Has it? I'm not in marketing so I really don't know, but I think people (even corporations!) do a lot of things based on assumptions that might not be accurate. I assume that getting your product out there and increasing brand recognition are good and important things for a company. Makes sense that you won't sell much of thing X if people don't know about it. So in that sense, people seeing "Sam Adams" every time they watch a Sox game could help with brand recognition.
As someone who has worked in marketing for 30 years - 8 of which were in the specialty beer industry (I ran marketing for a specialty importer in the US for 3 years and then became a consultant to a number of different brewers for the next 5) - I'm happy to provide my .02.
To a great extent - even now, after the industry has been turned upside down by the craft brewing explosion - beer industry marketing is psychological marketing. In a macro sense, you need to be able to accurately identify your target (It's shocking how many beer marketers get this critical step wrong) identify the brand attributes that can/are likely to create an alignment with that consumer. Then execute a communications plan that both delivers impressions and communicates brand values in a compelling, memorable fashion. Within this larger construct, strategic alliances (such as an alliance with the Red Sox) can be very effective. But to be clear, an alliance like this is an element within a plan rather than a substitute for an overall marketing plan. I should add that it's very helpful if your product can deliver in terms of being something people like. In my experience, Sam Adams does deliver, so this is a plus.
But I don't know that it actually does or will lead to more sales. What if the Sox stink? Will that leave a sufficiently bad enough taste (sorry) that people won't drink Sam Adams because of it? Companies certainly pull our of sponsorships with entities or individuals when controversies and scandals arise (State of North Carolina, Tiger Woods, etc.).
Anyway, just random thoughts. Not trying to derail the thread here...
For reasons that will bore everyone to tears (so I won't go into them here) I don't see how an alliance with the Sox can hurt Sam Adams in the sense that people will make a conscious decision not to purchase because of the affiliation. However, that's not the same as saying that it's an optimal use of marketing funds. And if the Sox are suddenly awful for the duration of the contract, that's a big miss for Sam Adams in terms of opportunity cost. Because I'm assuming the contract is not cheap, and Sam Adams isn't Budweiser, where a sponsorship like this would be a rounding error.
However, if the Sox continue to be relevant and Boston Beer Company/Sam Adams is able to effectively reinforce their New England roots in a way that is charming and appealing rather than off-putting to non-New Englanders, this will probably be a solid marketing play for them. But there are clearly risks.
I will admit that I'm kind of torn about the entire thing, because I love the Sox, yet have nothing but contempt for Jim Koch on a personal level. (Public forum, so that's all I'll say.)
