Army Sponsorship

[Gipraw]

Your concern for fiscal restraint by government is one I share. Since the rules were changed for broadcasters some years ago, "free" advertising went away and the services have to reach potential enlistees with effective marketing methods. Drag racing is one of those.
The criteria for enlistees has changed. In the modern era, all who serve must meet much higher standards than was the case in the past. Thus, the services must seek candiates for recruitment from the most likely places in which to find these high quality candidates. Drag racing is one of those.
Most marketing requires a level of brand awareness. For some, simple repetition is enough. For others an association with success is required. That is especially the case for an aspirational product or service and for career decisions. The services need to seek people in places where they associate with others for whom high performance is the standard. Drag racing is one of those.
Re-enlistment of the best soldiers is one way in which the US Army can reduce its overall personnel costs. Retaining well-trained and experienced people lowers the costs of training over time. Training is a key compnent of personnel costs. The services need to succeed in venues in which team spirit can be used to reinforce the esprit de corps which is a major part of the re-enlistment decision. Drag racing is one of those.
I do have some "military affiliation" and know no one who enlisted for a single reason. Most joined in order to be part of something bigger than themselves - something big enough to comprehend The Sarge and a successful effort in the world's quickest motorsport.
The fiscal question is: are we getting our money's worth? DSR has held the Army flag high, produced a successful and professional effort, and supported the other recruitment efforts in a positive way. Would that all government spending was so intelligently focused.
Cheers,
Ed

Well said, Ed. Much better than I managed, I think.

 

[cephus]

Give the servicemen a raise and more benefits shue and force always can find sponsors,, i have a marine vet working for me in dispatch he has pure hell gettin to see the doctor at the vet hospital and his retirement sux, and i like don shue he is one of the few that will stand up to the suits, how about putting a ex soldier in the fuel car if it is so much about the soliders i am sure we culd find one that culd drive a dragster with a little training now that wuld make a statement

GK

 

[Fast16Racer]

Really? Then I think they must not be trying hard enough to recruit in the traditional methods.

In a war time such as the last decade I find it IMPOSSIBLE to beleive that the deal breaker in any man/woman deciding whether or not to join the military is because they are a sponsor on the side of a racecar. Not buying it!! If it is the decisive reason, they should probably reevaluate their principles and primary why.

I agree that people do not decide to join the Army because it is on the side of a race car.

Like a business that has a need to attract customers, the Army has a need to attract recruits.

There are several steps to this process:

-Lead Generation: you find a way to make contact with a potential customer. Businesses do this through advertising and networking. The Army does it various ways, one of which is the DSR Army sponsorship. The thrill of a Top Fuel car, 8000 hp, 328 mph, the midway Army display etc. are all ways to get people excited and interested enough make a contact with the Army, either directly or indirectly. That is DSR's job--to spread the Army brand and to motivate people into a contact.

-Lead Qualification: you ask some questions to determine if the lead is a fit for your purpose. This is where the Army recruiters take over.

-Closing the Sale: It is the Army's job to take the contact that DSR supplied and explain all the benefits and convince the recruit that, for many, many reasons joining is the right choice. The act of joining the Army probably has little to do with the actual DSR sponsorship other than wanting to be associated with such an exciting and first-class organization.

In order to generate leads, the Army has to have a budget in order to maintain troop levels.

Like any business, you have to have a business plan for 6 months, 1 year, 5 years, 10 years from now. It is an ongoing process with significant lag time.

After you have committed to a budget, it is a business decision where to spend the money for the best Return On Investment. From what I have read, the DSR and NASCAR sponsorships yield a good ROI.

So from a fiscal standpoint it makes sense. To some that do not understand business or marketing, it just looks like throwing millions of $$$ at fancy race teams because they don't like the "idea" without understanding the "why". Unfortunate.

Would it be better to funnel some of the marketing budget to other areas? Maybe, but that is a different argument than motorsports sponsorships. That is a budgetary argument that has nothing to do with motorsports.

Once the funds have been allocated to marketing, doesn't it make sense to use those dollars in the best way possible?

 

[JL]

I agree that people do not decide to join the Army because it is on the side of a race car.

Excellent write-up Bill

 

[Doolie]

So Norman I take it you are saying that persons going into the military for A free education will make better tougher troops than someone who attends a drag race

Congradualstions. That is the dumbest, leading, useless remark in this 'discussion". Not a good try even.

 

[M Jones]

Norman,did you not say that as long as the government is dangling the carrot of free education that the army will have plenty of bodies, where does that money come from and how is that making our military any better than spending money recruiting dollars at the races. All I was doing is asking you how spending money on a free education instead of racing makes for a better Army, FYI, Colleges do not give free education just because you are in the military, our tax dollars pay for it, I have no problem with that as long as the persons accepting that recruiting benefit do their part for our country, GOD Bless our troops, we have our country because of all who have served to protect the USA

 

[clwill]

Congradualstions.

