"Partner protection" @ '09 USPA Nationals

[Krip 2]

Quote

Coming at it from a different angle:

Spaceland wants to host the event. Why? They (Spaceland) would obviously get the exposure which in turn will (hopefully) bump up their business. But, to foot the WHOLE bill for the event would be counter-productive as it would dig into whatever future profits they might make as a result of aforementioned exposure. So they make a bid and USPA awards the event to them.

Note: Spaceland did not VOLUNTEER to host the event in the purest sense, but instead (as is the gist of the whole "awarding" business, similar to cities vying for the Olympics) offered a proposal/bid to enter into a quid-pro-quo agreement with USPA to use their (Spaceland's) facilities and organizational abilities. From USPA's perspective they could either dig into their own coffers to host an expensive event, but instead they chose to only exercise their sanctioning powers and let someone else pick up the tab for the actual event. This is the way that the USPA nationals have run for years now. We can all agree that there is no controversy in this part of the process.

So, Spaceland decides that the best way to offset their costs would be to offer sponsorship opportunities. That is a common business concept that's used all over the spectrum of sports entertainment. Still: no controversy. Agreed? Good, let's move on.

So, being as they are not natural-born marketing professionals, they (Spaceland) decide to rather hire a professional marketing firm to handle the rather intricate two-step that is known as "event sponsorship". Still no controversy. Their intent seems to be pure and their business decision to outsource this part sound.

Note: the workings of event sponsorship as a business concept is in itself a complicated beast for which their are no set guidelines and principles. You have to find out what equity the hosts have, what equity the sponsors want, what to charge for that equity, how to protect that equity, all the while trying to keep everybody happy. It is up to the hired professionals to negotiate the intricacies of the represented sport/activity within a larger context and to make sure that ALL parties concerned - participants, hosts, sponsors, spectators, media, sanctioning bodies - get a fair deal out of the whole thing, as well as to get their OWN fair share of kerching as this is a service that they provide and for which they should be fairly compensated.

So, Spaceland sends out feelers for such a company, company X approaches them with an offer to do business, they think they have found the right company, and they sign on the dotted line. No controversy.

So, with signed contract in hand company X goes ahead and develops a sponsorship policy for this event and WHAM!!!!! The shit hits the fan in turbo mode and oodles of controversy ensues.

So, as allocating blame is what life is about these days, who is responsible for this SNAFU?

Hi K

I'll take a WAG based on your above statement that your connected with spaceland in some offical capacity.

In response to your question "Who's responsible for this SNAFU? If your statement above is correct It was created by the DZ's professional marketing firm hired by the spaceland. IMO the DZ is responsiable.

There's a very simple solution to this SNAFU and it can be taken care of without any input from USPA, DZ.com, competitors.

Now that Spaceland is aware of the SNAFU they can correct it.

Let the 09 USPA Nationals hosted by Spaceland begin without the background drama

One Jump Wonder

[4chewnate 0]

I just found out what Spaceland is charging for a team room and is not providing anything but a bare room. $1,000.00???? (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) (I hope I'm wrong)

Is this normal or is it pricey?
Sounds pricey to me.

I also just found out what it would cost for a sponsor to put up a tent..............Holy Crap!!!!!!!

Have any of you checked on this?

No wonder there aren't very many sponsors.

There's trouble in River City.
***************************************
BTW Krip, this is not a reply to you I just happen to hit the reply on the latest post and it was yours.

[AggieDave 6]

This was sent to my e-mail last night by a world champion skydiver (more than once):

Quote

This is my opinion to people who really don't know what they're talking about:

I was sponsored for 7 years. I competed at every level of world event. I was sponsored by companies that have some of the most restrictive sponsorship agreements in the business. Not one, ZERO, of my sponsorship contracts ever stipulated that we hand out swag, flyers, place windblades, tents etc at ANY dropzone or ANY event. In exchange for their support, they got marketing out of us through pictures, recommendations to customers, visibility on my gear, in magazine pics, hosting events at various dz's, and regular 'blog' type updates or magazine articles. I was sponsored by a major DZ, like many teams. We were never asked to fly banners or blades at other DZs. They got visibility from our team name, which included the DZ name, our presence on the dropzone, and our reputation as a good team and coaches.

