I've been particularly critical of the "more of the same" "we just need better marketing" group simply because that's been tried for years and it just hasn't worked. But after a little research, I think they might be right, at least in a way. I looked up the Fortune 1000 list for last year and the 1000th ranking company on that list had revenues of $1,570,000.000. If that company spent only 2 tenths of a percent of their revenue on a racing program, they could afford a $3,140,000 budget. If they spent half that on support services and half on the actual race team, that team would receive $1,570,000. If only one company in 20 would do that, they would have 50 teams. I realize that a 1.5 million dollar budget would be a shoestring operation at current prices, but it gives you an idea of what the available pool is. Some companies could afford far more than that. Of course if you stayed in the top 100 then you would need about 1 in 4 to participate, assuming that all of the top 100 could easily afford to fully fund 2 teams and not at a mere $1.5 million each. And those numbers don't reflect the after tax realization that they would actually only need to pay sixty cents on the dollar. Including that would put the 1000th company up to around $2.6 million.
It's not unrealistic to say they could afford that. However the ability to pay and the willingness to pay are not the same thing. That's where marketing comes in. The money is out there if someone can just figure out how to get it. I have some training and experience in marketing, but I think there are most likely others that would be far better at it than me.
It's not unrealistic to say they could afford that. However the ability to pay and the willingness to pay are not the same thing. That's where marketing comes in. The money is out there if someone can just figure out how to get it. I have some training and experience in marketing, but I think there are most likely others that would be far better at it than me.
Comment