The Benefits of Sponsoring Success: An Analysis of the Relationship Between Television Exposure and the Position of the Motorcycle Rider. 

Dave Arthur, Garry Dolan and Michael Cole (Southern Cross University, Lismore, Australia)

 Abstract

Sponsorship of sport has become an integral part of the marketing mix of the corporate world with corporations devoting large amounts of money to associate themselves with sport and/or its particular identity. This seemingly ever increasing use of sport as an entertainment medium by television broadcasters and the concommitant increasing amounts of money tied up in the upper echelons of professional sport has made it hard to imagine professional sport without corporate sponsorship.

However, sponsors have become increasingly prudent with their sponsorship dollar with a ‘tingly feeling’ of association not enough to justify the amounts of money required to become a sponsor of a top level sport. Corporations are thus utilising methods of monitoring sponsorship effectiveness ensuring that they receive maximum return on their investment.

One sport inextricably related to corporate sponsorship is motor racing. It is virtually impossible to watch a motor race of any type, at any level, anywhere in the world, on television or track side without being swamped with images of sponsor logos and signage.

This study attempted to determine if there was a relationship between the amount of television exposure a sponsor could expect a sponsored motorcycle involved in road racing to receive and the position of that motorcycle during a race. The study also determined what percentage of race telecast time can be approximated to each race position during a broadcast with a hope that this percentage could be utilised by sponsors and teams alike to determine an approximate dollar value of the exposure when applied to the relevant race broadcasters advertising rates.

Introduction

Sponsorship has become a worldwide phenomenon with many corporations devoting large sums of money to it ( Abratt & Grobler, 1989; Brooks, 1989; Meenaghan, 1991; Sandler & Shani, 1993; Scott & Suchard, 1992). "One only has to look at a professional automobile race, tennis match, or basketball game and count the numerous corporate names and logos appearing on the participants and signs in the stadiums to agree that the use of sponsor visibility in sport is prevalent" (Mullin, Hardy & Sutton, 1993).

Motorsport in general has not been immune from this phenomena and "has a history of heavy sponsorship which pre-dates most other sports. Its wide appeal is matched by its global popularity. Sponsors have potential to reach the world’s richest markets simultaneously via one method of communication" (Wilkins, p. 22, 1996). Indeed motorsport sponsorship apparently performs its part in the marketing mix very well with the most recent RSL Sponsortest figures on motorsport showing that 57% of adults nationally (U.K.) were able to spontaneously name a brand associated with the sport. In Australia, 63% of people claimed to be aware of a motorsport sponsor, which is a higher percentage than both Rugby League and Australian Rules (Sweeney, 1995).

In motorsport, the better the team, the more television exposure, the bigger the budget ensuring the team can make better and faster machines (Eason, p. 22, 1997). For example, the 1997 World Superbike Championship Works Castrol Honda RC45 cost in excess of $1 million and lap the Phillip Island Circuit (Vic) approximately 2 seconds per lap faster than the $100,000 RC45 of the Australian Championship Mobil Honda Team.

If the competitiveness of the machine is to a degree determined by the amount of money invested in that machine, then how does a team attract the extra money needed to make the machine faster? Should a sponsor invest the greater amounts of money needed to sponsor a leading bike when for a lesser amount they can get equal sized signage on a middle or back of the grid bike competing in the same telecast event?

This will be of course be determined to some extent by the objectives for entering into the sponsorship in the first place and the evaluation criteria used to determine the sponsorship’s effectiveness in meeting those objectives.

As well as the constant quest for success, motor racing is an endless quest for money, which is why racing is sometimes regarded as little more than a 320km/h billboard (Eason, p.22, 1997). Although not as expensive as its four wheeled cousin, motorcycle racing is still an enormously expensive sport. A competitive machine can cost between AUD$100,000 for a domestic superbike and several million for Mick Doohan’s World Championship winning machine (Whootton, p. 96, 1997).

