sponsors getting scared

Amit Ghosh

On Jun 18, 2:19 pm, Bob Schwartz

> > dumbass,
>
> > according to bob sponsors don't take any risk.
>
> According to you, people sign inescapable contracts
> for flower delivery that they can't get out of, no
> matter what.
>

dumbass,

a sponsor can try to get their money back, or sue for damages. that is
not the same thing as "no risk".

Amit Ghosh

On Jun 18, 4:49 pm, Bob Schwartz


> If Riis Cycling self destructed tomorrow, Saxo would
> still receive the benefit of increased visibility. With
> no cost because they would terminate the contract.


dumbass,

the claim that a scandal has "no cost" is not self evident.

when a team has a scandal the sponsor may even decide to sue the team
management for damages to their image.

Bob Schwartz

Amit Ghosh wrote:
> when a team has a scandal the sponsor may even decide to sue the team
> management for damages to their image.

Name one, just one sponsor that has suffered damage
to their image after a doping scandal.

Just one.

That may explain why this never happens.

If you close your eyes and wish really hard, I'm
sure the world will be exactly as you wish it to
be.

Bob Schwartz

Amit Ghosh

On Jun 18, 5:16 pm, Bob Schwartz

> Name one, just one sponsor that has suffered damage
> to their image after a doping scandal.
>
> Just one.

dumbass,

t-mobile paid stapleton's company for a certain type of marketing and
with the sinkewitz positive and subsequent confessions they got
another. that is a damage.

in fact they are still paying for a team that no longer carries their
name.

> That may explain why this never happens.

it never happens because there usually isn't a worthwhile party to
pursue for damages.

but this was a reason that armstrong didn't want to be involved with a
team - since he (like stapleton) has a large personal fortune and
would be a target of lawsuits if the team didn't live up to marketing
promises.

Bret

On Jun 18, 3:16*pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
wrote:

> Name one, just one sponsor that has suffered damage
> to their image after a doping scandal.

On a hunch I started googling for evidence of a slump in Festina watch
sales after 1998. Instead I found this:

“The response to Festina products in the past year has been
overwhelming.” (1999)

http://jck.polygon.net/archives/1999/11/jc11-080.html

Bret

Carl Sundquist

"Amit Ghosh" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:39a5a8a0-12b9-4a8c-a8a2-42ddde288d5a@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 18, 1:32 pm, "Carl Sundquist" <carl...@cox.net> wrote:
>> "Amit Ghosh" <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:c203dbec-8299-4c98-adb1-cc132c34b574@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > dumbass,
>>
>> > there is big a risk, which is that the team gets excluded from the
>> > Tour and they don't get the exposure they were anticipating.
>>
>> > saxo, columbia and garmin all signed on mid-season and will begin
>> > their sponsoship at the tour - once those teams had secured spots in
>> > the big show.
>>
>> Secured spots?
>>
>> NGC Medical-OTC Industria Porte
>
> dumbass,
>
> according to bob sponsors don't take any risk.

Dumbass,

Where do you see me talking about sponsor risk. I'm talking about how you
define "secured".

Amit Ghosh

On Jun 18, 5:53 pm, Bret <bret.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 3:16 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Name one, just one sponsor that has suffered damage
> > to their image after a doping scandal.
>
> On a hunch I started googling for evidence of a slump in Festina watch
> sales after 1998. Instead I found this:
>
> “The response to Festina products in the past year has been
> overwhelming.” (1999)
>
> http://jck.polygon.net/archives/1999/11/jc11-080.html
>
dumbass,

the point isn't the effect on sales, the point is they didn't get what
they paid for.

Amit Ghosh

On Jun 18, 6:23 pm, Bob Schwartz

> Tell me, how do I show damages so that I can sue as
> a result of terminating the service? In your head, do
> you see people switching cell and internet providers
> because T-Mobile sponsored a bunch of dirty dopers?
>

dumbass,

t-mobile spent money for a certain kind of publicity and got a
different kind of publicity.

the effect on sales is irrelevant, the point is they got a different
service then they spent money for - which means there is a risk
involved for a company when they sponsor a team.