Congratulations, that's the worst spelling of the word I've ever seen

This is just another case of micro-management gone wild. It happens all the time in business, and it has become the hobby of many congresspeople lately. While stories of millions "wasted" on the study of rat turds (or whatever) make wonderful news bites, they are rarely useful as part of a meaningful debate. None of us, especially it seems the congress, have enough information to make an informed decision about the efficacy of these expenditures.

The most effective way to manage people/leaders/teams is to provide them with the resources they need (money/time/people) and hold them accountable for the specific desired results. As long as the methods they use to accomplish those results are legal and ethical, they deserve to be judged solely on the results. If, in this case, the Army wants to dangle pig carcases from the Goodyear blimp to get recruits, who are we to say no? Hold them responsible for the number and quality of recruits and let them decide on the most cost-effective way to accomplish that. If that's with DSR, fine. If it's not effective, let them decide.

It's really the only way to manage effectively. And none of us, even those of us "inside" drag racing, can or should judge.

 

[M Jones]

Well said Christopher

 

[Doolie]

Norman,did you not say that as long as the government is dangling the carrot of free education that the army will have plenty of bodies, where does that money come from and how is that making our military any better than spending money recruiting dollars at the races. All I was doing is asking you how spending money on a free education instead of racing makes for a better Army, FYI, Colleges do not give free education just because you are in the military, our tax dollars pay for it, I have no problem with that as long as the persons accepting that recruiting benefit do their part for our country, GOD Bless our troops, we have our country because of all who have served to protect the USA

I did not say what i think of the free education benefits, just that they bring in plenty of bodies.
All over the country free and low cost colleges and universities became expensive in the Seventies. At that time the military started to dangle education in front of potential recruits. Educating young people is a better investment than paying for a race team.
As far as my spelling, if someone does not like the way I spelled some word, poke your eyes out so you don't have to look. I am sure the critic is a perfect being.

 

[clwill]

As far as my spelling, if someone does not like the way I spelled some word, poke your eyes out so you don't have to look. I am sure the critic is a perfect being.

That was in direct response to your silly and useless comment proclaiming another's comment as "the dumbest... and useless". Clearly you missed the smiley.

 

[Fast16Racer]

The most effective way to manage people/leaders/teams is to provide them with the resources they need (money/time/people) and hold them accountable for the specific desired results. As long as the methods they use to accomplish those results are legal and ethical, they deserve to be judged solely on the results. If, in this case, the Army wants to dangle pig carcases from the Goodyear blimp to get recruits, who are we to say no? Hold them responsible for the number and quality of recruits and let them decide on the most cost-effective way to accomplish that. If that's with DSR, fine. If it's not effective, let them decide.

It's really the only way to manage effectively. And none of us, even those of us "inside" drag racing, can or should judge.

I agree.

 

[Baron]

I did not say what i think of the free education benefits, just that they bring in plenty of bodies.
All over the country free and low cost colleges and universities became expensive in the Seventies. At that time the military started to dangle education in front of potential recruits. Educating young people is a better investment than paying for a race team.
As far as my spelling, if someone does not like the way I spelled some word, poke your eyes out so you don't have to look. I am sure the critic is a perfect being.

Your misspelling of congratulations was an affront. Your indifference is insulting to the literate among us.
Furthermore, you have defamed soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. These are highly skilled people who serve in often hazardous roles on your behalf. To dismiss them as "plenty of bodies" is condescension.
You will persuade no informed person with these statements.
Should you wish to argue that the services will attract the qualified recruits they need by transferring their marketing to the education benefits, do so. By my reckoning, which is just an estimate, ten service members could receive a college education for the cost of a year of support to a Top Fuel team. If you have better data, please advise.
I argue that the team building benefits of the Army Top Fuel crew, and especially the fine example of Tony Schumacher, are of real worth to the morale and esprit de corps of soldiers. Those factors assist the Army in keeping the best of its highly trained personnel. Maintaining the force lowers personnel costs.
Cheers,
Ed

 

[Doolie]

Your misspelling of congratulations was an affront. Your indifference is insulting to the literate among us.
Furthermore, you have defamed soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. These are highly skilled people who serve in often hazardous roles on your behalf. To dismiss them as "plenty of bodies" is condescension.
You will persuade no informed person with these statements.
Should you wish to argue that the services will attract the qualified recruits they need by transferring their marketing to the education benefits, do so. By my reckoning, which is just an estimate, ten service members could receive a college education for the cost of a year of support to a Top Fuel team. If you have better data, please advise.
I argue that the team building benefits of the Army Top Fuel crew, and especially the fine example of Tony Schumacher, are of real worth to the morale and esprit de corps of soldiers. Those factors assist the Army in keeping the best of its highly trained personnel. Maintaining the force lowers personnel costs.
Cheers,
Ed

Where do you think the body reference comes from? That is what recruiters deal in, BODIES.
A year of top fuel is about 2-3 million dollars. Ten college educations for that. Try more.

