| Author |
Topic: A sponsor suggestion topic v2.0 |
446 replies
|
|
|
"As requested by Toni, here are the reasons that I think the current sponsor system is broken.
1. The current sponsor system takes too long, in my opinion, to sign sponsors.
2. I personally believe that every manager should be able to have at least 2, if not 3 sponsors. Back markers in all professional racing sports have sponsors, so why shouldn't we?
3. A FOBY issue regarding answering the questions that I don't know if I can go into here.
4. I don't think that the current question and answer system requires much skill or judgment.
Now, things that aren't broken, but when added in would be good enhancements.
5. Introduction of win or podium bonuses would help to encourage people to keep pushing throughout the season, giving more competitive racing.
6. Signing up a good sponsor deal could turn round a season for a struggling manager, again giving more competitive racing. There is currently little to no capacity to do that in the current system.
And now the idea:
Things are always better with a picture:
The sponsors area would become a sponsor market, similar to the current driver and TD market. Some guidance/rules below:
- You would only be able to make one sponsor offer per market (which would be run at the same time as the TD and Driver markets)
- The value you put in the "Salary per race" box is the amount the sponsor would pay you per race.
- The value you put in the "Signing on fee" box is the amount your sponsor would pay you upon acceptance of the contract. A "golden handshake", if you will.
- The fee per win, podium, points is all pretty self explanatory, given what I've said in the previous 2 points.
- The questions are roughly the same as in the current process.
- The sponsor would only sign a "reasonable" deal, nothing like a $5m rookie sponsor with a $10m fee or something like that.
- If more than one person bidded on the same sponsor, the sponsor would sign to the manager who had given the most suitable answers to the questions, and given the most reasonable salary, fee and bonuses requests.
- In order to stop this system being open to exploitation and sabotage, either of 2 rules could be implemented. Firstly and more crudely, a minimum of $500k salary and fee could be offered to prevent people bidding stupidly low amounts to sabotage other managers bids. Secondly, an "expected" amount could be calculated by the sponsor attributes and the answers to the questions (as is the system now), and the manager bidding the closest to the amount would sign the sponsor.
- Sponsors would be able to cancel the contract, but would have to pay a $100,000 per race left on the contract severance fee, up to $500,000 so to stop blatant exploitation.
I can't think of anything I've missed out there. Helpful comments welcomed :)
EDIT: - That picture is hideous! Hmm...
EDIT 2: - Response to Chris's question about how to know what to bid:
"It could be done in 2 ways:
- A "maximum" value could specified for each sponsor, similar to the "minimum" salary and fee requirement of the current driver/TD system
- It could be done as a function of the sponsor attributes, which would be FOBY. Some guidelines would have to be issued in the FAQ in that case. "
EDIT 3: - Response to Chinmay's question regarding the Commercial facility
" Having a good Commercial facility would be able to improve the likelihood of getting a bit more from the sponsor than "quoted". "
|
|
|
|
|
#2 posted May 20th 2009, 16:17:07
|
Quote
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 posted May 20th 2009, 16:17:13
|
Quote
|
|
I like it. Although it cancels out the negotiation part.
|
|
|
|
How would we know what values to ask for?
- Start negotiations, ask for LOADS, negotiations cancelled.
- Start negotiations, ask for quite a bit, negotiations cancelled.
etc...?
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Chris Williams @ May 20th 2009,16:19:00 )
How would we know what values to ask for?
FOBY
(edit: It was only a half serious response...)
|
|
|
|
Sorry Mark, but I think the negotiation of the sponsorship is part of the game that shouldn't be changed.
How the percentages, progress of negotiation, and possibly the terms of the contract need to be changed....
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Chinmay Dhopate @ May 20th 2009,16:20:33 )
FOBY
What I was implying Chinmay, is that it would be an extremely tedious method, IF it worked how I'm assuming...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 posted May 20th 2009, 16:22:25
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( Chris Williams @ May 20th 2009,16:19:00 )
How would we know what values to ask for?
