# HTC Bye-Road



## ibfeet (Jul 13, 2006)

Sad News...

http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2011/08/04/htc-highroad-folds/


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

Will be very intresting to see where Cav, Eisel, and Renshaw end up. I can't see Sky picking all of them up, but I also hope they all don't get broken up.


----------



## ibfeet (Jul 13, 2006)

I see Sky as a GC team not a Stage team........but not sure where he could land.


----------



## jhamlin38 (Oct 29, 2005)

Not good for the state of cycling. A company like htc shouldn't waiver between whether they're in or not in the sport. They could have been a bridge to much larger, longer standing sponsors of the pro peleton.
real bummer.


----------



## GueroAz (Nov 9, 2006)

It does suck, but it's best for TJVG. He can ditch the train and get on a team that might teach him to be an all around rider. He has a shot at being a great GC rider. I would also like to see what Cav can do without the 8 man train he had. I really don't think there is another team in the Peleton that will do that for him.


----------



## Weez19 (Jun 16, 2008)

*Tejay*

TJVG will go to BMC and would have with or without this new development.


----------



## old_fuji (Mar 16, 2009)

There's always Rock Racing.


----------



## TerminatorX91 (Mar 27, 2011)

old_fuji said:


> There's always Rock Racing.


One person's Rock Racing quip is another's Boner Yanked.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

GueroAz said:


> I would also like to see what Cav can do without the 8 man train he had. I really don't think there is another team in the Peleton that will do that for him.


Cav lives in Tuscany. Maybe he can get the old Saeco train together again!

JSR


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

GueroAz said:


> I would also like to see what Cav can do without the 8 man train he had. I really don't think there is another team in the Peleton that will do that for him.


You are joking right? There are many teams that would die to get five stage wins in the Tour. Bringing three guys on board would just about secure that too. Think about teams like Cofidis, Quickstep, and others who usually come away with squat. Three guys and you get five wins.


----------



## peter584 (Aug 17, 2008)

Maybe focusing your team to win sprints isn't the best for sponsorship. If it was, they would have sponsors lined up.


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

peter584 said:


> Maybe focusing your team to win sprints isn't the best for sponsorship. If it was, they would have sponsors lined up.


That what I'm wondering. How does the most winning team in the peloton deep six? What was wrong with that formula??


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

Maybe it is simply the fact that finding someone who wants to invest 20 million Euro in a sports team is getting harder to do. Maybe the fact that the price to stay competitive is getting so rediculous these days is what is killing the sport.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

peter584 said:


> Maybe focusing your team to win sprints isn't the best for sponsorship. If it was, they would have sponsors lined up.


Think about it from a non-cyclist's perspective. Imagine you are a sports editor at a newspaper. Which picture are you going to publish- 
the first is a picture of an anonymous guy in the middle of a bunch and maintaining his position in GC.
-the second is a guy with his arms aloft winning a sprint, surrounded buy other riders with wild looks on their faces...


----------



## albert owen (Jul 7, 2008)

Although we were expecting this bad news, it still comes as a shock and shows how low cycling has fallen as a marketable sport in the USA. When one of the great teams goes down (and make no mistake this HTC team is/was great) one has to ask why.
In my opinion this is a combination of the Armstrong Effect and the lack of talent coming through from North America.
Sponsors jump on band wagons - Sky climbing aboard the British Olympic Track Bandwagon is an obvious example. Once the London Olympics are over they'll be gone.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

spookyload said:


> Maybe it is simply the fact that finding someone who wants to invest 20 million Euro in a sports team is getting harder to do. Maybe the fact that the price to stay competitive is getting so rediculous these days is what is killing the sport.


I was surprised to see that Sky and Katusha have budgets that large. That is a truckload of money. 

Who is ultimately behind Sky and Katusha? Does anyone know? I will try to research it, because I am interested. 

In a sport that doesn't have a salary cap, teams with big time cash can just overpower others with that money over time. Riders have a limited career span and are going to go for the money to protect their future. 

The bottom line is that for some sponsors, due to their geographic markets and target audience, cycling coverage is more valuable. Exposure in cycling is not as valuable for companies who do a higher percentage of their business in the U.S. (where interest in cycling is lower) compared to those who do much more in Europe (where cycling is like our NASCAR). 

You also have the problem of billionaires who have an interest. If I had a few billion sitting around, I'd play around with a cycling team and fork out that kind of money and be happy to have maybe 10 mil coming back from sponsors. Others throw much more around with things like horse racing. It is fun for them. That is why I'm interested in who is really behind Sky and Katusha. 

