If I were a full time PR person, saddled with the possibility of someday deciding who will and who will not be getting sponsorship from a product or company I represent, I would be taking notes and collecting quotes from this forum. Other threads here are ripe with fodder to help with future decisions. Its nice to have fast guys and winners representing a product. But the PR DAMAGE that could be caused by mouthy, unprofessional front-runners might not be worth the trouble.

Praising your sponsors and suppliers is good behavior. Bad mouthing competitors products and services publicly and venomously is bad form. No matter how right you think you may be.

There are a lot of reasons why fast, talented racers never move beyond the club level and/or never receive sponsor support of any meaningful kind. Read more threads on this forum and draw your own conclusions.

Imagine for a minute that a PR person tasked with deciding who gets free tires is a female journalism school graduate whose only knowledge of motorsports is that its on ESPN when basketball is not...

Do you really think the vocal, ranting, unprofessional hot shoe is the best choice to recommend for support?

Let's clean it up, guys. There are better venues than this to discuss objections and concerns.

 

Well said John

 

Yes discuss on the private HC forum only.


Edo

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by EdoMoto &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Yes discuss on the private HC forum only.


Edo</TD></TR></TABLE>

Aww... then we miss out on free entertainment... no fair

 

I think I disagree, but since I'm not positive what you are saying I'm not sure.

There's a big difference between "Product XXX sucks monkey ***." and openly discussing the advantages and disadvantages, based on experience, of one product vs. another.

I will say that I rarely see "product xxx sucks" type stuff in this forum.

When I started this game, and you know this as well as anyone John, there was no Honda-Tech.com RR/AX forum from which to gather info. If I wanted to know what tire or brake pad or spring rates to use... I needed to know somebody to ask. Otherwise it was trial and error, which costs money most of us don't have.

Its great to have a place to get an honest opinion from multiple people who have been there and done that. I certainly wish it had been around when I got started.

Besides, I'm to old and fat to ever get paid to do this stuff, so I don't really care if I **** off Buffy in the marketing department. [shrug]

Scott, who says "If people are dissing your product, make a better product."

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Catch 22 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Scott, who says "If people are dissing your product, make a better product."</TD></TR></TABLE>

Not sure this comment vibes with the rest of what you said and what is also said above. The issue isn't completely about a sponsor ignoring you because you bash their product, but more that the people that might sponsor you from another company, would look upon you as brash/rude/inconsiderate and wouldn't want bad press from you about anybody's stuff.

I do agree though, for random readers that might be from AA or XX company... if they see constant complaints... they should look into it and FIX it.

 

Scott, I call BS on you here.

I seem to remember a certain sponsor brought to the table for ECHC back in the day. There was a 'required' windshield banner. There was a lot of backlash on this very forum. You were not ok with that. You know what it did to the relationship that you & Karl started for ECHC & the sponsor. It wasn't ok then.

People are saying they don't, won't or will not attend because of - that is ok for the sponsor to see? So...tell me, how is it ok now?

 

John,

Very good posts and I am sure very true.

I think there are various different view points being argued for different reasons. Most people against this rule are arguing from a $$$$ standpoint but others like myself are arguing from a standpoint that the rule itself makes no sense.

Why would you have a spec tire for one region and not the other? In my case I am not complaining about spending another $600-$800 or whatever on a different tire. In my case none of this matters one bit. I can't race on Toyos because of my relationship with Hankook. You could mail me a free set of tires, with prepaid contingency winnings, and set up data and I still won't be at Nationals.

Besides stating that I don't like Toyos or their program I don't think I've done anything unprofessional, nor do I think that the majority of ECHC/WCHC people who don't like the program have done.

However you are very correct in your remarks about talented club racers never getting beyond the club level because of outside funding issues or shortfalls.

The flipside of your aregument is that if someone is supporting your racing or efforts and a competitor enters your field you better represent your sponsor (but in a professional way)

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by civicrr &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Scott, I call BS on you here.

