Quiet One, on 04 October 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:
Ppl don't give a Sh#t about "branding association" except on a very tenuous sense. The same sense that makes me think of red haired, frecklish people when I hear the name "Ruben" just because the first Ruben I knew was like that, despite the fact that no other Ruben I knew was even red haired.
Tell me, do you feel the thrill of extreme sports every time you see a Red Bull can? Do you wanna taste it and feel like lifting a finger to the cameras?
I have my savings in a Citibank account. Citibank has been the symbol of quick and dirty businesses and aggressive takeovers during the ultra liberal neocon 90s which is taboo by my slightly left of centre views. Santander sponsors my favorite driver and they are EVERYWHERE. There's even a Santander branch less than two blocks away from my work which is mightly convenient. Yet I haven't switched my savings over tto Santander and probably never will. Why? Because I don't give a damn about Alonso's sponsorship and Santander's ultra winning image to be bothered enough as to go and spent a couple of hours switching bank accounts.
it might even be convenient from my point of view because I would get better offers or something like that...I DON'T CARE!
I LOVE Coca Cola. But their "brand image" is appalling at best and their commercials are usually boring and "family oriented". Pepsi is more about things a single guy can relate to: success, flirting, whatever.
I still drink Coca Cola because Pepsi tastes like licking a wet dog. (Not that I tried...much)
Marketing is good to make a brand known. But all the overanalyzing on whether some commercial or slogan will make you think that certain brand has those characteristis is only for the fun and profit of the marketing depts and marketting companies involveed. Everybody else goes for the actual product and the very little else.
(Awaits for Brad's fuming reply
)
You're not wrong, but while you aren't swayed by marketing, that doesn't mean others aren't. No one outright thinks "I am attracted to this product because of this image," true. But plenty of people make associations they don't realize they are making, and while most associations can easily be overridden with common sense, they're still being made. Associations don't always lead to decisions, and that's their flaw.
Of course, I'm not telling McLaren's prospective partners how to market. Just stating how they
are marketing, and I'm not even saying that's successful or good. But they are going for image. No one needs to be told Vodafone and Santander exist; we all know. Their marketing may be useless or a waste of money, and they can evaluate that, but they are trying to establish an image, and post-Hamilton McLaren's image is both less confusing and less susceptible to unpleasant perception. So, when DPR suggests they might not be as attractive to sponsors, I don't necessarily agree, because sponsors, rightfully or wrongfully, are trying to sell an image, and there's an image there to be sold, even if it is one that many won't buy, and one that conflicts with F1's core identity.
DPR, on 04 October 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:
Massa, Please be very careful...........we are almost stepping into the "emperor's new clothes" here!
Remove the glamour, the danger and the sexiness..........and we are left with "cars going around a track"
Why does F1 have such a global following ?.........not for the the WCC that's for sure.
The ONLY constructor that has passionate fans is Ferrari, and that's because they're seen as SEXY.
I work for Shell and once asked a very senior bod, why the Ferrari partnership? His answer - SEX SELLS, to paraphrase him ' when we're trying to seal a deal, it's nice to send a Kasak official to Marinello, where he'll be met by a beautiful pr assistant wearing a tight skirt, showing him the famous cars.
Take the sex out of F1 and you're left with a boring engineering weekend! I for one would go back to the porn channel!
I was just saying, there's a way you can sell that to people, whether it's good or bad. Are those people the die-hard, old school F1 fans? No. But they do exist and they have money, too. A lot of bland people have even more money than exciting ones, so there's that, too (and plenty of exciting people have more money than bland ones). Just outlining what is, not what should be, or what I think is working. Because I don't know what should be or what I think is working. I have too many biases, and my biases think cars on a track is always exciting as long as the cars are differentiated and the track tests some kind of limit of something either on the car or the driver. My biases are also those of an introverted (INFJ, for the record, rarest personality type in males), vaguely-asexual, never-had-a-drink-of-alcohol, risk-avoiding accounting student, so my biases are excruciatingly dull.
2
Wait...if you make me laugh then it IS funny....so...errr....uhmmmm....
