[Team] Marussia - what next?

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i have asked the question about why mobile companies like Apple have no interest in F1. why have all the consumer electronics brands been chased away?

technology companies want to associate themselves with progress while f1 is a case study in moving backwards and that is the fault of old people running to default solutions that worked in the past and its debatable how good those ideas were back then even.

anyways agree to disagree

I doubt F1 is anywhere near the demographic that Apple wants to reach now, same with the other mobile comms - the young consumer is where it's at and they know that few of these will sit down for 2 hours to watch a GP. F1 promoting itself as the global marketing solution is 20 years out of date.

A brand can create a global reach , highly targeted marketing campaign at the press of a button, they don't need to paint their name on an F1 car anymore. Strip out the 'own brands', car manufacturer suppliers and investor sponsors backing individual drivers, how many genuine sponsors are left in F1 now?

As far as I can see neither the FIA or FOM are doing anything to promote the new engine/energy recovery technology in F1 , in fact FOM don't promote anything and the FIA seem focused on road safety initiatives.

In summary I think the problems F1 Teams face are:

• General resistant to sponsoring motorsport - non-inclusive, risk (sadly JB's accident will only go to re-enforce this with brands)
• Confusion over who to sponsor - is it the car or the driver that is 'successful'
• Unclear what F1 is - is it a sport or a business? Whereas tech firms sponsoring say athletics have the values of sport and personal achievement of individuals to 'halo' from.
• ROI - costs will be huge against other forms of marketing
• Activation - complicated and expensive to activate a global sponsorship in different markets
• Alternatives - even of you were interested in F1, then surely you would tap on BE's door to become an official F1 partner, with trackside advertising that would be much easier to quantify, is guaranteed exposure compared to branding on a car that might barely be seen in a race.
• Corporate structure - the day of the F1 fan CEO personally doing F1 sponsorship deals are diminishing fast, most companies of the size that could sponsor are accountable to boards and shareholders and have a marketing structure in place that even they cannot circumvent

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

I doubt F1 is anywhere near the demographic that Apple wants to reach now, same with the other mobile comms - the young consumer is where it's at and they know that few of these will sit down for 2 hours to watch a GP. F1 promoting itself as the global marketing solution is 20 years out of date.

A brand can create a global reach , highly targeted marketing campaign at the press of a button, they don't need to paint their name on an F1 car anymore. Strip out the 'own brands', car manufacturer suppliers and investor sponsors backing individual drivers, how many genuine sponsors are left in F1 now?

As far as I can see neither the FIA or FOM are doing anything to promote the new engine/energy recovery technology in F1 , in fact FOM don't promote anything and the FIA seem focused on road safety initiatives.

In summary I think the problems F1 Teams face are:

• General resistant to sponsoring motorsport - non-inclusive, risk (sadly JB's accident will only go to re-enforce this with brands)
• Confusion over who to sponsor - is it the car or the driver that is 'successful'
• Unclear what F1 is - is it a sport or a business? Whereas tech firms sponsoring say athletics have the values of sport and personal achievement of individuals to 'halo' from.
• ROI - costs will be huge against other forms of marketing
• Activation - complicated and expensive to activate a global sponsorship in different markets
• Alternatives - even of you were interested in F1, then surely you would tap on BE's door to become an official F1 partner, with trackside advertising that would be much easier to quantify, is guaranteed exposure compared to branding on a car that might barely be seen in a race.
• Corporate structure - the day of the F1 fan CEO personally doing F1 sponsorship deals are diminishing fast, most companies of the size that could sponsor are accountable to boards and shareholders and have a marketing structure in place that even they cannot circumvent

Excellent post.

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

World relevance is an interesting thought. Trouble is legislating for one country whilst its next door neighbour is ignoring the legislation kind of knocks that theory on the head don't you think?

I'm not sure what you mean here. It's the commercial world that wants to be seen to be green. It's part of the so-called global conversation and businesses see this as part of the future. That'll have a knock-on effect on F1 eventually.

The point may be that being integrated with the commercial world is actually killing it. It bears no relevance to motor sport any more. It's a technological display.

Yes.

