Race-Week.com

There are many “official” products of NASCAR and its various affiliates. Some tie in beautifully. Some, not so much. But few have done as good a job with direct branding as Ask.com, its “official search engine.”

Since very early this racing season, Ask.com has been more than a sponsor name. It’s been a very visible participant in NASCAR Sprint Cup race broadcasts on Fox.

Most notably, as a Web product, Ask.com has taken great advantage of its inherent interactivity. It has figured out ways for fans to go beyond “awareness” (that awful “brand image” metric) and move to activity, a direct branding touchstone.

The major points in Ask.com’s NASCAR strategy seem to be:
1.) Team & driver sponsorship. This might be the hardest to justify so far. They’re supporting Bobby Labonte, who has appeared in some commercials. But this aspect of their strategy isn’t particularly brilliant. Yet.
2.) Signed on as the “Official Search Engine of NASCAR.” A nice piece of branding because it links up precisely with Item #3.
3.) Providing in-race trivia questions that can only be answered by going to Ask.com. At various points during a race broadcast, the Fox broadcast team will present a trivia question related to that race, the venue, or some extended issue. So far the questions have been pretty good. And they can only be answered by “asking” the question at Ask.com.

From a direct branding point of view, that’s almost picture perfect. Ask.com has created a way for a very loyal, specialized demographic to take a specific action and experience its product in a (presumably) positive way.

Ask.com gets to tap into NASCAR’s notoriously loyal fan base by providing a rare resource (specialized information) at no cost to the fans. It gets to show its wares, demonstrate its advantages and, perhaps, gain new users.

Best of all, the entire experience is trackable. Because they’re posed a fairly specific set of queries, they can reasonably conclude that those search queries likely resulted from the NASCAR exposure. In other words, Ask.com can know how many people took them up on their very direct call for action.

They can safely isolate those queries from the rest of the day’s traffic; follow those queries to other user behaviors (like, making a different kind of query right away); and track repeat users (fans who continue to use Ask.com after race day).

With abundant data mining technology, Ask.com can track results over time and use the data to support its advertising efforts, or any business priority.

This fits the direct branding model precisely:
1.) They’ve made potential visitors aware of their brand (through strategic ad buys)
2.) They’ve developed a compelling call to action
3.) They’ve provided a mechanism for quick response
4.) They’re in a position to use the resulting data for business purposes.

Great direct response branding by Ask.com. Now let’s stay tuned and see if they activate the team and driver sponsorship. (In fairness, they do include a call to action at the end of the Bobby Labonte commercials. Pretty sharp.)

Agree with their methods or not, GoDaddy, the huge Internet hosting company, definitely understands direct response.

Witness their presentation during last Saturday’s (4/25/09) Nationwide series race. For an engaged audience, they crafted a nearly irresistible response magnet.

In the process, they showed us a very elegant formula for direct response in motorsports sponsorship:

1.) A highly visible driver (if you can afford it). They went with Dale, Jr. Hard to get much more “highly visible” than that.
2.) A very identifiable paint scheme (this one works great; easy to see, easy to read; easy to remember).
3.) A casual announcer mention. Golden if you can get one - they got several.
4.) A strategically place, very magnetic ad (The “One More Thing” theme fits perfectly)
5.) A strong call to action at the end of the ad (Just “one more thing, indeed.”)

Beautiful plan, beautifully executed.

About that ad: Whether or not you agree with GoDaddy’s obvious sexual entendre, it certainly identifies their brand. And it engages a ..shall we say… “certain” audience.

In the TV version, GoDaddy CEO Bob Parsons is playing poker with several GoDaddy girls, including the ubiquitous Danica Patrick. The ad introduces a new GoDaddy girl, Vanessa Russo, who shares her nervousness about the new gig.

Danica and GoDaddy colleague Candice Michelle give Vanessa the bullet points about GoDaddy’s domain registrar and hosting service. Russo is at ease until CEO Parsons says -really, rather creepily- that there’s “one more thing” she must do to be a GoDaddy girl.

The spot closes with Danica suggestively pawing at her top, and the voiceover tease that those interested may see how the whole thing plays out by visiting GoDaddy.com.

Love the content or hate it, it’s a great ad.

Oh, the one more thing? Probably exactly what you’re expecting.

It may not be the classiest presentation you’ve ever seen (you’ve got to love Parsons telling Russo that GoDaddy might be “inexpensive,” but we’re not “cheap.”), but it’s a textbook example of a company using direct response to both inspire action and build its brand.

As branding campaigns come more and more under the budget-cutter’s knife, and as marketing budgets get squeezed hard for ROI, direct response is emerging as a relevant option for marketing campaigns.

