Sponsor Renewal - less for more - WHAAAAAAAAAT???

Why is it that after a season with sponsors that when you go to renewal their contracts, they pay less over more races. I understand if you have had a not so good season, but when you have won a championship, come 2nd in the next championship, that they would be happy to be in a title contender team and want to pay more money to be on that team.

Renewal for less over more time should be more money, not less.

Can someone explaine please or is it getting fixed?

Yeah seems completely backwards to me. And it's the same for Engine,Fuel Tires. Keep paying less for them? Seems like a small team would get a good deal, and a large team with more funds would pay more. I doubt there is much of a bulk discount in F1 Racing. :P

I'm guessing the reason they have it that way is because if you keep getting more you'll never switch sponsors. I think the point is to make you switch at times and with better relationships you can ask for more from a smaller sponsor than you were getting at first from a larger sponsor.

It is not backwards. Do you think all compaines have bottomless pits of money laying around? Of course they will slowly cut  back if you keep extending. Your only course of action is to "renegotiate" for a new contract.

It's kinda nonsense. People just sign the 5 races deal to get the most money. And they keep doing this every 5 races. Why a person in his right mind would sign a longer deal ?

On another note, a championship or race win bonus would be nice, but I think people will find a way to abuse the system.

it is backwards, you think that a top level team arnt getting the most sponsor dollars compared to a team that never wins races, never wins a chanmpionship. Come on, they are the best teams and if companies want there brand, name on that car, they will pay big dollars for it.

You think VodaFone are paying huge dollars, and that it gets less after each season. I dont think so.

It needs to be changed. If you run the contact out, then surely the sponsor looks at that and thinks, "well you didnt want to renew your contact, now if you want us, its going to be for less" If you had renewed, they would have given more from the previous season.

Its called diminishing returns.

There is NO impetus that makes a business think, "GOSH, I WANT TO PAY THIS TEAM MORE MONEY BECAUSE THEY'RE AWESOME." The only time you'll see a sponsor pay more is when the ROI merits it.

Think of it this way - how much TOTAL OUTLAY would a 5-race deal for, say, $1,280,000 per race be, versus a 17-race sponsorship deal? Do you really think it makes sense for a longer-term deal to be MORE per race than a shorter-term deal? No business run by anyone with any intelligence would make a deal like that.

Now, having said that, there is a case to be made for performance-based incentives, such as bonuses for wins and a championship, as well as goal-based bonuses on a per-race basis.

Tony, i do see your point.

So to get more $$$$, just sign several short term deals over the season. more money long term.

Just renew every 5 races of if you are not at the maximum income, then keep sucking up to them and make a new contract after yours expires.

Yes the system is right that shorter contracts should pay more for sponsorship.

But yes performance based rewards are a good idea to implement. Different sponsors may bigger bonuses but have harder to achieve benchmarks. Other sponsors might pay on quali rather than race result. Some sponsors might have a bonus if the driver is a certain nationality or results in certain countries etc etc.

Also an idea to implement is some sponsors may have a performance bonus. I.e. you could be sponsored by 'seashells' they don't pay much but they give a marginal performance boost. Or you could have yodafone and they pay much more but have no performance boost. You could be sponsored by 'Outel' and have a small improvement in development rates. 'Johnnie' might boost moreale etc etc.

I think that would be better implemented when the sponsors and suppliers become dynamic instead of static. If, say, Seashells' quality could fluctuate over time, but in "down" periods of quality it could provide a beneficial effect on a team attribute (i.e. Commercial), then that would make choosing providers more exciting and worth a bigger risk.