Will more sponsors pull the plug ? - "For a smart company, this is the time to get in

Originally Posted by Frigo's Luggage

Smart companies won't get in no matter what the price. Why would anyone pay good money and face a very real risk having their name tarnished by scandel? Armstrong, Floyd, Ulrich, Basso, Hamilton and company have set the sport back thirty years. The Belgian riders that were making $35k will be lucky to make $20k. For them, this is no longer a professional sport. Barely semi-pro.

Originally Posted by buckybux

I both teach marketing and do marketing consulting on the side. I could NEVER recommend a sponship that had the potential of negative publicity. Only way I would even consider it is if the team had extra controls on doping, and even then I would be really afraid of the collateral damage from other teams. Bottom line, too risky to chance.

The article sounds like a lot of "marketing spin" to me. It is like the local Real Estate agents telling me now is a good time to buy. The housing (in the US) market is going to get worse, and so are the cycling doping scandals. The time for opportunity is when you are at the bottom, not when you still have a ways to go down.

When the UCI starts doing a realistic amount of testing that catches the cheaters, then we will be at the bottom.

Originally Posted by Crankyfeet

Good to see you again PP.

Has the cost of sponsorship come down a lot over the last couple of years to make it a bargain? I don't see that wages have dramatically dropped, but there are extra costs to running any anti-doping program from within.

Also, CH, we don't know how Festina's and Phonak's results would have gone had the doping crap not happened. And we don't know how much the positive effects were only due to the scandal publicity, and that once that wore off, the effects may have been negative.

Also, the environment is unstable. But that can be an opportunity as CH says, as long as there is something you are getting at a bargain compared to normal times. What is the bargain? Less sponsorship $$$ required? The ability to get a pro tour license? The ability to get invited by ASO to the TdF?

Also, if you run a team platform of anti-doping, you may receive positive publicity for that, but it may be offset by the fact that your team doesn't win anything.

Originally Posted by limerickman

I've a copy of Cycle Sport October 1998 - in it, they discuss the impact of the Festina debacle with the marketing manager of Festina - as opposed to the marketing manager of the Festina Cycling team.
The corporate guy says "we have seen no adverse impact on the sales on our product following the 1998 TDF".
Asked if it was too soon to judge (in Oct 1998) the impact of the fallout from July (1998), the marketing guy says "for sure, the company did receive very adverse publicity.However, the quality of our products ensure that they're always competitive in the marketplace and we have worked hard to retain brand loyalty".
Asked if the scandal would have an impact on Festina's long term commitment to the sport, their marketing said "we are currently reviewing our operations and commitment to the sport".

Read in to that what you will.

History shows that Festina walked away from their sponsorship of the team.

If I recall correctly, Festina were also the offocial sponsors of timekeeping for the TDF as well at that time.
I'm right in saying that they walked away from this sponsorship too???

Originally Posted by classic1

'Walked away' is overstating it. Festina continued sponsoring a team until the end of 2001 (after starting sponsorship in the 1980's under their Spanish name 'Lotus') and are still official timekeeper at the Tour.

Originally Posted by cyclingheroes

In terms of return of investment cycling is still a bargain... The Festina scandal did not harm the company, their CEO once said that 1999 was their best year. Even Andy Rhiis said that Phonak had its best year in 2006. He quit with Phonak but is back with BMC (which he also owns), BMC has a pro continental staus now.