Rolex F1 Sponsorship - good or bad?
Discussion
Watching F1 this year it's wall to wall Rolex advertisements at each break and on the circuits.
My thoughts were that F1 sponsorship somehow fitted with the Tag Heuer brand and its target customers. It was great for Tag Heuer that there names were over the cars/drivers and screen and that a reasonably priced F1 watch was within most people's reach. Not sure about Rolex. They are certainly not within most people's reach but i can understand them trying to appeal to a much wider audience. I always thought that Rolex would be above such blatant marketing however.
My thoughts were that F1 sponsorship somehow fitted with the Tag Heuer brand and its target customers. It was great for Tag Heuer that there names were over the cars/drivers and screen and that a reasonably priced F1 watch was within most people's reach. Not sure about Rolex. They are certainly not within most people's reach but i can understand them trying to appeal to a much wider audience. I always thought that Rolex would be above such blatant marketing however.
Adrian W said:
I think it's bad, advertising asperational products to the masses, 99% of the audience couldn't afford the £50k Daytona they show at every SKY Ad break. This must cause some resentment
Well then you must think the same about every ad break ever? Can your average Coronation St viewer afford and Audi that's advertised during the show etc...? Come on- it's how the world works. Have you never seen Mad Men?
I think Rolex is a good fit for F1. Can't believe they took so long to do the deal.
Adrian W said:
I think it's bad, advertising asperational products to the masses, 99% of the audience couldn't afford the £50k Daytona they show at every SKY Ad break. This must cause some resentment
It annoys me in a similar way but not exactly for that reason. I don't remember the last time I saw Porsche advertising on TV, or Aston Martin, or Lamborghini.. why advertise something that 95% of people can't afford, and that the other 5% are already well aware of? Rolex is one of the most well known brands in the world - it's not like they need to advertise MORE. Their target audience already know who they are, and can afford their products - everyone else can't afford their stuff so why would they care? Vvroom said:
Well then you must think the same about every ad break ever? Can your average Coronation St viewer afford and Audi that's advertised during the show etc...?
Come on- it's how the world works. Have you never seen Mad Men?
I think Rolex is a good fit for F1. Can't believe they took so long to do the deal.
Exactly. Come on- it's how the world works. Have you never seen Mad Men?
I think Rolex is a good fit for F1. Can't believe they took so long to do the deal.
An Audi R8 V10 isn't on everyone's affordable list but I don't throw my remote control at the TV everything time the advert is on thinking you b
ds trying to rub it in.High end advertising has been happening for years.
The GMan said:
Exactly.
An Audi R8 V10 isn't on everyone's affordable list but I don't throw my remote control at the TV everything time the advert is on thinking you bds trying to rub it in.
High end advertising has been happening for years.
Rolex sponsor (and have done for a while) the Le Mans 24 Hours, Daytona 24 Hours and the American Grand AM series. Through Tudor they've been sponsoring the World Endurance Championship (the races Le Mans cars do that aren't the 24 hours itself) this year.An Audi R8 V10 isn't on everyone's affordable list but I don't throw my remote control at the TV everything time the advert is on thinking you b
ds trying to rub it in.High end advertising has been happening for years.
Tissot sponsor (I think) motorcycle racing of some sort (I don't follow it much these days, tbh) and Blancpain a GT series.
None really make me want the products or make me feel they're more aspirational.
Longines sponsorship of equestrian events (something else I have little interest in) works much better. The style and elegance of equestrianism successfully embellishes my view of the Longines brand.
Personally, I don't think Rolex and F1 are very synergistic. TAG's a much better fit, imo.
M
Edited by marcosgt on Monday 21st October 10:04
marcosgt said:
Personally, I don't think Rolex and F1 are very synergistic. TAG's a much better fit, imo.
I agree with this simply because Rolex only make one chrono, the Daytona. They make nothing with a split seconds or flyback which would be interesting to (fun) time a motorsport event. I think 'driver's/motorsport chrono I don't think Daytona, despite its name, I think TAGHeuer Carrera.
Not sure how a Day-Date is a motorsport watch
Yachting is a better fit.
Rolex has been an aspirational brand in the west for a long time. However, they are just beginning to sell large amounts in the newly F1'd locations of the world (China, Korea etc). I think the advertising is aimed there, but the F1 sponsorship agreements are global, so all regions have to carry the 'sponsor' adverts.
The job of an advertising man is to persuade you to buy something that you would not have otherwise bought.