I am not a big Cavendish fan, but have to admit I am going to miss watching that lead out train with him finishing it off. I am a die hard Classics fan, but have really learned to appreciate the beauty of watching that team take charge and dominate the end of races. It was kind of like watching a big offense line and thoroughbred running back take over in the 4th quarter of a football team and control the game.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Gatorback said:


> I was surprised to see that Sky and Katusha have budgets that large. That is a truckload of money.
> 
> Who is ultimately behind Sky and Katusha? Does anyone know? I will try to research it, because I am interested.
> 
> ...


I believe Katusha is governmentally funded, while Sky is funded by Murdoch and the Sky News Network.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

robdamanii said:


> I believe Katusha is governmentally funded, while Sky is funded by Murdoch and the Sky News Network.


That is what I thought and feared. It is hard to find sponsors that can compete with governments and big players like Murdoch. Murdoch will put more money into a team than the initial advertising is worth. 

Here is an old article with some info on Murdoch's adventures in sports:

http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~wgreene/entertainmentandmedia/Murdoch-Manchester.htm

$20 million a year for a cycling team is chump change for Murdoch and his companies.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Gatorback said:


> That is what I thought and feared. It is hard to find sponsors that can compete with governments and big players like Murdoch. Murdoch will put more money into a team than the initial advertising is worth.
> 
> Here is an old article with some info on Murdoch's adventures in sports:
> 
> ...


I see your point, but look at who's been winning this year.

Saxo Bank won the Giro.

BMC won the Tour.

HTC won Paris Nice.

Garmin won Paris Roubaix, Lotto won LBL, Fleche and Amstel, Saxo won RVV, HTC won San Remo.

Sky won the Dauphine.

Katusha has won little this year.

Money doesn't always mean everything in building a team, especially when it comes to teams gelling and winning.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

Money certainly doesn't win for you. We see that in sports like baseball. But in the long-term money can attract the big names and valuable riders and tear apart a successful team that had the chemistry. Over the long run, teams with much, much higher budgets are probably going to fare better due to their ability to attract the best riders. 

I wonder if HTC-Highroad had to ensure they could deliver Cavendish for a few more years, but could not, so their sponsors walked.


----------



## PDex (Mar 23, 2004)

I am not sure I agree with the statement "killing the sport". A single U.S.-based Pro Team? Yup. This happens all the time, where is the Mercury Team, United?, LA Sheriffs?

Now take a look at how many kids and elites turn out for Junior/Elite Nationals. There were 1200 riders for the Mt. Evans Hill Climb with many categories full. How many riders show up for Battenkill? 

The sport is not being killed. US Cycling has never been stronger.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Sky would jump at the chance to become a sprinters team. Wiggo hasn't panned out yet, and the possibility of winning multiple grand tour stages with a Manx rider will likely have them bending over backwards. Wouldn't take many aquisitions to build a suitable train, and then you're no longer viewed as "under-performing".

That said, I really don't like sprinters teams. I prefer classics teams or GT GC teams, because for me watching a flat stage or other stage that favors the sprinters is like watching paint dry until the last 1000 meters. The only suspense is when the catch is going to happen.

Spread the riders around, and mix it up a bit.


----------



## Opus51569 (Jul 21, 2009)

I don't generally follow the machinations of the pro teams, so this came as a surprise to me. The adage is supposed to go: "Nothing succeeds like success". HTC-Highroad seems to have disproven the adage. Considering the size/budget of the team weighed against their success on the road, to reiterate the questions raised in the article: if they can't keep a sponsor, who can?


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Gatorback said:


> In a sport that doesn't have a salary cap, teams with big time cash can just overpower others with that money over time. Riders have a limited career span and are going to go for the money to protect their future.


Rider salaries are only a small slice of the problem.

Remember all the roadie bikes that were thrown down in anger at the side of the road this year at the TdF? Each of those was $12,000 (8000Euro per Rabobank). Plus manpower to set them up and maintain the entire fleet of bikes per team.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

Treading a fine line here...

As has been mentioned, advertising via bike team sponsorship has to fit in to a company's marketing plan. The pitch made by Stapleton would be that he could give valuable exposure. It's not cheap, but is much less than buying air time. I thought Columbia clothing was a good match for cycling - outdoorsy product matched with outdoorsy viewers matched with hopes of growth in Europe for the sponsor.

The less-quantifiable challenge is assuring that the affiliation won't prove negative. During the last year the top American star and the top European star have had their reputations seriously tarnished. This has to give pause to prospective sponsors.

