Conference 7.286::digital

    
    I'm actually wondering if this is a good investment (we do make these
    "small" donations for this reason, dont we"?).
    
    I say this because both the defender and final challenger in the last
    12-metre Americas (Fremantle Australia) Cup were BOTH sponsored by Digital.
    We received coverage in the trade and even on technology shows.
    
    BUT the real winner was IBM, who had the foresight to sponsor the press
    room rather than any yachts, providing equipment and looking after
    them. They received far better coverage than DEC could have.
    
    Also, how much could we achieve by donating a 9000 to an internal
    development group for simulations of the next generation of chip
    technology ect? All of these donations have some sort of opportunity
    cost, usually never considered when the decision is pieced together.
    I'm sure there are real benefits, but unlike car technology, I dont
    think your local trailer sailor will rush out and buy a Digital computer
    tomorrow, like they will buy a Honda if they see them win Le Mans.
    
    Regards,
    John
    
    
    
    
    

	... pacesetters of the next century.

	As for the business smarts shown, I see some smarts in the hardware
we gave, ie, commodity, low margin, low cost-to-produce, but why did they give
away the SERVICES????  Did anyone think to ask:

	"If we give the iron as a donation, would you be willing to pay for the
	 services for x months?"

Worst they could do was say no!

I have flamed about this when it was announced on Usenet, and I'll flame about
it again here.

1. It is totally parochial, and very much unbecoming of a supposedly
international corporation to be displaying such an affinity with a particular
competitor in an international competition. I hope that the Australian and
Japanese and other Subsidiaries, decide to sponsor their countries entrants,
and that the corporation commits equally to supporting those efforts.

2. As was mentioned, supporting a competitor rahter than an event is one of
the biggest riskcs one can take. I have a close personal contact with this.
Back in 1984, I was involved in a group of people who developed,tested and
manned a lap scoring/time keeping system for the Bathurst 1000 Motor race in
Australia. IBM had bowed out of this after having a team of some 30 people on
sites, with Dual 4381's set up and all sorts of hooha.  We used a pair of
Pro-350's for duobly redundant data capture, broadcasting across an ethernet
to however many number of other Pro350's were set up to receive and display
the data. We were working in Conjunction with ATN7, the television station
that had sole rights to the event. Total expenditure was in the order of $5K,
estimated ROI was in the vicinity of $500K in terms of publicity, airtime
etc...

Now, not long before, One of the big name entrants in this motorrace, had
approached DEC Australia, asking for $300K sponsorship. Fortunately, we
declined, and Wang took him on. He graunched his clutch on the starting grid,
took out two other cars before the flag had come down, and didn't even
complete one lap.

3. Having been through similar situations time and again, I think a relatively
small investment should be made by Digital, to develop some "event -
management" software. Something modular, that could handle the relative
intricacies of yachting or tennis, or the Boston Marathon or an Jerry Lewis
Telethon. Have some small, but powerful configurations available to be shipped
wherever is needed. Make sure we have appropriate T-shirts, Signage, and other
promotional material, and then start getting some of the cheapest and broadest
publicity imaginable. I for one, would be willing to put significant personal
(i.e. Off hours) effort into this.

Peter Q.

	Well, I read the basenote, and thought


	"Humph, why should we sponsor the American entrant, I bet Digital won't 
	sponsor the UK sprinters in the next Olympic games."

	"I can understand sponsoring the event, but sponsoring the American 
	entrant - well obviously America has forgotten the rest of the world 
	exists - as they always do"

	These were my initial thoughts, I wonder how our customers outside
	of America feel.      

	Heather

    
    
      What's the big deal?  Digital sponsors  local and worldwide
    events in several different countries.   While I agree it's
    a _lot_  of money,  and the return is questionable,  why is
    this particular case different than our sponsoring of the
    "SCHNEIDER TROPY"  Airplane race in the UK?  
    
                                              -al
    

It may be (modestly) pointed out that Digital Sweden sponsored the
Swedish America's Cup boat (in 1976 or -77 -- I can't remember which).
The sponsorship consisted of an LSI-11 and a field-service guy who,
in addition to being a world-champion sailor, ran the computer, non-tactical
navigation, and one winch.  We also used the office PDP-8 to do some
of the design calculations.  Times have changed, haven't they?

I think our LSI-11 was the first on-boat computer that was used during
the race itself.

re: the Boston Marathon -- Digital computers have been used for race
timing for the past two years.  The system is provided by AB-Mac,
who developed the entire system -- it's a business for them.  I provide
support in the press-room, using a battery of Macintosh computers.