It baffles me as to why people willingly subject themselves to mass advertising (eg. television and radio commercials). Or as to why sponsorship deals should be considered good or bad. Its all just advertising, who cares how the sellers go about it? And frankly, if you buy something because of product association / a sponsorship deal / association with a personality, you're a fool.
Rolex sell watches. If you buy a watch, you get a watch, not some kind of tie in with F1. The Rolex sales guys might get a jolly to an F1 race and a party, but you won't. You get the same product you'd have got if Rolex had decided to sponsor these guys .
So good or bad? Who cares? F1 aren't short of money, Rolex aren't short of money, the deal won't make a differenct to the running of F1, or of Rolex, or change Rolex's products (OK, they might sell a gaudy one with an F1 logo). So I can't see what difference it makes.
It baffles me as to why people willingly subject themselves to mass advertising (eg. television and radio commercials). Or as to why sponsorship deals should be considered good or bad. Its all just advertising, who cares how the sellers go about it? And frankly, if you buy something because of product association / a sponsorship deal / association with a personality, you're a fool.
Rolex sell watches. If you buy a watch, you get a watch, not some kind of tie in with F1. The Rolex sales guys might get a jolly to an F1 race and a party, but you won't. You get the same product you'd have got if Rolex had decided to sponsor these guys .
So good or bad? Who cares? F1 aren't short of money, Rolex aren't short of money, the deal won't make a differenct to the running of F1, or of Rolex, or change Rolex's products (OK, they might sell a gaudy one with an F1 logo). So I can't see what difference it makes.
mikeveal said:
The job of an advertising man is to persuade you to buy something that you would not have otherwise bought.
It baffles me as to why people willingly subject themselves to mass advertising (eg. television and radio commercials). Or as to why sponsorship deals should be considered good or bad. Its all just advertising, who cares how the sellers go about it? And frankly, if you buy something because of product association / a sponsorship deal / association with a personality, you're a fool.
Rolex sell watches. If you buy a watch, you get a watch, not some kind of tie in with F1. The Rolex sales guys might get a jolly to an F1 race and a party, but you won't. You get the same product you'd have got if Rolex had decided to sponsor these guys .
So good or bad? Who cares? F1 aren't short of money, Rolex aren't short of money, the deal won't make a differenct to the running of F1, or of Rolex, or change Rolex's products (OK, they might sell a gaudy one with an F1 logo). So I can't see what difference it makes.
You're essentially correct but you've missed something vital IMO. Lots of people are indeed fools, and if they spot somebody wearing something associated with F1 or whatever, there's a good chance of that person being mentally associated with the image of F1 in their eyes. Insane but true, and how others see them is hugely important to a lot of people...something the Ad men are well aware of.It baffles me as to why people willingly subject themselves to mass advertising (eg. television and radio commercials). Or as to why sponsorship deals should be considered good or bad. Its all just advertising, who cares how the sellers go about it? And frankly, if you buy something because of product association / a sponsorship deal / association with a personality, you're a fool.
Rolex sell watches. If you buy a watch, you get a watch, not some kind of tie in with F1. The Rolex sales guys might get a jolly to an F1 race and a party, but you won't. You get the same product you'd have got if Rolex had decided to sponsor these guys .
So good or bad? Who cares? F1 aren't short of money, Rolex aren't short of money, the deal won't make a differenct to the running of F1, or of Rolex, or change Rolex's products (OK, they might sell a gaudy one with an F1 logo). So I can't see what difference it makes.
In short, their pitch might be "can't afford to be part of F1? No problem! Buy a Rolex and tell the dolly bird at the bar you are..."
Nah, I'm not missing that. I'm well aware that the ad men prey mainly on fools, I guess what I'm trrying to say is, it makes no difference to me and that it really does baffle me how people can be so foolish.
When I was a kid, my brother and I used to pester our parents to buy Sugar Puffs because we liked the Honey Monster. Whether we liked Sugar Puffs or not wasn't a part of the equation. You might expect that someone spending Rolex money would be in a position to make a more mature decision, I know that may aren't - hence the existance of ad men.
When I was a kid, my brother and I used to pester our parents to buy Sugar Puffs because we liked the Honey Monster. Whether we liked Sugar Puffs or not wasn't a part of the equation. You might expect that someone spending Rolex money would be in a position to make a more mature decision, I know that may aren't - hence the existance of ad men.
mikeveal said:
It baffles me as to why people willingly subject themselves to mass advertising (eg. television and radio commercials). Or as to why sponsorship deals should be considered good or bad. Its all just advertising, who cares how the sellers go about it? And frankly, if you buy something because of product association / a sponsorship deal / association with a personality, you're a fool.
