Purpose washing is not a buzzword - it is a business risk

And Danish consumers know it.

Here is a number that should give pause in any sponsorship strategy discussion:

55 per cent of Danish consumers believe that sponsorships are primarily about making companies look better.

That is not a small, sceptical minority. It is more than half the population you are trying to impress with your logo on a jersey, your name in a cultural programme's sponsor credits, or your brand alongside a social cause.

This is one of the key findings from a new study on Danish attitudes towards sponsorships, conducted by Gersdorff Research in autumn 2025 among 1,500 representative Danish adults. And it is, with all due respect, a wake-up call for the entire industry.

"55% of Danish consumers believe sponsorships are primarily about companies wanting to look better."

What is purpose washing - and why does it matter now?

Purpose washing is when a brand markets itself on values, purpose, or social responsibility, but where actions and investments fail to match the message. The concept is not new. But the problem is growing.

A decade ago, it was enough to have a worthy cause in your communications. Today, consumers are far more sophisticated. They have grown up with marketing. They are familiar with greenwashing scandals, with PR stunts dressed up as philanthropy, and with companies that put a logo on a Pride parade and do nothing else.

The result? Scepticism has become the default setting.

And that scepticism has a cost. Not only in public perception - but in business performance.

From goodwill to action - the gap is wider than most realise

The study reveals a clear effect funnel in how sponsorships influence Danish consumers:

75 per cent broadly agree that sponsorships are a good way for companies to support society. 68 per cent have a positive attitude towards companies that sponsor. But when we reach the point where consumers have actually chosen a brand or purchased a product because of a sponsorship, we are down to 28 per cent.

That is a 47 percentage point gap between sympathy and action.

That number tells an important story: sponsorships are excellent at building goodwill. But goodwill is not business. And the bridge that should connect the two - relevance, activation, authenticity - is far too often left unbuilt.

"Goodwill is not business. The bridge between them requires relevance, activation and authenticity."

What separates brands that earn trust from those that lose it?

The study points to three factors that determine whether a sponsorship creates genuine brand value - or simply becomes another exposure consumers scroll past:

Relevance.  51 per cent develop a more positive impression of a company when the sponsorship aligns with something they personally care about. Brands that choose sponsorships strategically - because they genuinely fit what the company stands for and what its customers value - win. Those waiting for the cheapest available opportunity within a broadly appropriate category lose ground.

Authenticity.  37 per cent say they have greater trust in companies that support social or cultural causes. But this requires the support to be genuine. Consumers reward brands that demonstrate the impact of their contribution: "We have funded 500 youth training sessions" is far more powerful than "We are proud sponsors of..."

Activation.  28 per cent have taken action because of a sponsorship. That is not an impressive number - but it is not a ceiling either. It is the consequence of most sponsorships still being largely passive logo exposure. The brands that activate sponsorships creatively and invite consumers in as participants are the ones that move the bottom of the funnel.

The strategic implication

Sponsorships are not in crisis. The outdated model is.

The model that sells logo placements and measures success in reach and impressions is increasingly out of step with what consumers actually respond to. They do not want to see yet another brand putting its name on something. They want to see whether that brand actually means it.

For brands and rights holders who understand this distinction, there is a real structural advantage to be captured. While competitors spend sponsorship budgets on exposure, you can build trust. And trust - as the data clearly shows - is the step that creates consumers who act.

---

The study 'Danish Attitudes Towards Sponsorships' was conducted by Gersdorff Research between 7-23 April 2025 among 1,500 representative Danish adults (16+ years).

Want to know more about how Staircase Consulting works with sponsorship strategy, activation and commercial partnerships? Get in touch.