I get a sponsorship or partnership pitch most weeks. Some come through LinkedIn, some through WhatsApp, most through someone who knows someone. After enough of these you develop a fairly quick filter, and I think it is worth writing down because most of what gets pitched to me makes the same mistake.
The mistake: leading with exposure
Almost every pitch leads with reach. Impressions, footfall, eyeballs, brand visibility. None of that is wrong exactly, but it is the wrong opening argument, because exposure on its own does not tell me anything about whether this partnership will actually produce a result for either side. I have sat through pitches with genuinely impressive numbers attached that I still turned down, because nobody had thought past the number to what it was supposed to do.
The pitches that get a yes from me do not open with reach. They open with a specific outcome, and reach shows up later as one of the ways to get there.
What I actually ask
The first question I ask myself with any pitch is simple. What does success look like in six months, and is that outcome something both sides can measure without an argument about it. If the answer is vague, the partnership will be vague, and vague partnerships are the ones that quietly die around month four when nobody can agree whether it worked.
The second question is about structure. I am much more interested in a partnership built around performance than one built around a flat fee. A flat sponsorship paid up front with no connection to what actually happens is a transaction, not a partnership, and transactions do not compound. A commitment tied to bookings, to events delivered, to members referred, does compound, because both sides have a reason to keep showing up for each other rather than just cashing the check and moving on.
That is the model I default to now. A modest commitment attached to a specific number of bookings or events, rather than a lump sum for a logo on a wall. It means less money changes hands on day one, and it means the partnerships that do get built tend to actually last, because the incentive to make them work is built into the structure rather than bolted on afterward.
The part most people skip: capacity
The third question is the one most people forget to ask themselves, which is whether you actually have the team and the calendar to deliver on what you are agreeing to. I have said yes to things I should have scaled back, and I have had to go back to a partner mid commitment and be honest that the full version was not realistic that quarter given what else was happening. That conversation is never comfortable. It is far better than quietly under delivering and hoping nobody notices.
Saying a smaller yes, clearly and early, protects the relationship far better than an enthusiastic yes you cannot fully back up. The partners worth keeping are the ones who respect that answer. The ones who do not were never going to be a good long term partner regardless.
The filter, in short
Lead with an outcome, not a number. Structure it around performance rather than a flat fee wherever you can. And be honest with yourself about capacity before you say yes, not after.
Most pitches fail one of those three tests. The good ones tend to pass all three without me having to ask twice.