From what I've read on this forum, these folks are protesting over what will not affect anyone. I've NEVER heard of a skydiving sponsorship that forced people to directly market at events (contrary to any event rules) or lose their sponsorship. I would like someone to list affected teams that will not be able to compete because they would lose their sponsorship for not being able to market on a large scale at Nationals. When it turns out that no one can name a team, there is no reason for the protest.

If bringing in exclusive sponsors to an event will eventually help Nationals be a bigger, nicer, more public, and more profitable event (like EVERY other sport), why would you be against it? Some people will protest against any change for the sake of it. People were against AFF, tandems, and the ISP too I guess...

I seem to remember the USPA or the world meet organizers forbidding teams from wearing anything but the official US uniforms during opening ceremonies or award ceremonies. SPECIFICALLY forbidding us from wearing our sponsors clothing! So it's happened WORSE before and in that case, it didn't benefit the sport, the industry OR the teams in any way. At least this way we're getting a better event because of sponsor support. These angry people really do think the sky is falling, when nothing would affect a normal team in any way.

This is an interesting perspective that is far beyond any person who is posting here. No one else that has posted in this thread has won as many medals, been as sponsored or has competed at the level of this person.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[klingeme 0]

Quote

Point of clarification: The Golden Knights are not sponsored by the Army, they ARE the Army. They are an Army unit just like the Army Marksmanship Unit, just like the 126th field mess kit battalion, etc.

But they are promoting a product....that product being the Army. If a group of UPT of PD employees......like a group of Army employees.....formed a team, would they be able to set up the UPT or PD Spider Tent? If not, then the Knights should not be able to "promote their product" without paying..........


Now we all know this will not happen because it would be too un-PC, but if they can do it, why can't anyone else?

[pilotdave 0]

What discipline did that world champion compete in?

Dave

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

What discipline did that world champion compete in?

Not swooping, but I'm not going to state since the former world champion would wish to remain anonymous. Does it really matter what he competed in, though?

For all the other wanna-be conspiracy theorists out there, he is not employed by Spaceland. He has just watched these sorts of arguments on DZ.com over the years, filled with people who have no experience in the subject matter and has decided that he doesn't want to directly post. He did, though, give me permission to anonymously post what he wrote.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[PORKr 0]

Concerned teams should contact Mark Schlatter to get a team supply of eDo-onward-porrk-r CUSTOM EMBROIDERED PATCHES to stitch onto their jumpsuits in protest.

Yes the Knights ARE Army and by extension, it has become almost synonomous with USPA. Become a soldier or you just won't ever quite ever reach ... uh, real ... skygod status.

Marketing is all American capatalism at it's finest. There is a new book out about the subliminal and illegal tactics Uncle Sam is using to recruit soldiers.
Army funds popular video games for example for children.

Anybody know the title?

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Quote

I just found out what Spaceland is charging for a team room and is not providing anything but a bare room. $1,000.00???? (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) (I hope I'm wrong)

Is this normal or is it pricey?
Sounds pricey to me.

I also just found out what it would cost for a sponsor to put up a tent..............Holy Crap!!!!!!!

Have any of you checked on this?

No wonder there aren't very many sponsors.

There's trouble in River City.
***************************************
BTW Krip, this is not a reply to you I just happen to hit the reply on the latest post and it was yours.

We got a team room in '03 at Lake Wales. It was an empty room. I don't remember what we paid. Bottom line, most teams don't have a team room and if you don't like the price you hang out where everyone else does. I don't have a Porsche because I can't afford one. I don't go to the Porsche web sites to complain about it.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I did not get off topic. He said it gives competitors a disadvantage to not be able to put up there sponsors tent or wind blade (which is what we have been talking about). My point was that not having your tent or windblades will not effect the competition, which is what Nationals is all about, Competing.

And if team sponsors pull their sponsorship from teams, or disallow their sponsored teams from competing at such an event, nice competition that will turn out to be.

Your posts are becoming silly and, as someone up-thread said, a bit creepily Skyride-esque. Whatever.

[riggerpaul 1]

I think someone else touched on this, but I want to go further.

We've been talking about possible damage to the teams ability to compete, losing sponsors and the like. The people who don't think the "Partner Protection" is bad say it won't hurt anyone. Maybe they are right. Maybe they are wrong. I don't know.

But I've realized that I want to encourage the teams' sponsors to continue and expand their sponsorships.

In my opinion, sponsoring the teams is more "grass roots" than sponsoring the event, because without team sponsors, the teams don't show up.