It’s actually emerging as a necessary component for marketing spends.

“Branding” campaigns, the love child of overpriced media and pompous agency suits, are tied to “recognition.”

Direct response campaigns are tied to results.

Branding campaigns rely on fluffy ideas about “exposure” and “impressions.”

Direct response campaigns leverage strong calls to action.

Branding campaigns are considered successful if some mystical notion of “awareness” is reached.

Direct response campaigns are tightly measured and tied to distinct, specific objectives (responses, conversions, sales, etc.)

Branding campaigns are custom-tailored for clients with huge budgets and huge egos.

Direct response campaigns fit results-oriented, bottom-line focused, demanding players.

Branding campaigns are soooo 2003.

Direct response is the way of the present and the future.

As budgets get frozen and cut, every expenditure has to become an investment: trackable, accountable and highly responsive to ROI calculations.

Direct response is perfect for that. A well-designed campaign matches all 3 criteria, and delivers results directly.

The Funnel and the List: How Direct Response Works

Direct response campaigns are predicated on the idea that a prospect, once reached and motivated, will take some sort of action. There are varying degrees of action, ranging from a request for more information to an actual purchase, and they synchronize to create a funnel that moves a prospect from interest to purchase.

The first important point: Direct response seeks to purposefully move prospects along the path toward action. Good direct response materials - digital or hard copy; text, audio or visual - help prospects determine their interest in a product or service, and gradually engage more deeply with the provider.

This is known as the selling “funnel,” through which interested prospects pass -at their own pace- as they move toward a purchase or long-term relationship with a provider.

As they move through the engagement process, prospects naturally create relationships with direct marketers. They become increasingly aware and -ideally- intrigued as they encounter a well-designed direct response campaign. In direct marketing terms, they become part of the “list” of target prospects, a key component of direct response marketing.

Designed and delivered properly and ethically, direct response campaigns are all about relationships. Good providers understand the benefits of having an active and responsive prospect list, and work hard to provide value to the members of their lists.

In direct response, “the money is in the list,” because it is much easier to create relationships with -and sell products and services to- engaged prospects than it is to keep building new prospect lists.

The second important point about direct response: Direct response campaigns can be tracked step-by-step, with appropriate measurements and standards for each step in the purchasing process. Direct response clients know exactly how many “eyeballs” became prospects; how many prospects became engaged; and how many of those engaged became purchasers.

The process is fabulously sophisticated, with options and variations at each step. But the simple rules of good design and accountability persist.

Branding is about cleverness and sleek visual and audio effects. Its primary purpose is to satisfy smug CEO and officer-suite client representatives. Its important outcomes generally include “good buzz” about a campaign, whether it actually improves business or not.

Direct response is about results. Its primary purpose is to move people into action that benefits the client. Its important outcomes are directly tied to business results.

With direct response, cleverness must serve measurable business objectives, as it does for GEICO Insurance.

GEICO: A Direct Response Masterpiece

Whether or not you like gekko lizards, cavemen or faux celebrity pitch-players, GEICO Insurance has an advertising formula that clearly works. And it works not only because we grin at the commercials; it works because the company’s results have been terrific.

According to GEICO’s marketing VP, they’re the only major insurance player to realize spectacular growth over the past decade or so (see Fast Company’s profile of GEICO’s agency at:
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/116/features-clan-of-the-caveman.html?page=0%2C3

GEICO attributes its stellar growth to its direct response approach. Embedded within its funny and creative ad scripts is, in every case, a call to action - an invitation to customers to do something.

Don’t believe it? Take a look at a few GEICO commercials:
http://www.geico.com/about/commercials/

Notice how often you see or hear: Call 800-947-AUTO or “15 minutes could save you 15%…”

These are very subtle, very effective calls to action. They directly invite viewers to take specific kinds of action while addressing major insurance buying/switching issues (price, hassle, time).

GEICO and its agency, the Martin Agency, really get direct response. And the results have been outstanding.

What About Direct Response Branding?

The magic of GEICO’s approach is that it envelopes branding in the process of creating direct response. Ask anybody who the magical,mystical gekko represents, they’ll tell you GEICO. And ask, “what’s GEICO?” and pretty likely you’ll hear something about “car insurance.”

You probably wouldn’t have to dig too deeply into the experience to get them to spit out “15 minutes can save you 15 percent.” That’s sweet branding. And it’s bundled with the values of direct response (call, click or visit an agent).

Direct response branding turns traditional branding completely on its head. In traditional branding, the “brand” is the presentation and the “response” if it is considered at all, is an ethereal assumption.

