Nascar

[dave41]

sponsor's pay big money to put their name on cars & trucks for advertisement, it has gotten to the point that Nascar does not care enough to show all race cars as they put on their show . they should show every sponsor at least 3 times during the races. sponsor's will start to back away.

[OldSchool+]

Not a bad idea, Dave.

I understand the "lead the races, get air time, get sponsorship money" thing--and fair enough.

BUT--NASCAR could figure out how much air time it takes in order to make sponsorship of a car a good business proposition for a Company, and then either directly or indirectly pressure the Coverage Provider to make sure that every car gets at least that amount.

And then, of course, the action and the leaders would get the lion's share of the rest.

Again, a good idea to keep the fields filled, and filled with decent cars.

[egspeedway]

Great idea lets use 3 bogus debris cautions to slow the field so the viewer can read all the sponsors. Oops that won't work as we use these same cautions to tear ourselves away from the race to swap beers. You know one out one in and then back to the usually boring roundy round.

[Groundpounder]

A logo on screen doesn't equate at all to meaningful exposure...if a sponsor feels slighted he could always pony up and BUY a properly produced commercial on the broadcast...like Go Daddy, Bud, etc, etc...
The sponsor logo is a crap shoot as far as getting tv time. BTW, the network sells those commercials, why should they give exposure for free?

[OldSchool+]

The "semi mandatory" exposure is required precisely so the money goes to the Teams, which then provide the show--for NASCAR. Which then provides the ratings and advertiser funds for the network. A circular--and mutually beneficial--cluster, as it were.

There is plenty of tv commercial money to go around, and besides, that is not NASCAR--or the Teams--problem.

WHY should a network go for that? Because it is part of the big apple that they want on their network that will make them even more money than it is costing them.

It is the same as the requisite money to "buy" the rights to broadcast NASCAR to begin with.

The network would like to have it for $100, but will not pay $1,000,000,000.

In between is where the negotiatin' comes in, and I believe Dave's idea could be part of "the package".

[Groundpounder]

The "semi mandatory" exposure is required precisely so the money goes to the Teams, which then provide the show--for NASCAR. Which then provides the ratings and advertiser funds for the network.

Ratings are less critical these days. There are hundreds of networks, not just 3 anymore. A network will televise what is bought and paid for, period. That could be racing or dog shows. There is no deep seated love or favors for racing. See many of the cable "reality" shows, for example. Sports Marketing executives have wised up to this. Why not worry about track signage visibility?

Actually, after a race when the nut behind the wheel steps out and says..."My Aaron's Camry run good today..." you think that really helps sell product??? If so, compare that to a properly produced commercial and you should agree that the selling effect is minimal from that utterance. Sponsor mentions actually detract from the broadcast, IMHO, and many savvy drivers know this.

[OldSchool+]

I think that Aaron's thinks the mention is worth something (though I too find it tacky).

Jayskis at one time published how much "air time" each car received, presumably for the interest of sponsors.

And Michael, no time champeen, is worth $35M, Darrell, 3 time champion, $25.

Yeah, I know, they pay more now, but Darrell largely made his racing, Michael by being a sponsor spokesperson.

[Groundpounder]

I think that Aaron's thinks the mention is worth something

It's worth about as much as warnings are on cigarette labels and as effective as peeing in your pants in a dark suit...nobody notices. LOL

[OldSchool+]

Again, Aaron's gave Michael money because they believed his schtick would move more renta-couches--and make them more money than they gave him.

Michael skimmed off $35m more than it took to roll the Toyoders around in 8th place.

Think about it. If you are BK racing, would you not be thrilled to take guaranteed air time to your potential sponsor?

Re: Others noticing: It all depends...

[Groundpounder]

They are moving on. I guess they stopped seeing the (any) value... took them long enough, unlike NAPA.

Even then, Aaron's bought broadcast commercial time and participated in other racing events as a sponsor.

[OldSchool+]

Yes, making Dave's point.

[Groundpounder]

I don't believe it makes his point...relying on maybe a shot of your logo on camera without any other marketing follow through is a cheap, backwards way of marketing which few savvy sponsor use anymore.

[Groundpounder]

Jayskis at one time published how much "air time" each car received, presumably for the interest of sponsors.

BTW, the Joyce Julius reports have been around for 35 plus years and not too many companies take stock in the "value" that they purport...but it's interesting chatter.

[OldSchool+]

What about short track cars? No TV time, in many cases no time on the mic.

The car in my avatar has a sponsor. Back then, you won the feature, you took a lap with the flag, you got yer pitcher taken in the car with your helmet on.

I went every week and never knew what my heros looked like.

Still, Crutchfield Marine thought it was worth a few bucks to have the folks watch their name ride around in circles.

Aight, this is, and was, self explanatory.

Next topic?

[Groundpounder]

Not the same animal and totally understandable with no TV and the cost involved (a few bucks) to do that type of sponsorship...let alone the small audience.