[PenelopePitStop]

I apologize if I'm using the term "military" in the wrong context.

With all the big-money corporate sponsors, I understand where the money comes from. The "product" corporate sponsors write all this off as advertising, and it comes out of their advertising budget ... as far as I know.

But where does the money come from with sponsors like National Guard (Mears ... Jr. in 200 and US Army (Martin)?

Considering that the National Guard and the US Army are government agencies not corporations, I'm not understanding where the funds come from to sponsor NASCAR.

Please enlighten me ...
http://www.smileycentral.com/sig.jsp?pc=ZSzeb098&pp=ZN

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by PenelopePitStop

I apologize if I'm using the term "military" in the wrong context.

With all the big-money corporate sponsors, I understand where the money comes from. The "product" corporate sponsors write all this off as advertising, and it comes out of their advertising budget ... as far as I know.

But where does the money come from with sponsors like National Guard (Mears ... Jr. in 200 and US Army (Martin)?

Considering that the National Guard and the US Army are government agencies not corporations, I'm not understanding where the funds come from to sponsor NASCAR.

Please enlighten me ...
http://www.smileycentral.com/sig.jsp?pc=ZSzeb098&pp=ZN

You, Steve, Don, Duck, Simon, LilSexy, me, et. al., et., al.

Can you say TAXATION, boys and girls? Fine. I knew you could.

Forgive me, Stephen. If you wish to edit this, I understand, but I just gots to say it...

The way I, Bob Tanner, friend of those who have no enemies; enemy of those who have no friends, look at it is: IF I had a choice between spending my hard-earned tax dollars on advertisement for a group of people who keep me free,

or spending the same money on public welfare and great society programs which, in the end, do nothing but make people more dependent on the governmant than they were before, thus demanding even more of my hard earned tax dollars...

I'll let you take a guess on which way Ol' Bob'd go.

[Quality88]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

You, Steve, Don, Duck, Simon, LilSexy, me, et. al., et., al.

Can you say TAXATION, boys and girls? Fine. I knew you could.

Forgive me, Stephen. If you wish to edit this, I understand, but I just gots to say it...

The way I, Bob Tanner, friend of those who have no enemies; enemy of those who have no friends, look at it is: IF I had a choice between spending my hard-earned tax dollars on advertisement for a group of people who keep me free,

or spending the same money on public welfare and great society programs which, in the end, do nothing but make people more dependent on the governmant than they were before, thus demanding even more of my hard earned tax dollars...

I'll let you take a guess on which way Ol' Bob'd go.

I'll choose option A Bob, as that's what I would rather do.







http://www.smileycentral.com/sig.jsp...p=ZSYYYYYYYYGB

[PenelopePitStop]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

You, Steve, Don, Duck, Simon, LilSexy, me, et. al., et., al.

Can you say TAXATION, boys and girls? Fine. I knew you could.

Forgive me, Stephen. If you wish to edit this, I understand, but I just gots to say it...

The way I, Bob Tanner, friend of those who have no enemies; enemy of those who have no friends, look at it is: IF I had a choice between spending my hard-earned tax dollars on advertisement for a group of people who keep me free,

or spending the same money on public welfare and great society programs which, in the end, do nothing but make people more dependent on the governmant than they were before, thus demanding even more of my hard earned tax dollars...

I'll let you take a guess on which way Ol' Bob'd go.

Somehow I knew you or LSC would be the first to chime in. I'd go with Option A.

I hate to ask this for fear of getting my head taken off ... again ... but are you saying that the "military" sponsorship actually comes from government tax dollars? I'm not saying it's right or wrong ... again ... just trying to understand.

I'm not looking to pi$$ anyone off here. I have no idea why I suddenly asked ... "Wait a minute. Where are these 'military' sponsorships coming from?"

[LSC9901]

Anchors Aweigh Bob, Anchors Aweigh !!!

[LSC9901]

Commentaries


Printable Version | Email to a friend
Army Ads and NASCAR: Racing Away with Your Money

