[BVG927]

With the entry fees of events rising through the roof.
And all the media that Rally is getting right now.
Why is SCCA not taking full advantage of
the media blitz that is going on in other sports
with companies advertising themselves on every square inch
that could possably be seen by a spectator.
I have seen lawnmower races and dog shows, with more sponsors
than a ProRally event.
Does SCCA even have a marketting team?
or at the least, a professional marketing firm?
Or is it Just Kurt calling Michelin over and over again?
There is PLENTY of money out there to be had.
and it all can help to offsett the HIGH cost of entry fees.
but why is it not happening.
Anybody have an answer?

Brian

 

[MN_Rallymaster]

Well one thing to keep in mind is that absolutely 0 (zero) dollars come from the SCCA to the independent events. It is left to each event to do their own marketing within the confines of the event sanction which on a "ProRally" is rather limiting.

Until some sort of financial support comes back down from the National organization to help defray the costs associated with organizing and executing an event, the entry fees will continue to be set at levels that will cover the expected operating costs of the event which increase every year.

Brad Odegard
Rallymaster - Ojibwe Forests Rally
Headwaters ClubRally

 

[Brian Scott]

Yep, with the lack of marketing, etc. SCCA ProRally WILL go the way of IMSA GTP from the 80's. Once the factories take their ball and go home there will be nobody left to play in the ashes............

Brian

 

[Lancia037Rally]

What do you mean? You haven't gotten your free Fram air filters, free Hawk brakepads and free Sunoco race gas? We've got great marketing. (not!)
SCCA performance rally is only interested in marketing themselves. Hence the ProRally (Clubrally for unwashed or not willing to fork out $500)windsheild banners and number backers. In Canada, these are sold to event and title sponsors, something SCCA performance rally has forgotten or pushed aside for event organizers to find and then the event organizer is very limited to placement of event sponsor decals on cars.
Take a look at FIA event number backers. They do not say "WRC" or "FIA". They are event sponsors.

Rim of the World organizers told you the story. It won't be long before others follow their lead.

 

[B]

So, have organizers been able to approach companies about obtaining sponsorship for their events? It seems they already have their hands full doing the core organizing duties, without getting into marketing issues. Would any organizers be willing to work with marketing-minded professionals to help them obtain the much-needed dollars? I know Bill Barfoot has been offering a percentage of any sponsorship that is secured for Prescott; are there any others?

 

[Bruce]

>So, have organizers been able to approach companies about
>obtaining sponsorship for their events? It seems they
>already have their hands full doing the core organizing
>duties, without getting into marketing issues. Would any
>organizers be willing to work with marketing-minded
>professionals to help them obtain the much-needed dollars? I
>know Bill Barfoot has been offering a percentage of any
>sponsorship that is secured for Prescott; are there any
>others?

You bet! Make me an offer. I'll warn you, we'll be careful, because our event was burned pretty badly in the past by a "professional" promoter.

You're right - putting on the rally is a fulltime job these days, and sponsorship and promotion is not a job for amateurs anyway.

BW

 

[BVG927]

From http://www.specialstage.com/forum/cgi-bin/DCForumID2/429.html#46

>You cannot get an outside sponsor without permission from SCCA. Rim >of the World was a good example. Mike and Paula were getting local >companies to help put on the event and they sold banner space and >other promotional signs to these companies. Just before the event, >our SCCA PRORally leaders came in and took down all the banners >claiming they were not approved and the Gibeaults had to reimburse >all those local companies. This is part of the reason that Rim has >dropped out of the PRORally series. I suspect that other organizers >will find that the SCCA dictatorship is simply too much to deal with >considering how little SCCA has to offer to the organizers.
>The PRORAllY group at SCCA has failed to get a series sponsor and in >the past when they did have one, i.e. Michelin, the money never got >to the organizers to help put on events.
>The SCCA PRORally management continues to fail to realize a very >simple fact.......If there are no organizers, there is no PRORally >series.
John Nelson
#382


I guess I missed this when it happend if people were talking about it.
This seems obsurd. If everyone is saying that rally events are just
"privately organized" events which SCCA santions/insures and
provides vehicle spects/rules. that they have no say in what the entry fees are to be. than how can they step in and take down
sponsorship banners. Is there a set of guidelines that organisers must follow that is written by SCCA in order to organise an event.
Was it because the manufacturers are putting money in SCCA's pocket.
And paying for the TV broadcast, and they do not want any other sponsors seen on there little 1/2 hour TV spot.
Im I crazy or doesn't it seem that if the events get sponsors,
and the sponsors lower the cost of rallying. And this helps the competitors, which increases the number of competitors.
which increases the awareness of the sport which in turn brings more sponsors. Which means more money and more events and ultimately more money in SCCA's pocket. I know nothing about economics.
But that is how I see it.
And right now everything seems ass backwards..

So how do we fix it ?

Brian

 

[GoetzingerMotorsports]

>And right now everything seems ass backwards..

