Welcome To P8ntballer.com
The Home Of European Paintball
Sign Up & Join In

Has XSV changed the face of tournament Paintball forever?

Nick Brockdorff

New Member
Jul 9, 2001
588
0
0
www.uglyducklings.dk
Ehm - don't see any "two reasons" - which is what confused me :)

And no then - a company like Red Bull, being involved with paintball, would not be about selling more to the paintball community - same goes for Bawls, Coca-Cola - or whatever.

It is pure branding - and as such does not pertain to the whole "manufacturers should not own teams thing".

Red Bull does not own two Formula 1 teams, because they hope to sell more to people driving cars - it's about being associated with something considered cool, and thereby lending "cool factor" to your brand.

For a paintball manufacturer, the case is entirely different. - By far most of your marketing activities relate directely to your sales in the sport - and for that reason, owning a team includes too great a risk, and the upside is very little..... much better to disassociate yourself with descisions made by teams, that can potentially harm your brand, by "just" being a sponsor.

If a player on a team owned by Smart Parts is caught using a gun cheat (for instance), the fallout and decline in sales will be much more severe, than if the team was merely sponsored.

Nick
 

Chicago

New Member
Jan 31, 2005
1,380
0
0
Visit site
Nick Brockdorff said:
If a player on a team owned by Smart Parts is caught using a gun cheat (for instance), the fallout and decline in sales will be much more severe, than if the team was merely sponsored.

That assumes many people differentiate between main sponsor and owner - an assumption I think is a bit of a stretch. I don't see how Dynasty getting caught with a gun cheat would be regarded much differently than the AA's being caught for the same thing.

I think the far bigger risk is that you finance a team until they do well, and then they switch to a different sponsor and that sponsor gets to reap the rewards of your investment, which is a strong argument for ownership.
 

MissyQ

New Member
Jan 9, 2006
663
0
0
Harlem, NY
Visit site
Yes, investment in a teams proile is a double edged sword unless you have a way to guarantee some loyalty. Ownership is one way of doing this, and certainly the easiest.
 

Mario

Pigeon amongst the cats
Sep 25, 2002
6,044
40
133
Location, Location.
Nick Brockdorff said:
Red Bull does not own two Formula 1 teams, because they hope to sell more to people driving cars - it's about being associated with something considered cool, and thereby lending "cool factor" to your brand
Well...hate to say it nicky boy, its not about being considered cool, because F1 racing is definitely not considered as 'cool'. Its about reaching an untapped market. Red Bull has always been associated with extreme 'cool' sports and their entering into F1 is there attempt at a new market where the participants are some of the most boring and uncharismatic people you'll ever meet. As are the spectators. And i've been one of them. (i actually love F1. im a geek.)

F1 merely brings them into a new market where they can sell more of their product. Owning an F1 car doesn't make them cool. Having a product sold to people who may never of tried it before and who could become loyal drinkers is the reason they own F1 cars.

What decline in sales do you think player is going to make in SP's overall profit. None i'd warrant. Paintballers are notoriously loyal to the products they shoot and just because one player cheats doesn't mean that sales will stop on that product. It just means that player will be punished.

And like Chicago and Missy say, who differentiates between an owner and a sponsor and how do you stop a winning team from screwing you over?

P.S. only that first bit was directed at you nick :) the rest was me opening my big mouth.
 

Mario

Pigeon amongst the cats
Sep 25, 2002
6,044
40
133
Location, Location.
Nick Brockdorff said:
I can read - but I have no idea who he is, to be calling me "Nicky boy" :confused:

Nick
Sorry, i get overcomfortable. Your one of the guys i respect so i feel calling you 'nicky boy' to be fine. My apologies nicholas. I also feel that ive been round long enough (4 years on here) to call you that. Again overcomfortable.

My points still stand though.