Imagine the marketing guy, reviewing a menu of choices for his upcoming campaign. He has print ads, tv ads, web click throughs, point of sale displays on the list. The skinny guy responsible for sports promotions says, "Hey, how about cycling?! It's cheap and the Euros love this stuff." The boss, mulling this over, thinks ahead to the year-end board meeting when he has to explain how his company's name got affiliated with the negative falll-out from a huge scandal involving smuggling, money-laundering, unsavory doctors, and bribery. 

"I'll give that one a pass" says the marketing guy.

JSR


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

Gatorback said:


> I am not a big Cavendish fan, but have to admit I am going to miss watching that lead out train with him finishing it off. I am a die hard Classics fan, but have really learned to appreciate the beauty of watching that team take charge and dominate the end of races. It was kind of like watching a big offense line and thoroughbred running back take over in the 4th quarter of a football team and control the game.


I agree--you don't have to know much about cycling to appreciate HTC's performance at the finish in Paris. It was majestic, in a falcon-stooping-to-the-kill kind of way. Surely his competitors won't be weeping over the breakup of that team.


----------



## troutmd (Sep 7, 2007)

AJL said:


> That what I'm wondering. How does the most winning team in the peloton deep six? What was wrong with that formula??


That was my thinking after reading this in the article:

_If such a team can’t find a sponsor, who can? And, if they can’t, what does it mean for the sport?​_


----------



## tuffguy1500 (Jul 17, 2008)

I liked the HTC team, and rather liked that not only did Cav win races, but watching train lead him out was awesome. They brought something to cycling that I can't say I really noticed before. Bummer to see them leave, but seeing how emotional Cav got about Wiggins leaving the tour, seeing him on Sky for a season or two would be pretty awesome. Will we see Renshaw go to his own team to compete against Cav? best leadout vs. best finisher??!!


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> Think about it from a non-cyclist's perspective. Imagine you are a sports editor at a newspaper. Which picture are you going to publish-
> the first is a picture of an anonymous guy in the middle of a bunch and maintaining his position in GC.
> -the second is a guy with his arms aloft winning a sprint, surrounded buy other riders with wild looks on their faces...


I don't think it's quite that simple. Many TdF enthusiasts don't bother watching the flat sprint stages. But almost all of them watch the high-mountain drama. The marketing value for the sponsor is not proportional to stage wins.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

jhamlin38 said:


> Not good for the state of cycling. A company like htc shouldn't waiver between whether they're in or not in the sport. They could have been a bridge to much larger, longer standing sponsors of the pro peleton.
> real bummer.


I think you should look at it from Bob Stapleton's perspective. He's built a team around Cav, and he has invested in this for years now. And after years of investing, Cav is going elsewhere. Now Stapleton is left with a team with next to no identity. Which sponsor is going to stay around for that?

In the next few weeks I'm sure we'll all know more about why Cav decided to move. More money perhaps?


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

orange_julius said:


> I think you should look at it from Bob Stapleton's perspective. He's built a team around Cav, and he has invested in this for years now. And after years of investing, Cav is going elsewhere. Now Stapleton is left with a team with next to no identity. Which sponsor is going to stay around for that?
> 
> In the next few weeks I'm sure we'll all know more about why Cav decided to move. More money perhaps?


I'm guessing lots more money. If not, he would be foolish not to have done everything possible to help keep the team together. It was a perfect gig for him.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

Gatorback said:


> I'm guessing lots more money. If not, he would be foolish not to have done everything possible to help keep the team together. It was a perfect gig for him.


I think you're right. Besides more money, it seems to me he has everything he could ask for: a dedicated team, his chosen lead-out guys, and pretty much control over his races and also his public image.


----------



## aluminum (May 6, 2011)

Gatorback said:


> I was surprised to see that Sky and Katusha have budgets that large. That is a truckload of money.
> 
> Who is ultimately behind Sky and Katusha? Does anyone know? I will try to research it, because I am interested.


i dont know about sky, but katusha is backed by gazprom which is one of the largest energy companies in the whole world. i know that before katusha it was tinkoff credit systems and that was funded by 1 man oleg tinkoff. too bad abramovich doesnt have any interest in cycling, just amagine the type of dream team he could build


----------



## bike981 (Sep 14, 2010)

PDex said:


> Now take a look at how many kids and elites turn out for Junior/Elite Nationals. There were 1200 riders for the Mt. Evans Hill Climb with many categories full. How many riders show up for Battenkill?
> 
> The sport is not being killed. US Cycling has never been stronger.


