When will SpaceX take advertising?

[CuddlyRocket]

There seems obvious potential for SpaceX to sell advertising, as well as for ancillary markets in sponsorship, naming rights etc. Such income is low risk and high margin, so why is SpaceX forgoing it?

Is it Elon's personal distaste for such marketing? Seems unlikely, given SpaceX does have some merchandising, and Elon being a product of the free market system. Is it perhaps that Elon thinks selling advertising will count against SpaceX when attempting to establish engineering credibility with po-faced NASA and DoD engineers etc or nervous MBAs? Is he worried about the hit any advertiser might face if the rocket goes kaboom?

Are there any other possible reasons?

It's not very professional of a commercial company to ignore the potential for profit. So, when will SpaceX take advertising?

[Jim]

likely the reason is that launches are going to be covered less and less by the media and hence not a good venue for advertizing.

[CuddlyRocket]

^ Probably, but that would only affect the price you can charge for the advertising (or sponsorship etc). There's plenty of media with tiny audiences that still attract advertising.

But it does mean that if there are reasons against, it reduces the (monetary) advantages vis-à-vis the disadvantages.

SpaceX never seem to have even tested the market. Why not?

[Elmar Moelzer]

I think they will wait until their launches are routine enough to make a catastrophic failure less likely. I might be wrong,  but I would assume that advertisers will not be happy if a rocket with their name on it explodes... On the other hand an exploding rocket could get them MORE media exposure... the advertising world is a strange one...
Personally, I think that it is a good idea, even though I would not expect them to make a lot of money from it compared to the actual launch cost. Now advertisments on GH2 might be a better idea. People love GH and it got a lot of attention, maybe even more than the actual F9 rockets. Plus a GH launch does not cost as much and has no other revenue stream. So adds on GH2 might actually pay for part of the fuel or something...

[Jim]

Maybe the organization that buys the launch doesn't want advertizing.

Anyways, the logos will be cover by ice on the launch vehicle and the customer of the mission gets the fairing acreage.

[ArbitraryConstant]

Until Red Bull sponsors a moon shot I don't think this is going to happen.

[aero]

Reminds me of a sci-fi story I once read. The rocket entrepreneur sold advertising missions and the world looked up one evening to see the "Coca Cola" logo covering the full moon.

[Lar]

Reminds me of a sci-fi story I once read. The rocket entrepreneur sold advertising missions and the world looked up one evening to see the "Coca Cola" logo covering the full moon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Sold_the_Moon by Heinlein features the threat to sell to one outfit ("6+") as a way to sell to the other outfit ("Moka-Cola")

[Zannanza]

So you mean something like this?

[macpacheco]

I don't think the math adds up. I know, buzz kill.
The issue is space launches are way too expensive, for instance formula 1 / indy car sponsorship is likely to be far more profitable for the customers. Red Bull probably spends less than two F9R launches per year to keep it's two F1 racing teams (RBR-Red Bull Racing / STR-Scuderia Toro Rosso racing, with a four time world champion onboard). And that's about two dozen 90-120 minute races plus the practices/qualifying, with millions of fans in the venues plus billions total views of the whole year.
Finally, remember that the launch customers could easily kill this.
For GH2 it's really doable. Perhaps ads in the pad as well.
But it's land filled with potential show stoppers. Remember the NASA reaction to the sale of ISS trips by the Russians. Both commercial launch customers and NASA could kill this outside GH2.

[AJW]

Twenty years may be enough time for a new generation of marketing gurus to think that this is a good idea….  I couldn't find a photo of the rocket, but found these links.



http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=19930304&id=2uUyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=kQcGAAAAIBAJ&pg=6485,421717

[savuporo]

I don't think the math adds up. I know, buzz kill..... with millions of fans in the venues plus billions total views of the whole year.

Anyone suggesting this idea is vastly and vastly overestimating the audience for any space launch.
Plus, for the advertising to be effective it has to be targeted at the right demographic. Golf and NASCAR get quite different advertisers.

[Karloss12]

In many industries, slapping advertising all over everything wreaks of desperation.

Even revenue generated from well placed advertising will be dwarfed by the drop in the value of the company due to the advertising's negative impact on the SpaceX brand.

SpaceX isn't a sports team.

[MP99]

You could say that they already carry their own advertising.

cheers, Martin

[rst]

In many industries, slapping advertising all over everything wreaks of desperation.

Even revenue generated from well placed advertising will be dwarfed by the drop in the value of the company due to the advertising's negative impact on the SpaceX brand.

Heck, this web site (the one you're reading right now) attracts pretty much the same audience.  And while I wish Chris all the best, I'm not sure that the ad money it attracts has been enough yet for even one person to retire on.  It would have to be more than that to have any kind of meaningful impact on SpaceX's bottom line.

[mme]

There seems obvious potential for SpaceX to sell advertising, as well as for ancillary markets in sponsorship, naming rights etc. Such income is low risk and high margin, so why is SpaceX forgoing it?

I think you are making an assumption that anyone would pay a significant fee to put their logo on a rocket that almost nobody watches. In my social circles I'm the only one that watches the live feeds. And news clips are a few seconds long, from a distance and sometimes of the wrong launch!

