22 replies to this topic

[V8 Fireworks]

Unless you decide to buy two of your own F1 teams and fund all the expenses (or buy a NASCAR team too for that matter), I think it's comparable as to which series provides better value to sponsors.

So a typical NASCAR-CUP campaign costs $15-20 million per car, apparently primarily borne by sponsors. And a typical title sponsor would be around $15 million per season.

Whilst a typical F1 campaign may cost $250 million per car, but unlike NASCAR, the F1 sponsorship cost is heavily subsidised by manufacturer money and FOM money. So Vodafone is only reportedly paying $40 million per season, or $20 million per car, for title sponsorship on the two McLarens - numbers very similar to NASCAR. (Aside, consider that the Vodafone's former Manchester United deal - negotiated long ago perhaps - was a measly $16 million per season and saw Vodafone United shirts worn by tens to hundreds of millions worldwide in all corners of the globe, people who are perhaps bored by F1...) The former HP/Compaq Williams and the Panasonic Toyota deals were reportedly less than that, closer to $20 million per season or a paltry $10 million per car.

Comparing the exposure provided, on the one hand in NASCAR the sponsor gets 1 car out of many cars but for many races, while in F1 they get 2 cars out of half as many cars, but they get less than half as many races and the races are generally shorter too.

So, a tricky one, which sponsorship is best?

[noikeee]

Depends on where you want your product to sell.

[pingu666]

thats the main bit. nascar is waaaaay more open to special liveries too

[uffen]

I find NASCAR cars so covered with stickers and logos that I can't tell who's who or what's what.

[nissan_gtp]

I'd think that the answer is simple -- in the US, NASCAR is a far, far better buy. Everywhere else, F1.

For companies that sell sell everywhere, it would depend on current sales demographics and on expansion strategies.
Many big companies will be eyeing the Chinese and Indian markets, so F1 may look good for that.

[917k]

NASCAR global TV audience per race [AVG.] = 6-7 million

F1 global TV audience per race [AVG.] = 150 million

What's the question again?;)






Note - these are estimates based on what I have seen in the past. NASCAR, excluding Daytona, seems to get about 4-5 million viewers per race, and I am being generous to tack on another 2 -3 million for the rest of the world.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Its more like 50-60, and 80-90 for really big events/championship deciders/races during the European evening.

Still far bigger than anything else, which makes the need for journos to talk about the '300million viewers' even more silly.

But crucially, next to no awareness in the US.

[GerardF1]

"But crucially, next to no awareness in the US."

Crucially to who?


A lot of the sponsors in F1 aren't even in the US market. ( Vodaphone, Santander, RBS to name a few )

Yes the manufacturers want to be there - but given the American fascination with ovals - F1 isn't going to make any impact on their sales.

The American market doesn't seem to have any interest in road racing of any type.

CART - history
IMSA - history
Can-Am - ancient history

Ask an average American who Mario Andretti is and you will get winner of the Indy 500 as an answer. Most will not know that he won the WDC.

Personnally, 4 left turns is just one step above going in a straight line for a 1/4 mile as some of the more stupid things to do in a car.

So if you want to advertise in the US go to NASCAR.

If you want to advertise in the rest of the world go to F1 or WRC.

And almost never the twain will meet.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Thanks genius.

[Eliteboy99]

Originally posted by V8 Fireworks
So, a tricky one, which sponsorship is best?

Depends on

1. Client's key objectives,
2. Client's brand values
3. Event / team / championship's brand values
4. the match between them
5. the budget they have
6. the level of activation they want to do and the budget they have for this
7. The exposure required
8. the requirements of the board
9. the skill of the agency putting the deal together and their objectives
10. the cost of the deal
11. what they can negotiate out of the rghts holders
12. the market that is being targeted

Shall i go on?

There are so many factors that there is no point in going into them all. Sometimes the sponsors don't even necessarily need to do anything, they just do it because there competitors are. *cough* Santander and ING *cough*

It is not about which is best, it is about which is best for the sponsor, and as long as the kpi's and roi and roo is there, then there is no issue.

[V8 Fireworks]

I think you are missing the point.