Martin.

re .5

You said it yourself, Digital does sponsor events. In this case, they are
sponsoring an entrant.

q

RE: .7

Digital Italy sponsor Scuderia Ferrari's Formula 1 race cars.  As previously
mentioned, Digital Sweden sponsored the Swedish America's Cup yacht.  It
is therefore in keeping with these precedents for Digital U.S. to sponsor
the U.S. America's Cup yacht.

--PSW

>      <<< Note 1454.8 by PSW::WINALSKI "Careful with that VAX, Eugene" >>>

>Digital Italy sponsor Scuderia Ferrari's Formula 1 race cars.  As previously
>mentioned, Digital Sweden sponsored the Swedish America's Cup yacht.  It
>is therefore in keeping with these precedents for Digital U.S. to sponsor
>the U.S. America's Cup yacht.

Precendent doesn't make a thing right, only easier to justify.

Is this "doing the right thing" ?

Craig

Like most things, it becomes questionable when it's done by Americans.

    I didnt see a problem with sponsoring an entrant or even an American
    entrant, I still dont think its good business, particularly since
    the rules (if they are the same) are very strict on when you can
    advertise. Basically you cant, not during a race.
    
    It is simply not like the car sponsorship of Ferrari, where we
    have a small logo attached, but its seen in every race. I have
    no idea what Ferrari's computer systems cost to run or whether
    we do it for free or not, but I would think that some very serious
    costing should precede any decision for this type or largesse.
    
    It reeks of plaything, those with the fingers on the purse strings
    being able to satisfy their whims. I'd like to see the justification in
    the same way that I have to go through justification agony just to 
    get any equipment. This should have been a hard BUSINESS decision to
    make and once the decision to sponsor was made, what the best BUSINESS
    decision was in regard to who to sponsor or what to sponsor. Who knows
    perhaps patting syndicate members on the back like this is the way the
    corporation gets big accounts these days? perhaps it would then be
    BUSINESS.
    
    John

re .7

The Press release says Digital Equipment Corporation, it does not say Digital
Equipment Corporation (U.S. Area)

q

That's because the official name of our U.S. corporate entity is simply
"Digital Equipment Corporation", unqualified.  Futhermore, the promo materials
surrounding our Ferrari sponsorship in Italy don't talk about "DEC Italy",
they just talk about DEC.

I don't see anything wrong with this, provided, as mentioned in a previous
reply, that the business justification is there.

--PSW

It would only be appropriate to say (U.S. Area) if the decision to support
the U.S. entrant to the America's Cup event had been made by the U.S. Area
management team.

I'll bet the decision was made at the corporate level.

re Ferrari sponsorship

I'll bet they do talk about DEC Italy.  They probably say

	Digital Equipment S.p.A.

"Digital Equipment Corporation" is the name of the company _in_the_U.S._only._

In other countries, it has different names:

	Digital Equipment GmbH					Germany
	Digital Equipment International GmbH			Germany mfg
	Digital Equipment Corporation Gesellschaft m.b.H.	Austria
	Digital Equipment N.V./S.A.				Belgium
	Digital Equipment Corporation A/S			Denmark
	Digital Equipment Corporation Oy			Finland
	Digital Equipment France				Guess where
	Digital Equipment (Europe) S.A.R.L.			France Euro
	Digital Equipment (DEC) Ltd.				Israel
	Digital Equipment SA					Luxembourg
	Digital Equipment BV					Netherlands
	Digital Equipment Parts Center BV			Netherlands log
	Digital Equipment International BV			Netherlands intl
	Digital Equipment Company Ltd.				U.K.
	Digital Equipment of Canada Ltd.			up north
	
and so on.

    	I can't believe that no one has yet complainied about us even 
    donating 500k worth of equipment to such an elitist function as the
    America's cup.
    	Never mind the fact that the race is designed only for those people
    rich enough to afford the costs of the boat (i.e. the Ted Turners of
    the World.) I certianly believe that given the millions of dollars that
    go into designing and supporting the crew of these ships, that the 
    America's Cup team could afford to buy the equipment from DEC. We
    certainly didn't loan our computer equipment to the NBA.
    	Here in a time of mass layoffs, cutbacks, and with our company
    facing even harder econominc times ahead, I question the wisdom of 
    "donating" this type of equipment and services to individual groups 
    that can certainly afford to pay for the services rendered.
    	Now some people might say , "Well if we don't donate the equipment
    then some other computer company will!". To this I say good let them. I
    figure if they are in such good financial shape that they want to throw
    their money to the glory of a pointless yachting event, then let them.
    Some may say that we do get publicity out of such a donation. But
    companies buy equipment from us based on performance and need, no on  
    wether we support a race or not. Three days after the cup is over most
    CEO's and the public in general, won't even remember the sponsors
    names. I have been responsible for recommending computer equipment for
    a small R&D facility, and believe me, whom that company donated 
    equipment and services to was never a factor in the choices we had to 
    make.
    	I think donating this type of equipment to AIDS research or Cancer
    studies would be of much better use. 
    	Supporting a Yacht race, No wonder we are, where we are, now!
    