Although I don't think going to F1's billionaire and the millionaires trying persuade them to disengage from the commercial world is a task that will bear much fruit.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

I doubt F1 is anywhere near the demographic that Apple wants to reach now, same with the other mobile comms - the young consumer is where it's at and they know that few of these will sit down for 2 hours to watch a GP. F1 promoting itself as the global marketing solution is 20 years out of date.

indeed all the mobile phone makers are putting forward lower cost phones but generally speaking Apple products come in with the higher price point. i think its fair to assume people with more disposable income are exactly in F1's wheelhouse.

and phones are getting bigger and bigger at all price points. to me that suggests people are consuming more video on their phones not less. is it all just youtube clips or are people buying and watching movies on Itunes or netflix? its not like kids started playing outside more...kids, like all age groups have no problem spending more then 2 hours a day staring at their phones.

clearly other global sports leagues think so otherwise they wouldnt be on the internet either and integrating vertically with mobile carriers in an attempt to boost data usage.

people of all ages watch sports (and that number is growing) and all these sports carry massive amounts of sponsorship from brands with a global presence.

i agree that F1 is not seen a vehicle for marketing a global product, hence the point i made about why the cell phones makers have largely stayed away. i guess the reason i think thats odd is because cell phones are perhaps the most popular consumer product on the last decade and this industry has basically no interest in advertising in a sport which claims to have the largest annual global audience.

so the question im asking is why isnt it when other sports are?

so my point remains, if F1 is no longer capable of attracting global sponsors, and local viewership numbers (so not even a platform for national sponsors) are also decreasing how will freeing up the engine regs generate enough money for the small teams to compete with the large teams? far more change is required then freeing up an extra 15mil per team imo.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

why do we need to make things a level playing field?

for the same reason there are weight classes in boxing and why we dont let adults compete against children.

sports is comprised of categories aimed are creating competition among a similar and/or equal group of competitors and in modern sport its becoming increasingly clear that reducing the monetary divide between the richest and poorest teams within said category is a better way to define that competition group.

for example, given a choice would you rather watch 10 teams whom all start off with the same amount to spend or watch 10 teams who have the ability to spend radically different amounts? my choice would be obvious.

the problem is compounded for me when one team starts to dominate and the other teams all decide its better to save money and essentially for financial reasons write off the remainder of the season.

for me this season has been saved by watching the battles among the midfield teams where you have a group of teams spending similar amounts of money to each other.

thats where the true competition is happening.

[dsg]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Almost. Sport is about competition, nothing "fair" about it at all. Agreed formula 1 is not very entertaining either.

I disagree. Most (all) sports have rules, which is what makes them "fair". The competition can be merciless but not unfair or dishonest.

[Peter Mallett]

You mean sporting, rather than fair. But point taken. But the level playing field concept just doesn't work for me, I see that as manipulation.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

You mean sporting, rather than fair. But point taken. But the level playing field concept just doesn't work for me, I see that as manipulation.

Indeed we don't really want a roofless DTM do we?

However, until someone/the whole group wakes up or decides it's no use and a new series needs to be born we are stuck on this endless spiral out of control it seems.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by chunterer

However, until someone/the whole group wakes up or decides it's no use and a new series needs to be born we are stuck on this endless spiral out of control it seems.

Yes and this is where teams like Marussia, Caterham and possibly Sauber will ultimately fail.

Broken down into its component parts, all a racing car needs to do is go fast and be reliable. It doesn't need power packs, ERS or whatever, just pistons in a block and fuel. Call it what you will but trying to justify the costs on the yoke of ecology or whatever is failing the entire sport.

Drawing on history; back in the late fifties, some teams couldn't afford the new engines. The powers that be ran to formula two rules on order to be able to run the championship. It worked. The parallel is there today even if the circumstances are different.

The trouble is though that the additional emphasis on the teams and technology means that watching a great driver muscling a machine around is of less import than a conglomerate earning vast sums of dosh.

[Paradise City]

Fairness is a synonym for sporting. If you're rewarding everyone the same thing regardless of accomplishment then that's unfair. Fairness would be the more you accomplish, the more you get and vice versa.

I personally see only two general directions to go in. Lessen the requirements to enter the sport so as to gain an influx of teams and prohibit a range of expensive technologies.

Or wind up with two or three constructors supplying a bunch of customer teams. Typically Bernie seems to favour this stagnant option.

