Board logo

Tata Begging UK for Money sponsor Ferrari !
britishtrident - 18/12/08 at 07:36 AM

The vast Indian Tata group which spent billions on buying Jaguar & LandRover last year is begging the UK to bank roll the failling operations while announcing it is to sponsor Ferrari ! Is it just me or are the two concepts not quite compatible.

Mr Whippy - 18/12/08 at 07:43 AM

I was under the impression that the purpose of sponsorship is to generate sales through advertising, greater than the amount spent on the sponsor. So it is no different than the millions spent on tv advertising.

britishtrident - 18/12/08 at 07:56 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
I was under the impression that the purpose of sponsorship is to generate sales through advertising, greater than the amount spent on the sponsor. So it is no different than the millions spent on tv advertising.



I suspect you miss the point imagine a Mexican company begging the US goverment to bank roll plants that it had recently bought in the US the same day it announced it was sponsoring the Russian Olympic team, when the US Olympic team was on the verge of collapse because a sponsor had withdrawn.

[Edited on 18/12/08 by britishtrident]

mr henderson - 18/12/08 at 08:13 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
I was under the impression that the purpose of sponsorship is to generate sales through advertising, greater than the amount spent on the sponsor. So it is no different than the millions spent on tv advertising.


OTOH I thought the purpose of sponsoring a racing team was not to generate sales, but so that the sponsor and his friends could go to the GPs and rub shoulders with various famous people, while their shareholders pay for it all.

John

Mr Whippy - 18/12/08 at 08:17 AM

quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
I was under the impression that the purpose of sponsorship is to generate sales through advertising, greater than the amount spent on the sponsor. So it is no different than the millions spent on tv advertising.



I suspect you miss the point imagine a Mexican company begging the US goverment to bank roll plants that it had recently bought in the US the same day it announced it was sponsoring the Russian Olympic team, when the US Olympic team was on the verge of collapse because a sponsor had withdrawn.



yes I see your point, but if you were wanting to brag around the world that you have sponsored an F1 team then I’d say that Ferrari are going to be more well known than Mclaren, for example who makes the most supercars? What make of car would most men around the world love to own? It’s just business. A quick check on the web and I note that Ferrari seem to be doing quite well in F1 too.

grazzledazzle - 18/12/08 at 08:51 AM

But isn't that a bit like ford coming along and sponsoring renault? Tata should buy honda if they want a name on an F1 Car....

Mr Whippy - 18/12/08 at 09:42 AM

Well when investing millions you can ill afford and want to sponsor a team use the simple table below to decide which one to pick or simply type in the company name into google images and see what comes up

1)Heritage

Maclaren = 0 Honda = 0 Ferrari = 10

2)Image

Maclaren = Who? don't they make baby buggys? Honda = - 10 Ferrari = 10

3)Desirability

Maclaren = 1 car model Honda = 0 Ferrari = 10

DarrenW - 18/12/08 at 09:48 AM

They way i look at it is if they have the money to sponsor Ferrari (a leading global brand true enough) then why dont they put the money into saving their business. To the layman this looks simple. Hoever in the dizzy heights of big business the sponsorship money is probably a drop in the ocean and seen as a long term investment to get the Tata brand more globally recognised, generate future sales and bring in revenue to strengthen their business.

I guess Tata see their requests in a simple way. Our government has bailed out money shops, so why cant they bail out the manufacturing industry too.
A leading German economist made a similar point on TV last night when they were talking about strengthening their own large manufacturing base. They said they believed they were in a better position to resist the recession due to their manufacturing, as compared to UK who rely on financial and service industries.


Without all of the facts i see it as mere media speculation and trouble making to jump to a conclusion about Tata's affairs. What is absoultely certain is that things are going to change, its just the how bit that few can predict.

mr henderson - 18/12/08 at 09:59 AM

If anyone is wondering why Tata are sponsoring Ferrari, it's got nothing to do with Ferrari's heritage, or even the likelihood of Ferrari winning, but everything to do with the fact that Fiat (who own Ferrari) and Tata are starting a joint manufacturing project in India

(In other words, Fiat have found a way of exporting manufacturing jobs to a place where the labour is cheaper, just like VW did with Skoda)

John

jeffw - 18/12/08 at 03:19 PM

You might have done better with you research if you had spelt McLaren correctly... 


code:
Well when investing millions you can ill afford and want to sponsor a team use the simple table below to decide which one to pick or simply type
in the company name into google images and see what comes up  1)Heritage  Maclaren = 0 Honda = 0 Ferrari = 10  2)Image  Maclaren = Who? don't
they make baby buggys? Honda = - 10 Ferrari = 10  3)Desirability  Maclaren = 1 car model Honda = 0 Ferrari = 10

britishtrident - 18/12/08 at 03:52 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Mr Whippy
Well when investing millions you can ill afford and want to sponsor a team use the simple table below to decide which one to pick or simply type in the company name into google images and see what comes up

1)Heritage

Maclaren = 0 Honda = 0 Ferrari = 10

2)Image

Maclaren = Who? don't they make baby buggys? Honda = - 10 Ferrari = 10

3)Desirability

Maclaren = 1 car model Honda = 0 Ferrari = 10


Both McLaren & Honda have very long F1 Pedigrees, Honda's first F1 car was absolute jewel, The USA's own Richie Ginther won the the final race of the old 1.5 Litre F1 in the 1965 Mexican GP which was no mean achievement considering the margin by which Jim Clark's Lotus 33 had dominated the 65 season.


Kiwi Bruce MacLaren's team produced some superbly enginered F1 cars i the mid/late 1960's however to make money to fund the F1 effort they turned to building Group 7 cars for the original CamAm series which they absolutely dominated.

Bruce McLaren was a driver and racing car engineer of the very first order. Apart from his four Grand Prix wins he broke the Ferrari strangled hold at the Le Mans at the wheel of a Ford GT40 (a project which Bruce Mclaren had contributed a great deal to both as a development driver and engineer).

Ford's victories at Le Mans and other long distance sports car races were so hard for old man Ferrari to take that a lot of shouting and screaming was done in Maranello and Ferrari gave up building cars for Sports Prototype class.

The team he founded Mclaren have of course went to build cars that have won not only 8 WCC F1 titles (many think would be 9 but for Mosley' , Le Mans (1996) & the Indy 500 (1972, 1974, 1976)

Incidentally McLaren boss Ron Dennis has a an F1 pedigree dating back to the mid 1960s when he worked for Cooper and then the Brabham teams when has a lad of less than 20 he was chief mechanic to Jochen Rindt and Sir Jack Brabham.

If you read up on old man Ferrari you will find few outside the tiffosi who have much good to say about he was utterly ruthless, and cared little for the lives of his drivers. If you read any motor racing autobiographies you will find many accounts of old man Ferrari breaking his word and reneging on agreements (for example with Henry Ford II and Sir Jackie Stewart) and falling out with drivers and engineers who subsequently walked out mid season (for example Phil Hill, John Surtees, Gioacchino Colombo...............)

Add to that the fact like Mosley's father he was bank rolled by Mussolini whom Ferrari gladly accepted the title "Commendatore".



[Edited on 18/12/08 by britishtrident]