32 replies to this topic

[RDM]

Autosport Grapevine Story

OK, I accept it's just a 'Grapevine' story, so it may well be total bullshit. However...

Maybe I'm a bit too conventional and old-fashioned in my thinking here, but, not content with bleeding circuits dry of cash, and getting governments to subsidise races, Bernie now (apparently) wants charities to sponsor F1 teams. This appears not to be a case of teams giving advertising space on their cars to charities for free, but to actually charge them for the privilege!

Sure, the exposure would be good...but will people want to continue donating their cash to Amnesty, or Greenpeace or Cancer Research etc. if they feel their money is going to be spent on giving huge motor corporations race track dreams?

I cannot think of another sport that attracts this kind of sponsorship, and i wonder why F1, which has more of a perception of excess spending and wealthy sportsmen and team owners than most sports, thinks it should make such an attractive proposition.

(It's not 1st April, so I don't think I've been suckered into a big joke, but it feels strangely like it...)

[Alapan]

hmmm the thing is, charities frequently advertise anyway, so it's not new. In fact it could be quite a novel idea - companies sponsoring charity ads on F1 cars. Good for the company, good for the charity.

[The First MH]

About 6 years ago I wrote to a new F1 team by the name of BAR, with an idea that I had about sponsoring their cars via charities as a way for them to circumvent tobacco sponsorship. For instance, place a huge red bow on the car, call it the drive for a cure, and conduct huge funding drives where ever you go (which is all over the world frankly), and have this brought to you by British American Tobacco. In other words, BAT still sponsor the car, but they do it by raising money for something like AIDS research, and they don't brtand the car with their colors, but the with the funding drive colors/theme. Be a great way to raise the profile of both the F1 team and BAT.

Of course that isn't what is being discussed. But I still think it is a novel idea.

[BRG]

That is a truly shocking idea and the fact that the very thought has even occurred to people in Honda demonstrates that F1 has its corporate head even further up its arse than even we had previously imagined possible.

It would be suicidal for any legitimate charity to give its money to a F1 team. Its supporters would vanish rapidly. There is a strong moralistic streak in those who fund and work in charities, and they would be horrified by the idea of being associated with something as vain and wasteful as F1. Advertising for donations is one thing, people can understand that and see it as a necessary communications medium, but sponsoring a F1 team which probably has a budget bigger than the charity itself and pays its drivers mega-bucks, is a absolute no-no.

[kNt]

Big Corporations paying so charities get exposure would be kind of ok, but they propose the charities themselves pay, right?
That would be very wrong.

But on the other hand there are creepy charities that make ads with "hungry/poor-looking chlidren" already, so it wouldn't be much worse.

[Timstr11]

I think most people are sensible about these things.
It is a win-win situation.

As long as those at the receiving end gain from it.

[Ross Stonefeld]

It does seem initially a bad idea, but its all about advertising isnt it? I think it has more to do with the image of excess that Formula 1 has, and that sponsorships in general are seen as luxuries.

[bira]

Doesn't champ car do it? or IRL? I seem to remember a pink car for cancer or something

[baddog]

Seems like charities know their audiences very well, and are hardly going to do things to alienate them. While oxfam is hardly going to sponsor a racing car, one of the high profile issue charities, like the big aids groups, or as bira mentions the breast cancer groups might see it as a good stunt if done right.

[Louis Mr. F1]

I remember the Williams car used to carry a "Save Child" logo on the side (front suspension area) of their car, it has disappeared in the past few years, not sure if Frank received any money for the space.

[fifi]

i think it would have to be an international charlity say amnesty or oxfam, to have it country specific seems pointless as your wasting the worldwide audience
also it would be better as a one off - look at the stunts red bull have pulled promoting film

[Jordan191]

Originally posted by bira
Doesn't champ car do it? or IRL? I seem to remember a pink car for cancer or something

]

breast cancer research .. was the IRL IIRC

NASCAR does it all the time. I think though the teams and existing sponsors agree on it in these cases as opposed to a new sponsorship . It may truly be charity too like (hypothetically) Reeses , Richard Childress and Goodwrench decide to donate the space on Kevin Harvick's 29 car to Spinal Cord Research for a race or 2. It makes everyone look good and the charity gets huge exposure.

[mikedeering]

Isn't the idea more that corporations fund tie-ins with charities and use the race car as a way of promoting the charity whilst at the same time promoting the big corp's social programme credentials? Rather than Oxfam itself agreeing to pay Jenson $10m.

Regards to Williams - IIRC SFW was a patron of the charity for many years so I think he just gave the space on the car (hardly a prime spot - although I think they had more prominent logos in 1983) in support of them.

[Jackman]

Originally posted by bira
Doesn't champ car do it? or IRL? I seem to remember a pink car for cancer or something

That was Target paying for their livery, which still had their logos on it, to be pink rather than red for a race to advertise their support for breast cancer charities. That's a long way from a charity itself sponsoring a team.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I want to drive a Formula Ford sponsored by that rescue-dancing-circus-bears group. They must have money, I see their commercials on TV.

