Americans - Slaves of the Sponsors

[Jimmy Magnusson]

MGM presents

a Steven Spielberg productions

Americans - Slaves of the Sponsors

They're the best racers in America. They win millions of dollars, and sponsors flock to the series. And yet, each time they get anywhere near a reporter...

"So we hope that we can bring this Texaco Havoline Dodge to the front today."

Will they ever break free? Their struggle will soon begin...

In theatres at November 24th

Sponsored by Coca-Cola (tm)


Soo... why exactly does American racers always have to blurt out the names of the main sponsors each time they're interviewed? I never, ever see it in F1 where the relationship seems to be reversed.

[cosmo]

perhaps because they are southerners and have good manners and gratitude for their sponsors..not arrogance and 'look at me look at me' F1's.

[marcel82]

basicallly: they Ã*re slaves of their sponsors: no sponsors - no car - no race

[kelvin88]

When i was at race school they taught us to talk like that. If the reporter ask your opinion on an alien invasion you thank your team and your sponsors before you comment. I don't know why F1 doesn't do it. Too much effort? I mean, if you could get Kimi to even acknowledge a camera was there...

[Adam43]

Different styles, that is all. To most Europeans I think the above sounds false. Far better to thank people when you mean it, not just because you have opened your mouth. I find it quite false, but then that is my background. I guess it isn't seen like that in America so they do it. Fair enough.

Originally Posted by cosmo

perhaps because they are southerners and have good manners and gratitude for their sponsors..not arrogance and 'look at me look at me' F1's.

It seems F1 drivers are both arrogant towards their sponsors and also fail to speak their minds because of their sponsors. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Knowlesy]

That is the way it is in America. I can't really explain it.

Doesn't really bother me though. I don't particularly think it sounds any more false than, say, a simple thankyou to the team. They are saying more or less the same things as European racers just with a sponsor in there.

Both sound equally convincing/false.

[jhansen]

We find it funny and pointless over here. I've seen comedians and some of the media poke fun of it. We also have the longest race titles ever. It's the Johnny Quick 500 Presented by Coca Cola...

[R59]

Have you seen Talladega Nights?

But, truth is, it makes the sponsors feel important. It's all about polishing ego's, and there's no better way than "The #59 Domino's Team Air Ambulance Pontiac Grand Prix ran pretty well out there today" (if you discount the misfire, and the fact that it pushes more than a supermarket trolley with a wobbly wheel).

Sponsors over here are often treated as "blank cheques" and nothing more. Just like the fans - the people who buy the products that the sponsor's produce - ignored, treated like something you might find on the sole of your shoe.

I admit, that maybe they can take the merchandising a little too far, but hey, in the US, NASCAR drivers are as recognisable to the general public as any other major celebrity is over here, and that puts motorsport at the front of the queue for sponsors, not somewhere behind the dog's fleas like it is in Europe.

[bestfit]

You have the trend in MotoGP. Most rider's will bring in the sponsor's name as part of their response to most questions.

[Denosaur]

In NASCAR the driver is the face of the brand for that company. You think Jimmie Johnson you get Lowes, Dupont/Pepsi=Jeff Gordon, Waltrip=Napa, Jarret=UPS, Stewart=Home depot and so on.

If you thought Schumacher you would get Ferrari and not Marlboro, who are Ferrari's biggest sponsor. Then again you might get Shell, for whom which Schu did a few things for, but rumor has it that he was a complete pain in the to work with. Vodafone's switch to McLaren is a perfect example, they are getting Alonso and Hamilton to do a lot of stuff.

Then there's probably a stigma in F1 not to mention sponsor names as they where mostly cigarette companies. Smoking and elite sportsman don't really go together and at the same time the TV figures probably pay some part as well. No problems there in NASCAR with this sort of issue. Hell they've got a sign outside the home town of Gordon which says Home of Winston Cup Champ.

At the end of the day, it is really up to the sponsor to put the pressure on the team for return on there investment. You can hand over cheques and sit back, or you can get in there ear and say I want your driver to say our name, and I want this and want that. As they say, one hand washes the other.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

I think in Europe there is a sense of a sponsor buying a space on the car, where as in America the Sponsor is buying more than that.

It's not just the drivers in interviews, but if you listen to the commentary the whole car is referenced by it's sponsor.

[chunder]

I dont relaly feel that its too bad, why shouldnt the drivers or team members mention their sponsors.

I remember when I was writing for the motorsport prees it was always very hard to get editors to leave in sponsors, I used to argue that the whole reason for them being involved was to get press mentions and pictures, but the editor would then argue that it has no editorial meaning, kind of why its maybe so hard to get sponsors in the UK perhaps!

[thebear]

Here in the US there are at least two companies that do nothing but watch race replays and tally up `screen time' for sponsors. Start wilh all the decals on a car, pan back to the trackside signs, then the commercials, then the crowd shots and finally the driver interviews. That is why there is a protocol for colors of cars, driving suits and placement of sponsors logos on the suits and helmets.

The advertiser's & product's names (audio) and images are all `clocked'. That is how the various advertisers `measure' the effectiveness of their message and justify the money spent. If you have a front running car you get the `screen time'.

If you get the announcer's feed from the US you will realize how embedded it is.

[Hazza]

You just have to realize that in the commercial aspect of it all, America gets it right. And thats it, really.

[muggle not]

I have a question. I am sure that F1 has good drivers and it is probably fun to watch. However, why are there only 22 teams that compete. Is it lack of sponsors or talented drivers or what?

