IndyCar Economics: TCGR Deep Capture

IndyCar managers, competitors and fans have been sold a myth. Conventional wisdom posits that marketers of consumer products will not sponsor individual racing teams and events. Empirical evidence informs us that this is not true. We need only look at NASCAR's (sans-culottes!) various divisions to find consumer product logos prominently displayed on racing cars.

Deep Capture: Target Chip Ganassi Racing

In fact, IndyCar has many consumer product sponsors. The problem is that most of them contribute funding to only two cars. This is due to the supply chain arbitraging activities of Target Chip Ganassi Racing. Here is a partial list.

• TomTom
• Energizer
• Vaseline
• Polaroid
• Gillette
• Memorex
• GLAD
• Nicorette
  
• amp Energy
• SoBe
• Brita Filter
• GE Reveal
• Lysol
• Maxwell House
• Dove
• Oreo
• Air Wick
• Champion
• Sherwin-Williams
• Purina
• Life Water
• Lexar
• Bosch
  

These are not Mom & Pop operations. They are large firms that spend hundreds of millions each year on sports advertising. Unfortunately, almost none of it goes to IndyCar racing. Yes, these companies have logos on the Target cars, but that is only because they have received much more valuable consideration in a completely separate market.

Protectionism through Technology

The most vocal proponent of high-tech racing among team managers is Target Chip Ganassi Racing's Mike Hull. This would not surprise an economist. Hull and TCGR's interests are completely misaligned with those of the IRL and the balance of IndyCar teams.

Target Ganassi Racing has every reason to want the cost of IndyCar racing to exceed the product's market value. We know that this is counter-intuitive but ask that you stick with us.

Given the cost of operating an IndyCar team, Ganassi possesses an insurmountable advantage when it comes to acquiring sponsorship from marketers of consumer goods. He can arrange for concessions at Target Stores, a very large and powerful national retailer. That is why new consumer products sponsors such as Vaseline and TomTom seem to show up only on the TCGR cars.

Robin Miller and others have reported that Chip Ganassi's deal with Target does not permit him to add another primary sponsor for an additional car unless that sponsor's total contribution per car is greater than Target's. This clause is extremely important. It is likely the foundation of Mike Hull's fondness for expensive technology.

Breaking Up TCGR's TomTom Club

TomTom has been Dario Franchitti's primary sponsor at three events this season. We do not know how much TomTom contributed to TCGR via Target's arbitraged supply chain, so we will assume that the value is $3 million; that's $1 million per race of primary sponsorship. Remember, however, that the amount has little if anything to do with TomTom wanting its name on a race car. The payments to Ganassi are the cost of consideration in another market - shelf space, in-store promotion kiosks, or some such for TomTom products at Target.

Now, let's assume that IRL management decides to get the cost of operating an IndyCar team aligned with the market value of the product that IndyCar teams produce. That, of course, would mean that a 17-race season would cost approximately $1.3 million per car for a championship caliber team.

Adjusting cost to value would provide TomTom - indeed, all of Ganassi's associate sponsors - a broader range of appealing options in the IndyCar Series. Primary sponsorship of an Indy car - a competitive Indy car that could win the Indy 500 and the season championship - would be a rationally justifiable marketing expense because its price would match its actual value, $1.3 million. However, Chip Ganassi is unable to add a TomTom entry to his stable; $1.3 million doesn't come close to the amount per car that he arbitrages from Target's supply chain.

It is entirely plausible that TomTom would choose to decrease its contribution to TCGR from $3 million to $1.7 million. It could then reallocate the $1.3 million to another IndyCar team that has no restrictions on the amount it can accept for primary sponsorship.

Target would not suffer a cash loss. It would continue to grant $1.7 million in non-cash consideration to TomTom. Chip Ganassi and Mike Hull would suffer greatly. The entire $1.3 million cash decrease would come from their operating budget.

Extrapolate this result across multiple TCGR associate sponsors - Energizer, Gillette, Nicorette, Lifelock, Polaroid, Vaseline, etc. - and you will discover that the financial risk accumulates rather quickly for Target Chip Ganassi Racing.

Good for IndyCar; Bad for TCGR


A redistribution of consumer products sponsors across multiple IndyCar teams would be very good for the IndyCar Series. It would be very bad for Target Chip Ganassi Racing. Mike Hull therefore has every incentive to prevent the IRL from adopting a rational cost structure for IndyCar team operations.

That is why Hull loves expensive technology. He has said on many occasions that technological solutions are the future of the IndyCar Series. He had better hope so, because a reasonably priced series won't just cost him on the race track. It could remove a considerable sum from his pocket, as well.

The Committee of Public Safety finds it both sad and hilarious that Hull has so many allies at lesser teams, including some that are dormant, who follow his lead on the tech issue. Hull is pantsing these guys on the track and at the deposit window, and they apparently can't get enough. Perhaps it makes them feel good to agree with a winner.

We hope that IRL management does not take Hull's comments at face value. Someone must recognize the economic interests and resulting behavior of IndyCar stakeholders. However, our previous Deep Capture analysis of Honda and IndyCar TEAM does not encourage optimism.

The IRL appears to be the type of organization where a cliche such as, "You can't put technology back in the bottle," passes for wisdom and ends all debate. In fact, you most certainly can put technology back in the bottle. That's why sanctioning bodies write and enforce technical rules. When all but two teams can't afford technology, you really have no choice but to put it back in the bottle. Who at the IRL is going to tell that to Mike Hull?

Target Chip Ganassi Racing has the most to lose - by far - in the event that IndyCar reinvents itself as a competitive product in the consumer marketplace. We hope that IRL management understands and moves forward with plans for new specs that cost no more than $1.3 million to operate for a 17-race season.

Roggespierre