Peter Goddard, a current championship winning team owner has stated that a large percentage of the costs involved in motorcycle racing is met by corporate sponsorship. Indeed Bagot (p. 86, 1997) goes so far as to say that without sponsorship motorcycle racing would be significantly less sophisticated, less ‘cutting-edge’ and possibly less popular.

In return for their significant investment sponsors can achieve similarly significant benefits. A survey conducted by Pope (1992) indicated that competitors and promoters of motor sport in Australia offered the following mechanisms to service potential motorsport sponsors:

• Signage on vehicles, equipment,
• Perimeter advertising,
• Naming rights to event, race, series or team,
• Client entertainment at races,
• Client entertainment not at races,
• Personal endorsements,
• Identification in PR material and communications,
• Promotional displays at races,
• Provision of equipment.

In addition an organization could sponsor motorcycle racing for a myriad of commercially driven reasons. These objectives according to Pope & Voges (p. 43, 1994) could include:

• Increased product awareness
• Improved corporate image
• Product positioning
• Enhance an advertising campaign
• Client entertainment
• Research and development
• Researching a scientific market
• Sales force incentive
• Managerial interest
• Employee motivation

Gilbert (1988 cited in Pope & Voges, p. 39) found that 71% of sponsors used monitoring of non-paid media coverage as the means of monitoring sponsorship success and the achievement of some of those objectives mentioned above. Copeland, Frisby and McCarville (p. 32, 1996) indicated that 61.5% of company’s specified that when conducting post event evaluation of their motorsport sponsorship that awareness, exposure and media coverage were the key factors in determining whether or not a sponsorship was successful. If the amount of free publicity is an important tool for measuring success, then being able to estimate this media coverage prior to entering into a sponsorship agreement must be beneficial to a prospective sponsor.

Motorsport in Australia receives a regular amount of television coverage with 40% of the total population watching some form of motorsport (Sweeney, 1995). "Males are very keen followers of motor racing, at least one in two view the four wheel variety on TV, while more than four out of ten watch the two wheel code. Both forms are attracting more interest...." (Sweeney, 1995).

The motorsport event attracting adequate media coverage with reasonable ratings is not in itself a guarantee that any particular participant in that event is going to receive an adequate amount of telecast time. Motorcycling differs from sports such as Australian Rules Football, Rugby League and even the Australian Supertourers where all competitors/ teams receive a largely guaranteed amount of television exposure throughout the course of a season. Motorcycle racing sees some teams rarely get exposure except for an all too brief moment at the beginning of a race when all competitors are bunched up scrambling from the line. These competitors are quickly left behind usually never to be seen again unless lapped by front runners or involved in a crash.

The teams that attract the major share of unpaid telecast time are more able to meet that particular corporate objective for their sponsor. For those teams that get little or no mass media vision, the value to a potential sponsor is downgraded from national to trackside spectator exposure. Which machines therefore receive the greatest amount of television coverage and by how much?

The mechanism for establishing the success of this type of sponsorship objective is referred to as a media survey or audit. The media survey is based on the television or print exposure of the sponsor’s name or logo apart from paid for advertising, measured in television minutes or print centimetres. The cost of the sponsorship can then be directly compared to the monetary value of the exposure had it been paid for (Pope & Voges, p. 39, 1994).

For example, the greater the time a logo or sponsorship message is broadcast, the greater the benefit to the organization of the sponsorship relationship using this means of evaluation. According to Williamson (1996) the number 15 car of Lowndes and Murphy managed 40.23 minutes of air time in the Bathurst 1000, well ahead of the next highest combination of Wayne Gardiner and Neil Crompton in the Coke Commodore with 27.55 minutes. The survey rated the exposure value for this race as $57,160.00/ minute which was the combined advertising rates for all stations which broadcast the Bathurst telecast throughout the country. This exposure gave the sponsors of the Mobil Holden Racing Team an equivalent advertising value of a fraction under 2.3 million dollars for the 10 hour telecast. The 4^th placed Coke Commodore came in second with almost $1.6 million with 27.55 minutes of airtime and the 2^nd placed number 17 Falcon of Johnson/ Bowe providing just under $1.5 million worth of airtime for its main sponsors, Shell-FAI.

