Special Stage Forums banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,027 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Another note for the SCCA and PRB to file away.

I have been pretty clear that we do not need to alter the sport for big money sponsors. It is their job to take advantage of what exsists.

It is also our job to take advantage of them... As I watch the Austrailian Super V8's I realized that they have a hugely successful TWO make Series.

The important part of the two make series is the wide variety and number of sponsors.

So, when we decide to let the manufacturers play again, we should require that 2/3 (? pick an amount...) of the sponsorship dollars is from an indirect sponsor (a third party).

This requirement could be by car or team, and it would go a long way to strengthening the series, encouraging a variety of additional sponsors and further differentiating the teams.

At some point I could see a small number of manufacturers supporting a large number of cars and doing so under the flagship of a wide variety of sponsors. At some point we might reduce manufacturer involvement down to points rights and limited TV rights and increase the involvement of third party sponsors to the level of last years teams eliminating the dependency on the manufacturers...

Thoughts to ponder and employee,
Mike
 

·
don't cut
Joined
·
2,252 Posts
Great idea Mike, but we just don't have the sponsor support to pull it off at the moment. One top driver told me that he broke even last weekend, and I'd imagine the rest of us lost money as usual. Until we can figure out a way to radically increase the exposure of the series, the only people who are going to invest in it are car manufacturers, tire manufacturers, and maybe some people who make aftermarket specialty goodies like lights.

Dennis Martin
[email protected]
920-432-4845
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,407 Posts
With all due respect, Mike, who is the SCCA to dictate how a team finds its funding?

While I agree that the sport shouldn't fundamentally CHANGE for a sponsor, I think most will agree that some of the improvements that happened in the Blue and Red era were long overdue. Rally America stepped up to make some of these happen completely independently of the manufacturers (real time reports, real timing system, etc.).

I would agree that the PGT restrictor shenanigans was uncalled for, and perhaps that is what you are getting at.

Anyway, if you put up another barrier to entry for manufacturers by DICTATING that they must bring in an additional sponsor, I fail to see how it will help anyone.

I'm a bit tired of this us vs. them thing. We are all rallyists. We are all looking for ways to have fun in the woods. Some have given up on trying to find "sponsorship" or funding outside of their 9-5 job, but most have never tried. To the guys who work hard busting down doors looking for sponsorship, be it with a manufacturer or a sports drink company or a bar in Yonkers, it sounds like sour grapes to "require" additional parties to sign up if they land an elusive "factory" ride.

This kind of idea sounds like you are experiencing a sense of loss. What have we "lost?" The rally last weekend was a better event than nearly all events I ever went to before the Blue and Red era. They walked, and we still have some of their investment showing all over the service area from the technicians who they brought in and decided to stay, to the equipment they ran, to the new programs that are being installed (Subaru parts truck, Good contingency, etc.)

Manufacturers may come and go. Its all about selling cars. When it is more economical to use other forms of marketing to get through to customers, they will bolt. Rallying requires a very special set of circumstances to even be considered as a series which a manufacturer will support. Adding restrictions will surely make them look elsewhere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
Believe it or not, the V8 Supercar series does share a significant amount with US rallying. To start with, there are NO factory teams. Even the "Holden Racing Team" is no longer owned by Holden - it was purchased by Mark Skaife last year, after the collapse of TWR (who were running the team). The "Ford Performance Vehicles" team is also not owned by Ford. Prodrive has a 51% stake in the team, the other 49% residing with Ford Australia's FPV division.

So what they have is lots of teams running 2 different cars. Somewhat akin to how lots of the top teams here choose to run either Evos or WRXs.

Many of the V8 teams are run by wealthy individuals who can go long periods of time with minimal sponsorship or simply sponsor themselves - David Thexton has his own company on the side of his car which is an online vitimin store; Team Dynamik ran for most of '03 with no title sponsor, but is owned by Kieran Wills (Simon Wills' brother) who's not short of cash; the main sponsor for Steven Ellery is Super Cheap Autos, owned by.... Bruce Ellery, his dad. You get the idea.

In both series there's a mix of teams able to get real sponsorship dollars, teams run by rich people who don't need the sponsorship, and teams run by rich people who get exposure for their own businesses. The main commercial differences I see is the level of exposure, and the number of teams who are simply self financed. I would say of the 21 teams in V8 Supercars, about 10 have true, significant, outside sponsorship.

