![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Aug. 20th, 2012 09:56 am
The National Guard and Motorsports.
Last Friday, it was confirmed that the Army National Guard will continue to sponsor Dale Earnhardt Jr's NASCAR ride (source). The Army National Guard also sponsors J.R. Hildebrand's Indycar.
I am not against auto racing nor am I against the National Guard. Nor am I anti-marketing and advertising. But I don't see the the value proposition here. According to the National Guard Association such advertising generated 7 billion impressions a return of $150 million, and a return on investment of over 368%.
From these figures one can estimate a cost per thousand impressions (CPM) for the effort. It works out to just over a $5.80 CPM. To put that number in perspective, the figure for Facebook advertising is less than a tenth of that.
For that CPM, the National Guard should be getting carefully designed premium placements and a chance to make a pitch. Instead, they are just getting brand exposure. Those impression include promotional appearances by drivers (neither of whom were in the military), and call-outs by track and TV announcers, but the majority of the impressions are just shots of the car on the track.
Of course, if the Guard is actually getting $150 million of value out of a $40 million dollar investment, it doesn't really matter if overpays. But I can find no rationale for that number. Even if you make the absurd assumption that every Army National Guard recruit was as a result of motorsports sponsorship, that still works out to over 10% of the total cost of "Cost per Accession" for the recruit. Given that funding for College Funds, Enlistment Bonuses, Support Personel Pay, Loan Repayment Programs, Civilian Pay, Recruiter Support, Military Training, Automated Data Processing and Communication costs are included in that same pool, that doesn't seem possible.
Nevertheless, an effort to trim this boondoggle failed in Congress last month. it was, after all, "critical funding." Is anyone surprised?
I am not against auto racing nor am I against the National Guard. Nor am I anti-marketing and advertising. But I don't see the the value proposition here. According to the National Guard Association such advertising generated 7 billion impressions a return of $150 million, and a return on investment of over 368%.
From these figures one can estimate a cost per thousand impressions (CPM) for the effort. It works out to just over a $5.80 CPM. To put that number in perspective, the figure for Facebook advertising is less than a tenth of that.
For that CPM, the National Guard should be getting carefully designed premium placements and a chance to make a pitch. Instead, they are just getting brand exposure. Those impression include promotional appearances by drivers (neither of whom were in the military), and call-outs by track and TV announcers, but the majority of the impressions are just shots of the car on the track.
Of course, if the Guard is actually getting $150 million of value out of a $40 million dollar investment, it doesn't really matter if overpays. But I can find no rationale for that number. Even if you make the absurd assumption that every Army National Guard recruit was as a result of motorsports sponsorship, that still works out to over 10% of the total cost of "Cost per Accession" for the recruit. Given that funding for College Funds, Enlistment Bonuses, Support Personel Pay, Loan Repayment Programs, Civilian Pay, Recruiter Support, Military Training, Automated Data Processing and Communication costs are included in that same pool, that doesn't seem possible.
Nevertheless, an effort to trim this boondoggle failed in Congress last month. it was, after all, "critical funding." Is anyone surprised?