maybe i’m just uninformed, but it seems to me that the title-sponsors of pro cycling squads, even d1 squads, don’t last very long. why is that?
wouldn’t it be kinda cool if there were long-lived rivalries, like OSU-Michigan in college football or Yankees-Red Sox in baseball? it might even affect the way strategy worked during races - if a man from team x was in an attack, team y might be more likely to chase it due to the historic x-y rivalry.
just something to think about…
sponsorships come and go for a number of reasons. Money or lack of it or being put to a different use within the company. Name recognition and ROI or lack of ROI, I read recently that berry flooring sales were up something like 23 after sponsoring postal. Hence the reason postal is racing more in the classics this year and has a classics squad. Berry floor asked them. ROI is hard to quantify since many factors influence the market and buying decisions.
Scandals, one scandal can undo years of positive name branding. if I’m investing in stock xyz and they are in a sector that is rocked by scandal after scandal it drags down the whole sector, guilty or not.
It would be great to see Liberty butt heads w/ csc for years over several types of racing.
Excellent question:
The reason why pro cycling sponsorships only last a few years compared to, as an example, a sports franchise like the Yankees or Greenbay Packers or college sports is because cycling sponsorship is an advertising purchase. Once the advertising acheives its goal (or falls short of it…) the deal has run its course. It’s over.
A perfect example is Motorola. When Motorola left professional cycling they said, “We have acheived our marketing goals completely.”
Specifically, the brand equity that the Motorola cycling team established through maintaining high visibility had been acheived. It was so effective that in some markets consumers began to refer generically to a cellular phone as a “Motorola” regardless of brand- much the same way someone says “Can you Xerox this?” even though they don’t necessarily mean “Can you photocopy this on a Xerox brand photocopier?”
Motorola went as far as they could with cycling and then moved on. The cycling audience has grown, but is nonetheless a relatively finite demographic as far as marketers are concerned. Once a specific marketing/visibility goal is acheived they are done.
In the case of Motorola, Jim Ochowicz was succesful in basically transfering the same sports marketig vehicle (the bike team) right over t a new sponsor- U.S. Postal Service.
Peter Post has been another Team Director who has run the course with several sponsors. It is pretty typical in cycling, and it keeps things fresh at least.
The downside for us is, after Lance makes history by bagging number 6 with ease, then what excitement is left?
after Lance makes history by bagging number 6 with ease, then what excitement is left?
Tyler breaks a femur after a crash in the prologue… continues the tour on a handbike.
Good point. I wouldn’t put it past him. That’s funny…
"In the case of Motorola, Jim Ochowicz was succesful in basically transfering the same sports marketig vehicle (the bike team) right over t a new sponsor- U.S. Postal Service. "
USPS did not follow from Motorola and Ochowicz was not affiliated with USPS for the first few year (I don’t believe he’s associated with it now). In fact, he was unable to find a replacement sponsor for Motorola which is why Armstrong and others signed with Cofidis.
bike.com has a good article about the evolution of the team.
http://www.bike.com/template.asp?date=6%2F23%2F2003&lsectionnumber=2
eh gad, you’re right. Duh.
I do recall Ochowicz talking with Coca-Cola, Microsoft and some other prospective sponsors back then that never panned out. I heard the watered down version on rides from Frankie.
You’re right though: My account was historically incorrect. I left out the entire Cofidis era. My apologies and thank you for noticing. 
Tom.
While I am currentluy on a div3 pro roster, my guess is that there isa no return in cycling for the average sponsorship. I wish I could honestly say, “I am a pro cyclist and I think that you should invest in our sport.” Cycing is a fun sport. Cycling seems to be more demanding time/suffering wise than triathlon, running etc… However, what is the draw to cycling? None of the racers spend money. THey are either poor and can not spend or they follow the long standing traditions of competitive cyclists, they are cheap.
I have been a bike racer for nearly 1 year. My 5th race ever was in Bend, Oregon at the Cascade Classic, a race that I have know about for years. Horner, Creed, Vaughters, the whole clan was there. With the very best racers in the US there, you would expect a large turn out. While I was heading up to Bend, I was invisioning the race in my head. THe climbs would have heaps of fans on both sides of the road yelling “allez allez”,“hop hop” and a few “go go.”
When I actually came to these significant points in the race, there was no one I could share my moments of climbing with some of the best the US has to offer. While there were no spectators on the course, I knew I would see them at the finish line. If I were in the state of Laurent Fingnon’s finish ~20 years ago, there would have been nobody to catch my bike. I would have fallen to the ground in an empty road way. There was not even an expo area where I could get a cold beverage or sample e-Gel(oops…plug)
Cycling is a great sport. I love to turn the cranks with the best of them. When I market my product, e-Gel(oops…amnother plug!) I am at either marathons or triathlons. Why? Because there is an audience, and one that buys. Cyclist are in their own little world. Cyclist have this thought that the world revolves around them. In reality it is the weakest secor to market to. As a pro cyclist I can say this. I also add, if the racers create a more lucrative exsistance, their sport will grow. THey will grow in participation, spectatorship, and sponsorship. First, they have to give a reason for people to be attracted to the sport.
THere is no athlete or sport the world revolves around.
Think about it another way. While the squad may have the same manager and similar players, the change in team sponsor can be analagous to the renaming of the stadium that teams play in. For example, the Montreal Canadiens used to play in the Montreal Forum, their new arena was the Molson (beer) Centre. Bell Canada then bought out the rights and it is now the Bell Centre or something like that. Can’t remember if they call Candlestick 3Com Park or if it is something else now. Same for Renault-System U-Super U-Castorama or 7-Eleven-Motorola-USPS etc etc.
That looks an awefull lot like a Reynolds Stratus DV with Spinergy taging…
Scott