There's a big difference between interest in actually going out and riding/racing yourself versus interest in watching pros race on TV. In the US, I agree that interest in actually riding has never been stronger. But interest in watching pros on TV? Not so much, especially post-LA.

It's much like soccer in the US -- there's huge interest in actually playing the sport (it's far more popular than baseball at schools in my area, for example), but very little interest in watching pro soccer teams play on TV.


----------



## Ripton (Apr 21, 2011)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> Think about it from a non-cyclist's perspective. Imagine you are a sports editor at a newspaper. Which picture are you going to publish-
> the first is a picture of an anonymous guy in the middle of a bunch and maintaining his position in GC.
> -the second is a guy with his arms aloft winning a sprint, surrounded buy other riders with wild looks on their faces...


Or would it be the GC contender who'd just turned themselves inside out to get ahead or hang on over the mountains rather than rely on a quirk in the rules that allows them not to be chucked out for going a bit slow? 

Actually, I'd put down to the fact that HTC has a sh1t strip that constitutes a major Rule 14 infraction...


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

As mentioned, sponsoring a team centered around Cavendish, who isn't the most appealing sports figure, probably was not worth it. His new teeth look stupendous, though. And he's beginning to be a little less conceited with the press and the public, so maybe he'll be worth it to the next team that wants "The fastest man in the world" to head races across some 
flats, winning in the final meters after sucking wheel for hundreds of kilometers.. 

It's a shame for the ladies team though, to lose that sponsor. The gals have too few pro chances...


----------



## baker921 (Jul 20, 2007)

Cavendish must have known Stapleton was not in a position to make him a supportable offer. Here's his position, though I don't really see much need for him to stay silent on his plans since Stapleton's gone public.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cycling/14421633.stm


----------



## baker921 (Jul 20, 2007)

Gnarly 928 said:


> It's a shame for the ladies team though, to lose that sponsor. The gals have too few pro chances...


Stapleton's not yet given up on the womens team.

_*"But he did say that he’s hopeful of finding a solution to carry on with the women’s professional team. The women’s team has a lower budget and personnel decisions in women’s pro racing are made later, and Stapleton said he has a “concrete alternative” he’s now pursuing.

“That’s the legacy and starting point of my involvement (in the sport) and I’d like to come through for our girls,” he said."*_

Need to read right down to the bottom.


----------



## baker921 (Jul 20, 2007)

*This is about Stapleton's vision not racing results.*

Stapleton is quite up front about *his* motivation.

*“The second ambition was to lead a restructuring of the sport to reach its ultimate potential. And that hasn’t worked so well. So on one hand I’m extremely proud of what we accomplished as a team. But I can’t help but be a little disappointed in our modest effect.”.......

Stapleton declined to get into specifics, saying he didn’t want to blame others when the fact was he simply didn’t get the job done........

“If we couldn’t be close on financial firepower, we couldn’t consistently outperform with less money, and if we couldn’t be a leader in the sport, we couldn’t drive change,” he said. “That was the fundamental mission going in and if we couldn’t succeed at that it was best to just let people go.”*

I don't know the man or his vision for change but clearly this was his motivation and with no hope of achieving it his motivation to continue was gone.

He appears to be doing the honourable thing by his staff. I hope they all get jobs.


----------



## DZfan14 (Jul 6, 2009)

When a team like Highroad can't get a sponsor then the sport is not healthy. 

I agree that US Cycling in general is better than ever, but at World Tour level things are really upside down. The teams should be getting a piece of the TV Money and they should get a piece of the World Tour sanctioning fees from the UCI. 

I am not even a Highroad fan. I still dislike Cav, but when a team this good can't afford to secure sponsorship then the sport has real issues.


----------



## Dan Gerous (Mar 28, 2005)

The sport isn't unhealthy IMO. HTC was built around Cav and Cav alone and it was highly rumored that he was not staying. Without Cav, that team is not much and has not much appeal for sponsors dropping millions...

The talented riders wont have probalems finding a team: Tony Martin, Marco Pinotti, Teejay had already signed with BMC...


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

Dan Gerous said:


> The sport isn't unhealthy IMO. HTC was built around Cav and Cav alone and it was highly rumored that he was not staying. Without Cav, that team is not much and has not much appeal for sponsors dropping millions...
> 
> The talented riders wont have probalems finding a team: Tony Martin, Marco Pinotti, Teejay had already signed with BMC...


