Monday, May 15, 2006

Toyota but one factor accelerating change in the business of racing

Late Saturday night, as Greg Biffle was celebrating his win at Darlington, someone in the media center was working on a sidebar.
In newspaper lingo, a sidebar is a story related to but not directly covering a particular event. Jim Utter, for instance, wrote at sidebar for The Observer Saturday night about runner-up finisher Jeff Gordon while I wrote the "lead" race story.
I was up in the press box, so I couldn't see who it was that asked Jack Roush about Toyota during the postrace interview. Undoubtedly, his sidebar regarded Dale Jarrett's signing with Michael Waltrip Racing and Toyota for 2007.
The question, however, was general enough to allow Roush to go anywhere he wanted to with it - something like "How will Toyota change the way things are done in the garage?"
Here's some of what Roush had to say in response: "..."I know there was a lot to do in the papers last week about the fact that Toyota was not spending their money on race teams and was not going to create the imbalance that would exist if one manufacturer did more than another, but they're giving their money to Michael Waltrip and to the other teams that they've got started so their fingerprints are all over what's happening. They are in fact raiding the garage and that's going to have an impact.
"...I know we've talked to Ford about it. I've talked to NASCAR about it. One of the things that has made NASCAR competition so close and so interesting to all the fans is the fact that there is parity.
"There is parity among the drivers' ability at the very top. There's parity technically among the teams and there's parity among the manufacturers with regard to what they've been able to do or willing to do with supporting the teams and with bringing technology.
"But Toyota has a chance of breaking that parity and we'll just have to see what happens."
A couple of things about that give me pause. And this is not only about what Roush had to say, because he merely voiced an opinion that we're hearing a lot of these days.
First, there's this business of "raiding" the garage. As I said in part of the Monday Darlington follow-up stuff we did in the paper, doesn't it stand to reason that anybody coming into the sport to form a new team is going to try to hire good people away from current teams? Where else do you find good people?
As Roush Racing and Hendrick Motorsports and other multicar teams grew from two to three to four and even to five teams, didn't they sometimes go to other teams to find employees for their staff additions?
You certainly can't expect Toyota team owners to populate their staffs completely with people who haven't been in the Cup garage, not if they want to be competitive any time soon.
Then there is the whole "parity" issue. Roush has a point there, in the sense that if it becomes a matter of one manufacturer subsidizing its teams to a degree that no other manufacturer can or is willing to do, the balance is going to be upset.
But couldn't it just as truthfully be argued that the exact same thing has already happened in the sport?
Substitute "team owner" for "manufacturer" in that previous paragraph and see if you don't agree.
Perhaps "subsidizing" is not the correct verb, since it's not that Roush or Rick Hendrick or other multicar team owners are spending their own millions to support their three- to five-car teams.
Sponsors provide much of that money, sponsors who want to be associated with winners and are willing to pay $15 million or $20 million to get it.
The rise of multicar teams in the sport has certainly changed the competitive balance. Single-car teams can't keep up these days, not because the people who work for them aren't good racers. The business model has changed.
A sponsor who might have to spend $15 million for 36 races on a single-car team could come to Roush and spend $10 million and be part of five cars, and get five drivers to make appearances and do commercials.
The buzz in the garage right now is that Toyota is offering "cut-rate" full-season sponsorship opportunities. Michael Waltrip, for instance, could sell a sponsor 36 races for $8-$10 million instead of up to twice that much. He'd make up the difference because Toyota is either paying him more directly or is paying indirectly by doing many of the engineering and car development functions for all three Toyota team owners instead of having each owner having to do that on his own.
I don't know if that's what is happening or not. But if it is, isn't that just another example of changing the business model?
If I am a sponsor and somebody tells me they can get the job done for 36 races for $10 million, there'd better be a good explanation as to why that wouldn't work for the team I'm currently giving $20 million to.
Roush and Hendrick and the rest of the guys who own multiple-car teams right now have worked hard to make their businesses work. But just like racing evolves, business does, too.
When the game changes, you have to adapt. If Toyota's arrival changes the way business is done in NASCAR, as so many people think it will, the teams that will be thriving five years from now will be the ones that figure out where the sport is going instead of merely resisting the forces driving it there.
And covering which teams do that and which teams fail won't be just a sidebar over the coming years. That's your lead.

7 comments:

Monkeesfan said...