    Brian

Just for the sake of argument, let's say that Corporate sponsership
of some sporting event would be good buisness, if only in the form of
advertisement.

First of all, there doesn't seem to be much opportuntity for advertisement
here.

But, more importantly, is how Digital is viewed when you consider the
medium - that paragon of valuing differences, Yacht Racing.  After all,
we constantly allude to "Big Blue" as the "rich kids" and to ourselves as
"peoples' people."  Not to mention the absolute slap in the face to 
employees who are struggling to make it work in this company - I, for one,
am not thrilled to see hard earned revenue dropped in the lap of folks
who could care less about money.  Why does it seem that we value differences
a lot more with our mouthes than our actions?

Barb

It's another form of marketing... Digital has always had questionable
skill in that arena...

I do believe you're underestimating the level of interest in the race.
It's a very popular event with many executives and their families.
I agree it's eliteist but then again, aren't many of the corporate
board rooms in this country? 

I'd rather see us donating equipment than money at least. The real
value of the equipment is *much* less than $500,000.00!

-Ray

re .17:

Right.  You never see big companies sponsoring bowling tournaments, but golf
and tennis are sponsored to the hilt.  It's what interests the decision makers.

re Note 1454.16 by BOOTKY::MARCUS:

> Just for the sake of argument, let's say that Corporate sponsership
> of some sporting event would be good buisness, if only in the form of
> advertisement.
> 
> First of all, there doesn't seem to be much opportuntity for advertisement
> here.
  
        Well, we did get some substantial mention during this
        morning's "First Business" business news show.  The VAX 9000
        was shown and mentioned by name, and Dom LaCava was
        interviewed.  This program probably has one of the highest
        concentrations of the type of viewers who could possibly
        consider a VAX 9000.  Lord knows we have to move them
        somehow!

        Bob

>   I'd rather see us donating equipment than money at least. The real
>   value of the equipment is *much* less than $500,000.00!
    ^^^^^

    I think (hope) you mean cost not value. The two are not the same.
    Generally an items value to a user is a lot higher then it's cost
    to the company who sells it. We really shouldn't go around saying
    that our equipment has less value than what we charge for it. And
    we definitely shouldn't suggest that it's value is less then our cost
    to manufacture.

    			Alfred

>      What's the big deal?  Digital sponsors  local and worldwide
>    events in several different countries.   While I agree it's
>    a _lot_  of money,  and the return is questionable,  why is
>    this particular case different than our sponsoring of the
>    "SCHNEIDER TROPY"  Airplane race in the UK?  
    
 
	We sponsored the Schneider Trophy event, we did not sponsor  a UK 
	entrant to race against a US entrant, or anyone else.

	I believe that sponsoring events is good for the company, I do NOT
	believe we should sponsor one country entrant to compete against 
	another countries entrant.
   
	This equates to : sponsor the Americas Cup event, but not one 
	particular countries entrant to encourage them to beat another 
	countries entrant.

	Heather

Re-reading the original press announcement in .0, I conclude that one of the
reasons for this particular donation is the opportunity to demonstrate
the applicability of DEC's design and network solutions to the specific
task of hi-tech racing boat design.  We're not talking PC-based event 
management software.  This is star-quality technical competition, 
an excellent to demonstrate DEC's possible contribution to aircraft design,
scientific visualization, and other high-visibility, landmark technologies.

Elitist or not, this seems a good deal to me.

- tom]

Having seen the Previous implementations of this sort of thing... it most
defintely is not likely to be...

>> This is star-quality technical competition, 
>> an excellent to demonstrate DEC's possible contribution to aircraft design,
>> scientific visualization, and other high-visibility, landmark technologies.

	The last time I talked with the Australian Boat Design Syndicate, they
were talking about a Cray XMP with SGI Screens to do dynamic modelling of
Waterflow around hulls.

	As I recall, the on boat data-aquisition as last used by the American
Syndicate, took the data physically to a land based 750 for Post Mortem
analysis.

	There are rules governing the amount of technology, and the links to
shorebased facilities...

I repeat, sponsor the event, not the entrant...

q

    
    And they were talking supercomputers right after the Fremantle event.
    Sounded really good, appeared like their current sponsors (us) systems
    couldnt cut it for this type of activity. I personally cant see how 
    buying into this can be good, if a syndicate banks on technology
    and they fail (i.e "Digital, provider of the technology that lost the
    America's Cup"), it is the technology that gets the blame.
    
    Great leading edge promotion, but the t-shirts were nice.
    
    John