The Phil Mickelson Effect and California: Taxed to the MAX!!!

[sdduuuude]

Also consider – sponsorships are marketing expenses. If companies don’t pay the sponsorship, they will spend the money on other marketing vehicles. If sponsorships are a more efficient way of marketing than other alternatives, then they have the effect of reducing the cost of the products, really.

[all]

[quote=sdduuuude]Please list 3 products you purchased from Phil’s sponsors this year.[/quote]

I filled up at Exon in Carmel Mountain and tool Advil this morning. That’s 2/3 🙂

[sdduuuude]

You must be a poor person, forced into taking Advil by “the man”

[SK in CV]

[quote=sdduuuude]Also consider – sponsorships are marketing expenses. If companies don’t pay the sponsorship, they will spend the money on other marketing vehicles. If sponsorships are a more efficient way of marketing than other alternatives, then they have the effect of reducing the cost of the products, really.[/quote]

That’s a new one. Advertising and marketing reduces costs. I suspect there is no evidence to support that claim.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=sdduuuude]Also consider – sponsorships are marketing expenses. If companies don’t pay the sponsorship, they will spend the money on other marketing vehicles. If sponsorships are a more efficient way of marketing than other alternatives, then they have the effect of reducing the cost of the products, really.[/quote]

That’s a new one. Advertising and marketing reduces costs. I suspect there is no evidence to support that claim.[/quote]

A failed attempt to put words in my mouth.

I said that one form of advertising costs less than another.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdduuuude]Please list 3 products you purchased from Phil’s sponsors this year.[/quote]

First, this:

“Phil Mickelson

Professional golfer Phil Mickelson has struck huge endorsement deals over the years, and it is more than what he makes at golf tournaments. In 2010, Phil banked $57 million through various endorsements, such as Callaway, Rolex, and ExxonMobil, among many others. Phil was second on the Sports Illustrated Fortunate 50 list in 2011, right behind fellow golfer Tiger Woods. One reason why Phil has been so lucky in the endorsement department is his clean personal and professional life, since he is an upstanding citizen and never seems to be on the wrong size of the tabloids.”

————–

As for my purchases directly related to Phil Mickelson, Exxon would be on the list. For the PGA: Shell Oil, Farmer’s Insurance, Honda, GM (cars are from a few years ago), FedEx, MasterCard, Coca-Cola products.

But it’s not just Phil Mickelson, and it’s not just the PGA. It’s ALL of the highly-paid athletes and entertainers (though I believe those in the movie business are truly more reliant on actual box office receipts, in general). They do not get their money from people who buy tickets to see their games nor from those who pay for exclusive channels. They get the bulk of their money from consumers of everyday items — people who may or may not watch TV or sports. Add to this the obscene executive pay and the pay of every middleman involved in sports/entertainment industries.

Instead, let’s bitch about the (MUCH lower) pay of teachers, cops, firefighters, and nurses who truly are vital to our economy and quality of life.

[no_such_reality]

CAR, if people didn’t line up in droves to buy the cr*p, those obscenely paid athletes wouldn’t get paid.

As for idiot boy, I can choose not to pay to see his events, I can choose not to watch his events, I can choose to buy his sponsors competitor’s products.

That last part is the key. For sponsors like Callaway, his largest sponsor, it’s as difficult as picking up the competitors clubs standing next to the sponsors clubs in the golf shop.

For Exxon, probably 50% of the time, the competitor is literally on one of the other three corners of the intersection.

To choose different cops, or teachers, or governmental bureaucracy, it’s sell the house, move, change schools, uproot/close/restart your business.

Now for math. The masters has about 7 Million people watching it live. Most of them are tuning it to watch probably less than 10 of the players.

On Sunday, over 100 Million people are expected to watch the Superbowl.

Every month Oprah use to pick a book, it pretty much instantly sold a million plus copies.

That elementary teacher has 20 kids in their class.

Now if the teacher inspires every kid’s parents to spend an average of $1000, they’ll have $20,000 for the school.

On Sunday, if they inspire 1 in 10 viewers an average spend of $100, they’ll have $10,000,000,000.

[all]

[quote=sdduuuude]You must be a poor person, forced into taking Advil by “the man”[/quote]

I got headache when I realized the local convenience store no longer carries Rolex. I buy Rolex for Roger Federer, but Advil for Phil.

[CA renter]

[quote=no_such_reality]CAR, if people didn’t line up in droves to buy the cr*p, those obscenely paid athletes wouldn’t get paid.

As for idiot boy, I can choose not to pay to see his events, I can choose not to watch his events, I can choose to buy his sponsors competitor’s products.

That last part is the key. For sponsors like Callaway, his largest sponsor, it’s as difficult as picking up the competitors clubs standing next to the sponsors clubs in the golf shop.

For Exxon, probably 50% of the time, the competitor is literally on one of the other three corners of the intersection.

To choose different cops, or teachers, or governmental bureaucracy, it’s sell the house, move, change schools, uproot/close/restart your business.

Now for math. The masters has about 7 Million people watching it live. Most of them are tuning it to watch probably less than 10 of the players.

On Sunday, over 100 Million people are expected to watch the Superbowl.

Every month Oprah use to pick a book, it pretty much instantly sold a million plus copies.

That elementary teacher has 20 kids in their class.

Now if the teacher inspires every kid’s parents to spend an average of $1000, they’ll have $20,000 for the school.

On Sunday, if they inspire 1 in 10 viewers an average spend of $100, they’ll have $10,000,000,000.[/quote]

More often than not, even the competitors’ products will be from companies who advertise and who have massively overpaid executives, etc. We do not *really* have a choice, and that is the point I’m trying to make. We are forced to pay someone’s bloated salary/wages/commissions because we need to buy “stuff” in order to live. Try making it through life in Southern California without a car, without gasoline, without a credit card, without soaps, shampoos, paper towels, napkins, clothing, etc. (even store brands use advertising), even cable/internet/cell phone because we are now expected to electronically submit employment applications and be available electronically for most jobs.

Whether private or public, most of us feel that we have to “overpay” somebody in order to get through life. We do not have a choice unless we build an off-grid hut in the mountains and live off the land.

[Author]

Posts