Our sport is inundated with examples of false economies; from instances such as players expecting cut-price markers thus undermining our sport’s retail business to the more insidious low cost paint that is often sold.
Our sport’s teams face a significant expenditure when wishing to play events - entry fees - travel - hotels and paint to name but a few.
It’s obvious the market-place supports all sorts of paint but generally speaking we can assume that you get what you pay for .. bottom line is though, good paint can win you games but bad paint can most definitely lose you games and events.
The purchasing of bad paint is probably the most glaring of our sport’s false economies.
There are teams however that enjoy subsidised paint and even a few that gets all their paint for free but the whole ethos of paint sponsorship has had the ass ripped out of it because of the contraction of our market-place.
No longer can teams attract the somewhat unwarranted paint deals of yesteryear which forces teams to scour the paintball landscape for cheap paint.
The few teams who do receive these paint deals are the legacy of that once misguided marketing initiative that had us believe teams were a serious proposition when it came to brand promotion.
Now, it’s all well and good if the paint is ok but what happens when the paint is sh!te?
What options then confront a team when the sponsored paint they are using is costing them games?
Teams face the following dilemma, do they continue to use sponsored paint knowing full well the use of their sponsored paint will cost them games and in so doing scupper any chance of winning the event ..or …. they can look elsewhere for an alternative supply that generally means they will be looking to purchase paint from their sponsor’s competition.
This year’s millennium has borne witness to this situation several times, especially in the recent event in Paris.
The irony is, if a team faces such a dilemma and sources paint from companies other than the company they have the sponsor deal with and then go onto win or place in the event, then no mention is made of the paint that was actually used; in fact, should a team place in an event using someone else’s paint then the original sponsor company gains the benefit of their competitor’s paint when their own wasn’t up to scratch.
This is obviously unfair but sometimes life’s like that but things have now been brought to a head.
In Paris this year one manufacturer, GI Sportz, took the stance of refusing to supply paint to teams that had problems with their own sponsored paint brands.
Their reason?
They felt aggrieved at the prospect of the team who bought their paint indulging themselves in post event promotion being focussed upon the sponsored brand and not the brand the team actually used.
The thinking behind this move was, if GI Sportz spend the time and effort in ensuring their paint is up to scratch and stored in appropriate conditions, then why should other paint companies reap the post-event promotion if said team does well?
P8ntballer.com asked the people at GI Sportz if this policy was going to be adhered to next year and their response was a resounding ‘yes’.
GI Sportz went on to say, ‘we’ve got no problem in helping teams and players out but what we will be doing is drawing a line when it comes to being the victim of commercial shenanigans after the event has been played.
There were instances in Paris whereby paint was supplied to teams but this was on the strict basis of, GI Sportz were to be the sole beneficiary of any resulting credits directed toward the paint that was used.
An example of this was team Offenbach Comin at Ya who went on to win the SPL, an improvement from 17th at the previous event.
The deserved acclamation was offered by the team when they accepted their first place trophy and made it clear the paint they used was one of the reasons they were able to win.
Teams are now being forced to research what paint has the best track record; after all, what’s the point in spending all that money on travel and hotels just to lose an event because you bought cheap paint …
Our sport’s teams face a significant expenditure when wishing to play events - entry fees - travel - hotels and paint to name but a few.
It’s obvious the market-place supports all sorts of paint but generally speaking we can assume that you get what you pay for .. bottom line is though, good paint can win you games but bad paint can most definitely lose you games and events.
The purchasing of bad paint is probably the most glaring of our sport’s false economies.
There are teams however that enjoy subsidised paint and even a few that gets all their paint for free but the whole ethos of paint sponsorship has had the ass ripped out of it because of the contraction of our market-place.
No longer can teams attract the somewhat unwarranted paint deals of yesteryear which forces teams to scour the paintball landscape for cheap paint.
The few teams who do receive these paint deals are the legacy of that once misguided marketing initiative that had us believe teams were a serious proposition when it came to brand promotion.
Now, it’s all well and good if the paint is ok but what happens when the paint is sh!te?
What options then confront a team when the sponsored paint they are using is costing them games?
Teams face the following dilemma, do they continue to use sponsored paint knowing full well the use of their sponsored paint will cost them games and in so doing scupper any chance of winning the event ..or …. they can look elsewhere for an alternative supply that generally means they will be looking to purchase paint from their sponsor’s competition.
This year’s millennium has borne witness to this situation several times, especially in the recent event in Paris.
The irony is, if a team faces such a dilemma and sources paint from companies other than the company they have the sponsor deal with and then go onto win or place in the event, then no mention is made of the paint that was actually used; in fact, should a team place in an event using someone else’s paint then the original sponsor company gains the benefit of their competitor’s paint when their own wasn’t up to scratch.
This is obviously unfair but sometimes life’s like that but things have now been brought to a head.
In Paris this year one manufacturer, GI Sportz, took the stance of refusing to supply paint to teams that had problems with their own sponsored paint brands.
Their reason?
They felt aggrieved at the prospect of the team who bought their paint indulging themselves in post event promotion being focussed upon the sponsored brand and not the brand the team actually used.
The thinking behind this move was, if GI Sportz spend the time and effort in ensuring their paint is up to scratch and stored in appropriate conditions, then why should other paint companies reap the post-event promotion if said team does well?
P8ntballer.com asked the people at GI Sportz if this policy was going to be adhered to next year and their response was a resounding ‘yes’.
GI Sportz went on to say, ‘we’ve got no problem in helping teams and players out but what we will be doing is drawing a line when it comes to being the victim of commercial shenanigans after the event has been played.
There were instances in Paris whereby paint was supplied to teams but this was on the strict basis of, GI Sportz were to be the sole beneficiary of any resulting credits directed toward the paint that was used.
An example of this was team Offenbach Comin at Ya who went on to win the SPL, an improvement from 17th at the previous event.
The deserved acclamation was offered by the team when they accepted their first place trophy and made it clear the paint they used was one of the reasons they were able to win.
Teams are now being forced to research what paint has the best track record; after all, what’s the point in spending all that money on travel and hotels just to lose an event because you bought cheap paint …