The likelihood of a Cheerios Ferrari is small, but which series is better value for money in the respective market!

Based on the level of subsidy it would appear F1 is preferable value for money for European based sponsors looking to advertise in European auto racing... i.e. they get a better deal then American companies looking to advertise in the American series of auto racing.

This is odd, as on face value NASCARs are mobile billboards and they are much cheaper to build, with 'simple' technology. But tens time as many NASCARs are needed compared to F1 tubs to complete one entry for a season etc.

I question whether my numbers are wrong! Does no one else? $15 million seems very steep for a name on one NASCAR.

So which is better value for money in the respective market?

We can safely rule out series like WTCC, FIA GT, BTCC, IRL being wastes of time for sponsors with very poor levels of media coverage, making F1 and NASCAR the dominant choices in the respective markets.

[GerardF1]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Thanks genius.

You're welcome

[panzani]

One is a USofA event -- the other one is spread and broadcasted worldwide but in UsofA, iirc, so how could them be compared?

[GerardF1]

Originally posted by V8 Fireworks
I think you are missing the point.

The likelihood of a Cheerios Ferrari is small, but which series is better value for money in the respective market!

Based on the level of subsidy it would appear F1 is preferable value for money for European based sponsors looking to advertise in European auto racing... i.e. they get a better deal then American companies looking to advertise in the American series of auto racing.

This is odd, as on face value NASCARs are mobile billboards and they are much cheaper to build, with 'simple' technology. But tens time as many NASCARs are needed compared to F1 tubs to complete one entry for a season etc.

I question whether my numbers are wrong! Does no one else? $15 million seems very steep for a name on one NASCAR.

So which is better value for money in the respective market?

We can safely rule out series like WTCC, FIA GT, BTCC, IRL being wastes of time for sponsors with very poor levels of media coverage, making F1 and NASCAR the dominant choices in the respective markets.

To the best of my knowledge - the teams in NASCAR do have have the subsidies that the F1 teams have arranged - so they need to charge more to cover costs.

What I don't understand is that if NASCAR is basically a spec series - one chassis - one body style with different stickers to make it look like a Ford or whatever, and closely run engines How do they spend $20,000,000 on a car for the year?

If they crash a lot - they should get a new driver

What does a top line driver get paid in NASCAR?

It also seems that the top teams are all running 3 or 4 cars, so there has to be some economies of scale.

They are running it like a business - make profit or die

An F1 team, like Williams for example, seems to run not for profit - but to cover the expenses to keep running.

Maybe that is why Williams isn't at the top anymore -

[quietude38]

Originally posted by GerardF1


What I don't understand is that if NASCAR is basically a spec series - one chassis - one body style with different stickers to make it look like a Ford or whatever, and closely run engines How do they spend $20,000,000 on a car for the year?

The latest estimated price for a rolling chassis I've seen is about $450,000 or so, but that's likely without an engine, so tack on an extra $15,000 or so.

Then figure in that a single-car team is still going to need six to eight cars to complete a season, at the very minimum, and it adds up. A three-car team like Gibbs probably has about 20 cars in varying build states at any time, and Hendrick or Roush likely has upwards of 30 cars.

While the cars may look the same from week to week from the outside, teams will build cars differently depending on where they're likely to be raced, even in the COT era. A road course or short track car will have the ballast mounted differently compared to a speedway car, and the suspension geometry is likely to change from car to car for performance reasons as well as the hand-built nature of these cars.

As for driver salaries, drivers typically get a base salary plus 30 to 50 percent of their winnings. A top-tier driver is probably getting a lower percentage of his winnings, but a large base salary, while a small-team driver is probably getting a small salary but a big cut of the purse.

[Scaramanga]

I would question the efficacy of most motorsports advertisements in general. While a case can be made for title sponsors I would question how effective motorsports advertisement is in correlation with sales. Has Vodafone had a $40 million increase in sales each year due to their involvement with McLaren? Could that money have been better spent in traditional marketing? Vodafone was on the WDC winning car, what of the lessor sponsors on lesser teams? 150 million viewers, but how many people actually pay attention; particularly to the non-title sponsors?

