Controversial sponsorship (1 Viewer)

[BB]

I voted no on all of them. I think any one of them could drive away potential fans and sponsors. You chose the examples well.

 

[D]

I think any legal business should be allowed to sponsor. I don't agree with some entities listed, but I don't think that should exclude them. I simply wouln't be a fan of that team.

However, as far as the NRA is concerned: If WE sponsored a team, I would dig even deeper into my piggy bank to contribute. The more parents who learn about and use the Eddie Eagle program, the safer our kids will be.

Ding Ding, I would still be a fan of those teams because they went out and hustled and came up with the funding to stay on tour. Last time I checked we're still in America and anything that's legal should be allowed, I for one am a little sorry that I'm young enough to have missed the wild and woooly formative days of drag racing.

D

 

[ProStockJunkie]

For me, I don't want to see drag racing, in general, to be associated with anything I would not be associated with personally. I only voted yes for the Designated Driver.

 

[Jim]

I don't know if or how (or should?) NHRA can regulate commercial free speech.

Would anybody blush today if they saw Viagra signage on a funny car? That was an awfully well managed marketing campaign. How much was simply due to Mark Martin's image and persona? How much was due to the other aspects of the campaign?

FWIW: If a condom company (especially a lesser known one) attempted to become a primary sponsor, they could get more mielage out of a threatened NHRA lawsuit than the sponsorship itself. That might be the case for any "controversial" sponsorship.

 

[tadwrench]

How can you allow some sponsors and not others? We cheer for the Budweiser vs Miller matchup, but say don't allow Jack Daniels or Jim Beam to sponsor a car. Why not? I am not a hunter but think that the NRA does alot of good by teaching hand gun safety to kids. There is a ton of activity that goes on when you start working on sponsorship deals. We lost a sponsorship because of the possiblity of MADD using the label on an engery drink against the company. They did not make the engery drink they just distribute it. I have never smoked or used tobacco products but still went to the races when Winston was the primary sponsor. I have yet to see a Skoal girl with a gun forcing anyone into the trailer. Just because I do not use thier product is not a reason for them not to be a sponsor. If they are a licensed company that pay's taxes on thier products, have an defined avertising plan, let them sponsor.

 

[D]

Justin, I remember seeing the Penthouse car when it ran at the Northwest Nationals in Seattle a few years back. And you're right; it was tastefully done.

Bruce, you might be surprised what some of us were reading in our vehicles when we were still young and dumb.

I will only add that the NASCAR liquor sponsorship came with strings attached in that NASCAR required that the liquor companies be actively involved in a "drink responsibly" campaign of some sort. As to sponsorship by the tobacco companies, times change - and it's still a controversial issue. But the sponsorships are now regulated by the law and the agreement the tobacco companies settled with the government.

Good point, remeber the reason (smoking)tobacco sponsorship came to motorsports was because they had been banned from broadcasting commercials on TV. A lot of folks bash the multi car teams, but what if one the so called controversial sponsors was going to come on board and keep your favorite low bucks racer on tour and make them more competitive? I'm anti censorship, that's what off buttons, channel changers and responsible parents are for, Big Brother shouldn't have to do everything for you.

S/F
D

 

[Dave]

I'm anti censorship, that's what off buttons, channel changers and responsible parents are for, Big Brother shouldn't have to do everything for you.

I strongly agree except that as a parent I have no control from the stands of what my child can see. I can choose to NOT take them to a Hooters or regulate a TV show but I can't control what they see at an event. Yes I do have control over what events I take them to but I would hate to think that I could not take them to a race due to questionable material on the track. I admit that I am "on gaurd" when I take them through the pits and I avoid situations that I don't feel are appropriate.
I'm not real familiar with how sponsorships work. Can NHRA regulate the design or presentation of a sponsor? Thus keeping it "tasteful"? I can get pretty creative with explanations to my daughters of what something is but I can't always explain a picture, a girls attire, etc...

 

[Jenn]

For me, I don't want to see drag racing, in general, to be associated with anything I would not be associated with personally. I only voted yes for the Designated Driver.

What if the survey had included a Pro-Life message?

 

[Joker]

Let me ask you all this, if a adult xxx movie company came to you and said, "Here's $5 million a year. The only stipulation is you have to have some of our "actresses" at each event and we get to pick the graphics on the car."
What would you say?

