The Decision That's Not Really About the Person I watched two major brands walk away from significant sponsorship commitments this week. Pepsi. Diageo. Gone. Not because the maths changed or the audience disappeared, but because the person at the centre of the deal became what everyone calls controversial. Here's what I think: the real question isn't whether the person is controversial. It's whether you can afford to be associated with them when things go sideways. And things do go sideways. When Keir Starmer called the Kanye West booking "deeply concerning", something shifted. The political establishment signalled disapproval. That's not a small thing for a brand. Suddenly, sponsoring the festival wasn't just about music or reach anymore. It was a statement about your values, whether you wanted it to be or not. The Maths Gets Messy Fast I've sat with people running their own thing who've made sponsorship decisions based on clean spreadsheets. Cost per impression. Audience demographic. Brand alignment. All sensible stuff. Then something happens in the news cycle and the maths stops working. The problem is that controversy isn't a fixed variable. It shifts. What seemed manageable six months ago can become radioactive overnight. And by then, you're locked in. Your logo's on their platform. Your name's attached to their story. Pepsi and Diageo had to make a choice: stay quiet and risk customer backlash, or withdraw and lose the sponsorship investment. They chose withdrawal. That costs real money. But they calculated that the reputational cost of staying was higher. I think they were right, but not for the reason most people think. It's Not About Moral Purity Let me be direct: I'm not arguing you should never sponsor anyone with a complicated history or unpopular opinions. That's not the point. People are messy. Beliefs are messy. But there's a difference between someone with controversial views and someone whose personal behaviour becomes a liability to your brand. Kanye West's antisemitic comments aren't a matter of political disagreement. They're the kind of statement that makes customers question what you stand for if you're standing next to him. I've seen this with clients at ALIRA. When you're building something, your brand is one of your few genuinely valuable assets. You can't manufacture it back once it's damaged. A sponsorship deal might bring in £500,000 in audience reach. But if it costs you 3% of your customer base in the long term, that's a terrible trade. The Real Test Here's how I'd actually think about this if you were sitting across from me with a sponsorship opportunity: First, separate the person from the platform. Is the person's behaviour likely to overshadow the event itself? If every news story about the festival leads with the headline about them, not the music or the experience, you've already lost. Second, ask yourself honestly: would I be comfortable explaining this decision to my team, my customers, and my investors if it blew up? Not in a defensive way. Not with a prepared statement. Just... would I feel okay about it? Third, check what your actual customers think, not what you assume they think. I've seen businesses get this wrong by guessing at their audience's values instead of actually finding out. Fourth, consider the exit strategy. Can you get out if the situation deteriorates? Pepsi and Diageo had enough leverage to withdraw. Smaller businesses sponsoring the same event might not have had that option. Volatility Is the New Normal Look at the headlines this week. Oil spiking above $110 after threats to Iran. Markets reacting to geopolitical shifts. Energy traders racing to keep pace with volatile conditions. The business environment itself is unstable. When everything around you is volatile, you can't afford to voluntarily add volatility to your own operation. A sponsorship deal with someone whose behaviour is unpredictable or whose opinions are already polarising? That's voluntarily adding risk. I'm not saying play it safe forever. Safe is boring and it's also how you miss genuine opportunities. But there's a difference between calculated risk and obvious risk. What Actually Matters The sponsorship decision isn't really about the person. It's about whether you can control the narrative around your brand's association with them. With Kanye West and the Wireless Festival, Pepsi and Diageo realised they couldn't. The person became bigger than the platform. The controversy became bigger than the event. That's the moment you know to walk. If you're considering a sponsorship with anyone who's already polarising, the question isn't: are they a good person? It's: can I predict what happens next? And if the answer is no, or if you're hedging, that's your answer. What to do this week Monday morning: If you're currently sponsoring anyone or anything, spend 20 minutes writing down the actual downside scenarios. Not worst-case catastrophising. Real, plausible things that could go wrong. What would trigger you to pull the deal? By Wednesday: Talk to three people who buy from you or use your service. Not a survey. A conversation. Ask them what they'd think if you sponsored X or Y. You'll learn more from their hesitation than their answers. Before Friday: If you're evaluating a sponsorship opportunity right now, use a simple decision matrix. List the financial upside, the audience reach, the brand alignment, and the reputational risk separately. Don't let one category dominate the others. Make yourself see all four.