In direct response branding, the response is the keystone. The brand comes along for the ride.

For marketers forced by the current economic climate to actually consider their performance in real dollar terms, direct response branding is becoming a very attractive proposition, indeed.

It’s all about the ROI.

Return on investment. For a motorsports sponsor, in the final analysis, it’s all about a pretty simple equation:

What am I getting for my money? And how much of it am I getting?

Traditionally, motorsports sponsorship value has been determined by factors related to “branding.” In rough terms, it works like this: If somebody sees your logo enough times, Mr. or Ms. Sponsor, they’ll remember you when it’s time to purchase whatever it is that you sell.”

That’s called “brand recognition.” (Or “brand identity”)

In big time motorsports, the equation gets extended a bit: “If you attach your logo to a big time driver, all of that driver’s fans will also become your fans.”

That’s called “brand loyalty.”

The presumption in either case is that branding through motorsports is a powerful promotional strategy. The problem in either case is that the actual dollar value of branding efforts is inherently tough to pin down.

There are plenty of tools available, most famously the Sponsor’s Report provided by consultants Joyce Julius and Associates. It purportedly tells teams -and their sponsors- just how valuable their television exposure is.

Joyce Julius has created some very sophisticated technology for capturing the very precise number of seconds (and maybe much smaller time increments) a sponsor’s logo appears on television during a broadcast. Including in-car cameras, signs on billboards at the track, and even shots of the haulers from overhead blimps, if the logo shows up on TV, Joyce Julius can report it.

In addition, sponsors can track “verbal mentions,” the number of times an announcer or driver -or anyone on a broadcast- speaks the sponsor’s name. Each of these can be dutifully logged and reported to the sponsor.

Finally, technology is even getting sophisticated enough to track the number of times a sponsor’s logo is served online at, say, NASCAR.com.

In all, there is an enormous amount of branding activity taking place in motorsports, and a huge effort at documenting it so that sponsors can track their ROI.

But here’s the problem: How much are those exposures worth? What is the benchmark. In the Joyce Julius model -which is obviously proprietary- TV exposures are translated into sponsor value by running them through an advertising grid.

If a sponsor’s logo is shown on TV for 3 seconds, in the Joyce Julius model, that sponsor receives roughly the same value as they would from 3 seconds of television advertising time. So if a 30 second spot on the race broadcast is selling for $30,000, each second of exposure generates $1,000 of sponsor value. 3 seconds onscreen, 3 grand in sponsor value. (Yes, it’s more sophisticated than that; I’d welcome anybody from Joyce Julius to enlighten is to the specifics. But the general concept is accurate.)

If I’m a sponsor, I’ve got to ask this question: Is 3 seconds of logo exposure really worth the same thing as 3 seconds of a television ad? Is a quick, out-of-context flash of my logo really worth the same as a snip of a well-crafted advertising message?

Is the logo imprint, coming to the viewer as a secondary visual artifact (the primary visual artifact is the car, driver or racing activity the viewer is actually watching), really worth as much as a purposeful, professional advertisement?

Given all we know about human perception and the deletion process (by which we tend to eliminate irrelevant items from our visual focus), it’s hard to figure that logo impressions are really worth as much as tailored advertising messages. Not even close.

We can debate the specifics. We can even use neuropsychology and technology to tweak the models. But that’s exactly the point: The best we can do with a branding-oriented sponsorship campaign is to keep getting “closer” to the actual value of a sponsor’s investment.

But at the end of the day, we cannot answer this key question: How many people who see my brand take positive action regarding my products or services?

That is, how much payback am I actually getting, measured in terms of additional sales? Put another way, what’s my ROI?

Without really accurate metrics, we don’t know. That’s why rooms full of MBA’s sit around trying to convince one another of the value of “brand loyalty” and then push largely meaningless forumulas through spreadsheets, trying to justify huge sponsorship fees.

Enter Google.

What does a search engine have to do with motorsports sponsorships? At first glance, nothing. But upon further review, Google has completely changed the game.

Through its targeted advertising model, Google has introduced the entire world of big-time marketing to a new and scary concept: Accountability.

The mechanics of Google’s system are secondary here, though they’re fascinating. Briefly, Google offers advertisers the right side panel of its pages; it serves those ads tightly targeted to the searcher’s query term. A searcher is exposed to advertising unobtrusively (for the most part) and directly related to the term they came to Google to search.

The major point: Google’s platform gives advertisers direct access to two things they crave: a hungry crowd of potential customers predisposed to seek out their products; and deadly accurate feedback as to the results of their advertising investments.

