triumph5 wrote: And Red Bull is pulling out of the most popular form of racing in the USA. Clem Sparks point proven.
not really. NASCAR isn't really a Red Bull kind of place. I don't think they ever really belonged there.
Besides, they still have TWO formula 1 teams. Point proven.
NO. Different markets. One here, other one in Europe. They threw a ton of money at NASCAR and didn't get far.
Why, then, did they get in NASCAR in the first place? I would have thought a world-wide company with all their marketing experts would have known better. Oh, that's right, they didn't consult you knowing the USA "isn't really a Red Bull kind of place.
Money.
It's always the answer.
You don't get any money for breaking records. Unless the sponsor asks you to- which is what RedBull has done a few times. But most sponsors know that the risks are far too much for the reward. So they don't pay for it.
Yes, I realize it costs money. As I said before, sometimes (more often than not), it takes money to make money.
Flyson racing should focus first on winning races, championships and owning track records in the current series, pour their money into current chassis and engine R&D and then so into next gen upgrades and future rule changes. Hmm... if that works maybe add a car to the team. Winning races & championships = PR, fan base, sponsorship $
If the team gets too good maybe the sanction will put a bounty on them.
fasted58 wrote: Flyson racing should focus first on winning races, championships and owning track records in the current series, pour their money into current chassis and engine R&D and then so into next gen upgrades and future rule changes. Hmm... if that works maybe add a car to the team. Winning races & championships = PR, fan base, sponsorship $ If the team gets too good maybe the sanction will put a bounty on them.
That is exactly my point, though. It seems that, in this day and age, if you want to go fast you have to HAVE money. This is why I am suggesting they do things that garner them MORE money. Obviously, if the publicity stunt, the track day, or the record setting event doesn't = more cash from your sponsors, or potentially new sponsors, then don't do it.
Flyson is currently spending all of their money racing in a series where they get no coverage. Not because of the move to online, but because they are racing against air. They have a two car LMP1.5 team in a 3 car LMP1.5 class (Level 5 just announced they were pulling out).
I have been thinking about it alot lately, and it seems like there are race teams and drivers that have NO television exposure, and even very little success in their series, but still have HUGE fan bases.
Think about this...Why do you know who Chris Rado is? Because he broke track records, and did it in a new FWinged way. Why do you know who Travis Pastrana is? While he was successful in motocross and national rallycross, he is more well known for his crazy stunts. He had a whole TV show centered around his crazy stunts. The guy jumped out of a plane without a chute. He backflipped a motorcycle into the grand canyon. He invented pace notes like "Jiggy Jiggy". Why do you know who Ken Block is? Because he followed Travis' path into bed with New Media and furthered it into a cult-like following. Ken Block is the New Media king in the sport. He is wildly unsuccessful in WRC, he doesn't ever win the big one at the X-games, and even in Rally America he never owned a single championship.
Case rested.
Depends on what your sponsor wants to be more well known for.
Maroon92 wrote: Yes, I realize it costs money. As I said before, sometimes (more often than not), it takes money to make money.
What money is to be made breaking records? Be the fastest around a track, and you get the same cash as if you took FTD at the local autocross.
OTOH, focusing on the LAMS series, Flyson gets entry fees and finishing fees.
When was the last time anyone cared about a LSD? Last I recall seriously was the JCB Diesel team. And after they set the record, you could hear the bugs at the news conference. And I know they spent at least a $1M on that project.
JCB would be far, far better off supplying an engine to Flyson.
You aren't understanding what I am getting at.
I am clearly not saying you garner money by taking track records. I am saying teams need to do things to garner PR. By garnering PR and internet views and TV time, they get more PR and internet views and TV time for their sponsors. The sponsors then gain more from their venture with the race team. There fore, by providing added value, they can justify charging more money from their sponsors.
I will refute your argument by saying JCB did perfectly in building the DieselMax LSR car. (I don't know where people are getting LSR, nowhere did I say anything about LSRs. I am talking about track records, not land speed records.) JCB did the job and won the record, then they broadcast that E36 M3 all over the internet. They did very well in their social media, regular media, and internet campaigns. YOU know who JCB is because of this project. I know who JCB is because of this project. I GUARANTEE that project cost them more than 1,000,000 dollars, however, they got AT LEAST 30 seconds of exposure on an episode of TOP GEAR. Not that BBC has commercials, but if they did, I assure you it would cost a lot more than a couple million to reach as many viewers with as much longevity using traditional media (print ads, tv commercials, billboards, and radio commercials).
triumph5 wrote: NO. Different markets. One here, other one in Europe. They threw a ton of money at NASCAR and didn't get far. Why, then, did they get in NASCAR in the first place? I would have thought a world-wide company with all their marketing experts would have known better. Oh, that's right, they didn't consult you knowing the USA "isn't really a Red Bull kind of place.
I just was discussing the Red Bull dropout with a fan of NASCAR and a friend of mine. We concur that Red Bull is leaving for 3 reasons.