Yes there is a level of hypocrisy in Jack Roush's criticisms of Toyota. That, though, doesn't make those criticisms invalid.

Does anyone seriously think NASCAR will stop Toyota from bankrupting the competition in the sport the way it has wherever it has raced? This isn't like when Dodge came in, as Dodge came in without close to the same level of resources or ruthlessness displayed by Toyota.

We're seeing it in the Trucks; Toyota won a third of the season's races last year and is still racking up the wins this year, and they are increasing the costs involved because they spend far more in money and engineering than the other brands can afford. Dodge was basically priced into cutting back to one team (Hamilton Racing) while Chevy is not a factor and Ford's only success has been with Mark Martin's Truckwhacking runs.

As for the sport's business model, no one has asked what ought to be a pertinent question - why SHOULD the business model change? Why SHOULD multicar teams be allowed to dominate? That $15 million a sponsor spends to be an associate on a multicar team is not getting that sponsor the exposure bang being a primary sponsor still gets, and the growth of multicar outfits has retracted the number of competitive organizations in the sport.

This sport needs to fundamentally rethink the business model it ought to have.

Anonymous said...

Parity? There may be parity for jack roush and possibly 5 Chevy and 3 Dodge teams, but what about the other 30 teams? jack roush is worried about Toyota, because his
5 teams might not have a lock every weekend. When there isn't 3 to 5 roush cars in the top 5 or 10,
then talk about parity. All he talks about is the money Toyota is going to spend. Nasscar has long taken care of ford, so ole jackie boy needn't worry. Best example the new fusion, approved before it ever went on sale. Ever heard of Chevy or Dodge getting to do that? Also the new fusion(taurus) came out of the box running better than the taurus(fusion). Have you ever heard of a new car be immediately the best without being tweaked? Also the fusion is a four door compact car, that is now a two door full sized race car. Have you ever heard of Chevy doing that? No, jack you don't have to worry nasscar will never let ford, especially your fords not be the best.So, stop all this talk about money, it's all about ford not having to work to be the best. jack roush said the same thing about Dodge when they decided to get back into Nasscar, they haven't dominated or taken over. He complained that Nasscar would let Dodge have the best motors, what did they do, let ford have all new, more hp motor. He complained that they would let Dodge have the aero advantage, so what did they do, they let ford change the nose and tail of the taurus every year, but Nasscar wouldn't let Chevy and Dodge change theirs even when there was a rules change. So, let's not confuse jack roush's complaining about money with real issue.

Monkeesfan said...

anonymous is kidding, right?

"NASCAR has long taken care of Ford." Have they? NASCAR has never been particularly nice to Ford; the bias of its rule changes over the decades has always been toward Chevrolet, from engine placement to wieght distribution to cylinder heads - everything.

Dodge had the best motor, so NASCAR narrowed their cylinder width, which helped Chevy more than Ford and gave Chevy spoiler and airdam concessions to make a raceable car out of the Monte Carlo Intimidator. When they ran the roof spoiler package, Chevy was allowed to run a narrower roof spoiler.

Based on the budding monopoly of Toyota in the Trucks, Roush may have reason for his concerns here.

Anonymous said...

DODGE with the BEST motor!!! Don't make me laugh, NASCAR let Dodge use the "Truck" motor until they could keep a cup motor alive for more then 50 laps, and ROUSH had his own toll free number to NASCAR it was 1-800-CRY-BABY, if CHevrolet had the BEST motor why on earth is there a Chevy motor with FORD heads at RCR...they where trying to find out WHY Ford made more power!

Monkeesfan said...

anonymous is digging a bigger credibility hole here. It was a brand new engine that the Winston Cup teams raced from the start of 2001 onward; they never used the Truck engine in the Cup series.

Dodge had the best motor, so NASCAR narrowed their cylinder width. It's that simple.

Anonymous said...

REALLY monkeesfan? Did you work in the Industry? yeah you must not have got the memo...Yeah and Ray Evernham just wanted to try somthing different, Lifetime banishment? or Headup Dodge's cup program? Some day, some one, is gonna pen a tell all book, It'll be the "Divinci Code" of NASCAR and I will so be there to serve your crow, Would Monsuer care for Red WHINE or White WHINE Bon Apptite'!

Monkeesfan said...

anonymous, you keep digging a credibility hole. The Truck motor was never an option for the Winston Cup program.

"Lifetime banishment?" What are you talking about?