In the last couple of weeks there's been something approaching mass hysteria at the Department of Health's announcement that NHS hospitals can seek sponsors and advertise in the fight to attract patients.
From the April 1, under the Patient Choice initiative, anybody who needs a non-emergency operation in England can choose any NHS approved hospital in which to have it. Until now, choice has been limited to local hospitals, foundation trusts and independent treatment centres.
Under this new 'free-market style patients charter' popular hospitals hope to attract new patients and benefit from an increase in per capita revenues. Under these new rules, NHS Trusts will be able to advertise directly to patients, as well as be allowed to secure commercial sponsorship.
So far, so good?
Well, actually the Mandarins in Whitehall have a peculiar view as to the nature of "sponsorship". One was quoted as saying: "The NHS brand is very powerful and we are not going to let any commercial activity damage that. It's too important to the public."
This has led some commentators to conclude that the new rules, which also includes details on how the NHS logo can be used, precludes brand owners being able to gain "commercial advantage" from any sponsorship deal.
So Durex can't sponsor -- even if it wanted to -- a sexual health campaign jointly with a NHS venereal disease clinic in order to increase the sale of its condoms. And the local Virgin Active can't sponsor a health check and solicit for new gym members at an NHS Trust.
And there was further grumbling in the corridors at Whitehall about the level of expenditure that NHS providers could apply in the promotion of their services, "recognising the disproportionate level of expenditure of promotional activity on the reputation of the NHS", etc, etc.
You get the picture. Well, in this parallel universe you have to ask yourself why on earth would any brand owner want to enter into any such sponsorship arrangement unless there was a compelling commercial case for it?
According to the European Sponsorship Association, sponsorship is defined as:
"Any commercial agreement by which a sponsor, for the mutual benefit of the sponsor and sponsored party, contractually provides financing or other support in order to establish an association between the sponsor's image, brands or products and a sponsorship property in return for rights to promote this association and/or for the granting of certain agreed direct or indirect benefits."
That's pretty straight forward, isn't it? Provided all the appropriate safeguards are in place -- you couldn't have a tobacco company sponsoring a cancer clinic for example -- most sponsorships are actually ethical, sensible and don't break the boundaries of good taste or plain common sense.
The simple fact is that if they did, they would fail! Sponsorship in the classroom is a case in point -- it can work extremely well -- so why not in the NHS?
There are plenty of highly experienced practitioners that could advise how best this can be achieved and there's a wealth of experience to help create a viable new market for sponsorship that could help to generate millions in new funds in the NHS that could go towards improving palliative care, for example.
It beggars belief that the new rules which purport to provide an opportunity for this type of commercial activity appear to be so narrowly interpreted from the outset.
All successful sponsorship programmes share two important things in common -- a focus on a return on objectives and a return on investment. Without this, the so called "sponsorship" deal isn't worth the paper it's written on.
Perhaps there's just enough time for the Mandarins to brush up on their understanding of how sponsorship works rather than suffer the ignominy of being an "April Fool" when the new rules take effect on 1st April.
Ardi Kolah is a renowned international brand marketing and sponsorship consultant, author and speaker. His new book, 'Sponsorship Works - A Brand Marketer's Casebook' is available from Sport Business (), price £149.