Neil.
Team SoCalRally Audi Quattro

Edit for rubbish math
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,027 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
>With all due respect, Mike, who is the SCCA to dictate how a
>team finds its funding?

The SCCA sets the rules and the price of entry, if the price of entry included third party sponsorship then that would be the rule.

It was not long ago that organizers were explicitly told they could not have a manufacturer as a sponsor, and now we have Rim of the World Sponsored by Subaru... The rules get changed, but are set by the SCCA.

Rally America stepped up to make some of these
>happen completely independently of the manufacturers (real
>time reports, real timing system, etc.).

I think we agree RA has done more for the sport than the SCCA...

>Anyway, if you put up another barrier to entry for
>manufacturers by DICTATING that they must bring in an
>additional sponsor, I fail to see how it will help anyone.

We previously dictated a $10,000 fee to earn manufacturers points, the SCCA can dictate anything it likes and has proven it both in the realm of the manufacturers and in the realm of the competitors.

The help will be in achieving additional sponsorship. We have all witnessed how fragile the previous manufacturer involvement was, so why go down that path again? Maybe better to find a different source of sponsors. Since the manufactureres get the most benefit from the show, why not pass the burden of securing additional investors to them. In the end the manufacturers have the most to gain, so why not employee them to grow the sponsors involved.



>I'm a bit tired of this us vs. them thing.

To me it is us and them, until this year the manufacturers and their ideas and requests were locked behind closed doors. The partnership program was the first attempt at a collaboration in promotion. Previous to the partnership program everything was dictated because the manufacturers wanted it...

This is our playing field and we should protect it from those who only want to exploit it. I am in no way against any sponsor from exploiting the sport, I just want to be sure we protect the sport for ourselves.

>
>Manufacturers may come and go.
yep.



I can't directly compare the Austrailian Super V8's to American rally, but what I saw was a very successfull two make series. What I also saw was a wide variety of sponsors.

The 2004 season will prove the series does not need manufacturers to be successful. To be televised maybe, but not to be well run, competitive and include large fields.

What I am suggesting is that we need help recuiting additional sponors, and the parties most interested in the series and with the most potential benefit are the manufacturers, so turn the job over to them.


Anyhow, I like what I saw for a two make series and think if we think it is a good example, we could easily set up the SCCA requiremenst to encourage this type of sponsorship and participation.

No sour grapes -- just very strategic intent. I have been preaching for a while we need to look very hard at what will encourage long term involvement from sponsors. I have also been preaching that we do not need sponsors who are not interetested in helping the sport grow. This idea of requireing third party sponsors builds on those ideas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,407 Posts
>The SCCA sets the rules and the price of entry, if the price
>of entry included third party sponsorship then that would be
>the rule.

So if Joe Schmoe puts out 100 solicitations and follows up and puts out 2 dozen proposals and finally, after taking a year off and toiling like mad and spending his own money on marketing himself instead of racing for a year, finally, he lands a lucrative deal with a manufacturer, you are going to tell him "Sorry, your Pontiuick money's no good here unless you bring in Cocsi-Cola with it." ???

Joe'll say, "I'll go where my and my company's money is wanted, thank you."


>We previously dictated a $10,000 fee to earn manufacturers
>points, the SCCA can dictate anything it likes and has
>proven it both in the realm of the manufacturers and in the
>realm of the competitors.

Still do. And for this reason, Mazda is withdrawing from the manufacturer's council. Quite simply, we didn't feel we got our money's worth.

>
>The help will be in achieving additional sponsorship.

It will have the opposite effect. It will take a marginal motorsport (wrt ROI) and make it unmarketable.

>We
>have all witnessed how fragile the previous manufacturer
>involvement was, so why go down that path again?

Why go down that path again? Here. Read the 3rd paragraph of my response.
http://www.specialstage.com/forum/c...cgi?az=read_count&om=2006&forum=DCForumID2#85

>Maybe better to find a different source of sponsors. Since the
>manufactureres get the most benefit from the show, why not
>pass the burden of securing additional investors to them.
>In the end the manufacturers have the most to gain, so why
>not employee them to grow the sponsors involved.

