Race-Week.com

Passing thoughts while wondering what happened in Vegas…

…to those crazy caution lights? It has to be disconcerting to the drivers and should be embarassing to the track. Couldn’t you just feel the FOX crew cringing, hoping they weren’t in for another Daytona-style “stick with us while we fix this stupid track” delay?

…Jeff Gordon’s pit strategy. Leading the race – dominant – pitting pretty far down the pit lane. Take 4 tires already! I would not want to be the target of J. Gordon’s ire after having obliterated, literally, 3/4 of the field only to lose a race on pit lane.

…logo packages of the day: Gordon’s Pepsi MAX and David Reutimann’s TUMS. Could it be the capital letters? Both looked great on the car, and especially great on TV.

…Pennzoil’s design team. I look for these things pretty close, and it took me all day to figure out the Pennzoil Ultra logo. Guys, if you’re going to debut a new car and a new scheme, can you spend a few bucks and test it on TV first?

…NAPA’s dignity. Not one but two singing crew commercials? Seriously? Truex Jr. just doesn’t carry off “silly” the way Mikey Waltrip did. Maybe it’s Truex’ diginity I’m wondering about.

…when the Scott Speed TV time streak will end. 3 weeks in a row Speed gets the 82 to the front of the field (twice, technically). This time, he slid back quickly, but even that generated some good TV time.

Put the Red Bull logo on the hood of that car! The “Red Bull Shot” (man, you’ve got to be careful how you type that!) can is a nice graphic, but doesn’t mean anything. No retenion, no return.

…who got the sponsor Deal of the Day? My vote goes to Rheem, the heating and AC outfit whose logo adorns the top of Kevin Harvick’s face shield. Really showed up nicely on the new Harv-o Cam or whatever that new angle is called.

…how Verizon finally decided to backdoor their way into the “Sprint” Cup series by doing a some logo advertising on the FOX broadcast. By sponsoring a race update, they get plenty of good logo time and also a nice mention. Good for them.

…how Richard Petty and Andy Granatelli must feel, seeing the legendary #43 with Valvoline on the hood.

No STP and not a drop of Petty Blue in sight. Signs of the times … in racing news, AJ Allmendinger seems to be living down to his mid-season form early this year. Too bad, for at least one race- maybe two -he looked like a race car driver.

…who’s in charge of inventory control for Ford’s new racing engine. It’s on delay due to parts shortages, as reported during the race. Really? Parts shortages? For a race engine? Is the high performance enging building business that good? Maybe Carroll Shelby’s getting all the real good parts.

…does Carroll Shelby rock, or what? 86, 87 years old, and still smokin’.

…just how disappointed the gang at TaxSlayer really were by Bobby Labonte’s early exit. Got them some very nice hood exposure for TV purposes. Oh, and right at the heat of tax season. Cool.

…chugpoints! Coca-cola got a nice, if unanticipated bonus when it was revealed the teams were pouring
Coke on their pit stalls in an effort to enhance traction. Except the Hendrick guys, presumably…since they’re an all Pepsi products operation. Suppose Mountain/MTN Dew is extra sticky?

…how Dale Jr. and Lance McGrew really are meshing as a driver-crew chief team. Hear that exchange at lap 167? Un-pleasant. I know it was lap 167 because McGrew pedantically reminded Dale of the lap number when Earnhardt complained that he’d been driving an evil car for “200 laps.” Focus on the minors, Lance! That seems like the way to win races.

…whether Kim Kardashian enjoyed her time on the hood of Mike Bliss’ #36. The car ends up on the hook, but we couldn’t see the sponsor…until FOX made a special point of showing the ID package. But, if it takes a special effort to view the ID package, the car isn’t really the sponsorship “vehicle” is it.

…did McDonald’s just get lucky and sign the right sponsor package with the #1 car – benefitting from the Daytona after glow? Or did they really mean to pair Mac’s with Jamie Mac. Maybe we’ll find out in the coming weeks.

…how much longer does David Ragan get before he really is driving a UPS truck? Seems like a great kid, and looked like he was growing into the role at Daytona. But when FOX came back from the UPS commercial to show the hood of his car, it looked like they actually had to go search for him! (In 23rd place.)

…just how this start and park thing works. In the coming weeks, I’m hoping to get a little bit more into start and park dynamics. I see lots of conversation about the points system, but very little about the pay system. Yesterday, for example, Boris Said parked it after 43 laps with a “rear gear” problem and pocketed 87,550 in prize money; Max Papis and Dave Blaney worked quite a bit harder and actually earned less: Papis, 262 laps for 82 grand. Blaney ran around in 264 circles and only put an extra 925 dollars in his pocked (82,925).

