Do You Think It's Possible? (1 Viewer)

StarLink
High Speed Internet
Available AnyWhere On Earth
Now $349


kegs

Nitro Member
I was doing a little thinking about the 1000 ft issue. If NHRA goes to 1000 ft at all races do you think any sponsors would want to cut back their monies? Their thinking would be less TV time ( shorter track), less nitro used (even tho it continues to go up) and easier on parts (racers already said that).
Just curious what most think about that and would they have a good argument during negotiations (sp) time.
 
I think most sponsors get the majority of there return on Driver interviews and the TV time during staging. If the run is 4.0 or 4.5 at a blur shouldn't really play into it that much.
 
TV replaying the same passes 4 or 5 times on Sunday, some it 'slo-mo'... they are getting the airtime... what I don't like about the TV package, P/S most of all, is that if you DQ, you get next to no airtime at all.

And we don't get to see the 'best' runs of the weekend of most because they only show the number one pass from Friday in each class.

but with the 1000ft runs, they've picked out a total of 16 to 20 seconds for the friday covering both rounds... will pick up about the same today... and a total of about 15 to 20 seconds for the day Sunday... it's horrible loosing a minute of racing over 22 or so hours at the track over the weekend.

d'kid
 
The actual 4-5 second runs are perhaps 5% of the TV show. They show them in slo-mo again and again, they show them burning out/staging/etc., they show the drivers at the top end covered in sponsors' logos and mentioning sponsors' names, they show the transporters and crews covered in the logos in the pits, etc., etc.

And if fewer engines blow up, the racing is tighter, and less people get hurt or killed sponsors get *more* for their money.
 
I was doing a little thinking about the 1000 ft issue. If NHRA goes to 1000 ft at all races do you think any sponsors would want to cut back their monies? Their thinking would be less TV time ( shorter track)

Conversely, when the track prep sucks the sponsors should pay double for the side-by-side, tire smoking, 8 or 9 second runs.
 
Will it be harder getting new sponsors not in the sport now, telling them that the race isnt even 4 seconds? A large company wants ROI. I know that they have replays, but even those will not last as long as before.

They are running 3.80's now, say if you slow them down to run 4.80's in the 1/4 that is only 1 second, but take 4 rounds plus replays over an entire season and that could really add up at the end of the year.

Im would think they calculate this kind of thing, but not sure.
 
They are running 3.80's now, say if you slow them down to run 4.80's in the 1/4 that is only 1 second, but take 4 rounds plus replays over an entire season and that could really add up at the end of the year.
Yeah good point. Assuming you count 4 qualifying runs per race, 4 elimination rounds every race, and 24 races a year, you are talking about 384 runs possible for a car. If you figure the average run for 1320' is 4.60 and let's be really generous and say he average run at 1000' is 3.80, the sponsors could potentially lose 307 seconds - 5 minutes 7 seconds over the course of the entire season. Factor that across 40 nitro teams (again being VERY generous) and were talking about 3 hours 25 seconds.

I am pretty sure that there has been WAY more that 3 hours 25 seconds of extra media attention to the 1000' change. Sponsors have already been compensated for a potential future loss, so no, I don't think the sponsor deals will change.
 
Will it be harder getting new sponsors not in the sport now, telling them that the race isnt even 4 seconds? A large company wants ROI. I know that they have replays, but even those will not last as long as before.

They are running 3.80's now, say if you slow them down to run 4.80's in the 1/4 that is only 1 second, but take 4 rounds plus replays over an entire season and that could really add up at the end of the year.

Im would think they calculate this kind of thing, but not sure.

Hey greg!
Good point...but you owe it to yourself to watch the video clip on nhra.com from the CNBC financial news.
I think it was well done, and will probably be included in EVERY RACERS future sponsor proposals!
 
I just dont want any potential sponsors to not look at drag racing because of the change. I know the bean counters for these companys dont know drag racing like we do.
 
They (NHRA and/or their marketing/PR people, and smart teams like John Force) have people who watch the telecast, and go second by second through it looking for sponsor's signage, logos, and such, and count the number of seconds it is on the screen. They count it on the car, on the crew guys' shirts, on the transporter, on a sign in the background, everything. They multiply that by the number of people who watch and they get what are called "impressions", sometimes counted out to "impression-seconds".

Then they count the number of times a person mentions mentions the sponsor, those are called "mentions" (and they are much more valuable, of course). There are "editorial mentions" when someone mentions the sponsors name in context of the event, and "promo mentions", when someone is paid to mention it. Needless to say, editorial mentions are much more valuable.

When they are making a pitch to the sponsor they sell them "impressions" and "mentions". That's why John Force rattles off the names -- each one is worth something. It's also why the actual run doesn't mean that much, it's the number of times you get the logo and mentions on the screen. And it's why things like the start, burnout, staging, and replays are much more valuable than the run (longer time on screen). And it's also why John is a millionaire.
 
Last edited:
The team should work harder to sell the sponsor's product.
This includes efforts off the racing surface.
 
Ways To Support Nitromater

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top