Here's what you would here from my office,
"Ok, we need a couple new chassis', new engines, parts, new trailer, hospitality trailer, etc."
I understand values and morals but if someone was offering to pay for me to race professionally, I could care less who it was.

 

[Nitrohaulic]

The word "Should" throws the whole thing off for me. I really don't think I can have an opinion of what NHRA "should" do simply because it's not my organization. A good example might be that I'm not religious, but I could care less if someone had backing from a religious organization ( or even an athiest one). I wouldn't feel like it was "in my face" as someone on the old mater did when the GOP had an ad on a pro stock car. I'd be happy for the people getting the bucks.

If it were my organization and it was a legal business/organization, be it a brothel, a male "enhancement" product, a strip joint, or a liquor company, they would all be welcome. I wouldn't believe in a business being legal, yet being discriminated against in any way compared to other businesses.

It's like alcohol. Whether it's morally correct to buy it depends on what time of day or what day of week it is when you're doing it. Yet, look at how accepted alcohol sponsors are in our sport. I can't buy beer in a lot of places on Sunday morning, but I CAN pick up a Penthouse magazine? Which one is allowed and which one isn't? If you can't find ironies in this.......

 

[Nitrohaulic]

How many non-smokers had no problem with Winston Drag Racing?

 

[Jenn]

Let me ask you all this, if a adult xxx movie company came to you and said, "Here's $5 million a year. The only stipulation is you have to have some of our "actresses" at each event and we get to pick the graphics on the car."
What would you say?

I would say that my morals mean more to me than money.

No offense to you, that's your decision.

 

[Old Sg]

I know one that can't be used..........Gatorade

 

[Jim]

>>>How many non-smokers had no problem with Winston Drag Racing?
__________________
Certainly not me. Maybe I'm a poor judge though. I still believe there smoking ought to be allowed in bars and restaurants if the business owner provides a reasonable accomodations. There's no choice in CT. It's worse in NY

That said, I think smoking is a "stinking" habit. I think it is appropriate (and defensible) that smokers be charged more $$ for life and health insurance as a result of their informed choice.

 

[Gordon]

Extremely interesting topic.

As I read through all the posts the one theme that kept repeating was morals vs. responsibilities. It seems here in America we continue to preach Freedom of Speech, anti-censorship, etc., yet we almost never discuss the responsibilities that should be associated with those freedoms.

Some folks mentioned answering questions from their children about what things were or meant in certain circumstances - pits, TV, etc. And I agree with whoever mentioned that they can control what their children watch & listen too, but they can't control what they see on the track... unless they simply don't take them to the track anymore. Is that what we want? People who are die hard fans leaving the sport they've grown to love because they can't bring their children? I don't think so.

Personally, I wouldn't accept sponsorship money from a Strip Club or Brothel. For me, it's about my own personal morals - not anyone else's. I would hope that at some point we as a country would once again embrace morals over money - as much as I truly love the sport of drag racing, there are things in life that are more important...

 

[Murph]

Some folks mentioned answering questions from their children about what things were or meant in certain circumstances - pits, TV, etc. And I agree with whoever mentioned that they can control what their children watch & listen too, but they can't control what they see on the track... unless they simply don't take them to the track anymore. Is that what we want? People who are die hard fans leaving the sport they've grown to love because they can't bring their children? I don't think so.

I can't say I was to disappointed to see Hooter's quit as a sponsor of IHRA's championship series for exactly this very reason. I enjoy sharing my love of drag racing with my kids but a Hooter's girl is not exactly what I have in mind for my 13yr old daughter to aspire too. To have the girls parading around didn't really send out a message I wanted my daughter to pick up on.

I also kind of felt it cheapend IHRA's image a bit as a professional series. I think to bring on some of the "adult" companies mentioned in this topic would do the same to the NHRA.

 

[Bob]

After reading some of the replies here, this isn't just a poll, it's also a reading comprehension test!

 

[Jenn]

After reading some of the replies here, this isn't just a poll, it's also a reading comprehension test!

Are you passing Bob?

 

[Bob]

Are you passing Bob?

I think I passed Jenn!

A yes vote equals a vote to prohibit; a no vote equals a vote to NOT prohibit.

 

[Jenn]

That caught me too, I almost voted for all the things I didn't want to vote for.