I seem to remember a certain sponsor brought to the table for ECHC back in the day. There was a 'required' windshield banner. There was a lot of backlash on this very forum. You were not ok with that. You know what it did to the relationship that you & Karl started for ECHC & the sponsor. It wasn't ok then.

People are saying they don't, won't or will not attend because of - that is ok for the sponsor to see? So...tell me, how is it ok now?</TD></TR></TABLE>

BIG difference.
Nobody was forcing anyone to use any of their products. Just run a decal.

The money they paid to get that decal run is what got us started.
In year #1, NASA gave NO funds to the ECHC and returned NO funds from entry fees to the series. Our funds came from that sponsor. Without them we would have never even gotten started. I certainly wasn't going into my own pocket.

Did we force anyone to use their products... Nope.
And we never would.

 

Oh please.

First of all, I'll admit I have been vocal, and for a reason. I'm pissed about what I see as a crappy decision that really screws over the competitors, that we're told to just shut up and live with or go somewhere else.

For the record, I'm sponsored 110% by my own checkbook. If I win some contingency money from Kumho by using their product, then so be it, but I have no signed contract with anyone, no one's name appears on my car other than those required to be there by the series, and I am not and won't ever be actively soliciting sponsorship. Likewise, I don't give a damned about turning "pro" - if I get there it will be with my own wallet, by virtue of a Powerball ticket. Otherwise, I have enough to do running my businesses and servicing my clients in my own 100% non racing related industry.

Concerning Kumho, I have yet to hear of them denying any racer the right to compete on their products and for their rewards because they vocally and vehemently defended their right to use Kumho tires, and made their feelings know if they thought they were getting a **** deal having someone else's tires that they don't want forced on them. If I was Kumho's NA Director of MArketing I'd have customers that loyal photographed and put on a T-shirt and I'd wear it everytime I had any contact with the public! But hey, maybe developing loyalty from your customers isn't the accepted way of generating new and repeat business anymore. Apparently it's now the norm to just buy off "the man" and make competition illegal, forcing people to be your customers.

That sounds about right.

But hey, maybe as a few people apparently think, those of us who don't like this deal should just bend over and grab our ankles and smile.

I don't think so. Nope.

Your comment about a better venue for all of this would be valid if this wasn't already a done deal. If this had been presented to the membership, the CUSTOMERS, prior to it becoming the law of the land, people would have had an opportunity of express their opinions, and the REAL cost/benefit analysis could have been put together, not the one-sided decision that we had instead. Did NASA National think about what is going to happen in the MW now that they've lost trackside support and a race weekend sponsor? Did they think about the likely fact that over half of the participants in one of NASA's most popular series' will likely stay home and not attend the National Championship race weekend because of this?

Exactly how much will the competitors benefit from Toyo's deal?

- Our entry fees won't go down.
- We won't get any discount on their tires.
- Their tires cost marginally less than their competitors' tires.
- Thier tires DO NOT last any longer than their competitors do when shaved to racing depth.
- Is Toyo going to suddenly start making tires in sizes that fit or cars, since their selection sucks for some of us?
- How will anyone in HC benefit any more from their contingency program than they would from Kumhos? They don't pay out for any more finishing positions than Kumho does, and what they do pay out is 1/4th to 1/3rd as much as Kumho, and not even real money but funny money that wil likely expire before many can accumulate enough of it to be worth anything.
- WHY couldn't all the other series within NASA be spec'ed on Toyo and an exemption made for HC? Did Toyo say "all or nothing?" I know there are spec series within NASA that think this is a good deal, and without any other alternative maybe that's true. But it is NOT GOOD for Honda Challenge, not according to the majority of the participants, and WILL hurt several regions in terms of support for ther events and number of participants. Why was this decision made? All we keep hearing is "it's good for NASA, and it will halp competitors save money." HOW is this good? IT WILL NOT SAVE MONEY! Not for those who are willing to do that extra to win!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Catch 22 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Did we force anyone to use their products... Nope.
And we never would.</TD></TR></TABLE>

This is off topic, but I recall you DID force people to run that banner regardless of any pre-existing sponsor decals already in place at the top of the windscreen. It was done in the 11th hour with no time to do anything other than run the new banner or park your car. I don't care what your justification was, you put racers in a very tough spot...

