| Course | MT243 Sport Sponsorships and Sales |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 9 |
| Paper type | Measurement and reporting plan |
| 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 9
Counting Rules Before the First Run: A Unit 9 Measurement and Reporting Plan for a Credit Union's Marathon Year
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT243: Sport Sponsorships and Sales
Unit 9 Measurement and Reporting Plan
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The Harbor Point Marathon Weekend, Meridian Lakes Credit Union and every target, rule and date are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.
Why Agree Now
Sponsorships often end in arguments about numbers neither side defined at the start. Crompton (2004) describes how sponsors and properties measure different things, the property counting exposure and the sponsor looking for changes in behavior, and how the gap makes renewal harder. Farrelly (2010) found that unclear expectations are among the most common causes of sponsorship breakdown. This plan closes both gaps by writing down, before the training season begins, what will be counted, how and by whom.
The plan has two parts. Part one lists what the marathon weekend must deliver. Part two lists the outcomes the credit union will measure. The two are kept separate on purpose: the property controls delivery, while outcomes depend partly on the credit union's own offer and staff.
Part One: Delivery Obligations
The marathon weekend commits to delivering the following, each with a quantity and a make-good if it falls short.
Credit union name on all bibs, start and finish arches and the event title in all materials; make-good: an additional dedicated email
Two dedicated emails to the 39,000 opted-in runners; make-good: a third email
Livestream logo time of at least 1,000 seconds; make-good: an additional dedicated email per 200 seconds short
Eight Saturday group runs listed on the training calendar and promoted in two event emails; make-good: rescheduling within three weeks
A 10 by 20 expo booth near packet pickup; make-good: booth fee credited against next year
The mile 20 cheer zone location with power and permits; make-good: an alternative location of equal visibility
The marathon weekend will report delivery within three weeks of race day, with screenshots, counts and the livestream log.
Part Two: Outcome Measures
The credit union will measure four outcomes.
Attributed new members. The year one target is 1,800. A new member counts only if the account is opened with one of the event codes within sixty days of race day. Each member counts once, under the first code used. Existing members who open a second account are excluded. The credit union's own account system produces the count, and the event receives it by code.
Cost per attributed member. This is the rights fee plus activation spending, divided by attributed members. It will be compared with the credit union's own cost of acquiring a member through digital advertising, a figure only the credit union holds and which it will share in confidence.
Awareness in the branch areas. The credit union's quarterly tracking survey already asks residents which financial institutions they know. The July survey, before most activation, serves as the baseline, and the November survey as the follow-up. The change in the four branch areas will be compared with the change in the rest of the metro, so that general growth in awareness is not credited to the event.
Employee engagement. Volunteer hours logged by credit union employees through the event's volunteer system, against a plan of 120 employees at the cheer zone and expo.
A member counted twice, or an old member counted as new, would make the partnership look better and the renewal harder to trust.
Why These Rules
Each rule closes a gap that would otherwise invite argument. The sixty-day window matches the follow-up email offer, so members who join because of the event are counted while those who join months later for other reasons are not. The one-code rule stops a member who used two codes from counting twice. Excluding existing members keeps the count to the goal the credit union set, new households. And comparing branch areas with the rest of the metro separates the event's effect from the credit union's general advertising.
Reporting Calendar
June: baseline delivery checklist and code list confirmed
July: credit union's baseline awareness survey
Monthly from July to September: group run attendance and codes used
Three weeks after race day: delivery report from the marathon weekend
Sixty-five days after race day: attributed member count by code
November: awareness follow-up survey
December: joint year one report and renewal discussion
Data Handling
The marathon weekend will not receive any member's personal information. The credit union will report attributed members as counts by code and by branch area only. Runners' email addresses collected at the expo station belong to the credit union under the consent runners gave at the station, and the event will not use them. Both sides will keep the measurement data for three years.
Limits
The plan cannot measure everything. Members who saw the bibs or livestream and later joined without a code will not be counted, so attributed members will understate the partnership's full effect. Meenaghan (2001) notes that some sponsorship effects, such as goodwill toward the sponsor, build slowly and show up outside any direct response measure. The awareness survey covers samples of a few hundred residents per area, so small changes may be noise. Both sides accept these limits in advance rather than arguing about them in December.