Do we not all buy products associated with a personality/sponsorship deal one way or another...not necessarily the sign of a fool. The endorsements can also signify a sign of quality in that the personality associating themselves with that brand would not endorse an inferior product whether it be a Rolex watch or a pair of Adidas trainers.
Edited by pattyg on Monday 21st October 13:12
Disastrous said:
mikeveal said:
The job of an advertising man is to persuade you to buy something that you would not have otherwise bought.
It baffles me as to why people willingly subject themselves to mass advertising (eg. television and radio commercials). Or as to why sponsorship deals should be considered good or bad. Its all just advertising, who cares how the sellers go about it? And frankly, if you buy something because of product association / a sponsorship deal / association with a personality, you're a fool.
Rolex sell watches. If you buy a watch, you get a watch, not some kind of tie in with F1. The Rolex sales guys might get a jolly to an F1 race and a party, but you won't. You get the same product you'd have got if Rolex had decided to sponsor these guys .
So good or bad? Who cares? F1 aren't short of money, Rolex aren't short of money, the deal won't make a differenct to the running of F1, or of Rolex, or change Rolex's products (OK, they might sell a gaudy one with an F1 logo). So I can't see what difference it makes.
You're essentially correct but you've missed something vital IMO. Lots of people are indeed fools, and if they spot somebody wearing something associated with F1 or whatever, there's a good chance of that person being mentally associated with the image of F1 in their eyes. Insane but true, and how others see them is hugely important to a lot of people...something the Ad men are well aware of.It baffles me as to why people willingly subject themselves to mass advertising (eg. television and radio commercials). Or as to why sponsorship deals should be considered good or bad. Its all just advertising, who cares how the sellers go about it? And frankly, if you buy something because of product association / a sponsorship deal / association with a personality, you're a fool.
Rolex sell watches. If you buy a watch, you get a watch, not some kind of tie in with F1. The Rolex sales guys might get a jolly to an F1 race and a party, but you won't. You get the same product you'd have got if Rolex had decided to sponsor these guys .
So good or bad? Who cares? F1 aren't short of money, Rolex aren't short of money, the deal won't make a differenct to the running of F1, or of Rolex, or change Rolex's products (OK, they might sell a gaudy one with an F1 logo). So I can't see what difference it makes.
In short, their pitch might be "can't afford to be part of F1? No problem! Buy a Rolex and tell the dolly bird at the bar you are..."
Adrian W said:
Does this mean i should consider where i'm going every time i wear one of my Rolexes
Depends why you bought it and how much you care about other people and what they think, I suppose...Being honest, I'm certain the 'Bond image' must have factored into my buying a Seamaster, even if subconsciously. And I like sailing and the America's Cup and what it so whilst I primarily bought the watch for what it is, and for myself, I'm not unhappy with the connotations it has as I feel they 'fit' the image I'd like to project in public, I suppose.
Not afraid to admit that at all. If we're being honest with ourselves, a G Shock tells the time just as well (better, even) so why buy anything 'nice'?
pattyg said:
mikeveal said:
It baffles me as to why people willingly subject themselves to mass advertising (eg. television and radio commercials). Or as to why sponsorship deals should be considered good or bad. Its all just advertising, who cares how the sellers go about it? And frankly, if you buy something because of product association / a sponsorship deal / association with a personality, you're a fool.
Do we not all buy products associated with a personality/sponsorship deal one way or another...not necessarily the sign of a fool."Do we not all buy products
Then I'd disagree strongly.
Celebrity endoresment means only that the celebrity has taken a wad of cash. The same goes for F1 sponsorship, it's got nothing to do with the product and everything to do with what the marketers would like you to aspire to.
Can we just back off a minute from the Rolex being an aspirational unaffordable brand?
Compared with Patek, Vacheron, Audemars, Breguet, Richard Mille etc Rolex is as cheap as chips.
A S/S Rolex is the equivalent of a two-week family holiday to the Caribbean or Disneyland etc. Which many thousands of people can afford.
Compared with Patek, Vacheron, Audemars, Breguet, Richard Mille etc Rolex is as cheap as chips.
A S/S Rolex is the equivalent of a two-week family holiday to the Caribbean or Disneyland etc. Which many thousands of people can afford.
Gassing Station | Watches | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff