Okay, here we go again…
Jim Samuel, you’re absolutely correct in suggesting that a sponsor is “buying” a marketing “vehicle.” In other words, the whole program.
Comparing television ad time buys with motorsports sponsorship is akin to comparing those ever popular apples and oranges – they are decidedly NOT the same thing.
I completely agree that what happens at the race track is the least important thing a racer does.
Yes, I also agree that the teams should be setting up, or helping to arrange some promotional programs for their sponsors. But, there are race teams and drivers out there who, while being potentially valuable promotional tools for their sponsors, don’t have a clue about how to go about doing those things. The sponsor needs to understand the limitations of the driver he sponsors, and then work with him or her accordingly.
NHRA is already reportedly doing all they can to promote drag racing and to gain new fans. Can they do more? Undoubtedly.
POWERade may not be “responsible” for also promoting drag racing, but it’s certainly in their best interests to do so, because NHRA has neither the experience or financial wherewithal to take drag racing to where it should be without assistance.
Individual team sponsorship are not the same thing as major program sponsorships, and should be judged accordingly.
Jim, if we were to take your comments at face value you’re suggesting that NASCAR is responsible for boosting Nextel (to become the Sprint Cup next year), but the exact opposite has happened. I’m on all the PR lists and the like and can assure you that Nextel has worked tirelessly to promote their involvement with NASCAR. In fact, they have done far more to promote that involvement than NASCAR has in touting Nextel’s involvement with them.
You can’t throw terms like “ROI” out there without explaining it means “Return On Investment.”
I addressed ROI in that column when I wrote that Winston had generated 4 million new customers from their involvement with drag racing and 8 million through their involvement with NASCAR. The difference between the programs was that their NASCAR involvement cost them five times what it cost them to go drag racing, so their ROI was better from drag racing than from stock car racing.
Sorry, Jim, but when a sponsor signs on with either a racer or a program they do so with the knowledge that they bear some responsibility for maximizing that sponsorship’s value. It doesn’t automatically fall on the team or entity sponsored.
I’m sure everyone has at least heard of what at one time was called the “Coca-Cola Family of Drivers,” or something very close to that. Each driver on that program had what appeared to be a 12- to 18-inch circular decal on their cars. Multiple sources within the NASCAR community have told me those decals were worth $5 million each. Now, I acknowledge that hearing it does not make it so, but the point is that if Coca-Cola can spend that much on decal money, certainly they can do more for drag racing.
But, let’s go back. In Mr. Samuel’s scenario the DRIVERS should have been doing the work to promote their affiliation with Coke. That didn’t happen. It was COKE that produced all of the cute supporting television and print ads. In other words, Coca-Cola paid the money to the drivers and then spent even more touting their involvement with those drivers.
William Groom makes a valid point. Drag racing just isn’t as big as we would like it to be, and we have to be realistic about that.
Jay Rathman must be reading my mind. I tell every racer who asks me to help them find a sponsor this little story: If you undervalue yourself and your race team, the sponsor is never going to get you up to the financial value you need. Consider it this way. Once that hooker climbs into the back seat of your car and “performs,” what’s your incentive for taking her to the penthouse suite at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas? You already know what she can do and you know what she charges.
It’s the same with your race team. If you know you need $2.5 million to run your car and you know you’re “worth” that much because you can generate enough publicity to justify the expenditure, why would you accept $1 million for the deal?
As far as Fuller and others of a similar nature are concerned (and this is a TEAM problem, NOT Fuller’s), see the above paragraphs.
Rathman is also correct in stating that ESPN does almost nothing to promote drag racing during its other telecasts.
Jay, I just reached your additional post and you have completely misunderstood my intention, which was definitely not to discredit you in an way, shape or form. If you took what I wrote as a personal affront I herewith offer a formal apology.
I’ll make my initial point again. I’m not disputing you or the source of your information, but not having seen those contracts personally it means that your information is second hand and therefore not provable. I’m not suggesting that anyone lied to you either, but if I hadn’t personally seen the contracts, or didn’t have at least two absolutely reliable sources, sources with actual “connections,” and not something someone supposedly said to someone else, I wouldn’t consider that reliable information.
RE: Jim Samuel’s comment about sponsorships, “Because NHRA has not done enough to promote its brand name where sponsors will ante up the big bucks to be involved with it,” it goes deeper than that. NHRA does not have enough belief in the value of their properties to hold the line on price. And as I said early on, if they did have a firm belief in that value, if a potential sponsor offered less than they felt was the “right” price for a title rights they’d say no deal and the event would take place without one.
Corporate people talk. Oh, yes they do. Even business rivals go to the same conventions, the same industry dinners and the same golf courses. Don’t you think they also discuss sponsorships from time to time? And what do you think the reaction is when Executive A casually mentions he just spent less than six figures to buy the title rights to Event X, and the guy he’s telling this to knows his company just spent hundreds of thousands more for a similar race?
When you sell yourself for less than you’re worth the long term negative results are huge.
Georginna Polson also makes a good point. There are other reasons to get into sponsorships beyond simple quantifiable ROI.
Greg Stanley is also correct with his second point.
Jon Asher
