It's never good news in a sport that has its bills so heavily footed by outside corporations when two sponsors announce in the same week of their intentions to not return next season.What's more troubling, though, is that these two sponsors -- liquor competitors Jack Daniel's and Jim Beam -- seem like such a natural fit to be advertising to NASCAR's fan base. In fact, you'd probably be on quite the search to head to the infield tailgate of any race with the goal of finding a fan who doesn't prefer one or the other.
But thanks to what amounts to be a seemingly endless spree of teams spending money to just stay competitive, both companies have found the price required to be NASCAR sponsors too high to get an ample return on investment.
Of course, neither company directly said they were pulling out the sport for cost reasons, but let's be real -- if the price is manageable and the bottles of bourbon and whiskey are coming off the shelves in the proper numbers, both would still be sponsoring race cars. The demographics of the sport just align too well.
The same could easily be said about the sponsors that have either left the sport in the past few seasons or that have made plans to leave. DeWalt, the longtime sponsor of Matt Kenseth, started to sell off races to other companies a few years ago and announced earlier this season that it will no longer sponsor Kenseth's machine as it has done since 2000.
Another sponsor, Bass Pro Shops, has decidedly cut back on the number of races that it has appeared as the primary sponsor of Martin Truex Jr.'s car in 2009. Guitar Hero, Garmin, GE and plenty of other companies have appeared on the race car this season -- a year after BPS was the primary for virtually every race.
In fact, the use of multiple primary sponsors in an attempt to defray the overall cost from one single sponsor has become the norm thanks to the higher costs of racing. Two of NASCAR's biggest names -- Dale Earnhardt Jr. and Tony Stewart -- both have relatively new deals with multiple partners, not just a sole company, to make it more affordable for their partners to be in NASCAR.
Certainly, the ability to land multiple sponsors on a race car is a change in the marketing dynamic that teams were employing just a few years ago. The evolution is intelligent, but it's also indicative of the higher prices creating tougher sponsorship sells.
The higher costs, though, aren't something that can necessarily be regulated or held in check by the sanctioning body. NASCAR has always been a sport based on free enterprise and with that has come the realization that by spending more, a team will go faster. Obviously, there's anomalies to the system, but by and far its true.
Cost regulations aren't an easy thing to touch in NASCAR. A salary cap is not only virtually impossible to implement on teams that operate as independent contractors, but also nearly impossible to regulate.
The best NASCAR, as a sanctioning body, can do is limit what teams can do on the race track and what they can race on it. The policy enacted to severely limit testing is part of those cost-reduction measures and, depending on who you ask, the Car of Tomorrow initiative can do the same thing.
Regardless, NASCAR is in a tough spot at the moment. The costs of competition are still rising and the number of sponsors willing to shell out to cover those seems to be dwindling. It's not exactly a picture of optimism for the future of sponsorship in the sport.
Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Nascar is the new tobacco industry. They're dead, they just don't know it yet..
Well, supposedly the New Car .Car of Tomorrow,was going too be Cheaper,and all would be equal and Blah,Blah, Blah.....I'm just waiting until NASCAR doesn't have a Full Field at some races...then maybe they will Lower prices, and Come back too Darlington and Rockingham.....and Have some good things Happening....At least they are starting too limit teams too 4 drivers....still one too many
I have to agree with biggip....one day the field will not be full and the stands will have fewer seats filled, maybe then NASCAR will think about those small teams that got pushed away and the high cost to be competitive. They need to go back to their roots.
Liquor companies are the Johnny-Come-Latelies to NASCAR, not having been allowed to sponsor cars until just several years ago.
One thing that really kills liquor companies (in even worse ways than beer companies) in any form of racing is the limitation most companies face on adveritsing and commercial tie-ins, meaning less efficient sponsorships.
NASCAR's held out better than other forms of racing so far...let's be honest, fisherdude's "one day the field will not be full and the stands will have fewer seats filled" would be a day the IRL can only dream of!
The racist reporter suggesting that Nascar tailgaters - and there thirst for good ol boy hard liquor, must have been the same reporter that reported from the NBA tailgate party about the fried chicken and watermelon??????????
Hey biggjp and fisherdude47 if you watch 95% of the races right now they really don't have a full field, they may start 43 cars but at least 1/2 dozen of those lower tier teams are just start and park teams getting a few extra dollars to try and stay afloat, some of those teams don't even bring a pit crew.
I will say I noticed something last week I had not noticed before, Brad. After Kasey Kahne blew his engine I noticed there about 5 other teams out. There had been no mention of them and why they were out at all.
I have metioned before that I too expect there to soon be less than a 43 car field even showing up to qualify. How did Nascar even come up with the number of cars at 43?
Also, do the teams share any of the gate receipts or does that all go to the track owners?
MAYBE IT'S BETTER IF THERE IS LESS CARS ON THE TRACK. For some reason 43 always looked like too many for me. They look like the bump cars at the shore rides or the local carnival.
There just may be less accidents or big wrecks.
works for me... nzcr 14 said.
Well they ran tobacco out and all other phone companies. Is alcohol the next sponsor to be told "we don't want your kind in here"? I know that the choice right now is for them to stay or go on their own but how hard is Nascar going to try to keep them? Probably not very hard at all.
As for the number cars in the field, I have often thought 43 was just too darn many on the short tracks myself. But I guess the question is, would the short tracks be as exciting as they are with fewer cars? Probably not.
mbl
So let me get this straight, there are some on here that have a problem with alcohol manufacturers sponsoring race cars? Go figure. I always took issue with it! Sponsorship in NASCAR started going downhill when they decided Cigarette companies could sponsor any longer because cigarettes kill and it was a bad image. Yes, they do kill, but it's a CHOICE for someone to smoke. How many people are killed by drunk drivers a year, people who were not drinking themselves and who had no intention of being killed on the road by some drunk idiot?
It is my personal opinion that liquor sponsorship in any sport is just flat out irresponsible, period. The last thing any major sport needs to encourage is for its fans to get drunk for hours while watching their sport and then send those fans out on the roads afterwards to drive drunk and possibly kill someone. As someone who has lost a friend who was killed by a drunk driver, drinking is a choice! Driving while drunk is a choice! The difference between drinking and driving and smoking is that the smoker is harming themselves, but they are not impaired where they put innocent people around them in danger because they are drunk!
So in my opinion, no great loss losing Jack Daniels and Jim Beam!
Kim
Why would a multi-million dollar company,waste its money on funding teams such as Rusty Wallace Racing,whose drivers do nothing but tear up their equipment and endanger the lives of other drivers.Also,if Nascar has a good drug testing policy,how can Steven"crashtest dummy" Wallace keep driving,he has to be on something ,no one is that stupid.