Do doping controversies make team sponsors look bad, or is it just more publicity?

[ProTour]

I know it doesn't look good for the sport of cycling in general when riders get caught using drugs, but does it really hurt the team sponsor's image, or are they really just getting free publicity and advertising?

Can anyone think of a case where a team got busted and it really hurt the team sponsors company image, or profits? The point of advertising is to get your name out there and have it be recognizable, the doping controversies just give the sponsors a little more air time, and they don't even have to win races to get it.

I don't think negatively about LPR brakes just because they had a couple of riders get busted this year, if anything I am more aware of the brand than ever because of the publicity they got this year from the controversies. Same goes with Festina and Telekom(T Mobile). I appreciate that these companies were willing to put a significant amount of money into the sport and have a favorable image of their brands because of it. I look down on the riders who dope, but not the sponsors.

It would be different if a team sponsor were encouraging the doping, or tolerating riders and team doctors that are involved with it, but I think that is very rarely the case. Most are involved because they want to be involved with promoting the sport in a positive way.

 

[JayZee]

I have wondered this same thing. Personally, I do not think more negatively of the sponsor of a team that has a rider test positive. I don't blame the sponsor for a rider's actions. If given a choice, I will support a company that supports cycling regardless of whether a rider or riders sponsored by that company test positive. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is positive press, but I do think it gets a sponsor's name out there.

 

[Race Radio]

Festina sold lots of watches in 98.....for Telekom/T-Mobile it was negative, but as the company is massive it would be hard quantify the financial impact. Most in Germany realized it was the fault of the riders and DS'.

The greater impact is on cycling in general. It certainly has damaged it's ability to attract sponsorship in some countries.

 

[Ferminal]

I think it definitely makes them look bad in the eyes of the general public. People who don't follow cycling just get it in their head that the name = bad.

I guess it's not so bad for EU companies who are only in the domestic market, but for a multinationals it could be quite damaging.

 

[luckyboy]

People who don't follow cycling generally don't hear about it, in this country (UK) anyway. I doubt if they did that it would have any effect on their opinion of the sponsor anyway - it'd be more about them thinking that cycling is all drugs etc..

Probably in Europe the public are more aware of cycling though.

 

[shawnrohrbach]

Team sponsors give money to teams for branding;"we are associated with healthy, vibrant athletes who work diligently to become the best they can on an even playing field" and when this is discovered as bogus BS and the athlete is a lying sack of epo, they do pull. Many such cases in many sports. Many such cases on teli-lie news like Glenn Beck (his faux news lie show lost over 40 sponsors in one week). branding is the motivation to sponsor a team and when the brand is tarnished as bad as t-mobile (Thank you Jan), they pull stakes and give money where they will get positive branding.

 

[the truth.]

the riders are the image of the sponsors!
google 'festina' and the doping scandal is the first hits BEFORE the watch company!
10 years on and those cheating £$%kers have blighted a innocent company who just wanted to support cycling.

the bikepure lads have the right approach - shimano did something similar recent. all good . take the money away from the dopers- reduce the size of the carrot tempting pros to cheat.


Endorse the Future of Cyclesport:

No sponsor wants their brand associated with scandal and in the past it has been all to common occurrence within cycle sport. In defending the integrity of professional cycling, BikePure also protects sponsor investment in the sport. Getting riders to be held responsible for their own behaviour and removing the product association with a rider who is cheating, is not only good for brand image, but has a knock on effect of decreasing the desire to dope: knowing all elements in the sport stand united against the cheats.

The finance that funds a team's wages has the power to induce change and with all power comes responsibility. It is with this commercial influence that the cycle industry can make a collective impact. Demanding that their sponsored athletes race clean, taking pride in clean riders and thus promoting a healthier company image and better sales.


For riders it is an issue of dignity and self respect, for the fans, heroes they can trust. For the cycle trade and sponsors: the companies who fund our sport - it is business - but business must have a conscience. Cycling is a fantastic sport where the athlete must have the power and mental strength to train the body to perfection, coupled with the finest machinery in its beautiful efficiency. To promote cycling teams and riders, who commit to ride clean and being associated with this commitment of conscience is the future. Sponsors have a duty of care to promote a positive sport and fund an environment where young professionals will be nurtured and allowed to grow into fair champion.
Supporting drug free sport is endorsing cycling's future for sustained prosperity. We ask sponsors to demand a drug free commitment from their athletes and immediately remove all support from cheating riders/teams and redirect it to young clean athletes- the future.


