Do you support ...

Do you support the people that support sailing?

Do you tell them that you made a buying decision based on their support of sailing?

 

Pffffffft.

Since sailing became more commercial boats have just got more and more expensive and normal people have been excluded from sailing.

And some of the basic classes are the worst offenders.

It's too late to change anything now but the decline in our sport has been largely because a few can get access to large amounts of money and the rest of us are reluctant to spend the same amount of money that we would spend on a car for a 14 or 16ft sailing boat.

For premier events - maybe there is an argument - but for grass roots sailing it has been a terrible influence - decimated the size of many fleets.

Just don't ask me what I think about elite olympic squad programmes!!!

Pleez Discuss

MIK

 

I'm not sure I can see a connection between Rolex sponsoring a Yachtsman of the Year, Louis Vuitton sponsoring the selection trails for the AC, Prada, BMW, Oracle, Sony, Hugo Boss etc. sponsoring boats and increased costs to the average sailor.

How does that exclude anyone from sailing?

The cost to compete in any sport at any level is higher than it once was. The required commitment of time is also higher than it once was. How is Sailing different than other amateur sports?

Doesn't commercial sponsorship allow people to compete that would not be able to without the assistance? Limiting the sport to those that chose rich parents is what kept sailing elite for years.

Not saying you are wrong, just that I haven't seen what you describe.

 

I think your talking about 2 different things. I think that what you have here is what I had when I read the poll question --confusion.

Do you mean?
Would I buy toothpaste from a toothpaste manufacturer that sponsored sailing.

OR

Would I buy a boat from a boat manufacturer that sponsored sailing.

Is that the question?


Maybe there should be a 5th choice--- Do you understand questions 1 through 2

 

Good point!

I mean "Do you choose one product over another because they support sailing?"

I never considered the other option, since I'm not familiar with any boat manufacturer that sponsors sailing events in a global way.

If you are going to buy a handbag, would you choose Prada or Luis Vuitton over Hermes or Gucci because Prada and Luis Vuitton support sailing?

Would the fact that Volvo, BMW and Mercedes support sailing make you consider those brands when you are car shopping?

Hugo Boss or Tommy Hilfiger over other brands?

Rolex or T.A.G. over Seiko or Timex?

If you feel that sponsorship money is a benefit to the sport, I think it would make sense to buy from the companies that support it. It would also make sense to tell the companies that their involvement with the sport influenced your decision to buy.

It could also extend to boats themselves. If a manufacturer supports local junior sailing programs would you be more likely to purchase one of their boats?

It could be that the sponsor's product has very little or nothing to do with sailng, yet they feel that the exposure they get is positive and will increase sales. They want to identify themselves with what they think is the positive image their customers have of sailing.

I was curious how sailors feel about it.

MIK has a very different view than I do, our experiences have lead us to different opinions.

 

Well said!!!

One of my clubs has the same sort of boats and boards that people used to sail in the "boom days" of the '80s and earlier; Herons, Lasers, 125s, a few old NS14s and some Tasars, long windsurfers. Our fleets have actually grown since those days (I have the old YA NSW census sheets to prove it) and with up to 120 starters on a good week, we are probably the biggest dinghy club in Oz despite sailing on a puddle - because the boats are simple and cheap.

 

Perhaps sailing has become too much of a sport and not enough of a pastime. In sports, to quote Vince Lombardi, "winning is not the main thing. It's the only thing". I heard he later expressed regret in saying that.

When I get to sail, I like to go a fast as possible with what Iv'e got. I also to be able to beach the boat at a pre chosen spot on the beach. On a small lake with many trees, that's a lot harder than it looks.

Perhaps that can be a new 'sport'. Precision sailing.

Maybe fishing off a sailboat should be encouraged too. I can imagine the design differences between a boat that has to be usefull for several purposes rather than one that simply goes mostly upwind or mostly downwind fastest.

I like the 'Water Tribe' races for that reason. So far, the predominate sailboat type seems to be the humble flat bottomed sharpie with a traditional rig. I suppose if you have to load your boat up with 100lbs of supplies and equipment, it matters a whole lot less if the boat weighs 250lbs rather than 225 (especially if that extra 25lbs keeps an oyster shell from ripping a hole in the hull). Also. Because the boat has to pass under low bridges at times, tall, bendy, intricately stayed masts tend to get somewhat discouraged.


Bob

 

[QUOTE=By RHOUGH
If you are going to buy a handbag, would you choose Prada or Luis Vuitton over Hermes or Gucci because Prada and Luis Vuitton support sailing?[QUOTE


Is this a trick question?

 

advertising in general is wasted on me,
especially if it comes from a big company like BMW or Volvo.
As far as "supporting sailing"- I am pretty sceptical of this sort of thing. My feeling is that these companies can and only do try to support themselves, and through linking themselves to sailing they see a means of doing such.
Supporting sailing becomes part of what the company wants to portray as their image or branded lifestyle...
Like I said, I am pretty sceptical of this- mostly I find the idea of the altruistic global corporation a bit of a joke. I think they do it because they believe that whatever they pay for sponsorship or 'support' will come back to them twofold either in direct sales or in valued building of their brand.

Nonetheless, I am glad that these companies put money into this- I would much rather watch a 'sailing billboard' than the roadside type or TV/magazine advertisments.

 

Hansp,-- I so, Oh so agree with you, but I think they do seem to get thier money back simply because they wouldnt do it if they didnt.