Could be done in 2 ways:
- A "maximum" value could specified for each sponsor, similar to the "minimum" salary and fee requirement of the current driver/TD system
- It could be done as a function of the sponsor attributes, which would be FOBY. Some guidelines would have to be issued in the FAQ in that case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 posted May 20th 2009, 16:22:57
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( Mark Webster @ May 20th 2009,16:22:25 )
Could be done in 2 ways:
- A "maximum" value could specified for each sponsor, similar to the "minimum" salary and fee requirement of the current driver/TD system
- It could be done as a function of the sponsor attributes, which would be FOBY. Some guidelines would have to be issued in the FAQ in that case.
Thanks Mark, that clarifies things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 posted May 20th 2009, 16:24:02
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( Steve MacMillan @ May 20th 2009,16:20:44 )
Sorry Mark, but I think the negotiation of the sponsorship is part of the game that shouldn't be changed.
How the percentages, progress of negotiation, and possibly the terms of the contract need to be changed....
Instead of negotiation, think of it as bidding. We don't negotiate with drivers, we bid. I personally think this way could work with sponsors also.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 posted May 20th 2009, 16:24:09
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( Steve MacMillan @ May 20th 2009,16:20:44 )
Sorry Mark, but I think the negotiation of the sponsorship is part of the game that shouldn't be changed.
How the percentages, progress of negotiation, and possibly the terms of the contract need to be changed....
I agree with this in a way. This change is a bit *too* drastic.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Mark Webster @ May 20th 2009,16:24:02 )
Instead of negotiation, think of it as bidding. We don't negotiate with drivers, we bid. I personally think this way could work with sponsors also.
Ahhh, so basically we'd see it as a pool of sponsors interested in getting visibility. They have a maximum amount of money they can offer per race, and then will choose a manager based on them agreeing to accept the least amount of money per race?
Like an inverse driver model (where they accept the biggest offer) :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 posted May 20th 2009, 16:26:18
|
Quote
|
|
Wait, actually, Steve and Chinmay, are you referring to "protecting" more successful managers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 posted May 20th 2009, 16:27:55
|
Quote
|
Well I like the idea, but you could possibly have 5 sponsors in 3 weeks, what would you do then, with all your spot filled up (granting you are lucky/good with your negotiations)?
Or would the contract last way less (like 3-5 races contract ?) and you would have to constantly fight for new ones
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 posted May 20th 2009, 16:28:21
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( Mark Webster @ May 20th 2009,16:24:02 )
Instead of negotiation, think of it as bidding.
Quote ( Chinmay Dhopate @ May 20th 2009,16:24:09 )
This change is a bit *too* drastic.
I agree with Chinmay that this could be a bit too drastic.
As you know, I am not trying to ridicule your suggestion, as you and I have spoken previously on this subject. But I think such a drastic change would be met with serious opposition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 posted May 20th 2009, 16:28:52
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( Mark Webster @ May 20th 2009,16:26:18 )
Wait, actually, Steve and Chinmay, are you referring to "protecting" more successful managers?
Well, not really. But, this constitutes a major change in game engine, something the admins have said (or, at least I think they have said) will not happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 posted May 20th 2009, 16:30:07
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( Vincent Dall`Aglio @ May 20th 2009,16:27:55 )
Well I like the idea, but you could possibly have 5 sponsors in 3 weeks, what would you do then, with all your spot filled up (granting you are lucky/good with your negotiations)?
Or would the contract last way less (like 3-5 races contract ?) and you would have to constantly fight for new ones
Maximum contract length would be 17 races, and considering you would be paying $500k per offer, would you really wantot be fighting for new ones all the time?
Even if you were 100% successful in acquiring sponsors, that's still 5 out of 17 markets you are active in every season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 posted May 20th 2009, 16:30:46
|
Quote
|
|
well, i think the sponsor negotiation needs some changes. but i don't think they need to be that drastic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 posted May 20th 2009, 16:30:54
|
Quote
|
|
So if I understand right, there's really no negotiation? You're offering a contract to get money. If no one else bids on a sponsor, you could effectively get a sponsor for the minimum amount every race? Wouldn't this make the entire process of getting a sponsor easy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 posted May 20th 2009, 16:32:11
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( Mark Webster @ May 20th 2009,16:26:18 )
Wait, actually, Steve and Chinmay, are you referring to "protecting" more successful managers?
