Have you ever wondered why we don’t see more big international brand names on cycling jerseys? Why is it that many of the brands with massive marketing budgets have chosen shun sponsorship of professional cycling teams? I don’t know. But I have some ideas. And I’d love to hear what you think. Here goes:
- Marketers don’t really understand professional cycling. Sure they know about Lance and France. But, they also hear the negative stories of performance enhancing drugs — and who wants their brand associated with doping. The only time professional cycling makes headlines is when there’s news about Lance, the Tour de France, or when a rider is brought down by drugs. Of course, many other sports have issues with doping and they still get big name sponsors. However, unless someone follows cycling closely, the signal to noise ratio is not strong enough. They only hear: Lance, France, and artificially enhanced (performance, that is).
- The demographic that professional cycling attracts is not interesting to many big advertisers. Let’s face it, we’re just not that attractive as a demographic. We’re mainly middle-aged males in a world where marketers are trying to reach either a younger male audience or a female audience (since women make most of the day-to-day buying decisions in the home). Plus, we wind up spending most of our disposable income on the latest cycling gear anyway!
- Professional cycling reaches a small, geographically fragmented audience. In total, professional cycling may have a sizable following, but when scattered across countries and continents it’s difficult for a marketer to measure the impact of a sponsorship investment. Not only that, but the decision to spend marketing dollars is no longer one that can be made by a single country manager; it requires higher-level buy-in since the justification is based on reaching a global demographic. Unfortunately, professional cycling doesn’t rank very well against other global marketing opportunities.
- Professional cycling is not an easy sport to watch. Forget the sponsorship value to a live audience at a cycling event. Compare cycling to European football. Football matches take place in a closed stadium where 50,000 fans are in one place for a few hours, usually with friends or family at the end of the day. They’re relaxing. They’re in a controlled environment where a sponsor’s message can be put in front of them on screens, uniforms, hats, billboards, and more. They can even purchase all types of team paraphernalia with sponsors’ logos. Now consider cycling. The sport takes place during the day, making it difficult for most working people to watch live (or even on TV). Anyone who watches it live will see the peloton zip by in a matter of minutes on their way to the finish line a hundred kilometers away. There is no concentration of spectators, no controlled venues. Not only that, but the spectators don’t pay an entrance fee. That alone makes them a less desirable demographic.
- Cycling is still very much a European sport. Its superstars are mainly European. Its teams are often oriented around countries or even regions of countries (take Euskaltel-Euskadi for example). Overall, this limits the appeal of the sport to advertisers outside of Europe. In some cases it even limits the appear to sponsors outside of a certain country. When the majority of riders on a team are from a single country, it’s much more likely that they will get sponsorship from a local company, rather than a global brand. This is slowly changing, but historically this is the way most teams worked.
So, why did a write this post? I’m writing this post in response to the recent rumors of a Livestrong-Nike team entering the sport in 2010. If a brand like Nike sponsors a professional cycling team, I believe it will be a turning point for the sport. It will elevate the profile of the sport and pave the way for other international brands to enter. Let’s see how the coming year unfolds — but first let’s enjoy this year’s Tour de France.
