This is your misunderstanding. It's not about "marketing" an individual. It's about generating free publicity (coverage) for the series, and ideally that coverage will tap into a demographic (a particular type of customer) that matches with what Indy Car is trying to attract.
Consider this....
Shah Rukh Khan
Any idea who he is? I'm gonna say safe to assume you have no clue. He is one of India's biggest celebrities. He's essentially India's version of Tom Cruise. You stick a guy like that in the pace car and there will be a flood, a mine a FLOOD of free coverage and publicity generated by this. Ten times the amount of coverage Guy would generate. Perfect right? Wrong!
The problem?
The coverage is going to be from India and the people it will be touching won't have the slightest interest in the Indy 500. It's not the demographic IndyCar is trying to reach. IndyCar is not, nor are their sponsors trying to sell to the 18-39 year old Indian audience.
Ya, you are making it typical, by sharing a point of view and getting upset when it is questioned or challenged instead of willing to learn or sharing in a discussion.
It's not all out war. I'm trying to get you to understand the rationale behind the decision to go with a person like Guy and why Tanner is a poor choice and not an "equally" as you said, good choice. If you want to drop names, drop names, I'm all for it cause maybe just maybe a better choice than Guy would come up. Tanner is not a good or better choice. It fails on two levels. He is not a well enough known celebrity to generate any sort of free publicity and the little that he might, is going to likely hit an audience that is already following the series. How does that do IndyCar any good?



Reply With Quote


Bookmarks