Ready For a Shock?!?!?

[alecstilleyedye]

Not sure if I, or the PR men, would agree with this. THere are some companies who don't want to be tainted by scandal but I've read in the business pages that Rabobank are more than happy with their Tour. Rasmussen generated loads of publicity as the yellow jersey, then generated even more with his 'where's Wally' routine and then Rabo get positive publicity by kicking him out. Wall to wall coverage for two weeks.

Think about it like this: you want a mobile phone, do you reject T-mobile because they've been tainted in a doping scandal or do you reject them because they poor network coverage. I would go with the latter. And if I were to move to Germany maybe I'd use their service as in an unfamiliar country they would be a familiar brand.

Ultimately it depends how the company wish themselves to be portrayed but the riders are just mobile billboards to the sponsors. Thus, anytime the team is mentioned it is the sponsor's name that is mentioned and every time a rider is photographed his sponsor is usually more visible than his face. As the old adage goes, 'there's no such thing as bad publicity.'

so when i say "festina" your first thought is watches then?

 

[chris42]

so when i say "festina" your first thought is watches then?

yes I have a very nice Festina Tour De France 2006 watch.

 

[Steve Austin]

A Mr Ratner know a bit about bad publicity....
How are Ratners doing nowadays?

If a company that i used was implicated/financed drug cheating, i wouldn't use it. Its the same as when Kevin Keegan did an advert with the Honey Monster, sales of Sugar Puffs in Sunderland almost stopped. Consumers are fickle

 

[monnet]

You have to consider your own perceptions. As cycling fans you are aware of the teams and riders connected with doping and may make your decisions based on that. To the average man in the street he doesn't necessarily put the two things together and so the brand sticks in his mind. It might be exaggerating to say all publicity is good publicity, but it is a fine line and establishing awareness of the brand is the first thing a company wants. As I said in my earlier post, Rabobank are happy with their coverage through this year's tour.

In reference to the points other people have made:
1) Local rivalry is a very different concept to what we are discussing in relation to cycling. Anything Geordie is doomed to fail in Mackem land, and vice versa. Just like no Man City supporter would have anything that could connect with Man United and so on.

2) Festina, I might not necessarily think watches in a game of word association but when I look in a shop window at watches the Festina ones do get singled out for attention as I know the brand. Would I buy one? If I needed a watch and the price and style was right then yes I would.

3) Fortunately neither I nor anyone I know needs a hearing aid. However, the only hearing aid brand I know of is Phonak, therefore I'd look at their's first. Similarly if I were talking to the doctor about which would be best for me I would probably ask about Phonak. I certainly wouldn't be thinking of Floyd Landis.

4) The case of Ratner is entirely out of context. He, as the owner of a high street store, announce that he sold 'crap', people are bound to pick up on that. There is no comparison, in my view, with what has happened in cycling.

Finally, I would not go out of my to avoid 'tainted' products. I'm intelligent enough to decide which product is best for me. Thus if Phonak are the best hearing aids, I'll buy Phonak hearing aids.

As for not buying anything that has been implicated in/ financed drug cheating then you might as well quit cycling. We all use Shimano or Campag, just like the pro's. I wear Nalini clothing of occasion, as do plenty of pro teams. I ride a Specialized bike, as do two pro tour teams (along with all those that wear the helmets, shoes etc). All that money goes into providing for the teams. It may be as kit and not as cash that goes straight into the coffers but it is money saved that can be spent on other things.

 

[alecstilleyedye]

As for not buying anything that has been implicated in/ financed drug cheating then you might as well quit cycling. We all use Shimano or Campag, just like the pro's. I wear Nalini clothing of occasion, as do plenty of pro teams. I ride a Specialized bike, as do two pro tour teams (along with all those that wear the helmets, shoes etc). All that money goes into providing for the teams. It may be as kit and not as cash that goes straight into the coffers but it is money saved that can be spent on other things.

don't quite get the point there monnet. it's not shimano, campag etc who have anything to do with the doping, they just supply the teams (clean and cheats alike) with kit, in return for putting the brand where it wants to be. who is to say that they might prefer not to supply certain teams in future? pantani struggled to get a bike deal for mercatone uno once he was implicated in doping following the '99 giro. the manufacturers are hardly likely to know in advance if a team or individual rider is up to no good, so i won't be swapping to campag if astana use shimano, or indeed if a clean (presumably) team like barloworld runs campag.

 

[monnet]

The point is that by supplying the teams with kit it releases an extra portion of the budget to spend on other things. Doping could well be one of them. Therefore if you give kit to a team you are helping them to save money in one area that can be spent on more dubious items. In terms of accessories individual riders have deals with sponsors. Again the likes of Shimano are helping ease the financial burden on the team/ rider.

That the equiplment manufacturers don't know what a team or rider is up to is only the same situation that all the other sponsors are in. The people who sponsor teams are looking for coverage and cycling provides that. They may wish and believe they have a clean team but it is not the sponsor that instigates a doping culture but the sporting management, doctors and riders. In that sense Cofidis or whoever are no more guilty than equipment sponsors.

 

[Steve Austin]

Shimano, campag and sram are the only suppliers, so no-one can really boycott them as they are all impli9cated.

I was referring to a team being run and financed by X company and X company being complicit in drug use. Not that we would ever know, as it would be hidden in the hierarchy somewhere. But if X company were proven to be running a 'drug' using team, it would have a negative effect on consumers.

The Ratner example wasn't out of context, it was an example of not all publicity is good publicity, sorry if i wasn't clear.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Well, Astana has now suspended itself now, for 'thinking time'! And they've lost their bike sponsor... however the Kazakh government still says that Vino is entirely innocent and that they will continue to say this, whatever happens. First Borat, now this eh? Everyone just hates Kazakhstan...

 

[chris42]

Well, Astana has now suspended itself now, for 'thinking time'! And they've lost their bike sponsor... however the Kazakh government still says that Vino is entirely innocent and that they will continue to say this, whatever happens. First Borat, now this eh? Everyone just hates Kazakhstan...

Wonder who put pressure on them?

 

[monnet]

I was referring to a team being run and financed by X company and X company being complicit in drug use. Not that we would ever know, as it would be hidden in the hierarchy somewhere. But if X company were proven to be running a 'drug' using team, it would have a negative effect on consumers.

I suppose that's the thing. I'd probably think twice about buying from a company that was implicit in doping from top to bottom. But I don't think there are many teams where the owners of the sponsors have actively promoted doping in their team, it's usually been arranged by those involved directly with cycling (riders, DS etc). A possible exception might be Asatana where even the president seems to be implicated!

 

[Tetedelacourse]

Similar to Steve, my Phonak example was of bad publicity. If Phonak were enjoying the publicity they were getting they would have remained in the sport. They didn't, as it was bad publicity and deemed damaging to the image of the brand.

Festina is a more intersting one in my opinion. In the cycling world, they are synonymous with a doping scandal. However, they still hold the license to sponsor the tour clocks. That to me supports Monnet's position. Perhaps it's a case of what your marketing team think, rather than one rule for all.

ps I loved Ratner's stuff - birthdays, anniversaries, christmas all dealt with for less than a fiver!