#!markdown
When I read Amanda's comments I was a bit bothered. There was an implicit
assumption that a certain portion of the marketing budget exists to support
pro-athletes. That is not the case, the marketing budget exists to sell more
product. If those funds are being diverted that strongly suggests that there
are doubts about the returns obtained from professional sponsorship. I'm not
saying brand ambassadors are the right thing to do (honestly it strikes me as
cheap and lazy), but if Amanda and other pro-athletes aren't able to
demonstrate their ROMI (return on marketing investment) they should expect the
marketing budget to go to investments that can.
Oct. 5, 2016, 2:23 p.m. - Humanpowered
#!markdown When I read Amanda's comments I was a bit bothered. There was an implicit assumption that a certain portion of the marketing budget exists to support pro-athletes. That is not the case, the marketing budget exists to sell more product. If those funds are being diverted that strongly suggests that there are doubts about the returns obtained from professional sponsorship. I'm not saying brand ambassadors are the right thing to do (honestly it strikes me as cheap and lazy), but if Amanda and other pro-athletes aren't able to demonstrate their ROMI (return on marketing investment) they should expect the marketing budget to go to investments that can.