In other words, if an advertiser spends $1 with Google, Google can tell the advertiser exactly what happened to that dollar. And if the advertiser is sharp, they can tag and track that investment through the entire cycle of converting an “eyeball” (a prospect) into a customer.

Google - along with its search engine competitors - is at the leading edge of the “direct response” model of
marketing and advertising.

Direct response operates just like it sounds: Advertisers and marketers make an appeal; prospects and customers make some kind of response directly back. Cause and effect. Stimulus and response.

Traditionally, “direct response” has been synonymous with direct mail or classified advertising. As such, it has been relegated to a far lower prestige ranking by the pinstripe suit brigade who focus on more glamorous media, specifically TV.

But here’s a little secret: Direct response works.

Here’s another: Google is using direct response concepts to turn the advertising world on its head.

See those little ads on the right hand side of a Google page? Click one and you’re taken “directly” to an
advertiser. You can “directly” interact with the company, its products and relevant information. If you want to, you can take action right on the spot (assuming the advertiser knows what they’re doing).

Pushing this a little further into the pipeline, if the advertiser is really sharp, they can track every visit that
results from a click, know exactly what visitor did on the site, and stimulate some sort of action (a purchase, inquiry, subscription, etc.). They can organize their advertising by “campaign” (in Google terms) and know which ads are pulling the best responses.

There’s a scary amount of data available with high tech direct response. And data is exactly what motorsports sponsors need in order to determine their ROI.

The more precise the data, the better. The more conclusive the data, the better. The more results-oriented the data, the better. That’s exactly where direct response shines and branding-focused campaigns dim.

Let’s think about this from a prospective sponsor’s point of view. Sales are down; profits are slipping; budgets get tighter every day. Marketing VP’s all over the landscape are sweating every dollar.

A big-time racing operation shows up at the door pitching a contingent/partial sponsorship for, let’s say, $5
million. They offer nicely tailored, engaging and exciting promotional materials, and probably some Joyce Julius data to back up their ROI claims. If they’re on their game, they offer several smart ways to “activate” the sponsorship (to get race fans more involved with the sponsor, deepening the connection, presumably).

The sharp marketing VP owes it to herself to say, “but how much more product am I actually going to sell; how many new customers am I going to gain; how many current customers am I going to retain for the $5 million?”

Asking that question out loud during a sponsor pitch meeting will probably elicit a torrent of buzz words and MBA-speak, perhaps highlighted by mostly-meaningless stats and even a graph or two.

But the real answer is this: Nobody knows.

And that’s not the harsh part: In a branding campaign, nobody knows how to even frame the question. In other words, it is not only fundamentally impossible to predict in hard terms the impact of a branding campaign, it is fundamentally impossible to even make the prediction.

Contrast that with Google’s results. If our sharp marketing VP puts the same $5 million into a Google pay per click campaign, not only will she know her exact cost of customer acquisition, she’ll get tons of bonus data about impressions, click-throughs and overall visitor behavior. Plus, she’ll give herself the chance to actually sell something right on the spot.

The sponsorship world is built on branding, and branding is built on building relationships. The direct response
world is built on transactions.

In a world shifting from relational to transactional focus, branding is in trouble.

Branding-based sponsorships will get harder to sell, even if/when the economy comes back. Direct response simply provides better accountability.

Unless motorsports teams figure out better accountability models, their value to sponsors will continue to dwindle, especially compared to the sponsor’s direct response options.

You can be sure of it: When conventional wisdom insists that MegaTeams shall rule the NASCAR domain, someone is going to find ways to poke holes in the logic. One of the most intriguing things we’ve seen so far this year is an influx of small “underfunded” teams biting at the edges of the monoliths-rule mentality. Jay Busbee’s “Chrome Horn” feature on Yahoo’s In the Marbles blog featured one such car owner.

Jay did a great audio interview with Kevin Butler, car owner of David Gilliland’s current ride, the No. 71.

In it, Butler pulls back the tent flap just a little to reveal how sharp, hard working car owners are figuring out the single car team model, step-by-step. It’s a long road ahead, and Butler’s story includes plenty of frustration and obstacles.

But the important thing is, these guys are coming to the track, they’re figuring out how to make their cars go fast enough to get into the show, and they’re racing.

Right now, the conventional wisdom holds that one of them could never win on Sunday. But conventional wisdom had them out of business a year ago … and now they’re more visible than ever! And more popular, too.

The problem every one of these teams has, of course: Sponsorship. They’ve got to figure out how to attract sponsor dollars, but they can’t quite guarantee big exposure numbers for branding purposes.

