Comments on: Marketing, schmarketing: I’m immune.

By: Winter

Winter — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 21:45:38 +0000

I worked for a company once that had money to spend on advertising, and while sampling was far more effective, they had to spend the money on radio and tv even though it was easy to show that it had zero impact on actual sales. It was all about ego, not money.

Of course the best example is Harley Davidson, which did no advertising and had people tattoo their brands on their body.

Still tattoo free,
Winter

By: Ron Shevlin

Ron Shevlin — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:49:02 +0000

@JP Most banks have a limited geographic footprint, so I’m not sure “little national exposure” is what banks are looking for with a stadium sponsorship.

Even if they were, they’d probably argue that every time a game is televised back to the away team’s home town, that they’re getting exposure.

By: Jeffry Pilcher

Jeffry Pilcher — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 22:10:39 +0000

It’s not sponsorships in general that I struggle with. The biggest problem I have with Citi’s $400 million is that it’s getting spent in one market. The investment yields little national exposure.

I’d bet Citi could spend $400 million and yield a more exposure with a creative (albeit more complex) series of sponsorships.