[MrAerodynamicist]

Originally posted by Louis Mr. F1
I remember the Williams car used to carry a "Save Child" logo on the side (front suspension area) of their car, it has disappeared in the past few years, not sure if Frank received any money for the space.

Ron Dennis has had a long running relationship with the children's charity Tommy, although I can't remember if the cars have ever carried any logos.

[Jodum5]

I wouldn't donate to a charity that sponsors an F1 team. The overhead costs (amount of donor money spent on expenses and such) would be sky high and I dont think it'd achieve the desired affect. Now if it was partnered (charity spends nothing to gain some exposure thru programs with drivers/personnel etc.) with a team to increase exposure I'd be game.

[Timstr11]

BTW, Honda F1 is already experimenting with one Charity sponsor:
http://www.hondaraci...php?section=136

[andy-i]

Another bright idea to make F1 look like a set of greedy arseholes.

After the Sunami loads of sports like football and cricket put on charity matches and gave the proceeds to the charity organisations helping with the aftermath.

If this story is true (and it may be a joke) and F1 wants to charge the charities for the privelige, it's an appalling idea and would definately damage the image of the charities involved not mention what it would make F1's rulers look like to the average person in the street.

Dont they spend enough in F1 already!!!!!

Andy

[fifi]

compare this idea to barcelona fc who are paying UNICEF to appear on their shirt
http://news.bbc.co.u...ope/5321380.stm

[Scudetto]

Sounds like an ill-conceived idea, but, if implemented, I'd like to see "Lucky Strike" sponsorship being supplanted by "American Lung Association."

[ralt12]

Then there's folks like Team Seattle, who've raised over $2 million in the past 10 years for the Childrens Hospital of Seattle. Kudos to them, running a team and raising big dough in the process is a winning proposition. If I can swing it, I'll do the same for the JDRF (Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation).

http://www.teamseattle.com/

[Scorg]

do people remember Jordans sponsorship from Bahrain from 2004 ?

where this allowed for a different theme per race weekend.

http://www.autosport...age/d04gbr562-4

save the children from silverstone

[R Soul]

I didn't know silverstone posed a danger to children


Err... anyway I think it would be a bad idea because no matter how they get the ad displayed, lots of people may assume they paid themselves.

Plus they'd have to make damn sure that they got more money than was spent on the ads (regardless of who paid) otherwise one could suggest that the charity could have just used the add fee money instead.

But, the ads wouldn't have to be on the cars. There is plenty of cheap space around pretty much every GP track. All they'd need is for a rep to say to various TV crews: "Big thanks to for paying for our ad..."

[Dudley]

Charities spend thousands on expensive TV ads. This wouldn't be any different.

Of course I avoid any charity that does this because I don't want to pay for their ads.

[Imperial]

I actually work for an organisation that exists solely to provide grants to charities.

I can tell you now that charities spend a huge amount of money on promotion and publicity, yet their income far far far exceeds their spend.

People can argue until they are blue in the face about whether it's right or wrong for charities to advertise in F1 or even anywhere at all, but the simple fact, as with 99.99% of all other businesses, is that charities need exposure to survive and every single charity I have ever been involved with spends a huge amount of money on just that.

Given the amount of revenue it generates, it is absolutely logical and completely justifiable, again as with 99.99% of all other companies.

Don't think of charities as just the endgame (i.e. the people they help). Charities essentially are and operate exactly as a business, in fact the majority of charities are registered companies and have to abide by Companies House rules.

Advertising is just one of the many ways in which they are identical to "normal" companies. People would be surprised at what is on the end of year accounts for a charity.

[CeCe]

I've been waiting for PETA to sponsor a car. Ingrid Newkirk is a huge Schumacher fan.

[BRG]

Originally posted by Imperial
Given the amount of revenue it generates, it is absolutely logical and completely justifiable, again as with 99.99% of all other companies.

When your income is reliant on people voluntarily donating cash, sponsoring a F1 team with THEIR money is an absolute guarantee that they will never give you another penny.

I sponsor a child through Plan International. If their name turns up on a Honda, he's gonna be on his own, poor little sod.

[Imperial]

Originally posted by BRG
When your income is reliant on people voluntarily donating cash, sponsoring a F1 team with THEIR money is an absolute guarantee that they will never give you another penny.

I sponsor a child through Plan International. If their name turns up on a Honda, he's gonna be on his own, poor little sod.

Then they will lose you and gain thousands of others.

Let's not forget of course that the identities of or types of charities have not been disclosed.

Virtually anyone can register themselves as a charity.

All you need is a management committee with a governing document that a dissolution clause that states the members will not profit if the charity closes it's doors and has funds remaining. There's a bit more to it than that, but that is essentially how you become a charity.

