sponsors getting scared

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org

On Jun 18, 3:43*pm, Amit Ghosh <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 6:23 pm, Bob Schwartz
>
> > Tell me, how do I show damages so that I can sue as
> > a result of terminating the service? In your head, do
> > you see people switching cell and internet providers
> > because T-Mobile sponsored a bunch of dirty dopers?
>
> dumbass,
>
> t-mobile spent money for a certain kind of publicity and got a
> different kind of publicity.
>
> the effect on sales is irrelevant, the point is they got a different
> service then they spent money for - which means there is a risk
> involved for a company when they sponsor a team.

Dumbass,

There still isn't much evidence that doping
scandals damage sponsors. Except that, to
preserve their clean image, the sponsor has
to pull the plug, so it causes them some extra
work to find a new place to spend their ad
dollars.

I think one could make a stronger argument that
doping scandals do damage race promoters.

Ben

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org

On Jun 18, 9:22*am, mtb Dad <listerfar...@telus.net> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 4:47*am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Looks like High Road and Slipstream have been scared by all the doping
> > talk and are no longer title sponsors
>
> >http://www.velonews.com/article/778...w-title-sponsor...
>
> >http://www.velonews.com/article/77752/
>
> Or openly anti-doping teams are attractive to sponsors. *Conscious
> action (i.e. buying into a team), opposed to inertial (word?) denial
> ("there's no proof, we have a clause..."), suggests it's the more
> powerful phenomenon.

You are letting your wish for how you want the
world to be take over your perception of the
external world. I might like it to be that way, too,
but imposing my ethics would not make me
a good ad buyer.

You know what's attractive to sponsors? Winning,
and getting on TV. Or maybe it's getting on TV,
and winning. Slipstream and Wide Load are both
going to be on TV this July. Maybe their anti-doping
policy had something to do with that, and so it's
getting them sponsors. But if they weren't winning,
they wouldn't get on TV or get sponsors.

Sponsors don't want clean teams per se. Well, if all
else is equal, sure. But what they want are teams
that in the first place, win, and perhaps in the second
place, don't get busted after winning. Actual cleanliness
didn't make the podium.

Ben

Donald Munro

Kyle Legate wrote:
> The sponsor is paying for brand exposure. The real risk is that there
> won't be a doping scandal and their brand will be exposed merely to fans
> of bicycle racing. A doping story increases their brand exposure to the
> entire sporting world.

The only way the TDF gets mentioned for more than a minute in the
sports section of major broadcasters like CNN is if there is a
doping scandal ie no publicity is bad publicity.

Donald Munro

Bob Schwartz wrote:
> This is great news. It means that High Load will have to design new kit to
> replace their current ugly-ass kit. First Hincapie got new sunglasses, now
> this. Things are looking up.

But apparently not Slipstream:
"Argyle is definitely going to be part of the uniform. Argyle has become
like Kansas City and Garmin is the Chiefs – it symbolizes the spirit of
the team, and we're glad Garmin is OK with keeping it," said Vaughters.

<http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/jun08/jun19news>

Bob Schwartz

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> On Jun 18, 9:22 am, mtb Dad <listerfar...@telus.net> wrote:
>> On Jun 18, 4:47 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Looks like High Road and Slipstream have been scared by all the doping
>>> talk and are no longer title sponsors
>>> http://www.velonews.com/article/778...w-title-sponsor...
>>> http://www.velonews.com/article/77752/
>> Or openly anti-doping teams are attractive to sponsors. Conscious
>> action (i.e. buying into a team), opposed to inertial (word?) denial
>> ("there's no proof, we have a clause..."), suggests it's the more
>> powerful phenomenon.
>
> You are letting your wish for how you want the
> world to be take over your perception of the
> external world. I might like it to be that way, too,
> but imposing my ethics would not make me
> a good ad buyer.

I think history has shown that creating your own
reality is not a well thought out plan.

Bob Schwartz

RicodJour

On Jun 19, 4:19 am, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> But apparently not Slipstream:
> "Argyle is definitely going to be part of the uniform. Argyle has become
> like Kansas City and Garmin is the Chiefs – it symbolizes the spirit of
> the team, and we're glad Garmin is OK with keeping it," said Vaughters.
>
> <http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/jun08/jun19news>

I'm waiting for one of those medicinal marijuana places in California
to sponsor a team and have a paisley kit. They could name it Team
High Road...oh, wait, that's already been taken...

R

Bob Schwartz

RicodJour wrote:
> I'm waiting for one of those medicinal marijuana places in California
> to sponsor a team and have a paisley kit. They could name it Team
> High Road...oh, wait, that's already been taken...

Team Ride High.

Bob Schwartz

RicodJour

On Jun 19, 10:39 am, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
> > I'm waiting for one of those medicinal marijuana places in California
> > to sponsor a team and have a paisley kit. They could name it Team
> > High Road...oh, wait, that's already been taken...
>
> Team Ride High.

Team Half Baked?
Team Harold and Kumar Go To France?
Team 'ere?