NASCAR IS ADVERTISING, and it's not working. Red Bull's target market for the US market is Males 18-34. This happens to be the demographic that continues to drop in viewership of NASCAR from week to week.
Poor performance due to poor management. First they dropped A.J. Almendinger right at the point where they had spent enough money grooming him that he was going to start performing, then they replace him with "golden boy" Scott Speed who has failed to produce results at any level.
If it ain't sellin' more "toxic swill in a can", then it ain't workin'.
You still see motorsport as pure motorsport. Unfortunately it isn't. Motorsport is, now, just another venue for advertising dollars, and should be treated that way. If NASCAR were a magazine that Red Bull had decided to put a print ad in, and the key demographic for Red Bull began dropping in the hypothetical NASCAR magazine, they would have just as much right to pull their ads out of that magazine.
In reply to your second paragraph. Obviously they didn't consult me, and I am sure they did their due diligence, but the writing is on the proverbial wall. Everyone makes mistakes, even multinational corporations. Are you so naive that you think just because research supports your decision that it will ABSOLUTELY be the perfect decision to make?
(By the way, this kind of conversation really gets me excited, so keep it up!)
Because the driver and the owner are the only people who actually care about the result.
I posted it the way I did because I knew you'd get all bent out of shape.
And two Toro Rosso cars qualified in the top 10 at Infineon... Drivers looking for new rides already!
I would like to see MWR pick up Casey Kahne and make a three driver team out of it, kids got talent. Maybe as part of the deal Toro Rosso could pick up sponsorships instead of owning the team.
triumph5 wrote: I posted it the way I did because I knew you'd get all bent out of shape.
Apparently I am transparent...
or...You know me too well...
You're in/studying advertising: What's the axiom? Know your audience.
In reply to Maroon92: I get it.
So what if JCB broke the record? (oh, and I knew about it because I was there, I have not heard a single peep in the media I see).
How many more tractors did they sell? Did they recoup the $1M with increased profits? Do you know anyone who got one?
I personally think that has they put a similar effort for LeMans, it would have been a much better investment.
Do you really think more cars will be sold if an obscure track record is broken? Or will the money be better spent if they do a better job winning LeMans?
People like to think that PR in itself is good. And if it's free, it's good. But if you pay money for it, then the PR needs to result in more sales, for someone. And more sales to offset the cost of whatever you are doing.
If you are racing, you get apperence money plus winning money plus exposure. For just driving a track you have to pay for the track, pay for the car (and if there are changes), pay for PR, etc etc.
If Red Bull does some kind of stunt, do they sell more Red Bull in the process? Enough to pay for the event?
Based on the simple fact that nobody does that, except for Red Bull, generally, there's little money in track records.
How much did the Stewart/Hamilton stunt cost Mobile? Are you going to buy Mobile 1 just because of the event? And they have to get NEW buyers, since my oil changes are already part of their income.
PR for PR's sake rewards nobody, it HAS to result in more sales, and enough to offset the costs of what you propose.
(BTW, LSR's are close to the same point at setting track records or other stunts, I figured that you would get that)
alfadriver wrote: In reply to Maroon92: I get it. So what if JCB broke the record? (oh, and I knew about it because I was there, I have not heard a single peep in the media I see). How many more tractors did they sell? Did they recoup the $1M with increased profits? Do you know anyone who got one?
The JCB thing was a few years ago, and it was EVERYWHERE in the media. It was in all of the major national magazines, a lot of the minor ones, there was coverage on a lot of blogs, as I said, they mentioned it on Top Gear (JCB is a british company, so they probably didn't push it very hard here. Can you even buy JCB tractors in the US?), and I am pretty sure it even got play on this very message board with a thread of it's own.
Do I know anyone who bought one? No. I am not a farmer, and I live in Metro Atlanta, so I would be hard pressed to find anyone within a very long distance who even needs a tractor. Why the berkeley would I need a tractor?
Was it worth it? IMHO, hell yeah. Why would a tractor company have any business at Le Mans? To do even sorta well, you would have to spend HUNDREDS of millions of dollars. Audi and Peugeot have spent billions, and they are untouchable, no point throwing your hat in that arena.
The company you work for (Ford right?) spends multiple millions in advertising every day. Can you DIRECTLY correlate the proportionality of people who saw Ford ads that immediately went out and bought Fords?
Just to give you an idea, here are some links to stuff on the web about the record attempt.
Youtube video with half a million views
Autocar Magazine (Brit car mag)
Car Magazine (another brit rag) covered it pretty extensively on their Youtube account
The green blogs even got in on the JCB action
This company worked with JCB to make it happen. Of course they are going to post about it......
But the GMperformancetuning forums? Why would they care? Are they going to be buying tractors? 
Advertising space in 20 or so magazines, plus youtube views, plus bloggers and forum posters talking about your product is generally expensive. Yeah, the cost of building the car is high, but it pales in comparison to Advertising costs. A TV ad is super expensive, usually in the millions to produce.
You'll need to log in to post.
