Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Black_Bay

Sponsor trouble ahead?

1 post in this topic

Anyone else see the reports about GM pulling back on sponsorships?

GM to Cut Sports Ties, Refocus Marketing

July 15, 2008

-By Steve Miller

General Motors said today that it would cut and consolidate its marketing and sales budget, including motorsports activity that will likely involve Nascar sponsorship.

The automaker's marketing focus going forward will be "protecting launch products and brand advertising," GM chairman Rick Wagoner said in a statement.

The automaker, whose stock dropped Monday to $9.38—its lowest in 50 years—is seeking to boost liquidity by $15 billion through 2009 via cutbacks and job cuts.

Some of GM's eight brands have increased ad spending, even as sales have faltered, but not all of them. Its best-selling brand, Chevrolet, increased spending through April by 19% (not including online), per Nielsen Monitor-Plus, even as sales dropped 13%. GM overall spent $1.89 billion on ads last year and $641 million through April, as total sales dropped 12.3%, per Autodata, Woodcliff Lake, N.J.

GM already started pulling back from some of its sports ties. In January, Cadillac opted out as a sponsor of the Masters golf tournament. GM also said it would not to renew its $1 billion sponsorship of the U.S. Olympic Committee when its contract ends after this year's games. And Chevrolet recently ended its primary sponsorship of the Nascar Childress Racing team.

The cutbacks on motorsports and Nascar are significant, considering GM, and particularly Chevrolet, have been involved with auto racing since the mid '60s.

The predicted decrease in racing spend overall could account for 20% of an annual motorsports budget that was nearly $100 million, said Peter DeLorenzo, a former auto ad executive and editor of the Autoextremist.com blog.

"I don't think [a cutback in Nascar affiliation] will make a [PoorWordUsage] bit of difference," DeLorenzo said. He added that the Nascar's "Cars of Tomorrow" initiative—which GM took part in along with Chrysler, Ford and Toyota—"reduced its brand recognition with the sport to the point that Nascar is irrelevant."

IMO this is a sad deal. The Ford vs Chevy vs Dodge...is what helped make NASCAR popular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • Rather than the concepts of teams I think it more appropriate to think in terms of philosophies. Each "team" has a philosophical way of dealing with certain issues: tax codes, immigration, war on drugs etc,  So even though your candidate may be weak you are going to vote, not for them, but for that teams way of dealing with those issues.   A simple example would be tax codes.  The democrats think individual taxes for the top 10%'s should be increased where the republicans believe that reducing taxes on that same 10% will stimulate growth through trickle down economics.   So in essence, you're not voting for a particular candidate, you're voting for the team that will deal with these issues in a way you feel is best. 
    • Like Obabma, he sets up a straw man false premise and then proceeds to attack said straw man.      He is deceived by the fact that the most polarized folks are the ones making the noise, thereby creating a false impression.    You persist in wanting to discuss this article.  Why is that?      
    • So lets recap.   Decriminalization will not reduce prison populations by a noticeable amount.    Will not reduce crime.   Will not reduce monies spent combating drug suppliers and dealers.   Will not lower the consumption rates.    - Will allow regular everyday citizens who use/possess and get caught, not ruin their lives with a crippling criminal record.   May encourage the the habitual users to seek treatment/help.      Which I have no issues with.   My issues are saying with decriminalization it will save tax payers any money.   That's my beef.    
    •   I didn't see the Socialist party listed

    • Nick they are all trash, your party included, until you figure that out you are no better than some blind Trump supporter.
    •   That was a long time ago.   The media has become far more partisan than it was at that time.   

    • You are starting to sound like a helpless snowflake in desperate need of big government to take away the burden of personal responsibility away from you. I try and take a big picture approach and not mico manage our laws based on political views outside of science or common sense.

      No one is advocating for drunk driving or murder to be legal but I guess that doesn't stop you from using wild assumptions without anything to back them up.

      All most of us are asking for is simple freedoms and choices and a government that stays out of the way. Having a bunch of drugs that kill and half of the legal and half of them illegal makes no sense. You either stand for personal freedom and responsibility across the board or you don't, picking and choose this stuff based on political leanings is about as backwards as it gets and you just end up looking like a complete hypocrite. Keeping drugs outlawed because people die is the same kind of reasoning people use to take away guns. All the while you are more likely to die from eating too much McDonalds, you simply can't outlaw stupid people or the things they do and expect that to work. We as a people need to stop trying to control things are completely out of our control, all it does is waste tons of money and time and it does a wonderful job of ruining people's lives.
    • I really don't like a president calling out news media outlets by name and whining about the media. Obama did it with FOX and talk radio and now Trump is doing it with CNN and the NYT's. It's one thing for each men's supporters to do it. But I don't recall GWB or Reagan or Carter calling out the media by name in public.   I don't buy the claim from some(nobody here) that doing such is a sign of a dictator(the same, btw, who cheered BHO doing it). It just makes a president look weak and whiny and looking for other's to blame for their own failures. Not that I'm a fan of the NYT's, but I do believe in freedom of the press even the press I personally don't care much for.   If you're an elected official, the press is supposed to be a thorn in your side
    •   This is what Del was probably talking about and yes he is right, we do have to pick a side or at least a candidate when we go to the polling booth but there is no need to defend every single move the candidate makes and vilify every single move the opposition makes.      I'm not sure what makes us think and behave the way we do, I didn't take enough psychology or anthropology courses in college to answer that question but I do know that to me it is even more repulsive than the small minded thinking that goes in to hating one sports team although they are basically the same as your chosen sports team. I can see liking and rooting for one sports team or political faction over another but the pure hatred for the opposite team is mind boggling to me.     These are the fine points of this article as I see it. Now would anyone like to have a discussion on these points?
    •   This paragraph is important because I believe that most people now when faced with a political discussion do indeed "turn off their intellect". It's the only way to get through the hypocrisy that arises when one chooses a side so completely.  
  • Our Sponsors