Not sure you can say the team was nothing with out Cav - Goss won in Milan San remo and ToC and likly they would have won other stages in the tour had they not all been working for Cav all the time. They are the #1 team right now and that is only partly to do with Cav. It actually shows the sport is pretty unhealty added to the fact that apprently in every sponsor neg. potenial sponsors brought up Armstrong and Contidor and doping which did not help things.


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

Gnarly 928 said:


> As mentioned, sponsoring a team centered around Cavendish, who isn't the most appealing sports figure, probably was not worth it. His new teeth look stupendous, though. And he's beginning to be a little less conceited with the press and the public, so maybe he'll be worth it to the next team that wants "The fastest man in the world" to head races across some
> flats, winning in the final meters after sucking wheel for hundreds of kilometers..
> 
> It's a shame for the ladies team though, to lose that sponsor. The gals have too few pro chances...


Oddly, he is the only cyclist that is in the top 50 for most marketable atheletes in the world. Someone must disagree with your opinion.

http://www.sportspromedia.com/sportspro_blog/usain_bolt_is_the_worlds_most_marketable_athlete/


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

Marc said:


> Rider salaries are only a small slice of the problem.
> 
> Remember all the roadie bikes that were thrown down in anger at the side of the road this year at the TdF? Each of those was $12,000 (8000Euro per Rabobank). Plus manpower to set them up and maintain the entire fleet of bikes per team.



Teams don't pay retail. They get their stuff at cost or given to them for bike mfg advertising. Specialized went to great lengths to get their sl4 on the tour and even did a quazi commercial for it on the coverage on VS. My buddy gets a team buy at a bike shop once a year. He can get what ever he needs for a small amount over cost.


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

spookyload said:


> Oddly, he is the only cyclist that is in the top 50 for most marketable atheletes in the world. Someone must disagree with your opinion.
> 
> Usain Bolt is the world’s most marketable athlete - SportsPro Blog - SportsPro Media sports blog - SportsPro Media


 Jeeze, who decides stuff like that? There is actually a whole magazine devoted to "sports money"? 'Dale Ernhardt Jr"...Danica Patrick....? Cavendish better cash in quick...sprinters are only winners for a short time...wait...winning doesn't have anything to do with being marketable, it seems...given Dale Ernhard and Danica being on the top 50 list without many good finishes....


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Gnarly 928 said:


> Jeeze, who decides stuff like that? There is actually a whole magazine devoted to "sports money"? 'Dale Ernhardt Jr"...Danica Patrick....? Cavendish better cash in quick...sprinters are only winners for a short time...wait...winning doesn't have anything to do with being marketable, it seems...given Dale Ernhard and Danica being on the top 50 list without many good finishes....


how much chatter does cavendish create? how many posts have you written about him?


----------



## OldZaskar (Jul 1, 2009)

Bottom line: Cycling (road) is mind numbingly boring to most people. How many non-cyclists do you know who watch any of the TdF? Hell, most cyclists don't watch more than 10-20% of the TdF - and that's DVR'ed and FF'ed through the (really) boring parts. As John Stewart (The Daily Show) said a few years back... "You know what Lance's retirement means? It means the US can go back to not giving a **** about cycling". And no, we're not the only economy/market... just the biggest.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

OldZaskar said:


> Bottom line: Cycling (road) is mind numbingly boring to most people. How many non-cyclists do you know who watch any of the TdF? Hell, most cyclists don't watch more than 10-20% of the TdF - and that's DVR'ed and FF'ed through the (really) boring parts. As John Stewart (The Daily Show) said a few years back... "You know what Lance's retirement means? It means the US can go back to not giving a **** about cycling". And no, we're not the only economy/market... just the biggest.


I assume your speaking of the US market only? Because if not your way off base. Trully for US based marketing plan cycling is a poor choice but mostly companies look to cycling as a way to expand their brand in Europe and abroad where its is one of teh most watched sports around.


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

Dan Gerous said:


> The sport isn't unhealthy IMO. HTC was built around Cav and Cav alone and it was highly rumored that he was not staying. Without Cav, that team is not much and has not much appeal for sponsors dropping millions.


Saying it was built around Cav is laughable. Go back to when the team started. Udo boltz founded the team and rode for it himself. Lots of years of mediocre results till Jan Ullrich and Erik Zable brought the team to the forefront. Winning the green jersey isn't new for this team. Zabel had done that trick already. Ullrich winning the yellow. Cav is the current superstar of the team, but that is just the current generation. You sell your team by the history as much as current state.


