Edmondson speaks

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 7 2009, 04:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>In this instance DMG are regulating the machines in order to place greater importance on the individual rider. This arrangement has a trade off---bikes don't get developed but our talent does with close competitive racing (once riders have adjusted to the new rules).

Obviously, DMG's rules have placed emphasis on the rider at the expense of the manufacturers, but the parent companies have plenty of series' to develop new technology so there is no net societal loss, only a gain to the riders in the U.S.
Ah how you fail to understand what DMG's plans are. No, they don't care about riders, and no they don't care about manufactures. They alienated both. They have decidedly done the opposite of which you propose. By taking away the familiar number that fans associate with the riders, they have effectively eroded the "emphasis" you speak of. By slowing down the manufactures who have spent funding and developing the sport, namely the Japanese, they have alienated the brands. What they (DMG) want is what NASCAR offers: an "emphasis" in house hold name brands while the manufactures and riders are the blurred pons in a sea of crystal clear riding billboards.

What do you see when you tune into a Nascar race? Answer: A star studded series of billboards with four wheels attached...nobody can distinguish the manufacture of the car! That is because it doesn't matter what the manufacture is of the car, but rather the logo splattered on that car. The cars are referred to by the NUMBER, that is NOT the driver. They commonly say: the number 8 car, or the number 20 car, etc. etc.

Edmondson comes out and says they are trying to "unburden" the manufactures in the AMA by taking away their factory efforts and brand recognition in the race and you swallow completely the bold face ......... Haha, no wonder you have your political views, you're so easily fooled. Wake up lex. Its not that hard to see.

6410:nascar_2b.jpg]

DMG doesn't give a .... about the riders or manufactures in the AMA--he wants them as nameless as possible...that is until he needs them to speak for a promotion or commercial. As you read in the article, he has a VISION--here it is!

TIDE
HOME DEPOT
TARGET
DU PONT
NET ZERO
VIAGRA
AOL
US ARMY
LOWES
etc, etc etc.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 7 2009, 05:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Do you have a link to the Schwantz interview. I found it on OTT using search, but it doesn't link me to the article.

LINK

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 7 2009, 12:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The problem is not even the American distributors can afford to buy the $250,000 full factory WSBK kit. I like your ideals, but the problem with the AMA was not ideological. The problem is financial and organizational. I hate compromise unless it is absolutely necessary.
Another reason why it would be beneficial to have a rules package that is closer to WSBK and BSB. Save costs for the manufacturers and suddenly there is no $250,000 to spend in the AMA and another $500,000 between BSB and WSBK. We align with them and the manufacturers can build one spec bike, making it more affordable while maintaining the speed and power we want to see from a Superbike.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 7 2009, 12:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Edmondson is trying to remove the burden of funding the AMA from the manufacturers so they can focus exclusively on marketing and advertising. If this were WSBK or MotoGP it would be an ignoble demotion for the manufacturers, but the AMA is just a national feeder series for the time being.
Jumkie really said it best.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Apr 7 2009, 02:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Oh poor manufactures, they are soo "burdened". Why do you think they call it a "factory" effort? Hello, these guys are in compitition with eachother. You cite the activity of "marketting" and "advertising" but you fail to see the most compelling marketting message: We beat the other guys so ours is better so buy our ....!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 7 2009, 12:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The difference between those who support Edmondson and those who despise him is rooted in the past. If you realize the past was a lost cause, it make the present more palatable. The AMA was nearly bankrupted by road racing, that's why they sold it.

You have good ideals, but the AMA has worked itself into such a predicament that it cannot continue the way it was. The benefactors that supported the old AMA could not continue on forever (the AMA least of all). Edmondson's first goal is to make the AMA sustainable.
The more I think of it, the less I think the AMA was broken. They just needed some creative minds in the marketing department. Every time I think of the hope I have for this series in RE's hands and the only positive I can see coming from it is expanding the series and improving exposure. Wiping out the system in place and replacing it with someone that has been flat out rejected by participants and informed fans alike has nothing to do with improving exposure.

I get the feeling that Ed would love to eliminate Mat from the series, he'd pay to have him spectate. Everything else he said is waffle and spin, exactly what the guy is paid to do.

Where this prick really starts to shine is the comparison between WSBK and AMA at Miller, he finally got around to saying it was about the cash, which is fine he's there to make money, look Roger plain and simple the fans are sick of hearing ........ excuses out of your word hole. So basically if Miller had ponied up the dough the AMA/WSBK weekend would have happened end of story. RE can shove his perceptions up his arse.