They need a better model. Direct response branding could be a great answer for them. Stay tuned and we’ll explore how it all works.

Amid ongoing speculation about his relationship with retail giant Target, Chip Ganassi has moved swiftly to make it clear that Dario Franchitti will not be participating in the Indy 500.

The way things are going this year, he might want to reconsider.

Earlier this week, “persistent rumors” (thanks, Jayski) indicated Target’s unhappiness with all things Ganassi, especially the struggling Target-sponsored #41 and driver Reed Sorenson.

Target VP Steve Eastman vehemently denied any acrimony between Target and Chip et al. But you’ve got to wonder.

After its season-opening 5th place at Daytona, the 41 team’s performance has headed straight south.

Once considered a can’t-miss young gun, Sorenson is looking more and more shell shocked. And unless you’re counting wrecker time, Target cannot be happy with the frames of TV exposure the team is generating.

Like other big time sponsors weathering small time performance (see: Caterpillar), especially in this tough economic environment, Target has got to be dotting i’s and crossing t’s when it comes to recovering its investment in Ganassi.

What does this haveto do with Dario? Just everything, potentially.

We all remember Dario. Struggling Sprint Cup wannabe. Charming Scottish accent. Insufferable wife. Oh, and defending Indy 500 champion.

Let’s see if we’ve got this straight: Chip Ganassi Racing, aka “the artist formerly known as Target Ganassi Racing,” has a bit of a track record in that Indianapolis 500 thing, yes? A couple of very visible drivers piloting a couple of very visual open wheel rockets, usually with great results. That’s the pattern, anyway.

You might even say Chip Ganassi has built some brand equity for Target over in Indy Car.

Can anybody else envision this: Defending champion Dario Franchitti slips into another Target Ganassi machine for the month of May? Huge headlines. Major buzz. With Target right in the middle of the story.

But Chip would rather have Dario spend Memorial Day weekend flogging around the back of the Coca-Cola 600? If he makes the race?

What’s up with that?

My guess (rampant speculation alert): A driver contract problem. I don’t know a thing, not a thing, about Dario’s separation from Andretti. But it wouldn’t surprise me at all to find out that there’s some kind of provision that precludes Dario making a return to Indy in a bright red Target firesuit. Just speculating. But that Mikey’s a pretty sharp guy.

When we’re right, we’re right. And when we’re wrong, we admit it.

If you look around here just a little bit, you’ll find somebody casting doubt on the wisdom and validity of Nationwide Insurance Company’s decision to become title sponsor of NASCAR’s second tier series.

Seems we might have underestimated the power of the NASCAR connection.

Might is still the operative word … but …

NASCAR.com’s Ron Lemasters has put together a nice if slightly speculative story about the company’s early indicators that the payoffs are in store.

Nationwide’s John Aman, honcho for the sports marketing properties, addressed the media this week with an early positive message:

“Something that hasn’t happened in the other sports properties we’ve done is that I’ve received three or four e-mails just this week from agents saying, ‘I just wrote two pieces of business today because we sponsor NASCAR,’” Aman said. “The story goes something like, “so-and-so just gottheir premium renewal notice from a competitor, there was an increase, they know that we are sponsoring NASCAR now, so they called, I quoted and I now write their car, their home and their ATV. Thanks a lot, and keep it up.’

Now, a few emails from happy agents does not a multimillion dollar annual investment justify. Over the term of their sponsorship, they’ve got to have some better, tighter and more quantitative metrics than a few good stories. If they get them, we won’t hear about it; we’ll just see Nationwide renew its sponsorship agreement. If not, then … well, not.

But Aman’s comments indicate that Nationwide is tapping in to the one key component it undoubtedly needs to make this deal work: NASCAR fan loyalty.

For years, we’ve heard that NASCAR fans notoriously prefer sponsor companies over their non-sponsor competitors. And, if you think about the insurance business, it makes sense that a company like Nationwide would jump at such a proposition.

Let’s face it, insurance companies are not exactly starting from a brand-positive position. Quick, name somebody who actually likes their insurance provider. They might like their local agent, but the actual provider? Not so much.

It’s a tough business environment. And when your customers are innately predisposed to dump you if they can, the natural question becomes, “Dump you for whom?” When the “for whom” is a company that supports something they like (fiercely), said “for whom” will probably generate a little contingent loyalty.

Good for Nationwide. Looks like they figured some of this out in advance.

We stand corrected.

For now.

After holding Robby Gordon over a barrel for a couple of weeks, the National Stock Car Racing Commission has taken the unusual step of reversing Gordon’s points penalty and crew chief suspension for the “Nose Gate” infraction.