----------



## duz10s (Aug 5, 2011)

great news from Green Edge hopefully they will secure couple the good aussies


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

spookyload said:


> Maybe it is simply the fact that finding someone who wants to invest 20 million Euro in a sports team is getting harder to do. Maybe the fact that the price to stay competitive is getting so rediculous these days is what is killing the sport.


Stapleton puts it differently. Stapleton's problem is not that sponsors are getting cheaper (less willing to spend 20 million euros per year than they used to be) but that some sponsors are getting much more generous (before, there were never any sponsors who would pay that much; and now there are a couple), which drives salaries up, and the rest of the field can't compete with them.

Stapleton's beef seems to be with rich sponsors who write big checks because they love the sport, and don't worry about return on investment the way business sponsors do (at least that's how Stapleton describes it; apply the appropriate sour-grapes discount factor).


----------



## Fredke (Dec 10, 2004)

robdamanii said:


> I believe Katusha is governmentally funded, while Sky is funded by Murdoch and the Sky News Network.


Katusha is funded by a bunch of big Russian companies (mostly energy companies, such as Gazprom and Itera). The question of government role is complicated because the sponsoring companies are private, but the Russian government owns a controlling stake in Gazprom.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Fredke said:


> Katusha is funded by a bunch of big Russian companies (mostly energy companies, such as Gazprom and Itera). The question of government role is complicated because the sponsoring companies are private, but the Russian government owns a controlling stake in Gazprom.


Ah, so it's a setup similar to Astana?


----------



## CHL (Jun 24, 2005)

I'm curious but apart from publicity and advertising, what other returns do the sponsors obtain? For example, what did HTC gain from its association with Bob Stapleton, apart from its name being plastered on a cyclist's jersey? I understand that it's brand exposure, but did that brand exposure generate revenues tha HTC could quantify or measure?

It's a shame that HTC, which generated results absent scandal could not find a primary sponsor.

C.


----------



## qatarbhoy (Aug 17, 2009)

I read an article in which an HTC rep basically said their sponsorship had achieved everything they wanted ie a massive boost in HTC brand recognition in the mobile phone sector. So there was really no motivation for them to keep sponsoring the team, and with Cav apparently going elsewhere, the timing was right. This suggests that cycling _isn't_ as unappealing to sponsors as some have argued.

Sorry but I don't have the link.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

qatarbhoy said:


> I read an article in which an HTC rep basically said their sponsorship had achieved everything they wanted ie a massive boost in HTC brand recognition in the mobile phone sector. So there was really no motivation for them to keep sponsoring the team, and with Cav apparently going elsewhere, the timing was right. This suggests that cycling _isn't_ as unappealing to sponsors as some have argued.
> 
> Sorry but I don't have the link.


Whenever I read this kind of statement, I wonder if it's just what the sponsoring company wants to present externally to the public. I wonder if their internal decision-making is informed by the same opinion.

Let's say the real reason for cutting the sponsorship is that HTC needs to trim its spending. Would HTC go to the public and say, "We are cutting spending so no more sponsorship"? Or, what if HTC doesn't feel like it's getting its money's worth. Would it say publicly that, "We are not getting our money's worth," or, "We're not getting the right kind of marketing value"?


----------



## baker921 (Jul 20, 2007)

qatarbhoy said:


> an HTC rep basically said their sponsorship had achieved everything they wanted ie a massive boost in HTC brand recognition in the mobile phone sector. So there was really no motivation for them to keep sponsoring the team,


^^^^ This. There is no reason not to take this statement at face value. When Cavendish first wore the strip I had no idea who HTC were. Now their phones are everywhere.

Sponsorship is subject to the rules of diminishing return. The sponsor gets the greatest return at the outset as there is always a lot of media ballyhoo when a deal is announced. It provides new photo opps for marketing and new corporate entertaining venues. Of course bike manufacturers are a special case, they can draw added value from long term relationships others will always be looking for something new.

In cycling it is easy for us to get carried away by the results but they are probably not the most important aspect to a sponsor. As a sport without gate receipts it is important to maximise its value to sponsors and do more to understand and cater for their needs.


----------



## khaizlip (Aug 21, 2008)

CHL said:


> I'm curious but apart from publicity and advertising, what other returns do the sponsors obtain? For example, what did HTC gain from its association with Bob Stapleton, apart from its name being plastered on a cyclist's jersey? I understand that it's brand exposure, but did that brand exposure generate revenues tha HTC could quantify or measure?
> 
> It's a shame that HTC, which generated results absent scandal could not find a primary sponsor.
> 
> C.