 

[Bob]

Where do you think the body reference comes from? That is what recruiters deal in, BODIES.
A year of top fuel is about 2-3 million dollars. Ten college educations for that. Try more.

Werner trucking and Caterpillar were both involved in drag racing for the specific purpose of hiring people for work - recruiting "bodies" as you put it. Drag racing sponsorship is a viable avenue for recruiting, be it military service or private sector business.

 

[M Jones]

Norman, what is your thoughts on how to spend money to reach the bodies, the free education is for all who sign up no matter were they were recruited from, no one broadcasts info on the education for free

 

[Baron]

Where do you think the body reference comes from? That is what recruiters deal in, BODIES.
A year of top fuel is about 2-3 million dollars. Ten college educations for that. Try more.

Recruiters don't deal in "bodies." You are uninformed. Today's recruits are of a very high standard.
The cost of a college education (at a particular University here in Colorado), exclusive of books, room, and board is $142,000. It is not the most expensive. 10 X $142,000 is $1,420,000. I used a working figure of 1.5 million for primary sponsorship. 10 solders is about one squad. If your figure of 2-3 million dollars is more accurate, then the expenditure would cover more veterans' benefits as you aver. Of course, there are also less expensive college alternatives, although I selected a mid-pack cost figure. Since I have five children with a total of eight college degrees, I have some recent experience with these costs.

My bases for comment:
1) I enlisted as a Private in the US Army while in graduate school, served on Active Duty, in the National Guard, and in the Army Reserve from which I retired as a Lieutenant Colonel after 29 years.
2) I attended my first drag race in 1960, hosted the Motorsports Update radio show, served as a track announcer at Suffolk, VA, Cheyenne, WY, and Pueblo Motorsports Park. I wrote a published column on auto racing for a weekly newspaper. I am, presently, a part owner of a motorsports marketing company, a supercharged alcohol funny car and a Pro ET car having previously raced in Stock Eliminator.
3) I am an Adjunct Professor currently and have taught at three colleges and three Universities, both public and private.

My comments to you are based on my experience and the knowledge I have gained from that experience. I will be happy to read the data upon which you rely in forming the opinions you express.
Cheers,
Ed

 

[M Jones]

Thank You Ed for your service to our country. GOD Bless you and all that serve so that we still have our country

 

[rckymtn3]

Out of the list below, of which recruitment costs aren't even a micro-blip on the spending radar, the thing that stands out is that Homeland Security number....want to be sick and pissed at where your money goes? Get pissed at law makers making it easier and easier to privatize military operations. The same companies that flooded their campaigns with money, are handed these contracts....why waste your ire on a micro-blip? go after the worst tax wasting offenders, our corrupt bag men and their supporters.



Budget breakdown for 2012 - From Wikipedia
------------------------------------------------------
DOD spending $707.5 billion Base budget + "Overseas Contingency Operations"

FBI counter-terrorism $2.7 billion At least one-third FBI budget.

International Affairs $5.6–$63.0 billion At minimum, foreign arms sales. At most, entire State budget

Energy Department, defense-related $21.8 billion

Veterans Affairs $70.0 billion

Homeland Security $46.9 billion

NASA, satellites $3.5–$8.7 billion Between 20% and 50% of NASA's total budget

Veterans pensions $54.6 billion

Other defense-related mandatory spending $8.2 billion

Interest on debt incurred in past wars $109.1–$431.5 billion Between 23% and 91% of total interest

Total Spending $1.030–$1.415 trillion

The role of support service contractors has increased since 2001 and in 2007 payments for contractor services exceeded investments in equipment for the armed forces for the first time. In the 2010 budget the support service contractors will be reduced from the current 39 percent of the workforce down to the pre-2001 level of 26 percent. In a Pentagon review of January 2011, service contractors were found to be "increasingly unaffordable" (no kidding)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Jay]

Don Schumacher himself explained the story to me of how he cultivated the Army sponsorship..

Without divulging confidential information, here is how it went:

He was on a plane reading the WSJ and he read an article that stated that the all-in cost of recruiting a new member of the U.S. Army was about $80,000...

He modeled out what he could do for the Army to drive that cost per new recruit down, including the cost of the sponsorship, contacted the Army, they agreed, and the rest is history.

Someone is going to wake up in Washington and realize that these are very effective tools to reach the exact audience that the Army is trying to reach, and see that deserting these sponsorships is a bad idea that will actually drive their costs and amount of effort in their recruiting up.

These are not PR campaigns...they are very specific tools for recruiting.

If you had a company that makes ice cream machines that cost restaurants $5000 each, and of that, your marketing budget was $100,000/year to sell 100 machines, but I convinced you that I could help you sell 200 machines for the same $100,000 budget, how fast would you be writing me a check?

Now, the biggie is, that if I continued to bring you 200 sales per year for the same $100,000, would you listen to the idiot consultant that told you that it was a stupid waste of money to put the name of your ice cream machines on a racecar?

I didn't think so...

 

[none]

You are talking about politicians though.........