Joe kelly tlkn sprt

That's fine, but the sponsor - and the name being promoted - isn't FAL Food and Beverages. It's Coco Joy.

The question was related to where is the return on Coco Joy's investment? If people don't buy more Coco Joy products because of this sponsorship - in huge amounts given the implied level of sponsorship - then it would be money down the drain for them (and also for FAL).

Sales will not be their only metric. Typically for sponsorships like this the primary metrics are brand awareness and earned media. Who knows their business model might be reliant on getting their product into certain suppliers (say a 7/11) which can only be helped by having a significant brand presence
 
Sales will not be their only metric. Typically for sponsorships like this the primary metrics are brand awareness and earned media. Who knows their business model might be reliant on getting their product into certain suppliers (say a 7/11) which can only be helped by having a significant brand presence
So sales is the metric then. Brand awareness, media, supplier product knowledge, etc are only vehicles.
 
I think that's marketing speak for "as long as people are aware of the brand that they aren't buying than it's a successful campaign"
 
So sales is the metric then. Brand awareness, media, supplier product knowledge, etc are only vehicles.

Not always. Whilst sales are measured they are not always the key driver for a long term strategy especially if you are a new brand to the market
 
Not always. Whilst sales are measured they are not always the key driver for a long term strategy especially if you are a new brand to the market
So you're saying that longer-term sales are the aim, not immediate sales. So sales are the metric then?
 
That's fine, but the sponsor - and the name being promoted - isn't FAL Food and Beverages. It's Coco Joy.

The question was related to where is the return on Coco Joy's investment? If people don't buy more Coco Joy products because of this sponsorship - in huge amounts given the implied level of sponsorship - then it would be money down the drain for them (and also for FAL).
tax write off maybe?

I mean I always see these large scale sponsorships generally as money down the drain. The only one that really truly worked was the Pepsi one, when the sponsorship went with pepsi being sold throughout the ground as well, therefore seeing a direct increase in sales as a result
 
tax write off maybe?

I mean I always see these large scale sponsorships generally as money down the drain. The only one that really truly worked was the Pepsi one, when the sponsorship went with pepsi being sold throughout the ground as well, therefore seeing a direct increase in sales as a result
You get a tax write off for business expenses (effectively losses made). This effectively spreads the cost between the company and the gov't (on tax revenue they might otherwise earn).

So why would a company in this circumstance incur a cost (make a loss) to earn a tax write off for only part of that loss? I don't get the logic.
 
I think that's marketing speak for "as long as people are aware of the brand that they aren't buying than it's a successful campaign"

I actually think this is their aim. See, it's hard to sell a product when nobody can actually buy it anywhere and, as we've discussed elsewhere, Coco Joy's products aren't exactly easy to find. Baffles me, but then again I never understood what Quantum did either…
 
That's fine, but the sponsor - and the name being promoted - isn't FAL Food and Beverages. It's Coco Joy.

The question was related to where is the return on Coco Joy's investment? If people don't buy more Coco Joy products because of this sponsorship - in huge amounts given the implied level of sponsorship - then it would be money down the drain for them (and also for FAL).
And what's any different to any other sponsor.
 
So you're saying that longer-term sales are the aim, not immediate sales. So sales are the metric then?

Massive over simplification.

+ Goodwill is paramount on a balance sheet (relating to brand awareness). Banks determine solvency in the event of potentially borrowing, allowing the company to grow & raise capital.
+ As Dan suggested, sponsorship is an instant expense, providing tax relief if required.
+ Brand awareness = more cash = reduction in inventory days, potentially decreasing payable in days, potentially improving supplier terms, potentially improving cash position. This leads to improved Net Cash After Operations (NCAO). That's what a Bank would determine loan approvals from (NOT profit, like most people would think).
+ Sponsorships can have an immediate affect on many different facets of a business (including negative in the club is seen in a negative light)

You also asked:
So why would a company in this circumstance incur a cost (make a loss) to earn a tax write off for only part of that loss? I don't get the logic.

+ The company isn't making a loss, they are claiming an expense to reduce tax payable, but receiving the benefits I have listed above, plus many more. If your making large profits, it makes all the sense in the world. I only listed SOME of the positive affects.
 
All the brand awareness in the world means nada if the product is rubbish. Which, to my taste, it is.
I think the vomit green really does provide a clue here.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

2025 Ladder

Team P W D L PD Pts
1 Raiders 22 18 0 4 172 42
2 Storm 22 17 0 5 258 40
3 Bulldogs 23 16 0 7 138 38
4 Warriors 22 14 0 8 26 34
5 Broncos 22 13 0 9 148 32
6 Sharks 22 13 0 9 67 32
7 Panthers 23 12 1 10 87 31
8 Roosters 22 11 0 11 72 28
9 Dolphins 22 10 0 12 81 26
10 Sea Eagles 22 10 0 12 4 26
11 Tigers 22 9 0 13 -113 24
12 Rabbitohs 23 9 0 14 -151 24
13 Cowboys 23 9 1 13 -138 23
14 Dragons 22 8 0 14 -94 22
15 Eels 22 8 0 14 -136 22
16 Knights 22 6 0 16 -220 18
17 Titans 22 5 0 17 -201 16
Back
Top Bottom