Some Food For Thought
Does a running event having more participants lend itself to potentially having more sponsors? (My gut feel says, "Yes," as a company would want to expose their organization to more people. Advertising 101, right?)
And we've been led to believe that more sponsorship money helps keep the cost to the runner from being as high as without.
Are there any economies of scale gained from as the number of participants in a race goes up?
I'm trying to figure out if any semblance of an apples-to-apples comparison can be made from one stand-alone event at one distance can be compared to another of the same distance.
And, finally, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Chevron Houston Marathon.
2 Comments:
Sheer number of sponsors? Likely. But sponsors are going after specific vertical markets if they're putting their money behind it.
So it's not so much to them the total number of people running, but instead - of the people running or otherwise involved with the marathon, what % of those people would respond favorably to their advertising.
For instance, you might get a hospital more likely to put money behind a 5k where the proceeds benefited cancer research than a 10k holiday race if they thought they would have more impact with the 5k audience.
There is something to be said for "more bang for the buck", but it's not just about reaching more customers, it's also about reaching customers who are in your target market.
There is a reason that Monsanto, Exxon, Shell, and ING are not sponsors of the Antioch Baptist Church of Antlers, OK 5k. Yes, you are correct.
Post a Comment
<< Home