by
Drew Johnson
Jul 16, 2003

When NASCAR fans pack the 20 racetracks to attend the 36 races that comprise the 2003 Winston Cup schedule, the tickets, parking, and t-shirts will not be the greatest costs assumed by those in attendance. Before the green flag ever falls at a single event, these, and all other American taxpayers will have already paid over $16 million for the "Army of One" sponsorship on a Winston Cup stock car.
That's right, American taxpayers dish out millions to purchase sponsorship for the United States Army in NASCAR's elite touring series.
By raiding its taxpayer-funded advertising budget to plaster decals on the quarter panels of an MB2 Motorsports Winston Cup Series entry, the Army hoped to speed off with 1,200 new recruits. The sponsorship forces taxpayers to subsidize much of the research, development, and manufacturing costs for the cars and engines, as well as employee salaries and operational expenses of MB2, a private for-profit enterprise. Thus, the race team is free to jockey for earnings through race purses and bonus funds with very few expenses left uncovered by the U.S. Army. Who are the recipients of this subsidy? The multi-millionaire owners of MB2 Motorsports led by investment banking firm principal and auto dealership magnate, Nelson Bowers.
The sponsorship intends to reach the sports-minded 17-24 year old male population, a main source of possible Army recruits. However, that prime demographic group constitutes less than 10 percent of NASCAR fans and viewers, meaning that relatively few of the Army's target audience will ever see the black and gold "Army of One" car in action.
Further limiting the potential for recruiting success is a severe lack of star power and on-track achievement by the drivers wearing the Army firesuit. MB2's regular driver Jerry Nadeau, currently sidelined with injuries sustained in a practice accident at Richmond International Raceway, has never finished higher than 17th in NASCAR's year-end point standings.& Mike Wallace, temporarily piloting the "01" car for the recovering Nadeau, boasts only two top-five finishes in a dozen years of Winston Cup racing. In all, Nadeau and Wallace possess a combined total of one victory in over 300 Series starts.
The Army's $16 million commitment is considered highly lucrative by Winston Cup Series standards and sponsorships of such magnitude generally fall to only the most highly successful, thus most recognizable and marketable drivers in the sport, not also-rans like Nadeau and Wallace.
For example, pharmaceutical maker Pfizer pays $12 million per year, far short of the cost of the Army's agreement, to sponsor the Jack Roush car of 33-time race winner Mark Martin. A $15 million yearly arrangement by United Parcel Service secured Robert Yates' entry driven by Dale Jarrett, whose resume boasts 30 Winston Cup race winsÑamong them, three Daytona 500 victoriesÑand the 1999 Winston Cup Championship. In NASCAR, where consistent finishes and frequent trips to victory lane translate into sponsor visibility and promotional success, it seems the Army found a dud of a race team rather than bang for its buck.
If the Army manages to reach its goal of signing 1,200 new soldiers resulting from its $16 million association with the MB2 NASCAR team, it will do so at the staggering cost of $13,333 per enrollee. Currently, the Army seeks to enlist over 70,000 new recruits. If the Army spent as much to reach each of the desired new enlistees as it will on those attracted by its NASCAR program, the cost would verge on $1 billion.
The Army recruiting budget, which includes advertising expenses, is set to increase $228 million in the upcoming fiscal year and Army brass claim that still more money is needed to satisfy its advertising needs. Congress must realize that it is not insufficient funding, but rather the imprudent way in which the Army spends its substantial taxpayer-provided advertising budget that limits its ability to reach potential recruits. It is time to wave a red flag over further Army attempts to recruit through wasteful methods at the expense of America's taxpayers.

[3fanforever]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

spending my hard-earned tax dollars on advertisement for a group of people who keep me free...

No doubt about it, I choose this one

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by PenelopePitStop

Somehow I knew you or LSC would be the first to chime in. I'd go with Option A.

I hate to ask this for fear of getting my head taken off ... again ... but are you saying that the "military" sponsorship actually comes from government tax dollars? I'm not saying it's right or wrong ... again ... just trying to understand.

I'm not looking to pi$$ anyone off here. I have no idea why I suddenly asked ... "Wait a minute. Where are these 'military' sponsorships coming from?"

Obviously you've never worked for the government, Penny (That was no slam, just a statement).

I won't bore you, or anyone else with economic theory. However, it is basic that the government, the military in particular, IS NOT in business to make a profit. The government is a giant, money-eating machine that makes the largest Great White Shark pale by comparison. The military's role in like is to spend money, break things and hurt people.

The government gets 95% of its money in two ways only, taking it from us by taxation directly or indirectly through bond issue, and printing it. Yes Virginia, there IS and Santa Clause and the military-sponsored car are done so primarily through taxation.

[Nevadastars]

I'm just curious who sets the racing "budget". Obviously, if they could outspend Bill Gates if they wanted to.

[simple simon]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

The military's role in like is to spend money, break things and hurt people.

hey, you stick with what youre good at ....... thats what i learned with my time in service

[Racer Duck]

In the proposed budget for 2008 & 2009, the US Army, Army National Guard and Army Reserve seek approximately $116B.

The part of the budget that includes "advertising and recruiting" (under which the sponsorship of race cars falls) calls for $37,708M (2008) and $40,403M (2009). One of the line items in this section is something called "Environmental Restoration" and has sums of $435M & $451M for the 2 years (I included this to give a relationship of how little the NASCAR sponsorship really is.)

Assume the current "NASCAR" budget for the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard and National Guard cars are about $15M each. That totals $90M and, by comparison, is pretty much insignificant.

One of the side benefits of the NASCAR sponsorship is the camaraderie and pride built in the individual services as "their" car sees success on the track. I'm not saying the guys and gals replace the picture they carry of their loved ones with a race car, but, then they don't carry pictures of the Army or Navy or Air Force football teams either. Still, it's a source of pride and they will gather around a TV or radio to root "their" car on as well as their personal favorite. If for no other reason, I believe it's money well spent and wish it had been available to me during the 60's when I was in the Navy.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by Racer Duck

One of the side benefits of the NASCAR sponsorship is the camaraderie and pride built in the individual services as "their" car sees success on the track. I'm not saying the guys and gals replace the picture they carry of their loved ones with a race car, but, then they don't carry pictures of the Army or Navy or Air Force football teams either. Still, it's a source of pride and they will gather around a TV or radio to root "their" car on as well as their personal favorite. If for no other reason, I believe it's money well spent and wish it had been available to me during the 60's when I was in the Navy.

Speaking as a Navy vet, I could not agree more. Our defense and 95% of all expenditures related to said defense and maintaining the infrastructure of our wonderful country is something I little or not problem with.

The other expenditures, which are aimed primarily at building and maintaining an vastly over-bloated bureaucracy... seeing those monies taken from my pay is akin to having a root canal sans pain killer.

[PenelopePitStop]

Well. I guess that answers my question.

Thank you!

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by PenelopePitStop

Well. I guess that answers my question.

Thank you!

You asked for a bottle of beer and ended up with the entire case, including advice from the bartender on how to drink it.

Your "Thank You" was too kind, Penny.

[PenelopePitStop]

Originally Posted by Bob Tanner

You asked for a bottle of beer and ended up with the entire case, including advice from the bartender on how to drink it.

Your "Thank You" was too kind, Penny.

No. No. Not at all. I not only got the answer to my question, but I also got an explanation/opinion behind it.

I would have been disappointed with, "Yup. Government pays for the sponsorship(s)."