Amit Ghosh

On Jun 18, 5:55 pm, "Carl Sundquist" <carl...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Amit Ghosh" <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:39a5a8a0-12b9-4a8c-a8a2-42ddde288d5a@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 18, 1:32 pm, "Carl Sundquist" <carl...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> "Amit Ghosh" <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:c203dbec-8299-4c98-adb1-cc132c34b574@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > dumbass,
>
> >> > there is big a risk, which is that the team gets excluded from the
> >> > Tour and they don't get the exposure they were anticipating.
>
> >> > saxo, columbia and garmin all signed on mid-season and will begin
> >> > their sponsoship at the tour - once those teams had secured spots in
> >> > the big show.
>
> >> Secured spots?
>
> >> NGC Medical-OTC Industria Porte
>
> > dumbass,
>
> > according to bob sponsors don't take any risk.
>
> Dumbass,
>
> Where do you see me talking about sponsor risk. I'm talking about how you
> define "secured".

i'm not disagreeing. slipstream, high road and CSC have spots for the
tour for the time being, but they could be taken away at any moment.

if someone from one of those teams were to test positive today that is
probably what would happen.

Howard Kveck

In article <393619c4-9d0c-416d-a44f-bff590533c38@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Amit Ghosh <amit.ghosh@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 18, 5:53 pm, Bret <bret.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 18, 3:16 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Name one, just one sponsor that has suffered damage
> > > to their image after a doping scandal.
> >
> > On a hunch I started googling for evidence of a slump in Festina watch
> > sales after 1998. Instead I found this:
> >
> > ³The response to Festina products in the past year has been
> > overwhelming.² (1999)
> >
> > http://jck.polygon.net/archives/1999/11/jc11-080.html
> >
> dumbass,
>
> the point isn't the effect on sales, the point is they didn't get what
> they paid for.

They pay for name recognition, which would lead to increased sales. Which they
seem to have gotten.

--
tanx,
Howard

The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

RicodJour

On Jun 18, 6:43 pm, Amit Ghosh <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 6:23 pm, Bob Schwartz
>
> > Tell me, how do I show damages so that I can sue as
> > a result of terminating the service? In your head, do
> > you see people switching cell and internet providers
> > because T-Mobile sponsored a bunch of dirty dopers?
>
> dumbass,
>
> t-mobile spent money for a certain kind of publicity and got a
> different kind of publicity.
>
> the effect on sales is irrelevant,

Ummm, no, it isn't. The only reason that they pay for "publicity" is
to improve sales.

R

DirtRoadie

On Jun 18, 5:47*am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
wrote:
> Looks like High Road and Slipstream have been scared by all the doping
> talk and are no longer title sponsors
>
> http://www.velonews.com/article/778...w-title-sponsor...
>
> http://www.velonews.com/article/77752/

I was under the impression that High Road and Slipstream were not
"sponsors" but were the entities that owned and operated the teams,
much like Tailwind Sports was the entity that owned and operated US
Postal/Discovery. So, in essence, each now has a paying customer.

DR

Kyle Legate

Bob Schwartz wrote:
>
> Tell me, how do I show damages so that I can sue as
> a result of terminating the service? In your head, do
> you see people switching cell and internet providers
> because T-Mobile sponsored a bunch of dirty dopers?
>
Of course not. People are switching cell and internet providers because
T-Mobile (and T-Com, the internet branch of the company) provide lousy
packages and incompetent, nearly non-existent, customer service.

*This message has been broadcast through T-Com infrastructure, because
I'm too lazy/stupid to jump ship.

Kyle Legate

Amit Ghosh wrote:
>
> the point isn't the effect on sales, the point is they didn't get what
> they paid for.

They pay for exposure and brand recognition and Festina got that in
spades. All the sponsors have to do is play the victim of those big, bad
dopers and culpability rolls off them like oil on Teflon. And they get
more return on their sponsorship euro than if they were merely present
in races which only a small number of people follow. Doping is good for
business.