References
Crompton, J. L. (2004). Conceptualization and alternate operationalizations of the measurement of sponsorship effects in sport. Leisure Studies, 23(3), 267-281. https://doi.org/10.1080/0261436042000183695
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
Meenaghan, T. (2001). Understanding sponsorship effects. Psychology & Marketing, 18(2), 95-122. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6793(200102)18:2<95::AID-MAR1003>3.0.CO;2-H
The Purdue Global MT243 Unit 9 instructions
The ninth unit asks students to write the measurement plan a property and sponsor agree before a partnership begins. The prompt usually expects delivery obligations separated from outcome measures, because the property controls one and not the other. Each obligation needs a quantity and a remedy if missed. Each outcome needs a counting rule precise enough that both sides would get the same number, a baseline and a comparison that separates the sponsorship's effect from other causes. A reporting calendar and data handling rules, who sees what and for how long, are often required. Expect about six pages around a two-part scorecard, citing three or more evaluation sources in APA 7.
How the MT 243 Unit 9 example is put together
The plan explains why rules are set before results exist, citing Crompton on mismatched measures and Farrelly on unclear expectations. Part one lists six delivery obligations with make-goods, marked by a margin note on enforceable promises. Part two sets the four outcomes with their counting rules, baselines and comparisons, and the highlighted line warns what double counting would do to trust. A section explains why each rule exists. A reporting calendar runs from June to the December renewal discussion. Data handling keeps members' details with the credit union, under a second note on privacy, and a limits section with Meenaghan admits that coded counts will understate the full effect.
Where the points sit in the MT243 Unit 9 rubric
Measurement plans earn their marks for separating delivery from outcomes, writing precise counting rules, setting baselines and comparisons, and handling data responsibly. A counting rule precise enough that the sponsor's analyst and the property's coordinator would reach the same total is worth more than a general goal. Graders reward make-goods for missed obligations, since they prevent disputes. Outcome measures score highest when they compare the sponsored area with a control, such as the rest of the metro. A reporting calendar shows when each figure will arrive. Data rules that protect participants' privacy show professionalism. Clear tables, an honest limits section and accurate citations complete the grade. Dating the signatures before the first group run makes plain that neither side can reshape the rules once results arrive.
MT243 Unit 9 help: mistakes that cost points
The most frequent error is mixing delivery and outcomes in one list, so the property is judged on results it cannot control or the sponsor on promises it did not make. Another is a target with no counting rule, which invites argument later. Some plans measure awareness without a baseline or comparison area. Others forget privacy and propose sharing members' personal data with the property. Make sure the attribution window matches the activation offer, so members who answer the last reminder still count. Tell us what the partnership promises and what the sponsor wants, and a writer can draft the scorecard and counting rules before results exist.
Get an MT243 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
A scorecard needs the sponsor's objectives and the property's promised assets, so bring both forward, plus the Unit 9 prompt and rubric. Delivery and outcome measures come back separated, each with a counting rule, a source and a reporting date. Free for a first custom sample, returned inside 24-48h. 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 6: Seminar Reflection
- MT243 Unit 7: Activation Plan
- MT243 Unit 8: Valuation and Pricing Memo
- MT243 Unit 10: Renewal Case
- MT242 Unit 9: Crisis Communication Memo
- MT241 Unit 9: Recruitment Recommendation
- MT240 Unit 9: Global Sport Analysis
- MT237 Unit 9: Disruption Response Plan
MT243 Unit 9 questions, answered
What is the difference between delivery and outcome measures?
Delivery measures confirm the property provided what it sold: placements, sends, seconds on screen, events held. Outcome measures show what the sponsor achieved: members gained, sales, awareness, engagement. Both matter, but only outcomes justify renewal, and a report presenting delivery as results is the commonest weakness in sponsorship reporting.
Who should own the measurement data?
Whoever holds the system that records the outcome. Accounts opened live in the credit union's systems, so it counts them and shares totals. The property reports its own delivery figures. Keeping each party's data with that party avoids privacy problems and removes any suspicion that the property is grading itself.
How are first-year targets set without history?
From the sponsor's own benchmarks and reasonable assumptions, stated openly. The sample derives its 1,800-member target from registrant overlap and an assumed conversion rate, labels it an estimate, and commits to revising it after year one. A target presented as certain with no basis tends to become the argument at renewal.
Where can I find a free MT243 Unit 9 sample paper?
This page carries the full MT243 Unit 9 measurement and reporting plan. It separates a marathon's delivery obligations from a credit union's outcome measures and fixes the counting rules, calendar and data handling for year one.
How are new members counted in the MT243 Unit 9 sample?
Only accounts opened with an event code within sixty days of race day count, each member once under the first code used, and existing members opening a second account are excluded.