The Commission, while asserting that the team is ultimately responsible for the car it presents at a NASCAR event, looked to the to “extraordinary and unusual” circumstances” surrounding Robby’s case. Looked with relief, we think.

Even as NASCAR seeks to win back its “traditional” fan base, this is not the time to cripple the operation of its most notable, if irascible, single car operation. The scrappy Gordon has emerged as a vaguely ironic icon, a throwback to the days of scrappy teams and he-man drivers.

Fans everywhere have been waiting this week to see if NASCAR…err, ,the “National Stock Car Racing Commission” … was going to do the right thing and reverse Gordon’s suspension. The reversal portends to be a popular choice among said “traditional fan base.”

Gordon made plenty of noise this week about the impact of the points penalty, going so far as to suggest that he might switch to open wheel cars, now that IndyCar and Champ Car have kissed and made up. He’s played the attention with savvy and fairly blunt rhetoric, exactly as the “traditional fan base” would hope.

It’s not hard to see this one as “David vs. Goliath,” and instinct suggests that a lot of that “traditional fan base” was watching to see if a genuine little guy actually has a chance against the machine in today’s corporate NASCAR community.

So why is this a “racing business” issue?

Gordon’s primary sponsor, Jim Beam, has got to be thrilled. They’ve gotten huge exposure, as Robby’s car and uniform have been all over the racing media. They’re also now seen backing the underdog, always a favored position in American society and sports.

The other big winner in this mess is NASCAR’s vaunted “campaign” to win back its traditional fans. It would have suffered a huge publicity setback if it was perceived as, essentially, ruining its last one car operation.

While we’ve got some major reservations about a “campaign” to win back its fan base (smacks of the very kind of hype that has pretty well fatigued the traditional fan base), we give credit where credit is due.

The Commissioners did the right thing, both practially and poetically. They’re all apparently racers with a genuine interest in the sport (see Jeff Hammond’s quick and useful explanation on FoxSports.com). This time, they showed they also understand the P.R. implications of undercutting one of its key tenants: On any given day, anybody can win.

With a few days to cool off after a smokin’ finish (or perhaps not-so-Smoke-in; sorry, Tony), let’s review Speedweeks from the sponsor lens.

Earnhardt Jr. Pays Immediate Dividends
An enduring theme from the weekend broadcast was “Wow, look at all that green! This place used to be red!” Seems that Team Earnhardt’s Big Bet has paid off in at least one way: Junior Nation apparently immediately traded in its Budweiser theme in exchange for the greens of AMP and National Guard.

Time after time, obviously carefully chosen Dale Jr. fans showed up on TV wearing their new t-shirts, caps, sweats and waving those new green banners.

Talk about making a good first “impression.”

Also on that note, NASCAR.com picked up the Sporting News Wire Service’s very interesting story about Pepsico’s pursuit and ultimate capture of the Earnhardt dream.

Can’t Dodge The Impact
Among the feel good stories to emerge in the 500’s last 30 seconds or so, the rare opportunity to feel good for a large corporation was quite a treat. It was hard not to be swept up in the delight at the underdog Dodge Boys pulling off a team victory over the highly touted (and perhaps performance enhanced?) Toyotas, along with the Chevies, and even those Roush Fords.

Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli’s offer of a million dollar bonus to a winning Dodge team has gotten quite a bit of play this week, of course. How did we come to call it a “bounty”? Doesn’t a “bounty” involve a scalp or a fugitive, or at least a really tacky reality TV show? Careless use of language by our big-media friends, I say.

Anyway, Nardelli hasn’t exactly been a corporate hero recently. Having ascended from the magic world of GE to the CEO’s chair at Home Depot, he suffered a fairly public plunge along with the Big Orange (the company, not the 20). There was a certain amount of scoffing among us unwashed when Chrysler picked him up as CEO. But those “in the know” (and, apparently, the “know” who they are) pointed out that Nardelli’s real failure at Home Depot was in presuming that his manufacturing and process expertise would translate well to the rather squishier retail world. Apparently not, and Bob landed with a thud.

Now, as he works Chrysler through its unenviable challenges, some of those same “in the know” seem to think he’s got them on the right track. That’s what we like: a happy ending. And Nardelli certainly got a happy ending last Sunday evening.

That million bucks?

Boy, it’s nice when the stars align. Nardelli and Dodge have gotten millions and millions of dollars worth of media play out of that money. And, heck, if Bob had known he was going to get to beat the Home Depot car on the way to a Dodge victory, he might have offered big money!