I get the feeling that you think manufacturers have magic wands that they wave and cash appears and then they reach in a hat an pull out signed contracts for cosponsorhip with other, completely unrelated companies. Its hard enough for a team to secure sponsorship from a manufacturer without having to impose this "rider" on the deal.


>The 2004 season will prove the series does not need
>manufacturers to be successful. To be televised maybe, but
>not to be well run, competitive and include large fields.
>
>What I am suggesting is that we need help recuiting
>additional sponors, and the parties most interested in the
>series and with the most potential benefit are the
>manufacturers, so turn the job over to them.


The two go hand in hand. Without TV, how do you propose getting additional sponsors? I know Team Dynamics (a non-OEM sponsor)scrapped plans on being here for 04 when TV fell into question.

And the parties with the most potential benefit are the FANS. It was always a questionable investment (like all racing) for the manufacturers. I would say the fans got more out of the manufacturers than the manufacturers or dealerships got from increased traffic attributed directly to the SCCA ProRally series.


>No sour grapes -- just very strategic intent. I have been
>preaching for a while we need to look very hard at what will
>encourage long term involvement from sponsors. I have also
>been preaching that we do not need sponsors who are not
>interetested in helping the sport grow. This idea of
>requireing third party sponsors builds on those ideas.

If you don't like being an "us", write a proposal and start knocking down doors for sponsorship. Become a "them." We have lots of preachers. We need doers. (Mike, I am not saying you aren't a doer. I know you work tremendously hard on Sno-Drift and I thank you very much for that dedication.) I don't think the intent of any of the manufacturers was to rape and pillage the sport. ANY sponsor has a FINANCIAL "interest in helping the sport grow." The more it grows, the greater the ROI! Mitsubishi got caught with a cost reduction plan like all big companies go through. A sponsor may have the best of intentions, but in today's business world, as I know you understand, Mike, directions change, people get shuffled, and money dries up. And rather than just walk away, Subaru offers bigger privateer sponsorship and a parts program.

Lurch (neck deep in proposals for the 2005...yes that's a five...season)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,407 Posts
Supercars rev up branding bonanza

Author: Gordon Lomas

Publication: Courier Mail

Date: January 29, 2004


TOURING car racing, or more specifically V8 Supercars, is the vehicle which is convincing Queensland companies to cash in on a branding bonanza.

As the business of the ferociously competitive V8 Holden Commodores and Ford Falcons blossoms to be the third most watched sport on television behind football and cricket, local entrepreneurs are grabbing the opportunity to push for national exposure for their products.

Gold Coast empire builder Terry Morris, who has extensive business interests in Queensland including Carrara Markets and the Sirromet Winery just south of Brisbane, says the opportunity to plaster products over a race car is too good to refuse these days.

Sirromet sponsors the Commodore raced by son Paul Morris which is also festooned with Beer, Wine and Spirits (BWS) signage.

Motor racing is a volatile and expensive business but there are rewards for companies that market the right products to a massive national audience.

Running a single-car level one team in the 13 rounds of the V8 Supercar Championship can cost more than $1.3 million. Sirromet is distributed by the national liquor chain and it was a chance promotion at one of the BWS stores on the Gold Coast with the Sirromet V8 Supercar which prompted a permanent link.

We did a promotion and the sales spike at the particular outlet where the car was spiked way higher than any of their other stores, Mr Morris said.

Sirromet chief executive Adam Chapman said television exposure of the Paul Morris Commodore equated to about $1 million worth of advertising.

VIP Petfoods owner Tony Quinn dipped his toes in the V8 Supercar water three years ago when he sponsored cars and was naming rights sponsor for the Queensland 500 endurance race.

You just have to be involved in motor racing from a brand recognition point of view.

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

The difference is that V8 supercars is in front of nearly as many eyes as soccer in Australia. When ProRally gets right behind Monday Night Football in ratings, I bet outside sponsors will flock to our doors and fenders, too.
 

·
I am not here anymore
Joined
·
2,798 Posts
>The difference is that V8 supercars is in front of nearly as
>many eyes as soccer in Australia. When ProRally gets right
>behind Monday Night Football in ratings, I bet outside
>sponsors will flock to our doors and fenders, too.

That is presuming rally can survive the growth to reach that point. Imagine the crowd control issues on stage with NFL-size crowds.

alan
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top