Anyway, the most expensive rate I could find for a billboard was $10,000 for a month on Sunset Boulevard in West Hollywood. I doubt SpaceX could charge that much for a few seconds of exposure.

Is it Elon's personal distaste for such marketing? ...

My guess (and hope) is that SpaceX wants to establish its brand, not promote Red Bull or Go Daddy.

[Avron]

You could say that they already carry their own advertising.

cheers, Martin

Alas, they (Spacex) don't take that advertising to space.. Dragon in orbit has zero marking.. (I wish someone in the press would ask Musk why no marking.. not even light markings )

If you look at Musk's work .. do you see any of his companies advertising - or do they do it without cost by just disrupting things and allowing the media to do the rest.  (seen a Tesla  or Solar city or Spacex commercial  in any paper/tv /online ?)

[Lar]

You could say that they already carry their own advertising.

cheers, Martin

Alas, they (Spacex) don't take that advertising to space.. Dragon in orbit has zero marking.. (I wish someone in the press would ask Musk why no marking.. not even light markings )

If you look at Musk's work .. do you see any of his companies advertising - or do they do it without cost by just disrupting things and allowing the media to do the rest.  (seen a Tesla  or Solar city or Spacex commercial  in any paper/tv /online ?)

I think you're right, there are not a lot of adverts for Tesla and Solar City That said, here's a Solar City TV ad from 2010



I have no idea how widely played it was as SC is not in our market yet (solar in Michigan isn't as economically attractive as it is in higher sun angle areas.)

and here's a putative Tesla TV ad.



This one I'm not even sure was ever shown at all, as when I searched I found ads that were done on spec.

I don't think Musk companies NEED a lot of advertising. The publicity generated is better than any paid advert could possibly be. All 3 companies are out to change the world. That generates a powerful buzz.

Here's a story about exactly that... "Tesla's media strategy: build a brand without spending on advertising"

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_22964448/teslas-media-strategy-build-brand-without-spending-advertising

I think SpaceX customers are well aware of them without any advertising being needed. Advertising how awesome you are is best left to OldSpace.

THAT said, this is tangential, and I see no reason for SpaceX not to ACCEPT adverts if it can be done in a way that's brand affirming.

[Avron]

This one I'm not even sure was ever shown at all, as when I searched I found ads that were done on spec.

You where talking power of people ..

That advert was made by a fan, I have seen two others made by fans . i.e its not  a musk advert.

http://www.teslamotors.com/de_DE/forum/forums/fanmade-tesla-model-s-commercial-shines-down-gallons-light

 "Tesla's media strategy: build a brand without spending on advertising" thanks for that link..

yes a bit tangential by in light of the thread title I think your note " Advertising how awesome you are is best left to OldSpace." says it all

now have to run before the Thread cops arrive..

[CuddlyRocket]

Maybe the organization that buys the launch doesn't want advertizing.

Possible; especially if they're non-commercial themselves.

Anyways, the logos will be cover by ice on the launch vehicle and the customer of the mission gets the fairing acreage.

Yes, customers generally get a logo. Their idea; SpaceX's idea or just general practice? Suggests there is some value in having your logo on a rocket. Presumably whether the fairing carries third-party logos can be a matter of contracts and pricing, perhaps revenue sharing with the launch customer?

As a matter of interest, how are logos sorted out between primary and secondary customers?

In many industries, slapping advertising all over everything wreaks of desperation.

And in others it's a sign of success. Which is the space industry, and why?

Even revenue generated from well placed advertising will be dwarfed by the drop in the value of the company due to the advertising's negative impact on the SpaceX brand.

That suggests a cultural distaste against advertising. Is that prevalent in the space industry? A result of its overwhelmingly military and governmental origins and its engineering and science imprimatur?

There seems obvious potential for SpaceX to sell advertising, as well as for ancillary markets in sponsorship, naming rights etc. Such income is low risk and high margin, so why is SpaceX forgoing it?

I think you are making an assumption that anyone would pay a significant fee to put their logo on a rocket that almost nobody watches. In my social circles I'm the only one that watches the live feeds. And news clips are a few seconds long, from a distance and sometimes of the wrong launch!

Anyway, the most expensive rate I could find for a billboard was $10,000 for a month on Sunset Boulevard in West Hollywood. I doubt SpaceX could charge that much for a few seconds of exposure.

A dollar is a dollar; they all count!

Advertisers would probably be thinking more of the association and of the use of images in their own publicity material rather than the instant publicity. Though presumably future manned launches would attract more media interest - I expect SpaceX's astronauts will have a SpaceX logo on their coveralls, and although I wouldn't expect them to be bedecked like a Formula 1 or NASCAR driver, surely somebody would pay to have a tasteful and discrete logo? (That said, the Russians haven't been adverse to taking advertising, but I don't recall seeing much sign of it!)

But I wasn't assuming advertising would be a significant income stream, any more than is SpaceX's current merchandising activities. It's the principle I was interested in; why are SpaceX ignoring a potential revenue stream?

Is it Elon's personal distaste for such marketing? ...

My guess (and hope) is that SpaceX wants to establish its brand, not promote Red Bull or Go Daddy.

Why can't it do both?