The business factors for start and park teams are at least as interesting as those of the super-funded operations. Stay tuned for more about them.

Passing Thoughts – California Story, Part I

A near miss by the weather had the FOX crew at near hyperventilation levels. Something tells me they were trying to figure out how they were going to vamp ANOTHER race delay so early in this short season.

Not ’til Texas, guys. Not ’til Texas.

Otherwise, in business news from the empty oval that is Auto Club Speedway’s grandstand section…

You’ve got to love … the mileage Bass Pro Shops is getting out of Jamie MacMurray’s Daytona win, and the double-down they got this weekend, winning the pole position. And the afterglow will continue until next year’s Daytona 500, where Jamie Mac will still be part of the story. sponsor payback indeed.

Speaking of mileage… either Scott Speed is turning into a NASCAR driver, or he’s got the most media-savvy crew chief in the biz. Most likely the second. Either way, for two races in a row his race strategy has gotten him in front of the cameras, and he’s kept the car long enough there to generate some very nice TV time. I finally figured out the front hood design is a graphic of the Red Bull can; and “Energy Shot,” I guess. If he keeps it in front of the cameras, they really should put something on there that televises well. Like, ya know, the Red Bull logo.

And speaking of speaking of camera time, I’m really wondering why the back markers and start ‘n parkers don’t put just a little bit more effort into identifying their cars. Yesterday it was Kevin Conway’s #37. Dude, if the only time you’re going to get on TV is when the leaders are passing you, make sure that logo is visible! Then again, I see where the sponsor is Extenze, neck and neck in the race with GoDaddy for this year’s tackiest sponsor package. Never mind, man. Just keep it semi-visible. The logo, I mean.

Since we’re topic tracking, apparently, I was thinking we’d almost made it through a Danica-free weekend (yeah right!) when the GoDaddy Danica shower commercial, um, popped up. Classy. Every time I see one of those commercials I remember that the actual product is a warehouse full of computer servers. woo hoo! So, I guess, once again we prove that not only does sex sell, it sells darn near anything.

I’ll be Quacked… if I can figure out the sponsor ID on Carl Edwards’ #99 car yesterday. Yes, I know, it’s a tie-in to the “You Don’t Know Quack”-ery that AFLAC is running this season. And, I guess, a nice tie in at that. Still, the car looked awful. It had a big Quack in the hood, so to speak, but didn’t push the message into visual space, at least for me.

Martin Truex hits the wall … and I’m not just talking about those awful commercials .. The FOX crew was careful to point out that he had engine trouble AND hit the wall, as if there was cause and effect. Maybe there was. Still, NAPA must wonder if they somehow put Mikey Waltrip back in the car.

Last week, Yahoo’s NASCAR blog ran a story about the semi-incestuous (semi?) relationship between racing’s TV personalities and their ties to various race teams. It actually extends further into the sport than Nick Bromberg probably had time or space to explore, but here’s another dimension: How about announcers and sponsors? Sure, the networks buy on for a certain number of sponsor plugs – of various kinds – during the broadcast. (It’s not just gas, people. It’s “Sunoco Racing Fuel”!) But do they really have to give a sponsor mention when a car hits the wall or wrecks? It’s sure not a bad thing when they do; and it sound natural nearly every time. But it sure seems like a gray area for announcer-sponsor relationships – and maybe an extension of the ownership issue DW does seem to like those NAPA mentions.

This week’s big mea culpa … I see that I was out of line questioning Dale Jr’s affiliation with Mountain Dew (or Mtn Dew as we now see it… MtnDw coming soon?). It was all over the fenders and all over the fire suit yesterday.

And at least it was green … not to be confused with the color scheme on the remainder of the 88 yesterday. I get the point of the “AMP Energy Juice” and its “100% Juice” deliciosity. But orange?

Most improved sponsor match, year over year… So far, it’s got to be Clint Bowyer and team General Mills. Maybe it was the shock of seeing him switch from Jack Daniel’s black to cereal yellow last year, but it just never seemed to fit. Not sure what they’ve done, but the whole presentation looks a lot better this year. More black maybe?

Are ticket prices dropping? During the telecast, I noticed a Phoenix International Raceway commercial that emphasizing tickets “starting at $25.” If that’s a trend, it’s a good one. More butts in the seats, and more opportunity for new fans to experience the rush that is a live NASCAR race.