The purpose of this present study was similar to that example cited above - to determine how much more, if any, race television exposure a competitive motorcycle/ rider combination received over a less competitive combination thus providing greater benefits to the corporate sponsorship with brand or company awareness as an objective.

In doing so this study will also attempt to provide information that can be used by organizations seeking to sponsor a motorcycle racing team as well as by motorcycle teams themselves to provide an indication of that team’s ability to meet the sponsor’s awareness objectives.

This information could then be utilised along with other information (such as rating size, viewer demographics and regularity of broadcast) to determine the potential value of television coverage.

Procedure

Television footage of 10 randomly selected motorcycle road races was analysed and the amount of time a motorcycle holding a particular position on the race track received television exposure was quantified. Due to the vast differences in logo/message size, colour and placement amongst competitors, a standard was developed. When the race number of the monitored bike was readable, the bike was receiving adequate coverage, such that a well placed sponsors logo/message of sufficient size, could reasonably expected to be seen.

Due to the variety in reasons for publicity accorded to pre and post race exposure (such as a local rider) this aspect was not considered in this study. Similarly a representative dollar value related to the quantified exposure was not calculated primarily because the broadcast markets vary considerably. For example, the Shell Australian Superbike Series is broadcast solely within Australia on the Channel 10 network only whilst the Superbike World Championship is telecast into 132 countries on 32 networks.

In addition not all positions on the grid were monitored. Due primarily to the vast differences in the way a race could be run (e.g. the differences in the type of racing due to differing tracks and race categories and the differences in techniques, policies and emphasis of the broadcasters) it was decided that a detailed analysis of a single race would prove unrepresentative of the broadcast of races in general. Instead this study looked at a subgroup of the full grid over a number of races in order to ascertain a representative picture of the position/exposure relationship in racing telecasts.

The positions on the track chosen for this study were the 1^st, 4^th, 7^th and 10^th respectively. It was anticipated that this subgroup would provide an adequate indication of the position/exposure relationship. A wide selection of motorcycle races, racing conditions and races in a variety of countries were used (see table one).

Table 1: Sampled Motorcycle Races

Data was analysed by recording all television exposure in seconds and totaling that exposure with respect to race position. This was done for four positions in ten races with the results converted to a percentage of total race time. The mean of the four positions over the ten races monitored was then calculated (see table two).

Table 2: Total Coverage and Mean Percentage of Observed Total Telecast Time by Position.

A simple analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to determine if there was a statistical difference among the average amounts of television exposure for each race position monitored. The calculated F statistic, F(3,36)=50.46,p<0.01, showed there was a significant difference between the race positions. Further analysis using Scheffé’s Procedure indicated a significant difference between all of the monitored race positions.

Discussion

The results of monitoring the 10 races showing percentage of total telecast time that the 1^st, 4^th, 7^th and 10^th placed bikes were observed are displayed in table 2. Results indicated that, on average, the leading motorcycle received significantly more exposure (33.5%) than did the other positions monitored, with the 4^th placed machine receiving significantly more (21%) than the 7^th (4.5%) and 10^th (1%) placed machines whose exposure was minimal. The remaining 40% of the exposure was made up of vision that fell outside the criteria mentioned in the procedure such as vision of motorcycles not in the monitored positions or unclear vision where the requirements were not met.

However, in two instances the 4^th placed bike received greater exposure than the first placed machine. It was observed that in these cases the 1^st placed bike obtained a significant lead early in the race and was not overtaken. Meanwhile a close contest had developed between a number of bikes competing for minor podium finishes - this accorded better television viewing than a lone motorcycle lapping by itself and therefore this contest was dedicated a larger proportion of exposure time (30% & 35% respectively) than one would expect. Even in this situation, the leading bike still received a significant a mount of exposure (17.5% and 20.5% respectively) - a favourable comparison to the leading bike average of 33.5%.

