives and measures at the start. A property that reports only what it delivered, and not what the sponsor gained, leaves the sponsor to judge the deal on instinct, and instinct rarely renews.
Jensen and Cornwell (2017) found that sponsorships are more likely to end when the sponsor's internal situation changes, such as new leadership, and when the relationship lacks the kind of shared planning that would carry it through such changes. If the warranty company had changed its marketing director, nothing in the deal would have explained its value to the new one.
Applying It to My Own Work
The seminar made me look again at our marathon's former title sponsor, a regional bank that left after a merger. I have always said the bank left because of bad luck: the larger bank that bought it already sponsored another marathon. That is true. But when I went back to our files, I found that our end-of-year reports to the bank, like the hockey club's recap, listed impressions, bib counts and livestream minutes. We never reported how many runners opened accounts, because we never agreed with the bank to count them. When the merger came, the new bank's marketing team had no evidence that our event did anything for the old bank, so there was nothing to weigh against their existing marathon.
What I Will Do Differently
With our new prospect, the credit union, I plan to agree the measures before signing: new members counted by an event code within sixty days, awareness measured in the credit union's own survey, and a delivery list we report against. I will also schedule monthly check-ins through the year, not only a recap at the end. The bank's departure may still have been unavoidable, but the next sponsor will have a record of results that a new marketing director could read.
References
Farrelly, F. (2010). Not playing the game: Why sport sponsorship relationships break down. Journal of Sport Management, 24(3), 319-337. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.24.3.319
Jensen, J. A., & Cornwell, T. B. (2017). Why do marketing relationships end? Findings from an integrated model of sport sponsorship decision-making. Journal of Sport Management, 31(4), 401-418. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2016-0232
Mullin, B. J., Hardy, S., & Sutton, W. A. (2014). Sport marketing (4th ed.). Human Kinetics.
Reading the MT 243 Unit 6 instructions
Unit 6's seminar discusses a sponsorship that failed or ended early, and the reflection asks what you believed going in, what the discussion changed and how you would apply the lesson. The prompt usually expects the reading for the week to be applied to the case and then to a property you know, often your workplace or one you have studied. Record the specific point or question that shifted your view, and identify the classmate who raised it by first name only. Write in the first person but cite the reading and at least one other source in APA 7. Students who missed the live session may submit the written alternative, which usually requires the same three parts. About two to three pages, roughly a thousand words, is typical.
How the MT 243 Unit 6 example is put together
The reflection opens with the hockey case: the patch, the contract's missing objectives, the impressions recap and the one-line termination. The writer's first verdict is stated plainly, backed by Mullin and colleagues on activation spending. The turn comes when the instructor asks where the club asked what the sponsor wanted, and Rosa asks about quote requests; a margin note marks her question. Farrelly's findings on unagreed expectations and disengaged properties are applied, and the highlighted line says neither side spoke. A section shares the blame, adding Jensen and Cornwell on internal sponsor changes. The writer then tests the lesson on the marathon's former bank, marked by a second note, and closes with measures agreed before signing and monthly check-ins.
Where the points sit in the MT243 Unit 6 rubric
Seminar reflections in MT 243 are marked on an honest starting position, the evidence that tested it, application of the week's reading and transfer to a new case. Credit rises when the reflection names a specific question or document from the session. Applying Farrelly or a similar reading to the case, with its findings stated accurately, shows understanding. Graders give top marks when the lesson is tested on a second case the writer knows, here the former title sponsor. A closing commitment to a concrete change in practice proves the session mattered. The voice is first person throughout, yet the reading and any other source still need full APA references. Staying near the expected length, without retelling the whole case, also helps.
Common MT243 Unit 6 mistakes, and how to avoid them
A common weakness is a reflection that summarizes the case and the reading but never says what the writer thought. Another is switching blame entirely from sponsor to property, which is as one-sided as the starting view. Some students apply the reading only to the case discussed and skip the transfer to their own work. Others close with general resolutions, such as communicating better, rather than specific changes. Use first names for classmates. If your seminar discussed a different failed deal, describe it to us with the week's reading, and a writer can draft the starting view, the turn and the application to your own property.
Get an MT243 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
Which sponsorship did your seminar pull apart, and where did you first put the blame? Brief notes on the case and on what shifted your view will do; so will whatever you wrote for the non-live option. Include the Unit 6 prompt and rubric. A first reflection costs nothing and returns in 24-48h, every organization kept composite. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More MT243 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT243 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- MT243 Unit 2: Asset Inventory
- MT243 Unit 3: Prospect Research Brief
- MT243 Unit 4: Audience Profile
- MT243 Unit 5: Sponsorship Proposal
- MT243 Unit 7: Activation Plan
- MT243 Unit 8: Valuation and Pricing Memo
- MT243 Unit 9: Measurement and Reporting Plan
- MT243 Unit 10: Renewal Case
- MT242 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- MT241 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- MT240 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- MT237 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
MT243 Unit 6 questions, answered
What if the failed sponsorship we discussed was a famous real one?
Real cases work well, provided the reflection sticks to what was publicly reported and attributes it. Speculating about private negotiations or motives turns analysis into gossip. The sample uses a composite case so it can describe documents freely, but a reflection on a real deal can do the same with reported facts and a clear line between them and inference.
How much should the reflection cite the reading?
Enough to name the mechanism, usually one or two sources applied closely. The sample leans on a single study of why sport sponsorships break down and uses it to explain specific moments in the case. Several sources mentioned in passing tend to earn less than one that actually changes how the case is read.
Does the application have to involve my own workplace?
Not necessarily, but it helps. Any sponsorship the writer knows well, a school team, an employer's community program, a race entered, can carry the application. What matters is a concrete change proposed for a real relationship, rather than a general lesson that sponsors and properties should talk more.
Where can I find a free MT243 Unit 6 sample paper?
You can read the complete MT243 Unit 6 seminar reflection here. It follows a partnership coordinator who blamed a hockey club's departing sponsor, then turned the lesson on her own marathon's former title bank.
Who does the MT243 Unit 6 sample finally hold responsible?
Both sides, but mainly the hockey club. The sponsor signed without objectives, yet the club had the experience and the reason to renew, and it never asked what the sponsor needed or reported anything beyond impressions.