Dunno about how budget caps fit in simply because I haven't seen anyone suggest a system which would work. And how do you identify and punish transgressors? Not to mention the jungle of negotiations with various teams would have to be waded through to get the teams to agree - which in practical terms makes agreement for budget caps unlikely. Although there'll be less teams to negotiate with if F1 continues its present course.

[Peter Mallett]

I think we are in violent agreement.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Drawing on history; back in the late fifties, some teams couldn't afford the new engines. The powers that be ran to formula two rules on order to be able to run the championship. It worked. The parallel is there today even if the circumstances are different.

Maybe they should invite the GP2 teams to make up the back of the grid. Hell at least we'd have some noise back and they'd probably put on a better race.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

Fairness is a synonym for sporting. If you're rewarding everyone the same thing regardless of accomplishment then that's unfair. Fairness would be the more you accomplish, the more you get and vice versa.

does it apply to just money or should other advantages be given?

prize money is already divided up based on wins right now and advantages are given based on wins, historical performance, and perceived importance.

does this make F1 fair and/or sporting?

[Peter Mallett]

Trouble is its not prize money. It's a share of the TV money. That is nothing to do with sport. If it were to be prize money, even the big teams would baulk at the costs.

[Moneyseeker]

Back in 1987 the F1 championship consisted of the main F1 drivers and constructors championship for turbo cars and the Jim Clark Trophy and Colin Chapman for drivers and constructors of normally aspirated cars, so the F1 champinship has previously recognised a divide between teams. N/A cars and drivers were also competing for the main championship.

Jonathan Palmer won the Jim Clark and Tyrrell the Chapman Trophy, the great irony is that such was the competitiveness of the Tyrrell that in fact they finished 6th in the constructors champipnship ahead of several turbo powered teams and Palmer finished 11th overall, infront of several turbo powered drivers!

If the 'factory teams' are intransigent over cost cutting, then maybe Red Bull, McLaren-Honda, Mercedes and Ferrari should enter as factory teams into the main champipnship and pay a substantially higher entry fee - maybe 10 x what it is now and the remainder enter as 'independent' teams with a different prize structure and trophy championship to enter - part of which can be funded by factory teams entry fees - The Ayrton Senna Trophy for drivers and Tyrrell Trophy for constructors?

[Casper]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

and phones are getting bigger and bigger at all price points. to me that suggests people are consuming more video on their phones not less. is it all just youtube clips or are people buying and watching movies on Itunes or netflix? its not like kids started playing outside more...kids, like all age groups have no problem spending more then 2 hours a day staring at their phones.

clearly other global sports leagues think so otherwise they wouldnt be on the internet either and integrating vertically with mobile carriers in an attempt to boost data usage.

people of all ages watch sports (and that number is growing) and all these sports carry massive amounts of sponsorship from brands with a global presence.

i agree that F1 is not seen a vehicle for marketing a global product, hence the point i made about why the cell phones makers have largely stayed away. i guess the reason i think thats odd is because cell phones are perhaps the most popular consumer product on the last decade and this industry has basically no interest in advertising in a sport which claims to have the largest annual global audience.

so the question im asking is why isnt it when other sports are?

so my point remains, if F1 is no longer capable of attracting global sponsors, and local viewership numbers (so not even a platform for national sponsors) are also decreasing how will freeing up the engine regs generate enough money for the small teams to compete with the large teams? far more change is required then freeing up an extra 15mil per team imo.

Motor sport simply does not attract the same demographic as those flogging phones/tablets etc want to get into. We in motor sport have got to accept that the generations of our children and their children do not have the same interests and nothing will change that. This is not a specific F1 problem it is universal in motor sport. There is no mystery about it as the facts speak for themselves. I think the awareness of this problem (to motor sport) has yet to hit in any significant way and certainly none of the major commentators have addressed it yet to my knowledge. The Sawards and Allens of this world continue to talk of structural problems in the sport and it certainly has those but fixing those issues will not attract those who have never been interested in the first place.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Casper

Motor sport simply does not attract the same demographic as those flogging phones/tablets etc want to get into. We in motor sport have got to accept that the generations of our children and their children do not have the same interests and nothing will change that. This is not a specific F1 problem it is universal in motor sport. There is no mystery about it as the facts speak for themselves. I think the awareness of this problem (to motor sport) has yet to hit in any significant way and certainly none of the major commentators have addressed it yet to my knowledge. The Sawards and Allens of this world continue to talk of structural problems in the sport and it certainly has those but fixing those issues will not attract those who have never been interested in the first place.