So I want to do what we can to be certain that the team sponsors see their investment as productive, providing a good Return on Investment.

Okay, I realize that the event sponsors don't want a booth from a business that hasn't paid for the commercial space. That's certainly a compromise I am willing to accept.

But the team sponsors have paid to be there, and we should not treat them as though they haven't. The team sponsors are the first class citizens in this, they make it possible for the teams to compete in the first place. I don't want them to be forced into the position of the silent partner in all this. Without the teams, there's no event for anybody to sponsor. So let's not bite the hands that feed us.

I don't think that the team booth should be just another commercial booth. Not at all. They shouldn't be selling their sponsors' products. Maybe they shouldn't even be passing out literature. Those are reasonable restrictions that help protect the investment of the event sponsors.

But I absolutely want the passive presentations telling us who sponsored these teams to be allowed. I want the logos on the tents to be left alone. I don't think it is enough for the jumpsuits and canopies to be the only place where passive presentation is allowed.

I'm okay with saying that the team area shouldn't be used for selling, or even active promotion. I am okay with saying that an airblade would take up space that is not intrinsically part of the teams' space. The space for an additional airblade should be paid for, no problem.

But to restrict the passive display of sponsors logos and the like on the tent, is just slapping those sponsors in the face. They already paid for the space that tent is taking up, and we should not treat them as though they didn't.

Bottom line? I want to leave the tents alone. And I want that to be a condition for hosting the event in the future, If it is reasonable for the host dz and their sponsors to make conditions, then it is reasonable for us to make our own. A little give and take, and everyone can be happy.

[dqpacker 7]

Sorry no Slyride here. Nice try.

[DSE 3]

IMO, there is little difference between a jumpsuit and a tent in terms of displaying who sponsors whom.
The packing tent, gear, and clothing are part of the team's normal, natural, and consistent package.
In re-thinking this, even though many marketing efforts are not permitted at the events we work with on a regular basis, car haulers are painted with sponsor logos, and motoX teams are allowed their normal tents. It's not at all uncommon to see Yamaha covering an entire trailer while the event is sponsored by Honda.
It seems that the politics of this particular situation may play not only a distraction for the net-heads, but for the competitors as well.
I can agree with no flags, windblades, marketing material, but the packing tents, gear, clothing are part of the necessary package teams require in order to compete.

[beowulf 1]

For my team this is all pretty much a non issue, we don't have a tent with any logo on it. But for those teams that have a logo'd tent, I could see this as a big inconvenience. I don't see this as giving Spaceland's sponsors that much of an advantage. It don't think it is worth the trouble.

I think Spaceland is just doing this as a marketing gimmick so that they can charge their sponsors more money.

[wmw999 2,122]

Quote

I can agree with no flags, windblades, marketing material, but the packing tents, gear, clothing are part of the necessary package teams require in order to compete.

Gear and clothing are specifically named as OK. I'm assuming that sponsored jumpers can give their packers (some of whom they are probably bringing with them) branded pull-up cords and drag mats.

Personally, I think that making people cover up logos on the packing tent is pretty lame. I kind of hope there will be sufficient indoor packing space for no one to require their own tent, even if they want to pack for themselves.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[stratostar 5]

Read thru all this crap and was thinking by the title of the tread it would be about getting laid after hours and having condoms handed out as free "partner protection"..... No bootie 4 team pricks but those on your jumpsuits!.....................

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[CSpenceFLY 1]

I do agree that if they had to pay for a spot to put their tent they should be able to have whatever they want on it(within reason).

However,I also understand where this came from. It came from vendors and manufacturers that don't want to spend a dime on an event but then show up and try to take over the show.

While I understand what they are trying to do.I think it is going to make for a fucked up,cheap looking area with logos covered. I think if there was space set aside for a team tent then it should be left alone. I don't thing that sponsors,vendors or manufacturers should be aloud to just come in and put up what ever they want if they didn't pay for the space.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

I do agree that if they had to pay for a spot to put their tent they should be able to have whatever they want on it(within reason).

However,I also understand where this came from. It came from vendors and manufacturers that don't want to spend a dime on an event but then show up and try to take over the show.

While I understand what they are trying to do.I think it is going to make for a fucked up,cheap looking area with logos covered. I think if there was space set aside for a team tent then it should be left alone. I don't thing that sponsors,vendors or manufacturers should be aloud to just come in and put up what ever they want if they didn't pay for the space.