It is.

>So how do we fix it ?

Oh sweet Jesus, I am not even going to walk through THAT door, WAY to easy! Just messing with ya Brian

>Brian

 

[Bruce]

There are a few mis-statements here that I had to straighten out:

>>You cannot get an outside sponsor without permission from SCCA.

Flat not true. You must CONSULT with SCCA if you're contemplating a sponsor that would conflict with existing SCCA contracts. Been that way forever - nothing new.

>>The PRORAllY group at SCCA has failed to get a series sponsor and in >the past when they did have one, i.e. Michelin, the money never got >to the organizers to help put on events.

Again, just not true. When Michelin came on board, the sanction fee dropped from $2000 to $1000...and that was a HUGE deal in those bygone days. It only went back up in 2002.

And to help answer questions:


>Is there a set of guidelines that
>organisers must follow that is written by SCCA in order to
>organise an event.

Yes. There is a document called the Rules for Organizers that outlines what's necessary to put on a Performance Rally event. It's produced by the PRB, incidentally, with input from the Performance Rally and Risk Management Departments of SCCA.

Further, a ProRally organizer negotiates a sanction agreement with SCCA that further defines rights and duties for a particular event. Several lawyers have had a hand in this, but it still works

> Which means more money and more events
>and ultimately more money in SCCA's pocket.

The problem with this view is that SCCA is a not-for-profit corporation. They can't make big profits from anything...the idea that SCCA - or organizers - are lining their pockets at someone else's expense is just silly. Check the financial report in SportsCar every year...you'll see where the money goes.

Bruce

 

[BVG927]

thanks Bruce..
I guess what I mean by more money in SCCA's pocket.
Is more money coming into SCCA. Not specificaly
The management. But into the kitty that helps lower the cost of events..As in Michelin's sponsorship lowering sanction costs.

Brian

 

[J Nelson]

Thank you for your comments Bruce

Re your first statement at it is flat not true that you must get permission from SCCA for outside sponsors. That statement is in total agreement with what you said, re "consult". consult at the SCCA means "permission". Do you really think that Mike and Paula dont know the "rules". The SCCA brass took down the banners because they did want any chance of those companies getting some TV time since the manufacturers are paying the bills for TV coverage. Speed would not carry SCCA PRORally because they claim that there are no regular TV sponsors who will buy in for SCCA stuff.

Secondly, regarding the sanctioning fees, to my knowledge, the national fee had always been $1000, which is alot of money for next to nothing, and did not raise until 2002. I do not believe that this original fee was tied in reality to financial advantage to the organizers. In those days, you were supposed to have MIchelin backgrounds for your car numbers. The paultry money paid by Michelin to be a series sponsor barely paid the salary of the SCCA PRORally Staff. My point being that there is no series sponsor other than possibly Subaru which has stepped up to the plate financially to help SCCA keep going in PRORally. This is only reasonable to them as they have a huge investment in PRORally and already built a new facility directed at this in Michigan. My opinion has always been that SCCA PRORally needs to hire an outside agency to secure a substantial Series Sponsor, non-manufacturer, and then develop a support program for the organizers to make more professional events. Rim got help from Subaru to make the 2002 event extraordinary and a real happening considering what it takes to make something big in the Southern California area with so many other competing venues. We cant expect Subaru to keep paying the way, it is time SCCA does it's job and really make PRORally professional.
john nelson
#382

 

[Bruce]

>Thank you for your comments Bruce
>
>Re your first statement at it is flat not true that you must
>get permission from SCCA for outside sponsors. That
>statement is in total agreement with what you said, re
>"consult". consult at the SCCA means "permission".

I speak only from the wording of the agreements and my personal experience. I have not had a problem in this area.

>Secondly, regarding the sanctioning fees, to my knowledge,
>the national fee had always been $1000, which is alot of
>money for next to nothing, and did not raise until 2002.

As was pointed out to the organizers in a conference call before the season, the $2000 barely pays to have the ProRally Series Steward at each event. The Chief Scrutineer is financed through other means.

> I
>do not believe that this original fee was tied in reality to
>financial advantage to the organizers. In those days, you
>were supposed to have MIchelin backgrounds for your car
>numbers. The paultry money paid by Michelin to be a series
>sponsor barely paid the salary of the SCCA PRORally Staff.

I was a PRO Rally organizer during that period and the Subaru sponsorship period before that. You're entitled to your opinions.


> My opinion has always been that SCCA PRORally
>needs to hire an outside agency to secure a substantial
>Series Sponsor, non-manufacturer, and then develop a support
>program for the organizers to make more professional events.

You'll find that most - if not all - of the organizers agree with you, and everybody at the National Office does, too. And don't think it hasn't been tried. Do you have a concept of what such things cost? It's highly unlikely any professional agency would take the deal on a contingency basis. If you know of one, please send me the name...I have an event that has been trying to hire one.