Very good post...Thank you

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Casper

Motor sport simply does not attract the same demographic as those flogging phones/tablets etc want to get into. We in motor sport have got to accept that the generations of our children and their children do not have the same interests and nothing will change that. This is not a specific F1 problem it is universal in motor sport. There is no mystery about it as the facts speak for themselves. I think the awareness of this problem (to motor sport) has yet to hit in any significant way and certainly none of the major commentators have addressed it yet to my knowledge. The Sawards and Allens of this world continue to talk of structural problems in the sport and it certainly has those but fixing those issues will not attract those who have never been interested in the first place.

Agreed... excellent post.

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by Casper

Motor sport simply does not attract the same demographic as those flogging phones/tablets etc want to get into. We in motor sport have got to accept that the generations of our children and their children do not have the same interests and nothing will change that. This is not a specific F1 problem it is universal in motor sport. There is no mystery about it as the facts speak for themselves. I think the awareness of this problem (to motor sport) has yet to hit in any significant way and certainly none of the major commentators have addressed it yet to my knowledge. The Sawards and Allens of this world continue to talk of structural problems in the sport and it certainly has those but fixing those issues will not attract those who have never been interested in the first place.

Agreed and this is exacerbated by the multitude of ways that brands can reach consumers directly now compared to 20 years ago. As we have said before on the forum, the world has moved on and F1 hasn't.

[Peter Mallett]

Agreed the demographic has changed dramatically. Which is why I think it needs to go back to its roots rather than try to be modern and "right on".

Alternatively it has to go even more exclusive to the detriment of the spectators and just become a club for the rich, rather like Badminton, The Americas Cup or Wimbledon etc.

Either way, unless it changes, teams like Marussia, Caterham etc. won't ever be able to survive.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Agreed the demographic has changed dramatically. Which is why I think it needs to go back to its roots rather than try to be modern and "right on".

Alternatively it has to go even more exclusive to the detriment of the spectators and just become a club for the rich, rather like Badminton, The Americas Cup or Wimbledon etc.

Either way, unless it changes, teams like Marussia, Caterham etc. won't ever be able to survive.

Peter, the demographic hasn't changed as much as the audience to which F1 played has disappeared or is largely disappearing and you can't reach what isn't there. I think this is the point that is central to F1's future but those in charge have yet to acknowledge or even recognise the problem. What surprises me is the RB who play to a young age group with their product are still involved because that group do not engage with F1 as a general rule. My son, age 26 has raced karts since age 9 yet he has never watched an entire F1 race as it bores him. None of his mates watch at all and I do not know of any young people who do, they are simply not interested.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Casper

My son, age 26 has raced karts since age 9 yet he has never watched an entire F1 race as it bores him. None of his mates watch at all and I do not know of any young people who do, they are simply not interested.

Isn't that what is meant by the demographic issue though? Us "oldies" have longer attention spans.

[bella]

Originally Posted by Casper

What surprises me is the RB who play to a young age group with their product are still involved because that group do not engage with F1 as a general rule.

actually i think that's exactly why they *are* involved.... it exposes the brand to a different demographic.

exactly what that demographic is though... well clearly none of us have a clue.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by bella

actually i think that's exactly why they *are* involved.... it exposes the brand to a different demographic.

exactly what that demographic is though... well clearly none of us have a clue.

Maybe, I am not an expert on this stuff just an observer.

A demographic exists as a group who can be recognised and reached and I suppose it can be said exists. To me if that entire group turns their back on something such as F1 it can no longer be reached and for all intents and purposes no longer exists. (My definition thought up on the spot BTW). They have turned off is most probably a good way of putting it.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

...this is exacerbated by the multitude of ways that brands can reach consumers directly now compared to 20 years ago...

agree with that.

that was sort of my point...that the way forward resides with a more equitable split of the TV and prize money because there isnt enough sponsorship money available out there to sustain the teams.