KBBL

KBBL
Team Members Elliott Wilson (The Flinders University of South Australia)Kynan Rogers (The Flinders University of South Australia)Fiona Zuiderduin (The Flinders University of South Australia)
  • View the submission

Synopsis


This submission outlines models which will allow Cancer Council Australia (CCA) to effectively evaluate licensing and cause related marketing (CRM) partnerships with third parties. It highlights criteria for the assessment of the third party’s financial viability, quality assurance requirements, and brand alignment. It also devises an assurance program which ensures certainty and security for the amount of royalty’s receivable by CCA, while minimising risk to the reputation of CCA.

A. Financial Viability
The first requirement to assessing the suitability of proposals from third parties is to consider whether they will be able to meet the reasonably foreseeable obligations which will arise under the licence or CRM contacts.
Liquidity – Cause Related Marketing (CRM) Campaigns
Financial Stability – Licences

B. Quality Assurance
To ensure quality over the products or services being endorsed or associated with, it is essential that CCA include quality related standards which are incorporated into the terms of the contract.
Benchmarking against best practice companies

C. Brand Alignment
An essential term of the licensing or CRM contract must specify that the grant of a licence or CRM campaign is not transferrable without CCA’s consent. Any material change to the product or brand will constitute breach of this term.

Assurance program
Assuring consistency and certainty in royalty payments can be difficult to achieve, especially during an economic downturn. In order to guarantee royalty payments over the long-term, it is vital that CCA provides flexibility and consistency in its approach to partners.

A. Reduced Rate Payments
These reduced royalty rates would be payable for a predetermined period (subject to review once the period extinguished), and the amounts remaining unpaid would accrue at a nominal interest rate.
1 .Benefit – minimise risk of damage to CCA’s reputation
2. Benefit – increased awareness, sales and royalties

B. Securitizing Licensing
It is also possible for CCA to capitalize its rights through securitization. This involves a bond-like instrument being created once the IP has been licensed to a third party. This instrument itself can then be financed or sold for cash, meaning that CCA has effectively swapped the future royalties for a lump sum.

C. Contractual Terms - Liquidated Damages
These clauses ensure that predetermined damages can be claimed if two conditions are met:
First, the amount of damages must be an approximate estimation of the damages which CCA is likely to suffer, and;
Secondly, the damages must be sufficiently certain.

View the Submission

Comments

  • Good luck with your self voting. Just a minute ago your votes were 383 and a minute late later its 402. Funny isnt it?

    By Sheenal on April 16 2009, 3:56 PM

  • oh a few mins later and you guys are on 435!

    By Sheenal on April 16 2009, 4:02 PM

  • Wow, how cynical. Any jump in numbers could easily be explained by the very buggy system that has been used for this entire competition. Technical support have been great about it and very responsive, but there have been problems. I'd love to hear some genuine criticism of my team's submission.

    By Kynan on April 16 2009, 4:46 PM

  • Ouch. I'd really like it if people would refrain from making what are, in reality, some pretty low and base allegations. Again, as Kynan has said, any genuine criticism is welcomed. We have all been surprised to have received so many votes and views but so little feedback. If anything, I suppose we could take it as evidence that people with positive experiences are least likely to comment, and people with unfounded and mean allegations are most likely to comment!

    By Elliott on April 16 2009, 4:53 PM

  • Actually, after finding out to what team Sheenal belongs, I have discovered what is 'funny': for those who might be interested, Sheenal is in the team directly behind ours in number of votes. I really do think it is not in the spirit of the competition to groundlessly accuse your closest competitor of voting for themselves. Again, if Sheenal has any real feedback, my team members and I should only be too happy to hear it.

    By Kynan on April 16 2009, 5:54 PM

  • Winning the $1000 STA travel voucher would niether make our team members richer nor is it enough to cover the expenses for where ever we would like to travel. I personally am in love with the report done by the team Assurance Associates Australia and am biased to believe that they should win. I am right to be biased as this is a voting system and forces us to choose one team over the other. Nevertheless, if your team wishes to term my allegations as low, then you may rightfully do so as it is quite apparent that you have been deeply affected by my comments. However, it is still quite funny to me that before my comments, there was an "exponential growth" in your votes, and shortly afterwards it almost stopped. Did the "buggy voting system" just decide to stop voting for you guys after reading my comments?

    By Sheenal on April 16 2009, 6:11 PM

  • Oh and for your information and "others who might be interested", it is the "The Proffessionals" who are in second place after you.

    By Sheenal on April 16 2009, 6:15 PM

  • But this is our point entirely: at the time the above was written your team was indeed second behind mine. However, since then things have changed quite a bit and the Professionals' votes have also increased dramatically. I do not suggest they are voting for themselves but rather that the 'buggy system' seems to allocate blocks in chunks and blocks at odd times. I do not know the whys or wherefores of all this, but I am sure there is a reason, likely related to the other bugs most teams experience in submitting their documents, as did yours. Anyway, we all wish your team the best of luck with your entry and we have enjoyed reading your submission.

    By Kynan on April 16 2009, 7:57 PM

  • The Professionals were in first place when I checked at around 1.30pm today, and we didnt beat them at anytime after that. Anyway, thanks and all the best for submissions as well.

    By Sheenal on April 16 2009, 8:11 PM