Doing all this research makes me wonder why the heck businesses chuck money into cycling at all.
Some of them are easy to understand. Pushing your brand name into the public eye makes sense for organisations with a consumer base like Lidl or Unibet or Oatly. Some brands like Shell (I know they aren't sponsoring a team) or DirectEnergie might see cycling as a chance to greenwash their public brand image. But others are harder to understand.
Take Ceratizit. They are really niche cutting tools and cemented carbide things. How on earth do they benefit from the wide exposure that cycling gives? Its not like a supermarket that we can all decide to go to (or not). The number of decision makers who say "yes, let's use Ceratizit cemented carbide doodads" must be tiny. All they've done is ensure that millions of people know their name, but still almost no-one knows what they do and even fewer care. Is that value for money?
It's good that they do, but I find it baffling. How does Ceratizit benefit? Does it maybe give them an edge in closing a big industrial deal when their competitor is a similarly niche company but without a recognisable brand.
No other sport reflects CERATIZIT’s corporate values better than cycling. And at the same time it has a direct link to the products that we develop, manufacture and sell on a daily basis: high-quality precision tools for the cutting tools industry. So what could be more natural than to put together our own women's cycling team with the best female athletes: the CERATIZIT-WNT Pro Cycling Team. The 14 international female athletes act as brand ambassadors and even more: they carry the philosophy of the company into the public eye. https://www.ceratizit.com/int/en/company/sponsorship.html
I guess I'm a bit dumb and just don't understand the intangible benefits of having a recognisable brand.