So, we agree.

Fine to say no active marketing, selling, give aways etc.

Fine to say no stuff outside the team tent if it wasn't paid for.

But leave the team's gear and the stuff that is in and under the tent alone.

Does that pretty well sum it up?

[billvon 2,400]

>Isn't it silly that handing out stickers won't be allowed at this year's nationals?

I think that while having a table with stickers will not be allowed, all the sticker police in the world won't be able to prevent them from being passed out. And skydivers being what they are, I have a feeling that a lot of "illegal" stickers will appear on the manifest desk, the insides of the airplanes, the mockups, the podiums, the packing tents etc. Indeed, I can see the frantic efforts of the sticker police to remove said stickers just making things worse.

[BikerBabe 0]

Quote

And skydivers being what they are....

oh, you mean a bunch of smartasses?

yup! that pretty much covers it!

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[dqpacker 7]

Quote

>Isn't it silly that handing out stickers won't be allowed at this year's nationals?

I think that while having a table with stickers will not be allowed, all the sticker police in the world won't be able to prevent them from being passed out. And skydivers being what they are, I have a feeling that a lot of "illegal" stickers will appear on the manifest desk, the insides of the airplanes, the mockups, the podiums, the packing tents etc. Indeed, I can see the frantic efforts of the sticker police to remove said stickers just making things worse.

All I'll say is, I would never even think about putting a sticker in one of Steve's planes.

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

IMO, there is little difference between a jumpsuit and a tent in terms of displaying who sponsors whom.
The packing tent, gear, and clothing are part of the team's normal, natural, and consistent package.
In re-thinking this, even though many marketing efforts are not permitted at the events we work with on a regular basis, car haulers are painted with sponsor logos, and motoX teams are allowed their normal tents. It's not at all uncommon to see Yamaha covering an entire trailer while the event is sponsored by Honda.
It seems that the politics of this particular situation may play not only a distraction for the net-heads, but for the competitors as well.
I can agree with no flags, windblades, marketing material, but the packing tents, gear, clothing are part of the necessary package teams require in order to compete.

Agreed.

And from another post up from the world level competitor,I am really glad that somebody threw that into the mix here because I have been saying in my post that there is a good chance that the vast majority, and maybe eve all of the competitors might not be effected by it, but then again what if there happens to be that one team or two teams that are? The chance is still there. But for the most part, I agree, it will probably end up being a non issue for most and it comes down to the principal of the thing.

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[LouDiamond 1]

Quote

This is an interesting perspective that is far beyond any person who is posting here. No one else that has posted in this thread has won as many medals, been as sponsored or has competed at the level of this person.

I suggest you look at post #4 and think about it for a second.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[Krip 2]

Quote

Quote

This is an interesting perspective that is far beyond any person who is posting here. No one else that has posted in this thread has won as many medals, been as sponsored or has competed at the level of this person.

I suggest you look at post #4 and think about it for a second.

Hi Lou

STOP RESISTING, STOP RESISTING or you'll be tased

Sorry couldn't resist being silly

One Jump Wonder

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

I suggest you look at post #4 and think about it for a second.

Actually, I believe this person has won more and done more than BB has. Honestly.

Not to take away from BB's past, but I'm looking at this with out rose colored glasses.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[davelepka 4]

Quote

In re-thinking this, even though many marketing efforts are not permitted at the events we work with on a regular basis, car haulers are painted with sponsor logos, and motoX teams are allowed their normal tents. It's not at all uncommon to see Yamaha covering an entire trailer while the event is sponsored by Honda.

Your example is involving all parties attempting to make money. The race promoter is trying to sell tickets, Honda and Yamaha are tying to sell bikes, and the race team is trying to win prize money. Even in that business intensive enviorment, all the teams are permitted to display their colors (and sponsors colors).

For the USPA Nationals to be more restrictive, and be more restrictive towards the USPA members who have spent their own dollars to compete for no prize money at all is crazy.

The competitors fund the USPA in it's entirety. The competitors are all out-of-pocket to some extent for training, travel and competition expenses. The competitors stand to make zero dollars as a result of the competition. These are the people who's hands are to be tied?

It's just going too far when 'Nationals' the event is given priority over the competitors, who make the whole thing happen. I'm sure the DZ wants a big swinging-dick event, but at what price?