That Buell story cracked me up. Win on Sunday sell on Monday, I guess Rotax will be busy wilh all the extra orders.

For me the 'Superbike' series has changed very little. There used to be two world class guys now there is only one, behind him is some 'good' racing if you like seeing Taylor Knapp race Josh Hayes, snooze. The '600' class is crazy, eslickballs is just amazing, I guess when he rides a 4000cc Buell in Superbike he'll be considered the next Spies. What's the other class one with the 6 rider field?

I still like watching the series mainly now because I want Mat to complete a perfect season. It will be great once he really gets the bike to feel like a Superbike, its bye bye.

I've attached a photo of RE's suggestion box. All the fans are welcome to use it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Apr 7 2009, 03:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>We beat the other guys so ours is better so buy our ....!


Quoted again, as this is the only reason motorcycle companies race. It is the simplest form of advertisement and 100% always works.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Apr 7 2009, 08:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>What they (DMG) want is what NASCAR offers: an "emphasis" in house hold name brands while the manufactures and riders are the blurred pons in a sea of crystal clear riding billboards.

You are dead wrong

Actually if you talk to 99% of all Nascar fans they will tell you the driver they like. They will say, I like Jimmy Johnson, Greg Biffle, Jeff Gordon, Junior, Tony Stewart etc. I never hear a fan say they like the number 46 car. There are a few ladies in the office that like Kyle Bush's car becasue they like M&M's or Snickers though The announcers do call them by number some of the time, sometimes by name, and even lesser times by car model. Maybe they should switch and start calling them by the brand or business that they are advertising then it would be one long commercial but I never heard an announcer say, the snickers car is a little loose on corner exit. It's funny that you are so hard headed that you will fail to admit that NASCAR works. The fans love the drivers, the racing, the event. Believe it or not the manufacturers get their name out there. And the sponsors get there moneys worth. It's a very nice package for all involved.

I will admit that motorcycle racing events are different but I have yet to make up my mind wether that difference is of huge significance to warrant a completely different approach in order to have a successful series.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SackWack @ Apr 8 2009, 08:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You are dead wrong

Actually if you talk to 99% of all Nascar fans they will tell you the driver they like.

My point wasn't that complicated, was it? But you managed to miss it. Of course the fans follow the drivers, those drivers are the pons while the business men running it make "impressions" on you (the fan) while hooked. Do you know what "impressions" means in marketing/advertising?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Here is the definition from the business dictionary; Impression in Advertising: Number of audience exposed to a media schedule. (the media schedule being the commercial messages).

My point was that this is DMG's ultimate plan. Its not that they care about the rider/manufactures, but rather the business opportunity is the "emphasis". Look, WWF is a great business, but is it a great authentic competition?




<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SackWack @ Apr 8 2009, 08:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I will admit that motorcycle racing events are different but I have yet to make up my mind wether that difference is of huge significance to warrant a completely different approach in order to have a successful series.

If you like WWF, then yeah, I can see why you don't mind. You get everything the gullible viewer wants: action, spectacle, production, bright lights, and the appearance of competition. All the while the puppet master pulls the strings of “impression” with a host of ads, some you don’t even notice conscientiously; oh that is while you chant for your favorite “character” (rider/driver/wrestler, etc).

Fox has it too easy! (Yes, I'm stooping, sorry, can't help it buddy).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 8 2009, 11:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>@ Jumkie what development is being achieved by adding 100,000 in titanium and carbon fiber. Those technologies won't be viable in the production market until costs come down. Moto manufacturers can't control commodities costs.

You develop them to find way to make the products costs less.

Computers were huge and cost thousands of dollars when they first were introduced. But as they spent billions of dollars developing them, the costs have dropped to where a good computer can be bought for 5-6 hundred dollars. What you are saying is that the computer developers should have left the computer alone and hoped the prices went down.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 8 2009, 12:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>How do DMG benefit from hooking teams up with sponsors?

Same way they benefit Nascar. The sponsors continue to grow within the series and demand live television (some may even pay for it) on a network people actually watch. That in turn, brings a television package from a major network. That brings in tens of millions a year. Advertisement money in the form of official sponsors comes in. Soon it is the "Red Bull AMA Superbike Series Presented by Eddy's Ice Cream". You have so many sponsors, you can make rules to outlaw certain products (Nascar and hard liquor was banned for decades).

It sounds great doesn't it? But unless your a Nascar fan, and the ontrack product doesn't mean a big deal for you, then it is a great idea.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 8 2009, 12:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Did Dell directly drive the cost down?