The 'publicity and advertising' are exactly what HTC wanted. from 'having their name being plastered on a cyclist's jersey', they - theoretically - exposed their brand to people who wouldn't have otherwise had any idea what it was. It's the whole f'ing point. I won't address being able to quantify results, but I'll put it this way: 
prior to bike racing, I had no idea of any flooring manufacturers. now I know there's Quick Step. 
I didn't know any European banks except for RBS. Now I know of saxobank and rabobank. 
I've never heard of any euro grocers - except Carrefour. 


What did TD Banknorth get from buying the name rights to the Boston Garden? 
What does Cannondale get from giving Chrissy Wellington bikes? 

it's _advertising_. eyeballs on your logo are the point.

If I wanted to be pedantic, I would point out that *Highroad* i.e. Bob Stapleton is the party who could not find a sponsor, not HTC.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

khaizlip said:


> The 'publicity and advertising' are exactly what HTC wanted. from 'having their name being plastered on a cyclist's jersey', they - theoretically - exposed their brand to people who wouldn't have otherwise had any idea what it was. It's the whole f'ing point.
> 
> What did TD Banknorth get from buying the name rights to the Boston Garden?
> What does Cannondale get from giving Chrissy Wellington bikes?
> ...


What did the USPS get out of sponsoring a pro cycling team? I believe everyone who has the option of using their service has heard of them already...and USPS has been more and more in the red over the years during and since sponsoring a team.

How about Radio Shack? They only keep stores in the US...and pretty much no one with a memory will recommend you shop there cycling sponsor or not, as they degenerated from an electronics parts goodie store (filled with gadget geeks) into another Me-Too cell phone and prebuilt computer store filled with know-nothing employees.

How about Lampre? We all know they sponsor a cycling team, yes? What exactly is it that Lampre sells/does? NO cheating and looking on Google. Or Saur-Sojasun, Quickstep, or AG2R?

Or even better, Amgen, title sponsor of the Tour of California...as Paul and Phil loved reminding us every time they said "Tour of California", they prefixed it with "Amgen". What does Amgen make? What is their lead product? And once you find out does it not sour your desire to watch the ToC more than a little bit...and make you cringe a bit hearing their name?

It is one thing to know a name...it is entirely a different thing to know or care what a company does. I have no clue what TD Banknorth is or does, I don't care either. Just slapping your name on something doesn't do much good. So many names are slapped on so many things these days that eyes glaze over and people don't pay attention or give a damn. I think companies may start noticing this more and more, cycling is lucky that companies still think slapping their names as a sponsor on something does any good. In the case of Radio Shack, I'm amazed given how awful their business is and how empty their stores are that they can find the money for a cycling team at all.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Marc said:


> What did the USPS get out of sponsoring a pro cycling team? I believe everyone who has the option of using their service has heard of them already...and USPS has been more and more in the red over the years during and since sponsoring a team.
> 
> How about Radio Shack? They only keep stores in the US...and pretty much no one with a memory will recommend you shop there cycling sponsor or not, as they degenerated from an electronics parts goodie store (filled with gadget geeks) into another Me-Too cell phone and prebuilt computer store filled with know-nothing employees.
> 
> ...


Saxo Bank: Danish banking
Rabobank: Dutch Banking
Astana: Khazakstani Cycling program
Katusha: Russian national cycling program
BMC: Bike manufacturer
Garmin/Cervelo: electronic GPS/bike manufacturer
Leopard-Trek: (I think Leopard is the name given by the wealthy backer)/Bike manufacturer
Acqua & Sapone: beauty products
Cofidis: loan company
FDJ: French national lottery
Omega Pharma Lotto: pharmaceutical company/belgian lottery company
Farnese Vini: wine company, not sure what they do specifically
Vacansoleil: vacation planning in Europe
Euskaltel Euskadi: Basque phone company/basque government (?)
Lampre: Sheet metal manufacturing
Quick Step: Laminate flooring
Europcar: car rental
Saur-Sojasun: Vacation planning?
AG2R: Insurance
Amgen: pioneered Epogen (or whatever it happened to be called at the time) EPO for use in cancer patients.
TD Bank is banking conglomerate, somehow affiliated with TD Ameritrade (not sure how though.)


Those are the ones I know off the top of my head and some of the ones you mentioned.

I think the average fan who hears the names has no clue. If you watch enough coverage, you start to get a sense of what each team's sponsor does through the little tidbits the commentators provide. 