Point I'm coming onto is that there are charities covering virtually anything you can think of on the planet, they are not necessarily all to do with war-torn zones or child abuse. Who knows what charities they might have in store.

And please believe me when I say that this simply will not be a controversial move to any charity involved. When (in my line of work) I assess applications for grants I look at their budget forecasts for what they intend to do with the money we give to them (if we award them anything) and every single budget has a proportionately large amount under the "Promotion and Publicity" heading.

They absolutely all do it, whether it's TV adverts, mailshots through letter boxes, full page or two page adverts in newspapers, radio campaigns, internet campaigns and more. Sponsoring an F1 car would be just another way of getting their name into your house and for you to think about them.

I wouldbe surprised if the sponsor logos (for the main sponsor/s) would simply be a name, I rather imagine there will be a name and underneath it will be words along the lines of "Donate now on 0800 1234566". It's just another donation drive.

I can't see why people would object.

Charities use plastic bags to collect clothes, yet I don't hear calls against them for wasting earths resources on plastic bags.

[andy-i]

Originally posted by Imperial


Then they will lose you and gain thousands of others.

Let's not forget of course that the identities of or types of charities have not been disclosed.

Virtually anyone can register themselves as a charity.

All you need is a management committee with a governing document that a dissolution clause that states the members will not profit if the charity closes it's doors and has funds remaining. There's a bit more to it than that, but that is essentially how you become a charity.

Point I'm coming onto is that there are charities covering virtually anything you can think of on the planet, they are not necessarily all to do with war-torn zones or child abuse. Who knows what charities they might have in store.

And please believe me when I say that this simply will not be a controversial move to any charity involved. When (in my line of work) I assess applications for grants I look at their budget forecasts for what they intend to do with the money we give to them (if we award them anything) and every single budget has a proportionately large amount under the "Promotion and Publicity" heading.

They absolutely all do it, whether it's TV adverts, mailshots through letter boxes, full page or two page adverts in newspapers, radio campaigns, internet campaigns and more. Sponsoring an F1 car would be just another way of getting their name into your house and for you to think about them.

I wouldbe surprised if the sponsor logos (for the main sponsor/s) would simply be a name, I rather imagine there will be a name and underneath it will be words along the lines of "Donate now on 0800 1234566". It's just another donation drive.

I can't see why people would object.

Charities use plastic bags to collect clothes, yet I don't hear calls against them for wasting earths resources on plastic bags.

Why dont the people that run F1 offer the charites free space on their cars. As has already been pointed out on this thread, Barcelona has given their shirt space to a charity, charging nothing and actually giving 1.9millions euro's a year to the charity!!!

Football is often seen as greedy and immoral, sometimes with justification but this is a very generous action baring in mind they could of had a commercial sponser for easily over £10million a year in the current market.

How on earth in light of this high profile example, could F1 (run by very rich men and big car manufacturers, not very green etc etc) justify charging the charities for the privelige.

They would crucified by the media, quite rightly.

Also you talk about publicity but F1 gets around 3million viewers in the UK so whats to stop a charity paying to sponsor Big Brother or Corination St if they want more exposure.

If F1 wants to get involved with charities they should give them free space. Great for the charities and F1. Charging for it would make them look like a bunch of greedy f**kers!!!

[Imperial]

Originally posted by andy-i


Why dont the people that run F1 offer the charites free space on their cars. [/B]

Well I agree with you on that one, it would of course always be better to offer them free space. But offering them advertising space is a better option for them than no offer at all. No charity gets free newspaper space, so....

Originally posted by andy-i
Also you talk about publicity but F1 gets around 3million viewers in the UK so whats to stop a charity paying to sponsor Big Brother or Corination St if they want more exposure. [/B]

Because viewers in all the other countries in the world wouldn't see it.

[andy-i]

The BB and corri point was tounge in cheek .Can you imagine how much flak a charity would get paying to sponser the BB with it's wanabee moron's.

I still think in light of Barcelona's action and most peoples (non F1 fans) reaction it wont happen.

Bernie's a sharp cookie who know's he need's good PR , so maybe he'll make a new rule up for some free charity space.

[Imperial]

Originally posted by andy-i
The BB and corri point was tounge in cheek .Can you imagine how much flak a charity would get paying to sponser the BB with it's wanabee moron's.

I still think in light of Barcelona's action and most peoples (non F1 fans) reaction it wont happen.

Bernie's a sharp cookie who know's he need's good PR , so maybe he'll make a new rule up for some free charity space.

That would be a very noble gesture of Bernie, certainly.

The one part of the story I don't understand is that Honda are saying if it works it could attract some blue chip companies as sponsors. So the charity sponsor money is just a means to the end of getting real companies back on board after losing BAT ??? Don't get that one at all !! I don't really see the connection between a charity sponsoring a team and that making a different company wanting to then sponsor the team instead.

But then whenever has anything in F1 made sense ?!!