We are compiling a list of companies who wish to be associated with Bike Pure's philosophy. Please email us and be part of the new era of cycling . To the fans, please support the companies committed to helping cycling begin a new era of accountability, breeding champions we can trust

 

[JayZee]

Thinking about it a little more, I think it depends on the size of the offense. The Festina example is a good one, where the whole team was implicated and it historically referred to as the Festina affair. It reached a fame and notoriety that went beyond cycling. However, I also doubt a lot of people decided not to buy a Festina watch because of that, but I could be wrong. It also didn't seem to hurt Virenque too much in the long run.

Telekom/T-Mobile is a little different I think. Just because a sponsors pulls out in response to doping that doesn't mean the sponsor was hurt by it. Perhaps in Germany it was, I just don't know. Anyone have any info on that? Personally I thought more negatively of T-Mobile for pulling their sponsorship and was less inclined to use their services because of that. This is from my United States point of view. Things may be different in Europe in this regard.

 

[pedaling squares]

I think that most people who don't closely follow cycling pay more attention to the name of the rider than the team sponsor. How many casual sports fans know that Floyd rode for Phonak in '06? What about people who don't follow sports? And the more ardent fans seem to accept that the decision to dope was made by the rider, with or without the approval of the DS. Again, I don't think that the sponsor suffers too badly. How many people change their phone service provider, brand of milk, etc because somebody not directly employed by the company made an unethical decision? And there's always the old adage about there being no such thing as bad press.

 

[shawnrohrbach]

I think that most people who don't closely follow cycling pay more attention to the name of the rider than the team sponsor. How many casual sports fans know that Floyd rode for Phonak in '06? What about people who don't follow sports? And the more ardent fans seem to accept that the decision to dope was made by the rider, with or without the approval of the DS. Again, I don't think that the sponsor suffers too badly. How many people change their phone service provider, brand of milk, etc because somebody not directly employed by the company made an unethical decision? And there's always the old adage about there being no such thing as bad press.

In considering a brand, whether nationally or internationally, it is not so much a direct consideration of sales as it is consideration of image. When Kelloggs dropped Michael Phelps for the infamous bong hit picture, I doubt very much they had any hit in sales; they just did not want to be associated with illegal drugs. The same with t-mobile. I would bet their market share grows regardless of who they sponsor, but the PR consideration would tell them too much erosion of the positive brand could result in loss of market share or even a deterioration in the growth of market share and the CEO is out on his ****. If Kelloggs accidentally put out a poisoned cereal, they would experience a huge loss of sales and market share immediately and they would pull the product and suffer the loss. The long term effects of being associated with a highly publicized illegal use of drugs is different and it's more like steering a very large ship; slowly and carefully. As GM of a software company, I was always looking at two windows; our sales and market share and then our log term posturing through PR and public image. The latter can be used to invite investors and talent more so than the first. Speedo decided to extend Phelp's contract through 2013. Their people decided the bong pic was not going to tarnish their image as much as a picture of Phelps in a speedo suit was going to enhance their image.

 

[fatandfast]

For a couple of reasons Shawn brought up I am glad I was never on a team that had anybody popped.A helmet sponsor gave us product and t ****s to give away to kids at hospital PR events and for prizes and promotions. I am sure they would have balked if one of us was an accused or convicted doper. US squads have had very little national exposure, Even when sponsors have a national presence(Kashi, Powerbar,Jelly Belly,Corona, Budwiser ect,ect) They exploit the athletes ability and personality normally at the event but no national TV, Radio or mainstream magazines. When Armstrong brings Nissan and Radio Shack out they are going to use him and use him good. I hope the team can keep it clean and together. A few TV images put to music will get people off the sofa and on to bicycles.I am sure the guys at the local Bike Barn have a good customer base that will understand the bad apple thing. Walmart, Kmart,Target who probably sell more bikes than everybody else have avoided a national sponsorship presence up to now, you can't help but wonder if their brand being associated with dope makes them hold off on writing a check.

 

[fatandfast]

The word that was blocked out was shirt.

 

[ProTour]

the riders are the image of the sponsors!
google 'festina' and the doping scandal is the first hits BEFORE the watch company!

This isn't the truth at all. I googled 'festina' and the whole first page listed information relating to the sale of their watches; nothing at all about the doping scandals of the past. Even the suggested 'searches related to festina' at the bottom of google didn't list anything about the past doping scandals. The company has a clean image on google and in the real world.

10 years on and those cheating £$%kers have blighted a innocent company who just wanted to support cycling.

I disagree, and that was the point of my original post. How did the cheats blight Festina? Can you prove in any way that it hurt their sales or image, besides providing subjective opinion? Their sales remained strong, as far as I know. Some wealthy cycling fans probably bought their nice watches because of the scandal; sort of a reverse psychology thing going on, possibly out of sympathy for the company. I think the scandal might have even helped Festina more than it hurt it.

the bikepure lads have the right approach - shimano did something similar recent. all good . take the money away from the dopers- reduce the size of the carrot tempting pros to cheat.