The other thing is, sometimes you have no clue what they do, but at some point you hear the name and go "oh yeah, they sponsored that team" and suddenly put two and two together.


----------



## khaizlip (Aug 21, 2008)

Marc said:


> What did the USPS get out of sponsoring a pro cycling team? I believe everyone who has the option of using their service has heard of them already...and USPS has been more and more in the red over the years during and since sponsoring a team.
> 
> How about Radio Shack? They only keep stores in the US...and pretty much no one with a memory will recommend you shop there cycling sponsor or not, as they degenerated from an electronics parts goodie store (filled with gadget geeks) into another Me-Too cell phone and prebuilt computer store filled with know-nothing employees.
> 
> ...


USPS reinforced their name recognition with all consumers. I would imagine that their sponsorship included additional dollars promoting their services which actually compete with UPS and FedEx i.e. Next Day / Second Day services. 
Radio Shack; who knows why they chose to sponsor - but they must have seen some value; didn't they just renew for 2 years?
Lampre / Saur-sojasun / AG2R I'll admit to not knowing - but I'm not the target audience. Quick step makes flooring. 
Amgen make drugs. I don't know what their lead product is. though it did get old to have it preface any mention of the event name, _that's why they paid for the naming rights_.

Listen, I'm not here to nitpick whether or not the current crop of team sponsors are getting their money's worth. I just think it's ridiculous to ask a question like, 'What did they get out of their sponsorship'? 

they got eyeballs. that's what they wanted. period. this is a line in their marketing expense budget. some companies find it satisfactory, some don't. this isn't any different than a billboard, except the audience is 'people who watch cycling' rather than, 'people driving on X road'.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

khaizlip said:


> what their lead product is. though it did get old to have it preface any mention of the event name, _that's why they paid for the naming rights_.
> 
> Listen, I'm not here to nitpick whether or not the current crop of team sponsors are getting their money's worth. I just think it's ridiculous to ask a question like, 'What did they get out of their sponsorship'?
> 
> they got eyeballs. that's what they wanted. period. this is a line in their marketing expense budget. some companies find it satisfactory, some don't. this isn't any different than a billboard, except the audience is 'people who watch cycling' rather than, 'people driving on X road'.


A few of Amgen's products are EPOs. Ironic choice for a title sponsor in a cycling race all things considered.


----------



## qatarbhoy (Aug 17, 2009)

Marc said:


> How about Radio Shack? They only keep stores in the US...


This isn't the case. They've certainly had stores in the UK for many years and have recently expanded much further afield - they even have a shop here in Doha, Qatar. Their sponsorship of a cycling team certainly caught my eye as did the new Big R logo when I saw it in town. I immediately thought... "Hey look, there's a RadioShack" - and gave a subconscious Pavlovian hoot about it. 

If only they sold bikes, not phones and obscure electronics equipment. 

RadioShack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

somewhere on a european server there's a discussion of why anyone would be stupid enough to sponsor a baseball player. 
I get reminded of this thread yesterday when I was invited over for a coffee and recognized the saeco coffee machine.


----------



## baker921 (Jul 20, 2007)

khaizlip said:


> *they got eyeballs. that's what they wanted*. period. this is a line in their marketing expense budget. some companies find it satisfactory, some don't. this isn't any different than a billboard, except the audience is 'people who watch cycling' rather than, 'people driving on X road'.


Your arguement only really stands up if there are at least 18 sponsors queing up to drop 20m Euros a year on a pro tour team. Recent history suggests that this is not the case, not even for a winning team like HTC. The only solution must be for cycling to find a way to provide the show on a lower budget, which is not going to be popular, or for giving added value to the sponsor. To paraphrase your arguement eyeballs period is not enough.


----------



## JSR (Feb 27, 2006)

robdamanii said:


> Ah, so it's a setup similar to Astana?


 Mmmmm, soort of. Except contiolling interest in Astana is actually owned directly by a government agency, with other budgetary input coming from commercial entities which may have partial government ownership.

JSR


----------



## jhamlin38 (Oct 29, 2005)

I find it interesting that HTC sponsorship of their team coincided perfectly with the massive national media blitz over the past two years. Is HTC part of TMobile? 
Perhaps they gained the exposure they desired for the european markets. 
The name of the sponsor changes quickly in the largest global sport, soccer (EPL), however the teams are well funded, long standing institutions that don't rely on the sponsorship for survival. 
I'd like to see cycling evolve into that form. 
I'm curious to know, if Cav signed with Sky, if the HTC squad folded because of that news.


----------