 

Randy

Are you suggesting that we ought to feel obliged to the buy the sponsors goods, through guilt and/or gratitude? That seems a bit much. When I buy a product I try to buy the the one that best fits my criteria, at a price I can afford. I might consider a Volvo or BMW, becasue through their sponsorship programems I am aware of their products. I might also think that they have designed their product with me in mind, as they advertise in places I look. But ultimately, I will also consider the Saab and Merc, becasue they are good cars too. I will buy the one I like best after test driving them all. If the Volvo wins, it is bescause it is the best car, not because they sponsor Team GBR at sailing. Of course, it may be that Volvo has targetted sailors at the design stage and not just the marketting stage. In that case, their car may well suit my needs best. I feel no compulsion to buy their product just because they sponsor someone or something. It would be daft to buy a product just because you liked the marketting campaign.

 

Well to me it works the opposite.

Merely for examples sake.

If some one like BMW can afford to waste money on sponsoring something like--horse jumping for instance. I can only assume they are making a fortune out of an over priced product and I will not contribute further to it.

 

Advertisers spend money, for the most part, to make money. In my mind there is nothing villianous about that. Succesful companies advertise because it helps sell the product. I give the example of Coca-Cola. They were at one time the largest advertiser in the world. They've been quite succesful largely because of the advertising and sponsorships.

I can afford to buy Coca_Cola but I could not justify the purchase of a Rolex or a BMW 7 series. The big dollar product advertising is thus wasted on me. Neither Rolex nor BMW is after my dollars anyway. They are interested in the affluent persons who can easily buy their product.

There is another scenario in big time sponsorship. There are many sponsorships that are made because the head corporate honcho happens to like the sport. It gives him and his entourage an opportunity to associate themselves with heroes of the sport. Take Dave Letterman for example. He is a major in the funding of Rahal/Letterman indy car racing. It is unlikely that Letterman will get a lot in return for his money. He simply likes the racing thing. Same for Menard, although Menard can more nearly justify his sponsorship to his accountant firm. (For Aussies and Brits unfamiliar with Letterman; He is a late night TV talk show comedian who makes a lot of money. Menard is the principal in a very large building supply firm)

Back to the inquiry...... I tend to buy a sponsors product if price, quality, and efficacy are equal to the non sponsoring competitor. I do suspect that effective advertising, not sponsorship, influences my judgement when purchasing decisions are made, but not in every case. I would hesitate to buy Calvin Klein products or Ralph Lauren products because their advertising style offends my sensitivities. CK or RL ads would not offend my teen aged grand daughter however. Both those outfits know their market and go after that particular demographic. Chrysler/Benz will soon sell the chinese Chery automobile under the Chrysler brand name. I'll bet they will advertise those cars like mad. I won't be buying one of them for several reasons. Among other reasons there is the slight case of Xenophobia toward the chinese. On the other hand I have several customers in China for whom I hold much esteem. Go figure. So the poll questions go unresolved. There are too many variables at work, too many personalities, too many economic conditions.

 

Perhaps we've missed the point of what an advertising campaign, or an event sponsorship is all about for the sponsoring body.

Unless the event, or attached relationship, is about something benevolent, such as paralyzed kids, or feed the hungry, etc., it is all about appealing to a target market of carefully analyzed demographic buyers. The net issue in advertising is how many eyeballs, or impressions, can the advertising position produce in a given time frame within the target demographic.

Sure, there's an ancillary value to being associated with a coolish, sport oriented event with viewers, but the placement of the sponsorship is not specifically involved with that position as much as reaching the designated target group with name, logo and message impressions.

If you are of that target group, it's likely that you are already in the market for the types of products that are produced by the sponsors... or at least receptive to that potential product type through class or earnings positions.

The visible relationship, established through repeat impressions, holds even if you do not actively pursue that product for your individual needs. At some point, you will have achieved an enhanced awareness of the product, name and logo and the sponsorship position has then become worthwhile for the manufacturer. The actual buying of the product is, of course, the desired result, but not all ad campaigns (or sponsorships) are about getting you to rush right out and buy.

So, Jack Frost, are we to assume that in your desire to take the anti-ad posture with regards to your example, BMW... that you, in fact, buy and drive a vehicle like, say, a Russian Lada or perhaps the now defunct, Yugo style of vehicle? That would, indeed, be an interesting anti-advertising position.

 

Anyone that is advertising by sponsoring sailing, be it a boat or an event, is helping the sailing industry - I don't think that is in doubt. However, please note that I said "INDUSTRY" rather than "SPORT".
If an Open60 is sponsored, then it needs a designer, a builder, materials, hardware, etc. that will all be supplied by people who make a living (usually) entirely from sailing.
This certainly helps the industry.
A sponsored event may or may not help anyone but the advertiser. Typically, they supply prizes, publicity and support to the organisers. This certainly reduces the amount of money that must be gained from entry fees, and sometimes allows bigger prizes to be given - but does this help the sport? Would the same folks race that weekend even without the draw of the sponsored, publicised event? Probably. Would they travel sometimes thousands of miles to do so? I doubt it. How many of you have packed your boats off to the other side of the ocean for a week or so of sailing recently? And then just shipped them home. Not many, I'll be bound.
The only thing that is certain about sponsored events is that they help to keep the sport of sailing in the public eye.
Is that a good thing?