>We cant expect Subaru to
>keep paying the way, it is time SCCA does it's job and
>really make PRORally professional.

Yet some have argued that SCCA has ALREADY made ProRally TOO professional for the competitors. <sigh>


Bruce
Ojibwe Forests ProRally


>john nelson
>#382

 

[J Nelson]

Many good points Bruce.

Basically this all comes back to making the program successful by getting a real series sponsor. I suspect the choices made at national office probably were not as comprehensive as they could have been. MY OPINION on how to this...... Hire a top New York ad agency who already has top corporate clients. SCCA will need to pay a base fee plus promotional expenses and then give the agency 25% of what they raise. They need to use real pros who have a proven record of already representing top companies.
In europe, these agencies make the contract with the companies and often these involve some real paper shuffeling to make the sponsorship very attractive to the company putting up the bucks. Yes lets call them rebates.... but that is the problem for the agency..all SCCA needs is a clear amount of money net to use to help organizers like you, Bill, Gibeaults and others plus it will help put a TV package as this works to the benefit of the series sponsor by having multipe showings of pro rallies presented by "So and So corporaton". This is not an impossible deal given the growing popularity of rallying in North America. Obviously we cannot use a tobacco company, but beer companies are fair game along with various soft drink/fortified drink companies.
If SCCA really wants to do this, then get a copy of Advertising AGe or go to their web site and find out who the big players are and then contact them with a proposal. Their jobs are to find good advertising venues for the companies they represent.
John Nelson
#382

 

[robert_dupree]

RE: Event Marketing ? - Why Not Tobacco

Perhaps I'm not versed with a particular law or something but why couldn?t a series, race or racer sponsor be a tobacco, or cigarette company? I for one would gladly allocate space on car & suit for a series sponsor if it translated into having a positive economic impact on my ability to race rally.

It does seem to be a world trend however. I believe the Polish National Rally series removed the ability for Tobacco companies to sponsor racers. It had a huge financial impact and radically changed the makeup of the field of competitors for this season.

Might we not open ourselves up to a possibly large pool of advertising dollars if we were able to be associated with these companies? RJR are you listening?!?

Rob Dupree

 

[rally to cave]

RE: Event Marketing ? - Why Not Tobacco

>Perhaps I'm not versed with a particular law or something
>but why couldn?t a series, race or racer sponsor be a
>tobacco, or cigarette company?

I believe there is a ban on TV/radio ads for tobacco, but can't rememeber if it FCC or US federal code.

In 1996, the FDA regulated the advertising of tobacco. Yes, the FDA. Since the FDA considers tobacco a drug, they can control how it is advertised. The goal is to reduce children from taking up smoking. The restriction prohibits a tobacco BRAND from sponsoring a sporting event, but not the company. Thus the Marlobro rally series is a no no, but the JR Reynolds series is ok. (I don't know how coverage of foriegn events and TV coverage applies. Notice the brand banners on some WRC cars.) Banners are limited text (black on white background only), and no color or logos.

see the follow for more details:
http://www.lawpublish.com/fdarule.html

Thus for the US, tobacco sponsorship (thus advertising) is not going to happen in any significant way. However, the US still provides govt support to tobacco farmers, but that is a completely different topic for ranting.


Paul Nelson

 

[grinner323]

RE: Event Marketing ? - Why Not Tobacco

>>Perhaps I'm not versed with a particular law or something
>>but why couldn?t a series, race or racer sponsor be a
>>tobacco, or cigarette company?
>
>While I can't give you the exact regulation, I recall
>advertising tobacco on TV is prohibited in the US. Thus no
>more Camel joe adds on TV. This regulation also includes
>such things as "this series sponsored by tobacco company",
>or showning of banners in the background. (I don't know if
>this applies to cable, or pay-per-view, or coverage of
>foreign events. Notice some WRC cars are tobacco banners,
>yet there are sill shown on Speed.)
>
>Thus for the US tobacco sponsorship (thus advertiseing) is
>not going to happen. However, the US still provides govt
>support to tobacco farmers, but that is a completely
>different topic for ranting.
>
>
>Paul

Actually I think that it is that a cigarette sponsor can only sponsor one series or a team in one series in the US. That is why Winston is only sponsoring Winston Cup but not the NHRA anymore. This is also one of the reasons that Penske switched to the IRL from CART. Marlboro could only sponsor in one and the IRL is mostly raced in the US... while CART is around the country. Notice how Ferrari does not have Marlboro livry in the US or Canada but in most other countries.

Philip J. Boer
[email protected]

 

[Mike Hurst]

Why Not Tobacco

Tobacco companies are limited by U.S.law to display in one series
or one team in one series. Ferrari cannot display Marlboro on their cars in the U.S. because of the team Penske deal. Last year, Penske could not display Marlboro at the Indy 500, because the IRL is a different series than CART, where Penske was displaying Marlboro.

Can we convince RJR that we should replace Nascar?

B&W's contract with Team Green expires at the end of the year...