Yes! Their was a demand for a more cost effective computer, so Dell found out how to make the computer more affordable.

Just like bikes. People demand carbon fiber body parts, brake rotors, Titanium swing arms, and they manufacturers use racing to develop these parts so they are possible to the average rider.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 8 2009, 08:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>First of all, I didn't buy RE's bull about the burden of racing. In my original post I had a paragraph where I said that the manufacturers don't believe it to be a burden but the AMA had become so dependent upon manufacturer participation that the relationship could have changed at a moments notice. For instance, right now budgets have been cut significantly, the costs of running the AMA would eventually have fallen to the manufacturers because the AMA was slowly going bankrupt and losing membership. That's why the AMA sold the rights to the sport. The board consists of many manufacturers and they approved the sale.

Well you could have fooled me, but thanks for the clarification. Lex, I understand that the AMA in its previous state was screwed up. I agree, that selling the promotion/commercial rights was a good move. I had high hopes when I heard it was sold. I still do have high hopes but they have been dampened a bit by DMG's approach and alienation of "good" voices of the sport. So far I've recognized a push to take the series in a direction that I'm not in agreement with, and I'm not alone. People much more informed than me are also up in arms. You continue to hammer this point about the manufactures being the bad guys, but you have forgot that the first proposals by DMG were an attack on the sensibility of their avid participation in the sport. Yes, lots of blame to go around, and yes there is always resistance to change, but DMG's approach and the product we have today speaks for itself. Do I need to remind you?: No coverage, no real superbikes, a quagmire of a class appropriately named "Daytona", alienated manufactures, alienated venues, alienated riders, and most dastardly, alienated fans.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Second, motorcycles can't become rolling billboards while on track because the rider covers much of the bike during the race.

6414:_motogp_...Flakes_2.jpg]


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>The rider can't be lost because he is riding on the bike and hanging off all the while. MotoGP/WSBK bikes have tons more sponsors than AMA bikes, why do you start whining as soon as Edmondson shows up?

I have issues with MotoGP too, as I recall, you've been doing alot of "whining" about them and alot of "crying" especially over their executive Ezy.

However, you still fail to see the difference in business approach between Dorna and DMG. Dorna have failed (or maybe haven't tried) to nascarize their series. DMG is clearly trying to use the nascar business model! (Do you deny this point?)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>You people have an hilarious irrational fear of NASCAR---a series Edmondson has never worked for.

Ah, again, why do I bother? First of all, let me ask you a few questions.

Is DMG executives closely tied to Nascar executives?
Do the new elements introduced to AMA (Daytona) have a Nascar familiarity?
Is the business model, similar to that used in Nascar?

(Hint: you should have answered YES to all of them).

So then, what do you think the final end game is for AMA under the direction of DMG?


Ok, let me clarify to you, the fear is NOT that they will expand the sport and bring in new sponsorship money, that is a good thing! The problem is so far it looks like to get to this "vision" they have compromised the premier class and dumbed it down (which has its pros and cons but ironically they have not achieved what they wanted) and have made a contrived class in Daytona which everybody except those proposing it and benefiting from it can see its mockery.

So no, I don't mind Edmondson making changes, as long as they don't insult my intelligence about what is motorcycle racing--which he has been doing hand over fist.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 8 2009, 08:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>@ Jumkie what development is being achieved by adding 100,000 in titanium and carbon fiber. Those technologies won't be viable in the production market until costs come down. Moto manufacturers can't control commodities costs.
Oh lex, is this the only "development" you could come up with? Making the bike lighter? Haha, you're clutching at straws. C'mon man, hello, suspension, traction control, safety equipment, etc. These are things that make our production motorcycles better and safer. The only place they can test and discover this is in a controlled environment under rigorous condition offered by competition. (What a minute, didn't you have a similar argument when they got ride of the tire war in MotoGP?)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Apr 8 2009, 09:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>How do DMG benefit from hooking teams up with sponsors?

I'm sure they get a small rip if they brokered the deal, but for the most part the rolling billboards benefit the teams and not DMG.

Do I really need to answer this question? Hahahahaha. Wow!

Hello, lex, where is the greatest value in their business? (Hint: TV) You should know better lex, the TV rights is where the money is at, don't you know? Why do you think they can't afford live TV coverage? (Yet)


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>You're right about winning being the ultimate marketing tool. Now the manufacturers have to hire people capable of winning rather than circumvent the rules.

Who was circumventing the rules. (I'm sure Povol might have something to add about this. )