Where is Coca Cola?
Discussion
They used to own Burn, who are a brand of energy drink who sponsored Lotus. But last year Burn became part of Monster, who already sponsor Mercedes, as part of a deal that saw Coca Cola take a 17% stake in Monster.
Other than that, I can't really tell you. Perhaps they think that as they already have one of the most marketable products in history, it just isn't worth the expenditure.
Other than that, I can't really tell you. Perhaps they think that as they already have one of the most marketable products in history, it just isn't worth the expenditure.
There are a lot of companies that don't need brand exposure but only get involved in F1 to get access to the Paddock Club etc globally and all the networking and entertaining opportunities that opens up. My brother-in-law works for a huge global company that on the face of it has absolutely zero links with F1 (i.e. no visible sponsorship anywhere) but they will still ensure they have significant access to pretty much every F1 race globally to entertain potential clients etc.
Coca Cola as a brand has little corporate spend, it is all down to regions, i.e. EMEA, Asia, North America, South America, Australasia etc. Without territory buy in nobody is going to spend £30 million or more on F1. Coca Cola has been pitched to forever but they don't want F1. it does nothing for their brand to be on car and when they are involved in so many other events, this sport doesn't work. Music does, Soccer does, but motorsport doesn't.
It is the same for so many tier 1 companies, Google, Apple, Ralph Lauren, Boeing, Disney, Samsung, Sony, Microsoft, Visa, American Express, Amazon, Wells Fargo, Barclays, McDonalds etc.
Barclays is about to drop all sports sponsorship after 2016.
You need a global head of marketing who 'gets' sports marketing and the TV figures in F1 and the lack of interactive technology just don't make it somewhere to put money today....
Maybe in five years time but not in 2015.
There is also a huge issue with the sports corporate governance, as there is with FIFA.
It is the same for so many tier 1 companies, Google, Apple, Ralph Lauren, Boeing, Disney, Samsung, Sony, Microsoft, Visa, American Express, Amazon, Wells Fargo, Barclays, McDonalds etc.
Barclays is about to drop all sports sponsorship after 2016.
You need a global head of marketing who 'gets' sports marketing and the TV figures in F1 and the lack of interactive technology just don't make it somewhere to put money today....
Maybe in five years time but not in 2015.
There is also a huge issue with the sports corporate governance, as there is with FIFA.
belleair302 said:
Coca Cola as a brand has little corporate spend, it is all down to regions, i.e. EMEA, Asia, North America, South America, Australasia etc. Without territory buy in nobody is going to spend £30 million or more on F1. Coca Cola has been pitched to forever but they don't want F1. it does nothing for their brand to be on car and when they are involved in so many other events, this sport doesn't work. Music does, Soccer does, but motorsport doesn't.
It is the same for so many tier 1 companies, Google, Apple, Ralph Lauren, Boeing, Disney, Samsung, Sony, Microsoft, Visa, American Express, Amazon, Wells Fargo, Barclays, McDonalds etc.
Barclays is about to drop all sports sponsorship after 2016.
You need a global head of marketing who 'gets' sports marketing and the TV figures in F1 and the lack of interactive technology just don't make it somewhere to put money today....
Maybe in five years time but not in 2015.
There is also a huge issue with the sports corporate governance, as there is with FIFA.
Microsoft sponsor Lotus.It is the same for so many tier 1 companies, Google, Apple, Ralph Lauren, Boeing, Disney, Samsung, Sony, Microsoft, Visa, American Express, Amazon, Wells Fargo, Barclays, McDonalds etc.
Barclays is about to drop all sports sponsorship after 2016.
You need a global head of marketing who 'gets' sports marketing and the TV figures in F1 and the lack of interactive technology just don't make it somewhere to put money today....
Maybe in five years time but not in 2015.
There is also a huge issue with the sports corporate governance, as there is with FIFA.
Interesting one this!
Coca-Cola 'the company' does very little advertising or marketing itself. The majority is done and paid for by its distributors, albeit under tight control in terms of content and imagery from head office. Thus, the sponsorship of the NASCAR team mentioned would not have been a deal with Coca-Cola inc' but with a distribution company. Many of these companies are large, profitable concerns yet unlikely to have sufficient budgets to justify sponsoring F1 to the extent that any effect would be seen as any sponsorship would have to be an all or nothing type deal.
Coca-Cola also works on an "always available" model so if you walk into any small town in the middle of nowhere, you can always grab a coke. The risk is that if head office did support F1 Sponsorship and this proved successful, say in emerging markets like India and China, the demand could outstrip supply. Pepsi would be in there like a shot and that's the end of the distributor and big slice off the share value for the Coke boys.
Individual brands like Burn and 7-Up are more suitable for F1 as it can be used to create market presence or launch a new brand, something that Coca Cola (the drink) doesn't need.
This doesn't explain their support of the Olympics though which attains a similar reach to F1 I hear you say! Cynics might suggest this is an attempt to position the product as something more healthy than it is but it's more straightforward. The deal is simply an exclusivity deal so that only Coca-Cola stable brands are available at the event outlets. Event Branding is just a convenient by-product of the deal.
Many big global companies operate this way these days and is one of the reasons why big name, headline sponsors are hard to find. The rate card prices don't help but there are very few, centrally controlled companies that would benefit from F1 exposure out there where one Marketing Director can say, "yep, let's do it!" - decisions and spend is all divested through regional companies and distributors which tends to dilute the money available.
Coca-Cola 'the company' does very little advertising or marketing itself. The majority is done and paid for by its distributors, albeit under tight control in terms of content and imagery from head office. Thus, the sponsorship of the NASCAR team mentioned would not have been a deal with Coca-Cola inc' but with a distribution company. Many of these companies are large, profitable concerns yet unlikely to have sufficient budgets to justify sponsoring F1 to the extent that any effect would be seen as any sponsorship would have to be an all or nothing type deal.
Coca-Cola also works on an "always available" model so if you walk into any small town in the middle of nowhere, you can always grab a coke. The risk is that if head office did support F1 Sponsorship and this proved successful, say in emerging markets like India and China, the demand could outstrip supply. Pepsi would be in there like a shot and that's the end of the distributor and big slice off the share value for the Coke boys.
Individual brands like Burn and 7-Up are more suitable for F1 as it can be used to create market presence or launch a new brand, something that Coca Cola (the drink) doesn't need.
This doesn't explain their support of the Olympics though which attains a similar reach to F1 I hear you say! Cynics might suggest this is an attempt to position the product as something more healthy than it is but it's more straightforward. The deal is simply an exclusivity deal so that only Coca-Cola stable brands are available at the event outlets. Event Branding is just a convenient by-product of the deal.
Many big global companies operate this way these days and is one of the reasons why big name, headline sponsors are hard to find. The rate card prices don't help but there are very few, centrally controlled companies that would benefit from F1 exposure out there where one Marketing Director can say, "yep, let's do it!" - decisions and spend is all divested through regional companies and distributors which tends to dilute the money available.
In 1985/6 the first time Hass had a go at F1 the team was sponsored by Beatrice.
I was told at the time that Beatrice owned brands like Coca Cola and Callard & Bowser.
I was also told that the cost to sponsor the F1 team for 2 years was the same as they spent on TV adverts for the Los Angeles Olympic games.
Don't know how true the above is but I do recall being told it years ago!
I was told at the time that Beatrice owned brands like Coca Cola and Callard & Bowser.
I was also told that the cost to sponsor the F1 team for 2 years was the same as they spent on TV adverts for the Los Angeles Olympic games.
Don't know how true the above is but I do recall being told it years ago!
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff