I'm going to be interested in seeing how the PGA Tour handles this. A few years back they pulled the plug on The International because the tournament organizers couldn't come up with a "primary" or name sponsor after Sprint dropped out. They still ran a great tournament, still had a decent prize purse, but Finchem would not allow them to continue without the sponsor. Will the Tour change this policy in order to keep tournaments that Finchem likes? Or will he stick to his guns and possibly lose 5 or 6 or more tournaments to the bad economy? http://www.thehackersparadise.com/fo.../confused2.gif

I agree, but Finchem wants the showy glitter of corporate sponsorship. Look at the name changes since he took over from Deane Beman. Half the time I don't even know what event is being discussed any more. When they talk about Arnie playing in the AT&T I go "HUH???" Arnie played in the CROSBY. It wasn't the AT&T until long afterward, so why can't the media say that? Because the PGA Tour says they can't. It's the same with NASCAR and the Nextel Cup... it was the Winston Cup when Richard Petty won it, but now when they talk about it, it's like the Winston Cup never existed.

So many traditional tournament names have lost their identities in the race for sponsor of the month. At least Vickers always kept the tournament name in the forefront (The International sponsored by Qwest, The International sponsored by Sprint, then finally just The International at Castle Pines, with Vickers personally making sure that the purse was worthwhile. Finchem never did like Vickers because he was too independent (Finchem: "What is this Stableford thing anyway???"), so when he got the chance, he dumped the tournament.

Like they say, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and Finchem is a demigod in his own eyes.

(Do you get the idea that I don't care much for the man?)

No Name - No Frills
 

Companies hope to reap many rewards from corporate sponsorship, but one of the main objectives is promotion of the company and free advertising through the use of signage. So, that makes me wonder why the banks are continuing to sponsor golf tournaments without having their name everywhere. I know they're entertaining clients and I know they're protecting their image by doing it anonymously, but is the return enough to make it worthwhile. This article was in today's NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/bu...1&ref=business

There a few savvy stock holders who are now watching their companies a little closer, and what they spend their money on. Especially at dividend pay out time.


Accepting federal bail out money , while sponsoring sporting events doe not look good to the tax payers and the feds. So, hiding sponsorship to avoid negative run ins with various group s, like the article explained, is the way to go for these sponsors.

Kind of like "here's 3 million for your tournament, but don't say anything because we just received 15 million from the feds."

Personally I would like to see more monetary sponsorship from those companies who are actually in the golf business, and less from the non golfing private sector.

I understand that - the question is what the company is getting out of it aside from some good will from the few valued clients that get comped.

Marketing and promotion are part and parcel of what companies do to sell their products. I have always thought that we, in business, approach this wrong from the start. In my company, as an example, our salesmen turn in "expense" reports detailing what they spent on their customers for entertainment, etc. These are NOT expense accounts, they are "investment" accounts to help solidify relationships with our customers. The entertainment has a valid business purpose and pays concrete dividends in customer goodwill.

Companies that sponsor sporting events, charity events, etc. should do so proudly and announce that this is an integral part of their sales and marketing and that it pays dividends to the stockholders and employees in the form of increased sales and revenues. The bottom line is that without promoting your company and its products, you lose the opportunity to focus your potential customers on your brand. If you don't do it, someone else will!

Yes, but these are companies who received TARP funds.

I would rather pay for a sponsorship then pay the taxes. If the government lets them use it as a expense, then why not?

The TARP funds are my money too, and I want these companies to be as successful as they can be in order to pay me back my money with interest! That means getting customers interested in using their products or services and that means blatant self promotion..... exactly the same if I had taken my private funds and invested in the same company, I would expect them to use whatever methods they needed to insure profitability, including sponsoring public events!

The banks avoid a lawsuit by honoring their multi-year sponsorship contract for the event. There was so much negative press about the Northern Trust Open that many banks may see any advertising as a negative rather than a positive. This is especially so considering that Northern Trust was not in financial straights when they accepted TARP money, did so only at the government's request to loosen the credit market, and sought to return the money as soon as they got bad press for abiding by their contract.

I don't expect many banks to renew their sponsorship contracts; I think we will see a lot of "final" events, such as the Buick Open.