The leading machine in the races monitored gained exposure in approximately one third (33.5%) of the race telecast time. This is significantly more than the fourth placed machine which received 21%. Considering most races have a duration from 15 to 45 minutes, this could be expected to deliver a considerable amount of exposure to a sponsor with well placed on machine signage.

Statistical analysis of the results using a simple ANOVA clearly indicated a significant difference in the amount of television exposure that the monitored positions receive. The more competitive teams received significantly more exposure than the less competitive teams therefore providing greater exposure benefits to sponsors.

The percentage of telecast time for all positions varied considerably from race to race. The leading bike gained between 17.5% and 57% with a standard deviation (sd) of mean 33.5%; sd 11) The 4^th placed machine enjoyed between 10.5% and 30% (mean 21%; sd 8) whilst 7^th had between 1% and 7.5% (mean 4.5%; sd 2) and 10^th , 0.5% and 3% (mean 1%; sd <1).

This variation was dependent on program editing and production with producers generally favouring two aspects of each race:

1. Machines close to or leading a race; and
2. Close competitive racing.

It was also evident that a motorcycle receiving television exposure did not guarantee that any particular sponsors signage received the same coverage. Some of the television footage that was viewed showed motorcycles that were close enough to easily distinguish the bike and its race number (see procedure) but not close enough to distinguish individual sponsors. This problem was exacerbated by poor quality pictures being broadcast from some overseas locations.

The most recognisable of the sponsored bikes were the Castrol Hondas (WSC), Team Kawasaki (WSC), Lucky Strike Suzukis (FIM) and the Repsol Hondas. Each of these bikes had a distinctive naming rights sponsor colour scheme that covered the entire motorcycle and rider. In each case this tied closely with colour schemes used for other promotional media. In particular the Castrol Hondas (WSC) and Team Kawasaki (WSC) stood out as they were painted in the ‘trademark’ Castrol racing livery manner - a colour scheme used by Castrol with all of their motorsport sponsorship. In the case of the Kawasaki team it was the traditional green livery associated with Kawasaki racing for a number of years.

The Lucky Strike Suzuki’s and the Repsol Honda’s had their respective logos displayed in a large enough manner and in high exposure areas so as to gain the required high visibility needed to meet sponsors requirements. These tactics designed to create a highly visible association would enable the sponsor to gain an advantage from the sponsored bike receiving television exposure. Without such ‘brandstanding’ it would be difficult for a sponsor to gain exposure with any degree of certainty.

Footage taken from on board cameras was also included in the results of the study. It was found that, as in other footage, the use of on board cameras was limited to leading machines in that they were mounted on competitive motorcycles and that the footage used was normally of the leading group of bikes. Sponsor signage was still displayed and therefore still enabled valuable television exposure benefit. When on-board cameras were used, they tended to be for extended periods, i.e. longer than the uninterrupted exposure from any other camera position used during the telecast of the race. This extended broadcast also tended to provide single bike exposure only, usually the bike directly in front of or directly behind the camera. This may have led to longer exposure times dedicated to one position than would otherwise be expected. Considering that every race monitored had on-board footage included in the telecast, any extended exposure would not bias the results of the study.

Summary and Conclusion

The objective of this study was to investigate how much more benefit in terms of television exposure, a sponsor could expect to receive from involvement with a competitive motorcycle/rider combination over a not-so-competitive association. The results of this study indicated that it is important to a motorcycle racing team to be as competitive as possible in order to meet the sponsorship objectives of organizations that see television exposure as important. With the competition to gain much needed sponsorship dollars becoming greater and sponsoring corporations becoming ever more demanding of bottom line results, it would be of great benefit to a sponsorship seeking team to be able to include in their sponsorship proposal detailed information regarding expected television exposure.