Not the way to win friends and influence people. Like them or not, the current NASA rules have given people time to adjust their plans and agreements.

SEE RETRACTION AND APOLOGY BELOW


Modified by thawley at 10:13 AM 1/13/2006

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by thawley &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">This is off topic, but I recall you DID force people to run that banner regardless of any pre-existing sponsor decals already in place at the top of the windscreen. It was done in the 11th hour with no time to do anything other than run the new banner or park your car. I don't care what your justification was, you put racers in a very tough spot... </TD></TR></TABLE>

I THINK there might be two banner issues here - one that occured way back when ECHC first got started and Catch was involved, the second at MidOhio "nationals" in 2004 which was after Catch went back to SCCA. I only know a little of the second one at MidOhio, but it seems that was required by a sponsor so the race could be taped and potentially aired on Speed (which never occured).

Beyond that - don't want to get back into specifics of any one situation in here. Except that to say if someone has a sponsorship deal at our level it was probably done thru face to face meetings and/or some other sort of personal involvement. For example, I'm sure Flatout met and/or talked to the Hankook people a couple of times before they gave him a check. I doubt Buffy from Hankook cruised thru here, saw his posts and said "I'm gonna sponsor that stud." Not saying it couldn't happen that way, just hasn't happened to me yet?!?

- Mark

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Markus &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I THINK there might be two banner issues here - one that occured way back when ECHC first got started and Catch was involved, the second at MidOhio "nationals" in 2004 which was after Catch went back to SCCA. I only know a little of the second one at MidOhio, but it seems that was required by a sponsor so the race could be taped and potentially aired on Speed (which never occured).</TD></TR></TABLE>

My mistake. I was referring to the Mid-Ohio experience. Sorry about that Scott.

Thawley

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by thawley &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

My mistake. I was referring to the Mid-Ohio experience. Sorry about that Scott.

Thawley</TD></TR></TABLE>

No problem. The history is sort of confusing.

All we required in year 1 was either a winsheild banner or 2 small decals on the sides of the car. This is what the sponsor got in return for fronting the "start up money" and thats ALL that sponsor got. There were no other requirements, and it was in place well in advance of the seasons start.

IIRC, the Mid Ohio thing, like so many others, was a fiasco. But it wasn't my fiasco.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Catch 22 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">BIG difference.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Not in the context of this thread. This thread deals with how people voicing their opinions, no matter what they are, can damage sponsorship agreements, present & future.

The banner in question was mandatory. The requirement was rescinded when all the crap started. In any event, you were not happy with the racers response & the resulting fallout.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 1gCRX90 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Your comment about a better venue for all of this would be valid if this wasn't already a done deal. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Well, perhaps we can all learn from this for the future instead of perpetuating it on a public forum.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by thawley &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

My mistake. I was referring to the Mid-Ohio experience. </TD></TR></TABLE>

That was a complete fiasco, along with the rest of the weekend.......

 

In the case you're referring to, the sponsor in question had fronted money that helped create the series in which these drivers were competing. Without that money, there likely wouldn't have been anything to argue about because ECHC might not have existed. Again, I wasn't going into MY checking account.

So when you argue about or publicly bad mouth that sponsor, you are dissing the people that helped allow you to be there at all. Sort of like punching your father for having the nerve to knock your mother up with your bad self. These people wrote a check FOR YOU and only asked you to run a 12 inch long decal in return.

IMO thats a whole lot different than "Guess what, you all MUST buy product xxx from company yyy."