In budget news…the big winners from NASCAR’s foray into southern California, part I, appear to be the engine parts suppliers. I’m not sure how many, but that was a lot of blown engines. Interesting that some guys keep ‘em together, and some guys from the same shop don’t.

Did I hear that right…the Speed Channel promotion for its new track-based reality series. Did Chris Myers really say it’ll “grab America by the muffler”? I realize that’s just a scripted line, but Chris is not off to a good start this season, is he….

While wondering what might have been for souvenir sales if that 88 car had passed just one more last night…

Best sponsor story … has to be Jamie Mac and Bass Pro Shops. BPS has been hanging with the Earnhardt brand since its association with Dale, Sr. And while Martin Truex acquitted himself admirably on the track, you’ve got to guess they were wondering about the brand fit. Then Truex leaves and Earnhardt, Ganassi, et al bring in …Jamie McMurray for the 1 car. Really?

Jamie isn’t exactly what you’d call the template persona for the outdoor life. His look, his speech, his body language all speak “city boy” not “good ol boy.”

So for him to stand in Daytona’s Victory Circle and thank Bass Pro Shops, among others, for “taking a chance” on him .. well, congrats to Jamie on more than one level. And congrats to Bass Pro Shops for taking a chance on a good ol’ Missouri boy, even if he don’t seem like one o’ them country fellas.

A sponsor mystery … afoot? Am I the only one out of the loop as to what happened with Earnhardt, Jr. and Mountain Dew? Looks like they’ve completely disappeared in favor of AMP. No detail on the car, nothing on the fire suit (OK, I didn’t look THAT close), and no verbal mentions; everything was about the “National Guard, AMP Energy Drink Impala.”

No big deal. It makes sense for Pepsi to stick with a single brand where somebody as iconic as Jr. is concerned. It just all seems kind of mysterious, that’s all.

Still waiting … For GoDaddy.com to figure out how to connect Mark Martin to its babe-splashed, bawdy image. Martin is certainly the prototypical “go daddy,” running with the kids at 50-something. But he’s also the consummate wholesome spokesdaddy.

Then again, he made the Viagra sponsorship work, so maybe something’s in the, um, pipeline.

On the other end of the sponsor-match scale … Matt Kenseth might turn out to be perfect for Crown Royal’s “moderation” campaign and tone.

Kenseth a.) seems like the kind of guy who might offer you a Crown Royal if you stop by for a visit; and b.) seems like the kind of guy who would offer to drive you home if you had one too many.

Plus, for some reason, this year that car looks awesome.

Worst broadcast oversight … had to be the Fox crew’s complete flip-off of Robert Richardson, Jr. The kid ran a very nice race. Stayed out of the way. Didn’t cause any untoward problems (much better than can be said for certain “veteran” types).

And when he got caught up in Kasey Kahne’s mess at the end of the race, Waltrip, McReynolds and Joy couldn’t even be bothered to say his name, let alone acknowledge that he had 1.) done a pretty darned nice job for an untested rookie at Daytona; 2.) got wrecked through no fault of his own; and 3.) deserved a heck of a lot better.

I don’t like to criticize broadcast crews. They work under enormous pressure, and on balance do amazing work. And I know it was a busy, crazy time of a long race.

But sometimes the error is egregious and unfair.

Luckily his sponsor, Mahindra Tractors, was well-enough identified on the car that it was readable even when the thing was on the wrecker.

Speaking of sponsor identification … I wonder if Red Bull Racing is wishing they would have slapped the Red Bull logo on Scott Speed’s hood instead of …um, whatever that was.

Great work by Speed, getting himself out front and, incredibly, staying there for something like 18 laps. Major TV time, including several shots of …um, whatever that was on the hood.

Congratulations to Sprint … for getting themselves right in the middle of the political correctness wars.

The “seeking Jimmie Johnson” commercial is pretty darned clever, right up until the announcer almost has to spit himself to enunciate the family’s excitement over finally finding Jimmie. “Oh my goshhhhhhhhh,” indeed.

It’s been said already today … but Toyota knocked it out of the park with its new commercial. Kyle Busch in kittens and bunnies is locked-in humor. But Joey Logano – the gamer-aged youngster in the Toyota driver stable – as the reluctant avatar for the mid-30’s gamer? Genius.

Finally, I don’t think I really saw this… Truex and the NAPA and Truex crew lip synching show tunes?

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.