Regular appearance within the leading four bikes in a telecast race should but may not necessarily guarantee adequate television exposure. On occasions, to gain maximum exposure for a sponsor, it may be better to be involved in a group of bikes closely competing for minor podium places than leading a race without any close competition assuming that the logo/ signage is sufficiently visible. This is however hard to predict or guarantee to a sponsor and a team would therefore be better off striving for the highest placed finish possible.

It should be noted that gaining adequate television exposure is only of benefit to a sponsor if the sponsors logo/ signage is significantly visible to ensure that the logo/ signage is recognised. This race exposure and its subsequent association with a winning/competitive team can be implemented as an important part of the organization’s overall marketing plan along with supporting paid-for advertising, client entertainment etc.

With the more competitive teams gaining more television exposure for their sponsors, they are able to command greater amounts of money to gain sponsorship rights. They are also more likely to simply gain sponsorship as they are more likely to meet a sponsors criteria for entering into sponsorship. With motor racing competitiveness to a large degree dependent on the amount of money spent on machines, riders/ drivers, research, engineers etc, this added ability to gain revenue through sponsorship means that the more competitive teams will normally stay that way.

Further research to investigate the relationship between logo design, size and positioning on a rider/ bike and its recognition during telecast may prove beneficial as would an investigation of whether increased exposure via the televised sponsorship translates into increased sales.

Abratt, R. and Grobler, P.S. (1989) The Evaluation of Sports Sponsorship, International Journal of Advertising, 8, p. 351-362.

Bagot N. (1997) Believe the Hype. F1 Racing, (June, 1997), p. 86-90.

Brooks, C. (1994), Sponsorship: Strictly Business, Athletic Business, (October),

p. 59-62

Copeland, R., Frisby, W. and McCarville, R. (1996) Understanding the Sport Sponsorship Process From a Corporate Perspective. Journal of Sport Management, 10(1), p. 32-48.

Eason K. (1997) Burning Rubber and Money on 320km/h Advertising Billboards. The Australian, March 13th, p. 22.

Goddard P. (1997) Personal Interview. April, 1997.

Kiely, (1993) Sponsorship: It’s a Buyers Market, Marketing, Feb. p. 9-12.

Komoroski L. & Biemond H. (1996). Sponsor Accountability: Designing and Utilizing an Evaluation System, Sports Marketing Quarterly, V(2), p. 35-39.

Meenaghan T. (1991), The Role of Sponsorship in the Marketing Communications Mix, International Journal of Advertising, 10 (1), p. 35-47.

Mullin B. J., Hardy S. & Sutton W. A. (1993) Sport Marketing, Human Kinetics: Champaign, Illinois.

Pope N. (1992). Sponsorship and Motor Sport. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Central Queensland, Australia.

Pope N. and Voges K. (1994). Sponsorship Evaluation: Does it Match the Motive and the Mechanism? Sports Marketing Quarterly. III(4) p. 37-45.

Sandler D.M. & Shani D. (1993), Sponsorship and the Olympic Games: The Consumer Perspective, Sport Marketing Quarterly, II (3) p. 38-43.

Scott D. R. & Suchard H. T. (1992), Motivations for Australian Expenditure on Sponsorship: An Analysis, International Journal of Advertising, 11, p. 325-332.

Shelton C. (1991), Funding Strategies for Women’s Sport, Journal of Physical Education , Recreation & Dance, 52 (3) p.51-54.

Stanley D. (1997), Personal Interview, December.

Sweeney B. (1995). The Sweeney Report, Sweeney & Associates, Melbourne.

Turco D. M. (1994). Event Sponsorship: Effects on Consumer Brand Loyalty and Consumption. Sports Marketing Quarterly, III (3) p.35.

Williamson R. (1996). Lowndes Wins on Screen and Track. The Australian. March 23^rd, p. 32

Whootton K. (1997). Booming Bikes. Shell Australian Touring Car Calendar.

p. 95-96.

Wilkins J. (1996) Focus on Motorsport. Sponsorship News. p.22.