If your opinion differs from mine, fine. You are entitled to it.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Catch 22 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">So when you argue about or publicly bad mouth that sponsor, you are dissing the people that helped allow you to be there at all. Sort of like punching your father for having the nerve to knock your mother up with your bad self. These people wrote a check FOR YOU and only asked you to run a 12 inch long....</TD></TR></TABLE>

I stopped reading when I read about your father, and then got to "12 inch long". After that, I knew you were just embellishing on the truth.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Johnny Tran &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

I stopped reading when I read about your father, and then got to "12 inch long". After that, I knew you were just embellishing on the truth.

</TD></TR></TABLE>

"Excuse me while I go poke out my mind's eye." -- Dr. Frasier Crane

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Catch 22 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> These people wrote a check FOR YOU and only asked you to run a 12 inch long decal in return.</TD></TR></TABLE>

It's 2002 all over again...

PS. I need to replace my contacts. I think the last two days of reading all this stuff microwaved 'em to my eyeballs.

Anyone got a really big sponge? The Seattle area could really use one right now.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by civicrr &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Well, perhaps we can all learn from this for the future instead of perpetuating it on a public forum. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Mike - on that note, I have to say I'm somewhat disappointed that the rules committee didn't see this coming. Last year, when the minimum weight changes came out for H4, there was a whole uproar on nasaforums about why the racers weren't involved in the decision and weren't solicited for input. There were lots of suggestions on how the rules committee could ease situations like these by giving public advanced knowledge of possible rules changes, which would allow people from all of the regions to voice their opinions. This change would have been a perfect example of how to apply the lessons "learned" from the earlier fiasco, but instead we are left with the same situation. That doesn't leave us a lot of hope that things will change in the future.

I know that the rules committee has a very tough job and I think everyone here (pissed off or not) appreciates what you guys do. The only reason that people are mad is because they do care about the series and want to compete in it and see it do well. That is why people get so upset when they feel like it's a "my way or the highway" attitude, which is what is conveyed by not having any hand in the decision making process. I know that NASA can't ask every member for their opinion before making a rules change, however, these online forums do allow you to get a wide cross-section of opinions from all of the different regions. It doesn't take much effort to throw out a feeler and see what people think before a decision is made.

- Scott

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by FlyZlow &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Mike - on that note, I have to say I'm somewhat disappointed that the rules committee didn't see this coming. Last year, when the minimum weight changes came out for H4, there was a whole uproar on nasaforums about why the racers weren't involved in the decision and weren't solicited for input. </TD></TR></TABLE>

And the whole Data AQ thing.....

I know of at least one racer who sold an expensive DA unit, only to be declared legal not too long after.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by johng &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Anyone got a really big sponge? The Seattle area could really use one right now.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Naaa... we just need some full tread Toyos

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by FlyZlow &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Mike - on that note, I have to say I'm somewhat disappointed that the rules committee didn't see this coming. Last year, when the minimum weight changes came out for H4, there was a whole uproar on nasaforums about why the racers weren't involved in the decision and weren't solicited for input. There were lots of suggestions on how the rules committee could ease situations like these by giving public advanced knowledge of possible rules changes, which would allow people from all of the regions to voice their opinions. This change would have been a perfect example of how to apply the lessons "learned" from the earlier fiasco, but instead we are left with the same situation. That doesn't leave us a lot of hope that things will change in the future.

I know that the rules committee has a very tough job and I think everyone here (pissed off or not) appreciates what you guys do. The only reason that people are mad is because they do care about the series and want to compete in it and see it do well. That is why people get so upset when they feel like it's a "my way or the highway" attitude, which is what is conveyed by not having any hand in the decision making process. I know that NASA can't ask every member for their opinion before making a rules change, however, these online forums do allow you to get a wide cross-section of opinions from all of the different regions. It doesn't take much effort to throw out a feeler and see what people think before a decision is made.

- Scott</TD></TR></TABLE>

The voice of reason !!!!!!!!! Thanks Scott