Unsung Sponsor Of The Weekend
Our unheralded favorite sponsor for the Daytona 500 weekend, and all of speedweeks is a bit of a suprise: NOS Energy Drinks.

We like brave, scrappy sponsors just like we like brave, scrappy racers. The fabulously named NOS Energy Drink (if you know NOS, you’re a racer, yes?) played its sponsor dollars admirably: It put a little money on a small player in the big show; and a little money on a big player in the small show.

We do like strategic brilliance.

In Sprint Cup, NOS sponsored the very likeable Stanton Barrett, one of those rare tough guys who just scrapes it together every weekend that he can, and goes to the track to race. He’s a terrific if hard-luck story who always generates some media exposure because he’s the Hollywood stunt guy who also races in NASCAR. The media types love that stuff.

Unfortunately, Stanton was taken out of the Daytona qualifying race in a bonehead accident caused by one of the spoiled open wheelers trying to crash the NASCAR party. Crash all you want, Jacques, but when you take out good guys who work on their own deals, we are not amused.

A shame for Stanton and a shame for NOS.

However, NOS wisely also put a little bit of their sponsor loot on the back (well, the front, more accurately) of young Kyle Busch in Friday night’s Craftsman Truck Series race. Genius move. Young Busch has two things going for him: He’s quickly becoming the new master of Daytona International Speedway, that rare guy who can make a car (or truck) do anything he wants, anywhere on that very formidable track. It’s a fairly safe bet that the vehicle young Busch is piloting will spend signficant time on camera. Sponsors will undoubtedly take note, and NOS is wise to get there early. Second, young Busch has that brash, cocky persona that sells so well in the young energy drink market.

So, now instead of beer wars, we have energy drink wars. Instead of an aging Rusty Wallace matching sponsor wits with an up and coming Dale Jr., we have an …um… “maturing” Dale Jr. matched up against young Kyle Busch.

We do love a good sponsor battle.

AMP vs. NOS. The question is not who got the most exposure last weekend. The question is: Who got the most bang for the buck? We don’t have the numbers, but we’ll bet NOS didn’t do too bad.

Next: California. Let’s go racing!

Let’s be clear about this: The jury is still out.

We’re about to offer opinions on sponsors who were “winners” and “losers” from a very busy offseason 2007-2008. Realistically, nobody can really call a winner or a loser until we start running races and watching sponsorship programs unfold.

It’s easy to identify some high profile sponsors who generated tons of visibility this offseason. We’ll take that low-hanging fruit, thank you very much. But even they don’t really know the value of their considerable investment(s) until the cash register starts ringing.

With that in mind, here are some impressions of offseason winners and losers in the sponsor game:

Pepsico (AMP Energy Drink); National Guard - The obvious big sponsor play of late 2007, offseason and –given young Earnhardt’s performance during Speed Weeks– early 2008. So far, you’ve got to say that both companies have won. They’ve generated huge visibility and buzz (pun intended, AMP fans), and the early returns indicate they’ve backed a winner.

But we won’t actually know until we start seeing those AMP sales figures in the very crowded energy drink market and the National Guard’s recruiting and retention numbers. The first may be hard to come by; the second will be very public. In that sense, the pressure’s on.

Dale Jr. is generally considred a “sponsor’s dream.” But the real test of 2008 is to see whether his loyal nation of fans will follow him beyond the rough ‘n tumble, party boy image he crafted for Bud, Wrangler and Drakkar Noir.

Does all that loyalty translate to big sales for distinctly more refined brands like Adidas? Stay tuned.

By the way, anybody notice that in his NASCAR.com driver photo he looks more like John Force than Dale, Sr.? Might as well. Force won more championships.

Sprint - This might be better put in the category “NASCAR,” since the real issue with the NEXTEL to SPRINT title switch is going to be the dilution of the NASCAR “Cup” Series branding.

A few years back, when NASCAR rented its soul to NEXTEL for outrageous money, certain wags wondered whether the sanctioning body was making a good choice: Signing a long term agreement with a partner that plays in a distinctly short term game. Telcos have been notorious for merging and acquiring one another over the past decade or so.

Was it that hard to imagine that NEXTEL might get swallowed up by a bigger fish?

Now, NASCAR is staring at the prospect of its third major, premiere title sponsor in, what 5 years? Even worse, the chieftains are faced with the prospect of looking happy about saying “SPRINT Cup” for the next…well, for at least this season, anyway.

The Winston Cup brand had immense value; the NEXTEL Cup was in place long enough to just start building good equity; and now SPRINT gets its swing. How long before nobody takes the whole “Cup” title thing seriously any more?

