Pro riders and teams have known about this issue for some time before the Nationals. If they did not - they damn well should have.
While I agree this rule seems to make no sense, the riders and sponsors who have an agreement would have done so knowing that winning a national championship would have reduced the exposure of their logo through branding of race jerseys.
However this could have been offset by a strategically planned campaign that refers to "Rider X, Australian DH Champion" in all their advertising. Sure, logo placement in general race photos and editorial contributes to brand awareness, but I have not seen any evidence to suggest that consumers seeing a logo on a rider jersey will convince them into becoming a consumer of that product.
Using Nathan Rennie as an example, I see more pics of him in his sponsors gear in various DVDs and magazines than in race pics. Look at the exposure Mad Catz and Iron Horse got in Earthed. This rule does not apply to the NORBA series, which gets as much if not more exposure than the WC events. And most race pics are from practice runs anyway - not the actual race run, nor the podiums.
If I was a sponsor, I'd be encouraging my rider to win a National Championship and then run a huge campaign promoting my product as the choice of Australia's top rider, and encourage the MTB consumer to think that if they also consume my product they will be able to look and ride like my sponsored rider - supported by a targetted media releases and staged photos wearing my gear with the National Trophy.
As I said, this rule appears to make no sense, but having my rider in National Championship colours for a season would differentiate my rider from all of the others in a sea of FOX or TLD jerseys. Perhaps this is a case of MTB sponsors not having a sophisticated view of marketing, nor knowing a great opportunity for leveraging from a clients successes, and still focussing on an outdated marketing paradigm that logo recognition alone sell products.
My glass is half full!
While I agree this rule seems to make no sense, the riders and sponsors who have an agreement would have done so knowing that winning a national championship would have reduced the exposure of their logo through branding of race jerseys.
However this could have been offset by a strategically planned campaign that refers to "Rider X, Australian DH Champion" in all their advertising. Sure, logo placement in general race photos and editorial contributes to brand awareness, but I have not seen any evidence to suggest that consumers seeing a logo on a rider jersey will convince them into becoming a consumer of that product.
Using Nathan Rennie as an example, I see more pics of him in his sponsors gear in various DVDs and magazines than in race pics. Look at the exposure Mad Catz and Iron Horse got in Earthed. This rule does not apply to the NORBA series, which gets as much if not more exposure than the WC events. And most race pics are from practice runs anyway - not the actual race run, nor the podiums.
If I was a sponsor, I'd be encouraging my rider to win a National Championship and then run a huge campaign promoting my product as the choice of Australia's top rider, and encourage the MTB consumer to think that if they also consume my product they will be able to look and ride like my sponsored rider - supported by a targetted media releases and staged photos wearing my gear with the National Trophy.
As I said, this rule appears to make no sense, but having my rider in National Championship colours for a season would differentiate my rider from all of the others in a sea of FOX or TLD jerseys. Perhaps this is a case of MTB sponsors not having a sophisticated view of marketing, nor knowing a great opportunity for leveraging from a clients successes, and still focussing on an outdated marketing paradigm that logo recognition alone sell products.
My glass is half full!
Last edited: