Formula 1 2010 Season [may contain real time spoilers]

[sherer]

the advertisers pay for exposure. Does that mean Embassy should have some say in changing the rules of snooker as they sponsor that ?

The advertisers are in the sport for exposure, as soon as that has run it's course they will pull out. Why should they have any say, they are fuly aware of what sport they are in when they pay to sponsor a car.

[Flyboy]

I am pretty sure that there would a lot of other sponsors willing to replace them.

[Kymmy]

They're not talking about race rule changes, they're talking about decisions that effect their brands..

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I am pretty sure that there would a lot of other sponsors willing to replace them.

Not sure there is atm..

[sherer]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

They're not talking about race rule changes, they're talking about decisions that effect their brands..



Not sure there is atm..

what decisions would those be though ?

Or should the cars go slower so they can be seen better ?

[Kymmy]

There's a lot more to sponsorship details than just the livery of the cars within a race

[sherer]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

There's a lot more to sponsorship details than just the livery of the cars within a race

Such as ? Apart from the signs at the side of the race I can't see much else. The hospitality is all provided for them by the teams.

How they use that exposure on the cars for adverts and access to the drivers is all down the deal they sign with the drivers.

Not sure what exactly they are after here

[Flyboy]

There is brand awareness to consider as well. For example, McLaren is not called McLaren anymore, it is "Vodafone McLaren Mercedes." Although, there are not many commentators who call it that. Perhaps that is what they are trying to achieve.

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by sherer

Such as ? Apart from the signs at the side of the race I can't see much else. The hospitality is all provided for them by the teams.

How they use that exposure on the cars for adverts and access to the drivers is all down the deal they sign with the drivers.

Not sure what exactly they are after here

For example Santanders advert in which Lewis Hamilton appears as a piece together model and car.. Do you think that Santander could have used the F1 logo's in that advert without permission from Bernie???

As I said it's a lot more than a simple logo on a car..

[sherer]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

There is brand awareness to consider as well. For example, McLaren is not called McLaren anymore, it is "Vodafone McLaren Mercedes." Although, there are not many commentators who call it that. Perhaps that is what they are trying to achieve.

They get that from paying for title sponsorship of the team and as such the team is entered under that name. FOM use these on the graphics. If a sponsor doesn't pay for that then they aren't entered under that name.

The BBC aren't advertisers and so don't have to promote other brands. Also as F1 is broadcast across most countries in the world it would be down to whatever laws existed in that country.

Can't see how Bernie or FOM can have much of an impact on any of the above.

Originally Posted by Kymmy

For example Santanders advert in which Lewis Hamilton appears as a piece together model and car.. Do you think that Santander could have used the F1 logo's in that advert without permission from Bernie???

As I said it's a lot more than a simple logo on a car..

They don't need, and haven't even noticed, the F1 logo in that add. They are promoting their own brand and as part of their deal with McLaren can they produce a likeness of their car.

Not watched the ad that closely but have they re-produced all their other sponsors i.e Vodophone, Aigo etc or just their own one ?

[Flyboy]

So, they get what they pay for. If they want more control then they should be prepared to may more money. They were aware of the conditions and the terms of business when they signed their deals, they can't just suddenly change their minds about the amount of control they want.

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by sherer

They don't need, and haven't even noticed, the F1 logo in that add. They are promoting their own brand and as part of their deal with McLaren can they produce a likeness of their car.

Santander (like other sponsors) don't just pay for the livery but also the association with F1 and it's the association that is the biggest money spinner for them..

You'll find that the McLaren car and it's usage in adverts is regulated again partly by Bernie.. And that's the issue.. It's not just a case of Mclaren controlling their own advertising but instead it's the rules set down by F1 which controls to some extent advertising and sponsorship of the teams/tracks/people/merchandising...etc..

If it was just a case of Santander & Mclaren shaking hands then I'd perfectly agree with you but it's not

[Stuart]

I think part of the problem is that Bernie wants to take at least partial control of *every* aspect of F1, and I don't doubt he has a whole bunch of regulations on how F1 teams can involved sponsors.

[sherer]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Santander (like other sponsors) don't just pay for the livery but also the association with F1 and it's the association that is the biggest money spinner for them..

You'll find that the McLaren car and it's usage in adverts is regulated again partly by Bernie.. And that's the issue.. It's not just a case of Mclaren controlling their own advertising but instead it's the rules set down by F1 which controls to some extent advertising and sponsorship of the teams/tracks/people/merchandising...etc..

If it was just a case of Santander & Mclaren shaking hands then I'd perfectly agree with you but it's not

do you have any proof of this ? I'm not aware of any rules or agreements that prevent teams exploiting their own commercial value. Bernie only has a the trade marks over the F1, FOM logos and Formula One and associated names.

McLaren own the IP to their car and as part of that IP, their image too and so can exploit that as much as they like. They would need to pay Bernie if they also wanted to put the F1 logo in but then it is pretty clear from the image this is a formula one racing car and so there is no need for that.

[Kymmy]

The proof is the simple fact that the sponsors have to form their own group in the hope of improving their sitaution with the F1 owners Apart from that it'll all be bound within confidential contracts..but it has been well known that all teams participating within most sports have to sign over some control..

Take for example in football when they interview the managers/players in front of the camera after the match... do you think that the manager wants a barclays advert behind them instead of their own team sponsors

---------- Post added at 16:12 ---------- Previous post was at 15:59 ----------

It's weird how this has come up as during the last post-qualifying interviews we were explaning to my partners mother about sports sponsorship and how the logo's on the clothing were split up into different groups.. Those being F1 sponsors, Team sponsors, driver sponsors.. and also explainign to her that a driver sponsor wasn;t just paying money to the driver, but some of that money will go towards the team for allowing their overalls to be used to carry the sponsor and some of the money will go to F1 for the priviledge of sponsoring during a F1 arranged interview...

Gone are the days when it was so simple

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

The proof is the simple fact that the sponsors have to form their own group in the hope of improving their sitaution with the F1 owners Apart from that it'll all be bound within confidential contracts..but it has been well known that all teams participating within most sports have to sign over some control..

Indeed. People tend not to join groups to say they are happy. Look at this forum for an example of that.

Companies are no different. If they are happy, they aren't going to rock the apple cart.