No, not at all Mark, which is why I said that the current system needs change in respect of the percentage, progression, and terms of the contracts.
My profile will show you that I am not running a car with multiple sponsors....Infact it shows that I dont have a single one :(
|
|
|
|
|
|
#21 posted May 20th 2009, 16:32:14
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( Nikhil Shah @ May 20th 2009,16:30:54 )
So if I understand right, there's really no negotiation? You're offering a contract to get money. If no one else bids on a sponsor, you could effectively get a sponsor for the minimum amount every race? Wouldn't this make the entire process of getting a sponsor easy?
You could, sort of put only 40 sponsors in every group and see the fun :p
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 posted May 20th 2009, 16:32:34
|
Quote
|
|
The number of available sponsors would have to be drastically reduced in order to promote competition - otherwise everyone would wait until the deadline and sniper bid all the sponsors (asking for full whack) who don't have any interest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 posted May 20th 2009, 16:32:43
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( James Long @ May 20th 2009,16:17:13 )
I like it.
...but why fix somthing that isnt broken?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 posted May 20th 2009, 16:32:48
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( Chris Williams @ May 20th 2009,16:26:08 )
Ahhh, so basically we'd see it as a pool of sponsors interested in getting visibility. They have a maximum amount of money they can offer per race, and then will choose a manager based on them agreeing to accept the least amount of money per race?
I'd think it would need to be more complex than that. Things like prominence of sponsor on vehicle, value for money for sponsor, length of commitment of sponsor, prominence of vehicle in race, prominence of race could all be factors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 posted May 20th 2009, 16:33:02
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( Chinmay Dhopate @ May 20th 2009,16:28:52 )
Well, not really. But, this constitutes a major change in game engine, something the admins have said (or, at least I think they have said) will not happen.
Quote ( Steve MacMillan @ May 20th 2009,16:28:21 )
I agree with Chinmay that this could be a bit too drastic.
As you know, I am not trying to ridicule your suggestion, as you and I have spoken previously on this subject. But I think such a drastic change would be met with serious opposition.
To answer both of you at once, I hope, my vision of this is that the code to actually do this is already there in the format of the driver and TD markets. Yes it would need to be inverted, as Chris points out above, and possibly reduced to each group rather than level, but the rest is already there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#26 posted May 20th 2009, 16:33:51
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( James Long @ May 20th 2009,16:32:43 )
...but why fix somthing that isnt broken?
Err.... It is extremely broken in my opinion... :)
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Chris Williams @ May 20th 2009,16:32:34 )
The number of available sponsors would have to be drastically reduced in order to promote competition - otherwise everyone would wait until the deadline and sniper bid all the sponsors (asking for full whack) who don't have any interest.
Or throw it open to the entire level, in a proportion of about 3 sponsors per manager.
EDIT: - Maybe less to count for inactives in Pro and below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 posted May 20th 2009, 16:34:40
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( Mark Webster @ May 20th 2009,16:33:51 )
Err.... It is extremely broken in my opinion... :)
explain...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 posted May 20th 2009, 16:35:09
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( Iain Bartholomew @ May 20th 2009,16:32:48 )
I'd think it would need to be more complex than that. Things like prominence of sponsor on vehicle, value for money for sponsor, length of commitment of sponsor, prominence of vehicle in race, prominence of race could all be factors.
Sure, but you got the gist ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#30 posted May 20th 2009, 16:35:43
|
Quote
|
|
Quote ( James Long @ May 20th 2009,16:34:40 )
explain...
Why don't you tell me why you think it isn't broken?
|
|
Deutsch
Español
Română
Italiano
Português
Português
Français
Polski
Русский
Български
Македонски
Српски
Nederlands
Vlaams
Suomi
Lietuvių
Čeština
Magyar
Eesti keel
Slovenčina
Türkçe
Shqip
Ελληνικά
Hrvatski
Bahasa Melayu
Dansk
Pirate
