 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Just curious because they must spend millions and can't justify by drink sales.
I dont know the answer to your question, but there was a program on bbc3 last week about food branding and it was saying that Red Bull is purely an advertising company who happen to own the rights to and sell a drink which originated in asia, cant remember where, and dietrich mstrich (sp?) pays the original drinks company half of the profits!!
Thailand. I doubt they're complaining tho, it's all free money to them.
A quick google found a reference to $900M in 2010. Annual revenue was $4.4 billion, so that's not an unrealistic amount to spend on marketing - given that they don't really need to invest in product development.
[url= http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1064689 ]http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1064689[/url]
[url= http://www.pitpass.com/43853-420m-cost-of-Red-Bulls-F1-success ]Red Bull F1 Budget[/url]
Good article above on the F1 teams budget for the last few years, and that is only a small part of the branding/extreme sports exercise, seems you must make a lot of money out of fizzy pop.
I was going to guess 25% of turnover.
You need to remember the fizzy drinks industry is pretty much pure profit, imagine the dregs in the can after drinking it to be the cost compared to the rest of the contents being teh profit
This
Not like like booze and ciggies with massive taxesYou need to remember the fizzy drinks industry is pretty much pure profit
So basically it costs less to own an F1 company than it would to have the product positioning costs all over one of the cars. I think that's right. if so. Very very clever and why aren`t others doing it?
Have you just invented John Player Special's marketing strategy for the 1980s? 😆
Not like like booze and ciggies with massive taxes
Poor, poor distillers, brewers and fag makers. ;(
Red Bull are basically a sports promotion company these days. There was an interesting piece about them in the BBC's Secrets of the Superbrands program.
It's just a front for laundering nazi loot.
So basically it costs less to own an F1 company than it would to have the product positioning costs all over one of the cars.
Not sure if costs less, I expect it costs a lot more but they get a lot more for the money. How many times has 'red bull' been mentioned? Hundreds of times during the race, several times on prime time news. The main sponsors of the winning car, Vodafone, barely mentioned.
Every month in the Telegraph (Sunday I think) there's a Red Bull magazine. It's actually a good read. It reminds me of the Benetton (sp) 'Colors' magazine from the early 90s, (although not as political).
It really brings home the marketing spend!
Hundreds of sports, music recording studios, artists. All sorts.
It must be an absolutely fascinating place to work.
When you see that identical drinks are on sale for a 5th of the price, you can kind of see how it succeeds though.
The drink is just horrible tasting poison though.
So basically it costs less to own an F1 company than it would to have the product positioning costs all over one of the cars.
Not quite, as team owners Red Bull get their logo into a lot more places than if you were the primary sponsor of a team.
If you were to pay for all the exposure they get then it would cost more than running a team.
25% according to the programme on BBC4 (or 3??) a few weeks ago. Mostly through creating their own extreme sports events.... or buying teams
Yup Red Bull is a marketing company, someone else produces the drink with their log on basically. The don't sponsor the F1 they bought it same with many other sports teams and events.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011fjbp
fair play to em 🙂 not sure if its just their clever marketing but it does seem like their investment in the brand does a fair bit for the sports they get involved in also...
It's clever marketing, very clever marketing.