« | »

GM Is Sponsoring Two British Soccer Teams

From Reuters:

GM signs Man[chester] United deal day after marketing executive exit

By Ben Klayman | Mon Jul 30, 2012

DETROIT – General Motors Co signed a sponsorship deal with Manchester United on Monday after rewording the terms negotiated with the popular English football club by the U.S. automaker’s ousted global marketing chief.

Under the seven-year jersey sponsorship deal starting in 2014-2015 for the Chevrolet brand, GM will pay $60 million to $70 million a year, said a person with knowledge of the contract who asked not to be identified. GM also will pay the club a $100 million activation fee, making the deal’s total value worth as much as $600 million, the person said…

GM announced on May 31 that Chevy would take over as Manchester United’s automotive sponsor, replacing Volkswagen’s Audi brand. Terms of that deal, which runs for five years, were not disclosed, but analysts said it is likely worth at least tens of millions of dollars…

GM, which spent almost $4.5 billion on advertising last year, said in May it wanted to tap in to Manchester United’s estimated 659 million fans around the world to boost the image of its Chevy brand, especially in Asia.

The automaker also announced a four-year auto sponsorship deal last week with Manchester United rival Liverpool…

What could be more ‘all American’ than apple pie, Chevrolet, and soccer?

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, July 31st, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

8 Responses to “GM Is Sponsoring Two British Soccer Teams”

  1. Right of the People says:

    This is as stupid as letting utility companies advertise. Maybe if GM spent some of that money figuring out how to build good cars instead of sponsoring futbol they could earn enough money to pay back their guvmint loan.

    Oh I forgot, they already “paid” that back, snicker.

    • JohnMG says:

      Well…….they’ve got to try and market that POS Volt somewhere. Evidently Obama returning the Churchill bust wasn’t insult enough.

  2. River0 says:

    “…GM, which spent almost $4.5 billion on advertising last year…” WTF??!!

    What if they were to spend half that amount making the Volt a really good car that doesn’t catch fire or run out of juice after driving 100 miles? They wouldn’t have to advertise.

    It just one car in the Obummer/Demonicrat train wreck.

    • sticks says:

      Remember, this is Government Motors we’re talking about, it’s against the law for them to make anything actually good.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Though I appreciate the sentiment of your statement about GM making a better car, the simple fact is that the Volt, like any car now that is a hybrid and has, as primary propulsive energy the batteries that it carries with it, has run into the basic law of thermodynamics. In this science, physicists are well-versed in its meaning.

      Aside from the obvious, that an internal combustion engine can produce longer range than a battery-driven car, due, in part, to the less steps in the transference of energy, that is, the fuel is carried in the gas-tank, pumped to the engine where it is ignited and the end result is both heat and energy. A battery driven car has to get the batteries charged by something. To most, it is the wall outlet in their garage. But that power had to come from the power-generating source and in many cases, that’s a coal-fired powerplant with some nuclear or water turbine. But in any case, the vast majority of the charging of the batteries comes from burning fossil fuels, thus introducing several steps of power transference.

      It still amazes me how many people (I guess) never passed their eighth grade science exam where it was discussed that electricity doesn’t just magically appear out of the wall. And, that it’s actually the burning of fossil fuels to heat water to create steam to run through a turbine to turn the generators that make electrical current. It’s inefficient but….so far, no human has yet created the perpetual motion machine. We have to burn fuel to transfer its energy to make electricity. Why introduce this incredibly inefficient step into the already much more efficient process of getting around by burning gasoline?

      Well, the answer is simple and those in the function of political correctness will insist that electric motors transfer energy more efficiently. And that is true. But to get the stored energy you need to do that…you have to first create the electricity to charge the batteries. And that…is very IN-efficient. So much so that for a stored battery to get 100 or 60 or 40 miles of travel, depending on whether you’re using the headlights, the heater, etc, uses about 2000% more energy via the burnt coal than does a gasoline engine, just to get it through the wires, to the home to charge the batteries. Then there’s the energy wasted to create the batteries themselves. And they have a fixed life….they do not charge and discharge indefinitely. And a new battery pack for a Prius costs about 4 to 6 thousand dollars, plus labor. Then, the old battery has to be disposed of. None of these things are an issue with the typical internal combustion engine car.

      But the politically correct and self-righteous zombies think it is the “way of the future” having watched way too many sci-fi flicks. But the sci-fi flicks don’t show you that in their utopias, only the elite will have transportation at all, while the rest of us have the rail system to get to/from our state-appointed jobs. Plus, these self-same “savers of the environment” are all up-in-arms about the nastiness of coal, and demand the powerplants be shut down, thus denying themselves the ability to get the electricity to recharge their own personal vehicle. To me, that’s what I call social justice.

      The monumental idiocy of electric cars defies any rational explanation. The day they run the Indy 500 with electric only cars, and they don’t have a break every 15 minutes of racing time for charging breaks that take 12-15 hours, thus making the race an all-week affair, if not two, then I might recognize them as viable. Otherwise I will stick to my gas-guzzling politically incorrect car that can do 170 mph. mmmmmKay?

  3. GetBackJack says:

    WTF Marketing

    I missed that at University

  4. untrainable says:

    Can someone explain to me how sponsoring a British football team will boost the image of Chevy in China? Are the Chinese all that into British Football? And besides, the Chinese subsidize their fuel costs so why would anyone in China want a 2 door exploding Volt? They’re driving Japanese cars like everybody else!

    • reayx5 says:

      I usually don’t comment here, but I’ll try to help… Having the Chevrolet logo on Manchester United jerseys is a way to have your brand name seen by billions of people throughout the world. Manchester United are the richest sports team in the world. More followers than any team you can name. Fans buy the Man. Utd. jerseys like wildfire. The UK has started selling Chevys. China is selling them. Run down any street in the Middle East and see an effigy of the Great Satan burned by a fool in a Manchester United jersey. Watch old footage of the Saddam Hussein statues coming down… it’s a Man. Utd. fan throwing a shoe. And yes, Asia is the biggest and richest market for Manchester United products and sponsored items. I ddo’t support GM, but I am a life-long supporter of United.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »