How the Sanlam Cape Town Marathon cancellation tested brand empathy

Matthew Nkala of Catalyst Africa

I’ve been reflecting on the Sanlam Cape Town Marathon - not as a spectator, but with my PR hat on.

Few moments test the bond between brand and audience like a public disappointment. When a title sponsor’s name is on the finish line, the disappointment runs straight to their logo.

The 2025 Sanlam Cape Town Marathon was cancelled at the 11th hour due to dangerous winds. The first communication from organisers was a statement about the no-refund policy, while Sanlam, the title sponsor, stayed silent before later offering free entries for 2025 and 2026.

It was a well-intentioned gesture, but one that arrived too late to match the athlete emotions. The event’s failure wasn’t just logistical - it exposed how sponsorship has evolved from a marketing tactic into a test of empathy, timing, and authenticity.

Brand association is instant

When your logo sits on the start line, you don’t just share visibility - you share accountability.

Audiences don’t separate organisers from sponsors. To them, it’s one experience, one story. And when that story breaks down, the brand becomes the most visible character in the failure.

For Sanlam, a company rooted in assurance, reliability, and financial security, that association carried a deeper irony. The event that should have represented endurance and stability suddenly became a story about disruption and uncertainty. That emotional contradiction is where sponsorships often unravel.

Tourism

Cape Town Marathon cancellation hits tourism, costs millions

22 Oct 2025

Emotion economy of sponsorships

Most brands sponsor based on demographics - aligning with audiences who match their customer profile.Real alignment happens when a brand understands and responds to its audience’s emotional tension.

Tension for athletes was clear: months of training, travel, and anticipation ending in a moment of helplessness. For Sanlam, the tension is familiar - it mirrors the anxiety their customers feel when filing an insurance claim after a crisis.

In both situations, people are vulnerable, confused, and looking for reassurance. And just like in insurance, the difference between loyalty and frustration lies in how quickly and empathetically the response arrives.

Empathy in sponsorships isn’t about saying the right thing. It’s about moving at the same emotional pace as the audience. The athletes’ emotion was instant - disbelief, frustration, loss. The brand’s response was delayed - thoughtful, but procedural. By the time Sanlam offered goodwill entries, the emotional window had closed.

A global parallel: Budweiser at the Fifa World Cup

This isn’t a uniquely South African story. In 2022, Budweiser’s sponsorship of the Fifa World Cup in Qatar collided with local cultural realities. Two days before kick-off, the Qatari government banned alcohol sales in stadiums - directly contradicting Budweiser’s entire event strategy.

The brand was blindsided but responded with humour and speed: “Well, this is awkward…” they tweeted, before pivoting by donating leftover beer to the winning country.

The lesson?

Budweiser couldn’t control the decision, but it controlled the tone and timing of its response. Quick humour replaced outrage, and the brand came out admired for agility rather than criticised for misalignment. That’s what emotional sync looks like on a global stage.

ESG

Cancelled Cape Town Marathon leads Woolworths to donate food surplus

20 Oct 2025

From logo sponsor to trust sponsor

Sponsorships often begin as logo placement - visibility, impressions, reach. Brands that stand out move from being logo sponsors to trust sponsors. They step into the emotional space of the audience, not just the media space of the event.Trust isn’t built on exposure - it’s built on authenticity.

The real test of partnership is how a brand behaves when things go wrong. Nike stood by Tiger Woods through years of public scrutiny - because that relationship was built on shared belief, not seasonal convenience.

In contrast, when Bafana Bafana struggled, Adidas seemingly pulled out. Now, with qualification for AFCON and the World Cup, they’re back.

If sponsorships are truly partnerships, shouldn’t they weather both the applause and the silence?

A trust sponsor knows that when emotions peak, silence feels like abandonment. They act with empathy first, logic second.

That’s the difference between “We apologise for the inconvenience” and “We know what this means to you.”

Here’s how sponsors can build that readiness:

1. Build empathy into contracts: Include joint crisis communication clauses. Decide who speaks, when, and how.
   
2. Run empathy simulations: Test emotional scenarios, not just operational ones. What if the event fails? What will the brand say in the first hour?
   
3. Create a 24-hour empathy protocol: Respond within hours, not days, with care before explanation.
   
4. Prepare fallback activations: Pre-plan digital or community initiatives that sustain goodwill if the main event collapses.
   
5. Train brand spokespeople in emotional timing: PR statements written by committee don’t build trust. Human, empathetic voices do.
   

How event organisers can protect sponsor equity

Event owners also carry responsibility. The sponsor’s name becomes a shield or a target depending on how the organiser handles communication.

Organisers should:

1. Involve sponsors in crisis planning.
   
2. Avoid leading with transactional messages.
   
3. Rehearse joint messaging for unexpected disruptions.
   
4. Provide sponsors with approved, empathetic updates for their own channels.
   

Events sponsor reputation and that must be managed as carefully as safety plans. But even with all the preparation we are never in full control.

PR & Communications

Crisis communications: Lessons from the Cape Town Marathon

Regine le Roux  20 Oct 2025

The third partner in every sponsorship

We often speak about sponsorships as contracts between brands and organisers, but there’s a third partner - the audience. Audiences have a responsibility to recognise that sponsorships are partnerships built on shared risk.

When a race is cancelled or an event falters, disappointment is natural, but outrage often assumes brands have total control.

The truth is, sponsorships are human collaborations: organisers manage logistics, sponsors amplify experience, and audiences invest emotion.

Yet in today’s landscape, audience response is often shaped by the reflex of cancel culture. It’s become trendy to withdraw support or condemn a brand after a single, often unforeseen incident. But not every setback reflects neglect or bad intent.

Empathy can’t just be demanded from sponsors; it must also be extended by audiences - the willingness to pause, to contextualise, and to see good faith even when outcomes disappoint.

If brands are expected to act with emotional intelligence, audiences must respond with emotional maturity. Perhaps the next evolution of sponsorship maturity is not only brand authenticity but also audience reciprocity - where participation includes understanding and disappointment meets dialogue instead of blame.

The real lesson

The Sanlam Cape Town Marathon didn’t just test endurance on the road - it tested the endurance of brand empathy. Athletes didn’t want refunds. They wanted recognition of effort and reassurance from the brand they associate with protection.

The irony is Sanlam, an insurer of life’s uncertainties, missed the chance to insure its own brand trust by responding too slowly to the emotional reality of the moment.

Sponsorship isn’t about visibility anymore. It’s about emotional synchrony, the willingness to show up even when things go wrong. And for everyone involved - brands, organisers, and athletes - perhaps the next finish line isn’t a race. It’s shared responsibility.