As with everything I'm sure it comes down to target market and product. The exposure of F1 in the US is marginal, as Nascar is in the rest of the world. Are you selling cheese-fries or wiener schnitzels? I'm sure F1 involvement has helped Bridgestone and Fearrai, but what about Panasonic, or Toyota, or Renault? Its hard to quantify. Maybe someone has statistics. . .

[mkay]

By the way, Vodafone is in the USA, just not under the name Vodafone.

Vodafone owns a minority stake in Verizon Wireless, the second biggest mobile phone carrier in the USA.

[whitewaterMkII]

Originally posted by Scaramanga
I would question the efficacy of most motorsports advertisements in general. While a case can be made for title sponsors I would question how effective motorsports advertisement is in correlation with sales. Has Vodafone had a $40 million increase in sales each year due to their involvement with McLaren? Could that money have been better spent in traditional marketing?

No kidding, if they poured that much into giving away free phones, or in the case of Red Bull, giving away a billion or so cans of Red Bull.
I'd imagine 20 percent of every can of Red Bull goes towards supporting Dieters toys, while I seriously doubt that percentage of a monthly Vodafone bill goes into their sports budget.

[pingu666]

when you buy redbull you know your supporting all their little projects and sponserships, and its why i bought relentless, because they sponser a road racing bike team

sponsership is to a certain extent just because the guys in charge want tobe part of something, but thats fine.

i always thought the bank sponsers was curious as you dont tend to swap banks that often

[prxty]

My company used to be a sponsor of a big F1 team. According to what I was told "we" were paying about 2 million euros per year for part of a wing.

My company also entered as main sponsor of one CART car for something like 10 races and as small sponsor for one season. I suppose (hope) "we" paid less than the 2 million.

You can have both, depending on your target. Even if they can not be compared but the level of exposure in the F1 was bigger even if many people never noticed the brand on the car.

We had also regularly "real" F1 cars (one year old chassis without motor on so on) on exhibition in the company HQ a couple of times per year. I can assure you that people queued to have a photo near the car. I'm sure nobody would have queued for a photo with a Nascar car. But again the HQ is in Europe, so no surprise.

Now "we" sponsor raids even if the suppression of the Dakar has almost killed this part.

Each target has is tools to achieve it. But if you are in a global market, NASCAR is not the path to go. People outside the US see the colors of the cars but do not pay attention on the brand, no matter how big you paint it.

[prxty]

Originally posted by mkay
By the way, Vodafone is in the USA, just not under the name Vodafone.

Vodafone owns a minority stake in Verizon Wireless, the second biggest mobile phone carrier in the USA.

Also Santander is in the USA. Only the Sovereign branch has 12.000 employees !!!
* Santander Private Banking
* Sovereign Bank
* Santander Consumer USA Inc.

But they do not care if people in USA recognise their brand in F1 or not. It is not in their target for sponsoring McLaren.

[OfficeLinebacker]

Originally posted by uffen
I find NASCAR cars so covered with stickers and logos that I can't tell who's who or what's what.

LOL can you read numbers? Can you recognize colors? For example if you see a blue car with a 48 on it, that's Jimmie Johnson, no doubt. Orange with a #20? T-Stew. Sure sometimes JPM drives a black car and sometimes it's yellow, but he's always #42.

Meanwhile in F1 I with a glance at a car I can at least narrow it down to one of two drivers, but the only distinguishing factors are helmets and the color of that crossbar thing on top of the air intake. I suppose the numbers are different as well but I can't even recall where on the car the numbers go.

(In NASCAR it's the biggest thing on the car--on each door and on the roof)

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally posted by prxty
Each target has is tools to achieve it. But if you are in a global market, NASCAR is not the path to go. People outside the US see the colors of the cars but do not pay attention on the brand, no matter how big you paint it.

Then again, most F1 followers probably know Jeff Gordon is sponsored by Du Pont, Jimmie Johnson is sponsored by Lowe's etc... it helps the brands have been on these cars for many season, and have appeared in the one or two NASCAR pages of their Autosport magazine...