-
where the sponsor could really start to see who was watching, what the analytics looked like etc
Orica is not a consumer facing business.
deleted-
You did read when I made that point 6 posts up, right? ;)
The point is not to retain Orica, but to build a platform that is attractive to the next big title sponsor.
Orica was basically a good times sugar daddy. It wasn’t getting a measurable economic benefit (arguable) but rather a ‘brand enhancement’ while times were good. It was a bad deal for Orica’s shareholders therefore they weren’t going to be around for ever.
To be sustainable, the teams need to build platforms and demonstrate that they are delivering value above and beyond the sponsorship dollars they are requesting.
Or register as a charity and start running those ads on daytime tv:
Meet Esteban.
All Esteban wants to do is climb mountains in Lycra using a bike. A bike that costs money. Money Esteban does not have.
Help Esteban climb mountain by texting CLIMB to 555-1024 for only £1 a day.
kwdm
This is why I think losing Michelson Scott would be sad.
It’s plainly obvious that every dollar sunk into cycling sponsorship would be more efficiently spent on Facebook, there’s no doubt in my mind. So the old Backstage Pass was just starting to develop a critical mass of viewers online, where the sponsor could really start to see who was watching, what the analytics looked like etc. It’s a strategy that could start to make sponsorship look attractive to more companies because they would have more data to calculate returns to the business.
But Orica fucked offf, which likely means smaller budgets for video this year, which means less staff, which means lower quality and on and on.