In Nascar the sponsors really get a bang-for-the-buck due to the exposure they get on TV and at the tracks. Yes, the drivers mention their sponsor at every chance. That is why there are 50 some teams that are getting pretty big bucks to keep their operation going. I have had a couple conversations with the Sponsorship Manager for Dupont and, believe me, they are very happy with their Nascar involvement.

[Jimmy Magnusson]

Originally Posted by muggle not

I have a question. I am sure that F1 has good drivers and it is probably fun to watch. However, why are there only 22 teams that compete. Is it lack of sponsors or talented drivers or what?

In Nascar the sponsors really get a bang-for-the-buck due to the exposure they get on TV and at the tracks. Yes, the drivers mention their sponsor at every chance. That is why there are 50 some teams that are getting pretty big bucks to keep their operation going. I have had a couple conversations with the Sponsorship Manager for Dupont and, believe me, they are very happy with their Nascar involvement.

There are actually 11 teams with two cars each, but I understand what you mean (with Hendricks having what, four or five teams?) Quite simply because the F1 management (Mr. B.C. Ecclestone escoir & co) only wants ultra-pro teams in the series. Back in the late 80's and early 90's there were as much as 39 cars attempting to qualify for the races (26 was the traditional number of starters in a race). As costs rose the lower teams were forced to drop out, not that the FIA/BE did much to counter that (on the contrary, they wanted more professionalism in the series).
With all the less pro/well financed teams forced out we got 22 cars, most of them with funded drivers. Currently there is probably 20 paid and 2 pay drivers in the field. Next year we'll get another 2 cars which will have paid drivers. Reason why you don't have more teams is quite simply that the series management doesn't want them.

Also, I do believe that NASCAR will have a dropoff in car count in the coming seasons. I won't be all that surprised if we end up with 43 cars in total for each weekend.

[FIRE]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Magnusson

Reason why you don't have more teams is quite simply that the series management doesn't want them.

Also the other teams doesn't want them because otherwise they get less TV money.

[AU N EGL]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Magnusson

Soo... why exactly does American racers always have to blurt out the names of the main sponsors each time they're interviewed? I never, ever see it in F1 where the relationship seems to be reversed.

They get PAID to say the sponsors name or take drink out of the Coke bottle or Pepsi can.

I have been on the infield and paddocks of a few NASA Car qualifing days. It is one BIG entertainment show.

it takes lots AND LOTS of money to run a race car team. Sponsors pay for it and want exposure, and more exposure then just winning. No longer do sponsors what a sticker small or large on the side of the race car, they want MARKETING EXPOSURE.


and on those F1 Ferrari, the bar code is the Marroboro bar code.

If you dont like a sponsors name on the side of a car, go trying building and running a BIG TEAM in any BIG race serious with out sponsors

[Hazza]

Originally Posted by FIRE

Also the other teams doesn't want them because otherwise they get less TV money.

The "premier league" situation.

You see, that's what ****s me about formula one, limiting the number of teams, no matter how hackeyed and slack jawed some of them were removes a small part of the sport from the...sport?

The fact that Reading had a run in the premiership last year and stayed up, showed that Football is still a sport.

The fact that Minardi went bust shows F1 is not.

My argument being that if F1 was a true sport, like nascar, the little guy could still have a shot, like in the old days in the late 80s. Sure these "startline specials" didn't do so well, but for every Pacific you had a Lleyton House, who came far closer to winning then Toyota has ever done.

[kingfloopy]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Magnusson

Also, I do believe that NASCAR will have a dropoff in car count in the coming seasons. I won't be all that surprised if we end up with 43 cars in total for each weekend.

I agree that the car counts will drop off. For all the talk of NASCAR's might there has been some signs of strain. The television ratings have been declining to some degree and NASCAR is having difficulty finding a sponsor for the soon to be former Busch series.

I think a lot of the smaller teams like BAM Racing, Morgan-McClure, Furniture Row, etc. will fold in the next year or so. Other teams out of the top-25 or so in points will find sponsorship more difficult to find.

I think NASCAR is doing a lot of what Formula 1 did by eliminating "unprofessional" teams with their top-35 rules and other changes. All then talk of equality amongst the competition just doesn't add up with me. Personally whether they were back markers or not the sport just isn't the same without guys like Morgan Shepherd, Kirk Shelmerdine and the like racing anymore. The way NASCAR is going just isn't fun for me I guess.

J.D.

[Dutton]

Such things are inevitable when such high levels of "professionalism" are reached.

The major players who make crap loads of money out of it want to make more: in the modern day, well, the "little guys" tooling about can get in the way of that. They want to be able to project their brand as the most ultra-hardcore mega-amazing thing possible: the better all the other teams look, well, the better it makes them look when they win (also if they don't win). The more of an achievement they can market their exploits to be, then the more money they can extract (beating poorly funded outfits does not support this purpose).

Also, the fewer the spots, and/or the harder it is to get one, then the more "value" it adds to the spots (thus the cost for exposure).

It is all about the elites getting more out of it. That's how it seems to me, at least.

[duke_toaster]

I think F1 has too few teams - 10 and the NFL has 32 - and it doesn't make NFL franchises less saught after than F1 spots. I'd like to say no limit for F1 (provided they can run 2 cars) but have a heats setup and only the top 26 racing.

[Knowlesy]

It's a sad fact that F1 restricts it's grid slots for reasons of quality. It irritates 99% of people.

Obviously you don't want guys running a minute a lap slower than the leaders, but it'd be nice to have a few extra cars out there.

[Dutton]

I have to say 3 more teams that run 10 seconds off the pace does not excite me.

Customer chassis would have to be permitted before such expansions.

[Knowlesy]

Yes, but there is the possibility that these teams "three seconds off the pace" could grow into something fairly decent.

You have to start somewhere.