First off I would ask as any sponsor would when it comes time to sign on the dotted line "what am I getting for my money?" In most cases if the team heads where to tell the truth the answer would be "you get nothing but a billboard with wheels with no gaurentee". One case in point and i'll make it rather brief and continue. The Pittburgh Paints paint sche.....wrap scheme. Does anyone recall seeing that car on the track other than qualifying, and perhaps Robby was cut out at that attempt as some cars are? I mean other than the Robby fans and those who knew, if you where not at the race track you would not have known much, other than a flash of the car here and there and a 3 second burst, not much exposure. Given the fact I don't recall every moment of coverage from that race and the actual camera time we got I take liberty in using this example to point out the fact the camera simply limits the exposure end of story.
So now we enter a party or what have you by a company who just put out countless thousands to sponsor a one and off race and as the race unfolds nothing, nada, ziltch, zip, and the race ends and all that cash was spent on a car that never even saw camera time even though perhaps the driver was in some good battles during the day. What would your reaction be? Would you want to do it again? Would you feel satisfied? Of course not. NASCAR needs to get together with these networks and ask, explain, beg, whatever it takes for the producers of the telecast to start to formulate a plan to get each car some camera time when it is involved in some "racing action". Thats where the damn action is, in the racing, not the one car runoff. That being said and understood the car or sponsor does not have to be mentioned directly but simply in the shot. A few times a race mentioning the driver would help but for the most part expose the money that is putting the cars on the track. The famous number 43? That car gets nothing and I blame only the race coverage for not only being bland and narrow minded but perhaps bias in thier thinking. "Folkks Want to see the leader", no not all the time and when the folks who put out for the car watch the race they have to be wondering where the cash did any good.
During the race we hear things like "farther back in the field", "some good racing going on back here", give me a break, I don't turn my head when i'm at the track till the leader comes back by.
Commercial breaks are paid for and any conflict of interest I hope is not taken into account as i'm sure it can't be in some instances. In a way the folks who forked over a barrel of coin have done just that and are hoping to have thier product see some seat time. In closing i'm pretty fed up with the mindless ramblings and squeals of ol' DW and the boring pace of so many others, I listen to the radio coverage wether on such or over the web and the pace and thrill is alive so I can't say what was said about so and so but I do know what i'm seeing and even more so what i'm not seeing. Sponsors need to see that they have something to look forward to when the race goes on. MR. Helton, get some people on it and have some better understanding about the production angles when it comes to the product. In the end it may boil down to the exposure amount rarther that the demagraphics. If you want my opinion get Molson Canadian on the car for the Glen we New Yorkers like yummy Molsonas far as the other races I hope NASHOLE realizes this one aspect about thier product, the coverage blows man.