You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
I was just doing some reading up on advertising budgets.
Coca Cola's advertising budget in 2013 was over $3 billion per annum!
I really think we are underestimating the potential for harnessing such budgets to fund a Mars Mission.
It's really a chicken and egg problem. All that is required is a credible mission strategy - something Space X could provide.
If we were looking for say $5billion of commercial sponsorship over ten years to help fund a mission, I think we could be looking at the following sort of break down PER ANNUM over the ten years:
1. Top soft drinks sponsor (e.g. Coca Cola) - $150 million
2. Top IT sponsor (e.g. Apple) - $75 million
3. Sports goods (e.g. Nike) - $50million
4. Top private vehicle sponsor (e.g. Toyota) - $50 million
6. Top haulage vehicle - $ 25 million
7. Power tools - $25 million
8. Top beer sponsor - $25 million
9. Other product categories - $100 million
In return sponsors would get their labels on all aspects of the mission (including the rockets), livery colours and badging for things like the Rover, and the crews' shoes...product placement in the habitat environment...labels featuring at news conferences etc and the right to use the Mars Mission logo etc in their advertising.
The above wouldn't include TV rights (for news and documentaries which could be negotiated separately).
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
Thanks for that. I didn't know the the advertising budgets were that high. That certainly could fund a manned Mars mission. It could also fund a robotic mission to Europa.
Bob Clark
Old Space rule of acquisition (with a nod to Star Trek - the Next Generation):
“Anything worth doing is worth doing for a billion dollars.”
Offline
Like button can go here
The advetising budgets are there to encourage increased product sales and are not a funding for the sport or other activity that they show up on as the main thing at all of the events is there products that are on sale for the patron that has gone to see the event.
So how do we get the same effect when these sponsors have no venue location or event for them to get these increased sales from...
Offline
Like button can go here
The advetising budgets are there to encourage increased product sales and are not a funding for the sport or other activity that they show up on as the main thing at all of the events is there products that are on sale for the patron that has gone to see the event.
So how do we get the same effect when these sponsors have no venue location or event for them to get these increased sales from...
It's not really about the venue location - it's all about being seen on TV, on the internet and in printed media. They are looking for the saturation effect. That's what you would get with a Mars Mission, because such a mission would be news at regular intervals and could also be used in spin-off advertsiting.
However, they aren't going to back anything other than a very credible mission e.g. one driven by Space X.
Mind you, I am not sure if Space X are in the driving seat that commercial sponsorshop will be necessary. Space X could maybe fund a - let's say $20billion mission over 10 years - through its own profits and by getting space agencies on board (beginning of course with NASA).
My point really is that although a figure like $20 billion sounds huge, when you spread that over 10 years, it becomes imaginable and manageable.
Last edited by louis (2015-06-21 05:32:50)
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
Nasa and others already have the internet ect and there is hardly a peep; with the only reason that missions to the moon was part of the cold war propoganda and national pride being televised ....
Offline
Like button can go here
Nasa and others already have the internet ect and there is hardly a peep; with the only reason that missions to the moon was part of the cold war propoganda and national pride being televised ....
What does this mean? Yes, in the late 1950s and throughout the 1960s, it was about winning allies. The Soviet Union started their space program in 1946. Soviet officials told their scientists they could launch a satellite if they build an ICBM. Everyone knows about Sputnik, launched in 1957 on a Soviet ICBM. The message to the world was they could drop a nuclear bomb anywhere on the planet. But they started much earlier. The first dog in space was a suborbital hop, launched in 1951. The Soviets designed Sputnik to transmit a signal that amateur ham radio could receive so American authorities couldn't hide it from the public. The American public was under the delusion that America has technological superiority, so was shocked when Sputnik started beeping. But reality is America didn't do anything with rockets other than intermediate range ballistic missiles, so the Soviets were ahead from 1951. The America public demanded that their government regain superiority, and they had great difficulty considering the Soviets had superiority throughout the 1950s. In fact, every time America tried to do something first in space, the Soviets beat them to it. Apollo 8 was the first time America pulled ahead. So yea, the space race was about propaganda. And once Apollo 11 was achieved, American politicians were no longer interested.
Today there's another problem: American law prohibits NASA from gaining any funding from advertising. At the 2005 Mars Society convention, there were employees from NASA. I mentioned to a few of them my idea of a reality show to replace the space toilet. They said NASA is prohibited form receiving funding from advertising, so Congress would have to give them a special exception to do that. NASA today does have a lot of media coverage: TV news, internet, everything. But they can't use commercial advertising to pay for anything.
Offline
Like button can go here
Doesn't sound like the prohibition on NASA receiving advertising funding wouldn't apply to an international Space X led mission, to which NASA contributed financially or in kind.
SpaceNut wrote:Nasa and others already have the internet ect and there is hardly a peep; with the only reason that missions to the moon was part of the cold war propoganda and national pride being televised ....
What does this mean? Yes, in the late 1950s and throughout the 1960s, it was about winning allies. The Soviet Union started their space program in 1946. Soviet officials told their scientists they could launch a satellite if they build an ICBM. Everyone knows about Sputnik, launched in 1957 on a Soviet ICBM. The message to the world was they could drop a nuclear bomb anywhere on the planet. But they started much earlier. The first dog in space was a suborbital hop, launched in 1951. The Soviets designed Sputnik to transmit a signal that amateur ham radio could receive so American authorities couldn't hide it from the public. The American public was under the delusion that America has technological superiority, so was shocked when Sputnik started beeping. But reality is America didn't do anything with rockets other than intermediate range ballistic missiles, so the Soviets were ahead from 1951. The America public demanded that their government regain superiority, and they had great difficulty considering the Soviets had superiority throughout the 1950s. In fact, every time America tried to do something first in space, the Soviets beat them to it. Apollo 8 was the first time America pulled ahead. So yea, the space race was about propaganda. And once Apollo 11 was achieved, American politicians were no longer interested.
Today there's another problem: American law prohibits NASA from gaining any funding from advertising. At the 2005 Mars Society convention, there were employees from NASA. I mentioned to a few of them my idea of a reality show to replace the space toilet. They said NASA is prohibited form receiving funding from advertising, so Congress would have to give them a special exception to do that. NASA today does have a lot of media coverage: TV news, internet, everything. But they can't use commercial advertising to pay for anything.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
The closest thing that I can think of what you are thinking of is with Race cars, which are put forth by the auto manufacturers with the cars drivers getting the sponsors to pay for the vehicle used on the track that is developed by the auto manufacturer.
Offline
Like button can go here
Just about everything in the UK is sponsored - from arts, to science, to charities, to sport. I think the same applies in the USA.
The closest thing that I can think of what you are thinking of is with Race cars, which are put forth by the auto manufacturers with the cars drivers getting the sponsors to pay for the vehicle used on the track that is developed by the auto manufacturer.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
Some things are truly ironic. The United States claims to be the world's greatest bastion of free enterprise, and accused the Soviet Union of being the evil communist regime. Yet, NASA is prohibited from accepting any sponsorship. And I saw a TV program this weekend that emphasized that under American law it's illegal for anyone to own or sell moon rocks. Many moon rocks were given away to foreign countries, some of which have sold them. There are Apollo moon rocks currently being sold on eBay. Some are fake, but some are real. The US considers this a heinous crime, and wants the rocks back. When ISS was first constructed, the Russians sold rides to rich individuals at tens of millions of dollars per seat. NASA considered that obscene, wanted bureaucratic control over space. So Russia is now about free enterprise, while the US is communist. Ironic how that works, isn't it?
Offline
Like button can go here
Pages: 1