From logos to learning: rethinking sponsorship in hospitality education competitions

Restokisat is the national skills competition for hospitality management (restonomi) students at Finnish universities of applied sciences. As Haaga-Helia lecturers designing the tasks for RESTO 2027 in Helsinki, we followed the 2026 event as benchmarkers.

Restokisat 2026 in Mikkeli followed a familiar script. Sponsor logos covered the stage backdrop, roll-ups lined the walls, judges represented well-known hospitality companies, and students had two days to solve a few real industry challenges. By the final presentations, two points really caught our attention. First, the competition provided some truly valuable learning moments. Second, we think the sponsorship model could have been used more effectively to support these efforts.

A logo on a stage looks important in planning documents but is almost invisible in practice. It sits next to others, visually diluted. Students walk past it on their way to coffee. A company representative stands next to a roll-up, waiting for interaction that rarely happens. In this situation, visibility turns passive. Passive visibility does not create engagement.

The illusion of collaboration

In our experience, hospitality education often treats industry collaboration as if the connection itself were sufficient: invite a partner, include a logo, mention them in the program. This approach assumes that proximity equals value.

Research suggests otherwise. Bridging the gap between academia and industry requires structured interaction and clearly defined roles (Ferns, Russell and Kay 2016; Curto-Reverte et al. 2025). Work-integrated learning shows that learning outcomes improve when students engage with real workplace contexts rather than simulated or disconnected tasks (Jackson 2013).

The implication is clear: a sponsor relationship without structured interaction is decoration. We observed the same at Restokisat 2026. Sponsors were present in the room, yet they had no defined role in the learning process. The audience, sponsors included, watched the teams pitch their pre-task without being told what the task was, and the pitches ran back-to-back with no voting or questions.

What does the sponsor actually buy?

The root problem is that sponsorship is often packaged as a single product. In practice, companies are buying different goals: visibility, recruitment access, product or service feedback, and early contact with emerging talent in the competition setting. Selling all of these goals as the same package of logo space leads to weak outcomes for both parties: a company that wants recruits or feedback receives only visibility.

International competitions provide a contrasting model. In the HSMAI Global Collegiate Case Competition, teams work on real industry cases and an evaluation panel selects the finalists (HSMAI Foundation n.d.). Students present solutions to judges and to industry stakeholders, creating a feedback loop that benefits both sides. This model reframes sponsorship. The sponsor moves from an advertiser to an active contributor in the problem-setting and evaluation process.

Designing encounters, not events

In our view, many student competitions make the central mistake of treating the event itself as the product. On the contrary, the value lies in the interaction between students and industry. At Restokisat 2026, that interaction was left to chance. Students who escorted guests from the hotel to the campus did not introduce themselves, and the networking on the final day was too rushed, limiting the chances for deeper conversations. Students pitch to an audience that cannot challenge their work because it does not know the brief. Industry partners drift into passive roles. This is a design failure. In our opinion, the strongest moment of the 2026 programme was a guided city walk through Mikkeli. It worked because someone had designed the encounter.

In our view, learning comes from continuity, decision-making and real constraints. It also depends on treating learning as something that happens through interaction within a system rather than alongside it (Costa, Morelli and Li 2025). This is also where the sponsorship model fell short in Mikkeli. Visibility alone adds little. Real value emerges when sponsors shape the problems, constraints and evaluation of student work. Otherwise, the sponsor becomes background noise.

If competitions are to matter, they should be designed as learning systems rather than events. That could include deciding in advance who from industry meets which team, when, and what they bring, such as data, real constraints or feedback on a first draft. Without that shift, sponsorship remains passive visibility. With it, sponsorship becomes a tool for developing professional judgement.

Designing better sponsor relationships

A stronger sponsorship model begins with intent. The sponsor defines what they want to learn and contribute, then designs the engagement around that decision. This means asking more demanding questions: which business decision should students help explore (for example, whether a hotel should open its breakfast to non-guests), what constraints should shape their work, and what kind of professional feedback can be provided. The model also requires clarity about outcomes: a tested idea, a prototype, recruitment opportunities or validated assumptions. The organiser should ask the sponsor to name these before the agreement is signed.

This shift moves sponsorship toward co-creation and introduces accountability. Not every sponsor will have such a decision. If a sponsor cannot identify the decision they want to investigate or the value they seek, the role remains undefined and the contribution to learning minimal. Research on work-integrated learning has already shown that meaningful industry collaboration depends on structured engagement and clearly defined outcomes rather than symbolic participation (Jackson 2013).

The real design challenge

Restokisat 2026 showed an area where industry involvement is underused. Sponsors were present in the room, but they met the teams mainly as an audience for pitches they had not been briefed on. Simply bringing industry and students together does not automatically create value.

As we plan the competition tasks for RESTO 2027, sponsorship packages, pricing and visibility are being revisited. These sponsorship-related considerations are practical concerns, but only focusing on them risks missing the core challenge.

The key issue is whether we’re ready to go beyond simply selling space and focus on designing the learning environment. This involves fewer logos and more intentional engagement, providing clearer value for all parties. In hospitality education, sponsors should influence what occurs in the space. Standing on the edge is no longer enough.

Image: Haaga-Helia