Better yet, how long before we hear ourselves saying, along with the incomparable Mater: “He done what in his cup?” (Backstory: If you’re not a fan of the “Cars” movie, it might help to know that its mythical “cup” was called the “Piston Cup,” and Larry the Cable Guy, while stealing the show as Mater, knocked that little line out of the ball park.)

Budweiser - Has there ever been a better match for sponsor and driver than Dale, Jr. and Budweiser? Talk about the perfect storm of driver, fans and product. Right in the company of Petty and STP, Waltrip and Tide, and Dale, Sr. and Mr. Goodwrench, Dale Jr. rode an incredible updraft of support to amazing sponsor value for Bud.

Now, after the surprisingly amiable parting with Junior, Budweiser begins a new journey with Kasey Kahne. We don’t envy them. Kasey is a terrific driver and a soccer mom’s dream (apparently), but will he appeal to Bud drinkers, or bring new customers into the Bud fold?

That jury is definitely still out.

Anheuser-Busch, Busch brand - In a “normal” year, NASCAR’s separation from A-B and the Busch brand would have been huge news. As it happened, it was a pretty big story, not because Busch left, but because NASCAR had such a hard time replacing them (see below).

There are several ways to take this from a sponsor viewpoint: It might be that A-B is simply putting its Busch ad and sponsor budget elsewhere. In this day of “country” sports like bull riding as well as emerging extreme sports, there’s hardly a lack of opportunity.

But it’s hard to imagine a better audience for Busch than the NASCAR fan base. Busch inspires almost cult-like loyalty (much like NASCAR) and nearly oozes the salt-of-the-earthiness appeal that nails the traditional NASCAR fan head-on.

It seems likely that NASCAR simply wanted too much to continue the alliance. But it’s not only about money: It’s about value, which is payback for the money involved.

That might suggest that A-B, unparalleled in its marketing savvy, simply decided that the Busch series has drifted too far off the “front burner” for NASCAR. In a sense, the Busch series has become generic, nearly an after thought over the past decade or so. It’s certainly been off the radar screen for big deals, big names, and the sort of big hype the “Cup” series has seen.

Might be that A-B decided to quit subsidizing a second-rate product with its first-rate dollars. Which means that…

Nationwide - …has this year’s biggest challenge: Replacing an admired stalwart and establishing any kind of brand loyalty among the NASCAR fan base. The sponsor pitch for these properties seems to be: “Hey, NASCAR fans are notoriously brand loyal. Just put your logo on something –anything– NASCAR, and these rubes will snap it right up.”

That seems like a pretty big bet for a company like Nationwide in a semi-generic business space. Whether it pays off for them will probably depend on two things: How well they articulate and activate the sponsorship; and how long they’re willing to stay in the game.

There’s a vaguely surprising linguistic component to all this: “Nationwide Series” just doesn’t sound as distinctive as “Busch Series” and isn’t nearly as targeted. “Nationwide” what? Does that mean the series goes all over the nation?

This looks like an uphill battle for the venerable Nationwide.

Robert Yates - While not a specific brand or particular sponsor-related item, Yates was one of the offseason’s big sponsor cycle winners.

Let’s see if we’ve got this straight: Yates wouldn’t release car number 88 so Dale Jarrett could take it with him to Michael Waltrip’s stable. OK, that’s understandable, as DJ was leaving Yates to join a competitor, and taking a major big-bucks sponsor at that.

But the way Toyota was allegedly throwing money around in 2006, it’s hard to figure that somebody didn’t offer Robert a ton of money to let the number go.

Then, in 2007, a certain other Dale leaves his home base to seek greener pastures and, like Yates, his car owner chooses to keep the equity in his car number. And, yet again, apparently somebody makes a pass at Robert Yates. Only this time, the number floats out into the Hendrick-sphere.

And this year Robert gets to retire!?

Can we connect the dots on this deal?

No offense to Robert. In fact, we congratulate him and wish him a great retirement. It’s just business. But it’s pretty darned funny that he managed to hold on to the 88 when he maybe could have gotten some capital he obviously needed for the race team (see: 2007 performance), then released it and rode off into the sunset.

But, hey, that’s racin’.

Thanks for joining us. We’re looking forward to a season filled with comments, articles, interviews and conversation about sponsor-related topics.

Feel free to use the comments section to chime in. (And, no, this isn’t a comprehensive list, by far. We’ll be on top of lots of other sponsor stories — M&M’s and Kyle Busch, the whole Toyota pandemic, and the brand equity of the 8 car, to name just a few).

Have a GREAT Daytona Sunday!