R

Michael Press

In article
<393619c4-9d0c-416d-a44f-bff590533c38@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Amit Ghosh <amit.ghosh@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 18, 5:53 pm, Bret <bret.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 18, 3:16 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Name one, just one sponsor that has suffered damage
> > > to their image after a doping scandal.
> >
> > On a hunch I started googling for evidence of a slump in Festina watch
> > sales after 1998. Instead I found this:
> >
> > ³The response to Festina products in the past year has been
> > overwhelming.² (1999)
> >
> > http://jck.polygon.net/archives/1999/11/jc11-080.html
> >
> dumbass,
>
> the point isn't the effect on sales, the point is they didn't get what
> they paid for.

At this point I do not know what bicycle team sponsors pay for.

--
Michael Press

Michael Press

In article <Cgc6k.10311$uE5.9609@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com>,
Bob Schwartz <bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net> wrote:

> mtb Dad wrote:
> > On Jun 18, 4:47 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Looks like High Road and Slipstream have been scared by all the doping
> >> talk and are no longer title sponsors
> >>
> >> http://www.velonews.com/article/778...w-title-sponsor...
> >>
> >> http://www.velonews.com/article/77752/
> >
> > Or openly anti-doping teams are attractive to sponsors. Conscious
> > action (i.e. buying into a team), opposed to inertial (word?) denial
> > ("there's no proof, we have a clause..."), suggests it's the more
> > powerful phenomenon.
>
> To do a proper comparison we should also look at openly
> pro-doping teams. Who would that be, other than Rock
> Racing?
>
> You appear to not grasp the irony of an openly anti-
> doping team run by Vaughters.
>
> Check this out:
>
> http://www.astana-cyclingteam.com/N...ils.aspx?Code=8
>
> "We are spending 460,000 Euros on internal anti-doping
> efforts for 2008. What more can we do?"
>
> The team with the worst history of doping offenses is
> openly anti-doping. Just like Slipstream. How does that
> happen?

Ooh! Ooh! I know! They are all a bunch of drug addled hypocrites.
What do I win?

--
Michael Press

Ryan Cousineau

In article <6bu6mhF3d365uU1@mid.individual.net>,
Kyle Legate <legatek@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Amit Ghosh wrote:
> >
> > the point isn't the effect on sales, the point is they didn't get what
> > they paid for.
>
> They pay for exposure and brand recognition and Festina got that in
> spades. All the sponsors have to do is play the victim of those big, bad
> dopers and culpability rolls off them like oil on Teflon. And they get
> more return on their sponsorship euro than if they were merely present
> in races which only a small number of people follow. Doping is good for
> business.

Under this theory, sponsors may not get hurt by doping per se, but the
only effective response to a doping scandal in their team is to drop the
sponsorship.

That's not, as the joke goes, a well thought out plan.

More to the point, any doping scandal is going to reduce the
attractiveness of the specific team and the general sport to a certain
group of sponsors. In general, with some exceptions (mostly edgy-brand
consumer products) it's a negative to corporate sponsors to have their
advertising message associated with bad behavior.

It's the difference between having Anne Hathaway as your spokesmodel and
Lindsay Lohan. You can make the latter work, but you have to be seeking
a pretty particular image.

The key problem is that the basic attractions of sports sponsorship are
to associate your company with strength, ability, achievement, youth,
sportsmanship, and so forth. Those are associations that don't mesh well
with deceit, false accomplishment, and cheating. The number of companies
that want the second message is small, the number of companies that want
both messages (best summed up by The Onion's "CHEAT TO WIN" rubber band
slogan) is even smaller.

A sport entirely sponsored by Vice Magazine, The Onion, Wabo Cabo, and
Rock & Republic is not a very viable sport, at least as a profit-making
enterprise.

The sponsors of an all-doped cycling would be like the sponsors of
alleycat racing.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Donald Munro

Michael Press wrote:
> Ooh! Ooh! I know! They are all a bunch of drug addled hypocrites. What do
> I win?

A holiday in Helmand province ?

Bob Schwartz

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> Under this theory, sponsors may not get hurt by doping per se, but the
> only effective response to a doping scandal in their team is to drop the
> sponsorship.
>
> That's not, as the joke goes, a well thought out plan.

There is an upside to team sponsorship. There is no
downside, the worst that can happen is that the
upside is not realized.

People may be surprised by this, but multi-million
euro marketing plans tend to be well thought out.

> More to the point, any doping scandal is going to reduce the
> attractiveness of the specific team and the general sport to a certain
> group of sponsors. In general, with some exceptions (mostly edgy-brand
> consumer products) it's a negative to corporate sponsors to have their
> advertising message associated with bad behavior.

Dude. You get around that by sponsoring an openly
anti-doping team. And they're all openly anti-doping!

Bob Schwartz

RicodJour

On Jun 20, 9:53 am, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
wrote:
>
> There is an upside to team sponsorship. There is no
> downside, the worst that can happen is that the
> upside is not realized.

If your plans do not come to fruition and you paid money to implement
those plans, that's not a downside?

You don't happen to work in the mortgage market, do you? The
reasoning sounds similar.

R