I suppose it is good for the sponsors to use their will to clean up the sport; they potentially have more power than the testers.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Festina were actually about to pull their sponsorship when it was due for renewal after the 98 Festina Affair - however they quickly changed their mind when they realized that they had increased sales, market share and brand awareness.

They are still very active in the cycling scene and were the official watch at the recent Tour of Ireland.

 

[workingclasshero]

This isn't the truth at all. I googled 'festina' and the whole first page listed information relating to the sale of their watches; nothing at all about the doping scandals of the past. Even the suggested 'searches related to festina' at the bottom of google didn't list anything about the past doping scandals.

it depends where in the world you're googling from, what language you google in

i got a wiki side relating to festina the cycling team mentioning doping as result #2 on the 1st page

obviously, in the us cycling only was invented in 1999 (who cares about lemond, he never had cancer, what a pr|ck)

so it makes sense that over there you never would've heard about festina the cycling team as they were only in the game for a couple of years after youknowwho became an annual three week freak

 

[Anonymous]

I think in general, it is really hard to say.

In Oz, no-one really knows, and none of the sponsors really sell anything significant here (i'm mean, silence and rabobank plus saver accounts get advertising time during the tour, but I doubt people really care).

I think it's bad for a sponsor if they represent the capital city of a country (...astana). People I talk to, who don't really follow cycling, generally associate that country with doping now...

So perhaps in that sense, a doping scandal isn't the best thing. But i guess, no-one really knows the companies that sponsor astana, just the nation.. Then again, Borat, didn't really help their public profile either!!

 

[BroDeal]

For most companies I doubt it has any effect other than most business leaders run for cover at the slightest bit of controversy. Does a customer really care that a wood flooring company or a hearing aid company has a rider test positive? It is completely unrelated to the business. The exception would be a company that relies upon trust with their customers, like a financial institution.

 

[JayZee]

it depends where in the world you're googling from, what language you google in

i got a wiki side relating to festina the cycling team mentioning doping as result #2 on the 1st page

obviously, in the us cycling only was invented in 1999 (who cares about lemond, he never had cancer, what a pr|ck)

so it makes sense that over there you never would've heard about festina the cycling team as they were only in the game for a couple of years after youknowwho became an annual three week freak

Way to really raise the level of the discussion with the attack on US cycling fans and the Lance Armstrong era.

FYI, I am in the US and my #2 google search result was for the Wiki article, but everything else was related to the watch company.

 

[guilder]

How fast did Radio Shack make an impression?
The anticipation is extraordinary.

If cycling's loyal jaded following had anything to do with the numbers RS expects to generate, wouldn't they seriously consider a Euro slant appeal, where LA and team are paradoxically less desirable?

Do sponsors hang around long enough to actually become identified with the problem? When they do appear to be part of the problem and they exit the cycling scene, don't they eventually become fond memories?

 

[workingclasshero]

Way to really raise the level of the discussion with the attack on US cycling fans and the Lance Armstrong era.

sorry mate you got that all wrong, t'was not an attack on us cycling fans, an attack on armstrong's cõck suckers. never tried to raise the level of the discussion, i was having a rant.

 

[richwagmn]

I don't think it has much of an effect given that the sponsor usually quickly drops the offender.

I think it'd be a different story if they continued to support the person.

 

[Bag_O_Wallet]

I think it's all in the way a sponsor spins the story.

They could be pushing and pushing and pushing for the team to get results, but when a rider tests positive they can distance themselves from such an "isoltaed incident that does not adhere to the company's values".

It gives the sponsor(s) an opportunity to tell the world how wonderful they really are.

 

[fruit bars with eyes]

sponsors are companies , and ,er people. so i wonder what they thinkbefore the bust- like sitting in the team car watching ricco and piepoli doing the highland two-step ahead of the peloton- maybe they are thinking - milk this while it lasts but have the PR companies well briefed and the get out clauses watertight? i reckon the european trade sponsors will be pretty savvy- as for the various lotteries- once, fdj, lotto et al- i don't suppose they care as people are not going to stop buying tickets because of a doping +ve. it'll be interesting to see what the new australian team (sky) make of their first positive- but they control all the media where i live so i'll probably never even find out except on here

 

[danyela]

What about a team such as Astana? Would the whole thing with Vino be detracting to Kazakhstan, seeing as Astana is their capital city, or would people just not really care?

 

[Bag_O_Wallet]

What about a team such as Astana? Would the whole thing with Vino be detracting to Kazakhstan, seeing as Astana is their capital city, or would people just not really care?

Can't think of too many people that have gone, or have wanted to go to Kazakhstan, but that could just be the part of the world I'm in.