F1 tv viewing set to plummet further

[Peter Mallett]

Hi Adam,

Good questions and thus the reply has taken time to compose.

Originally Posted by Adam43

I’m not so sure of that. They’ve looked on rails for a long time. Say 20 years to humour me. The narrow cars and the grooved tyres did a lot to get rid of that. It hasn't returned with each iteration. At least these cars do have the torque to cause some of it with throttle. Some = a little.
Engine penalties. Yep, crap.

Well in the past twenty years we had the Schumacher dominance. Which prompted the grooved tyres etc. A lot of people complain that the dominance made it boring and from the point of view of variety that may be correct. However the nature of the beast has always led to dominance. Right at the beginning before the WDC there was Mercedes and everyone else. Then at the beginning of the Formula One World Championship the first two years were dominated by Alfa Romeo and its drivers, Farina and Fangio. Alfa and Fangio won in 1951; then, in 1952 it was Alberto Ascari with Ferrari, nobody else came close. Likewise the team and driver won in 1953.

All through the fifties there were close battles for the title but we know Fangio won four times. Almost Schumacher dominance. Yet the key to those races was that you could see the drivers working the wheel. It was exciting.

Take the sixties and the success of Lotus who, with Jim Clark took two championships and with G Hill one. Here there were two drivers who won four WDCs during the decade. Also Lotus won with Rindt (Posthumously). Yet Jim Clark is revered by many enthusiasts. As is Schumacher. Nobody complained at the team’s or the drivers’ dominance. Again the cars were alive and you could see the drivers fighting with them.

Then in the seventies, once again Lotus and Ferrari shared most of the spoils. The cars, by now sported big wings and big fat slicks. And they danced. Ronnie Petersen sideways is an abiding memory in anything he drove. He wasn’t a champion (sadly) but he was always worth watching. But he wasn’t the only driver to make the cars slide and dance; Emmo, Hunt, Lauda et al, were all worth watching. Later in the 70s we got the likes of Jones and Andretti (returning) who took the fight to the leaders, and in Andretti’s case, won the WDC.
In the 1980s we got those fantastic turbos and awesome power with ground effect. Those cars ran on rails but they were soon legislated against, so we got active suspension.

Although McLaren dominated the decade with five out of ten WDCs there was no complaining. Williams won a couple too. Awesome cars and if they looked a little bit more stable than previously, we could see how difficult they were to drive. The chassis used to shake and vibrate due to the power.

Originally Posted by Adam43

Engines. Well the changes in the late ‘90s where V10 became homogenous, then regulated then V8s came. The V10 were loud, but nice sounding? nah. The V8s? They never ticked my V8 itch. So I’ll go with they’ve been crap since Ferrari ditched the V12 and we lost good sound and variety. That’s over 20years ago.

Well let’s look at the 90’s from my perspective. The restriction to V10s was wrong IMO. But we got some great cars such as the FW14B. We also had some great championships 1994 and 1996 stand out for two different but obvious reasons, although the loss of Senna blighted the former. We had the 1993 European GP where the drive of the century occurred. The cars were still a handful to drive but they started to look similar. Perfect? No. But the racing among all the teams was plain to see and in many cases close. Even if by then passing in a pit stop was becoming the norm.

The Schumacher dominance began around 2000 but he’d already won two WDC’s by then. However there were plenty of others who won in the 90’s and the competition was pretty close. We forget that there were five seasons in the 2000s when Schumacher didn’t win. We did have two tyre companies at this time which meant the cars were not all set up for the same levels of grip.

Then, in 2009 we got KERs. All of a sudden cars were running odd laps in order to build up the necessary energy for a quick burst. How daft was that? Then to make matters worse in 2011 we got DRS! As if the only thing that should happen in Formula One was passing . Thus they invented a system that penalised the guy who was busting his nuts to lead and win!

At the same time tyres became an issue. They were designed to fall apart and this they did so all of a sudden despite using KERs or DRS to get in front, the winner was the one with the right set of tyres on at the right time. And the cars? They were running on rails, controlled from the pits with minimal driver input, no gear levers, no left foot braking, steering kickback dampened etc. So I was wrong it started getting tedious ten years ago!

Originally Posted by Adam43

As you can tell I’m not saying current F1 is great, just it’s not significantly crapper than the crap before it.

I don’t get why now particularly. If the introduction of that crap didn’t impact viewing figures why should more of the same?

Because we aren’t watching people drive their nuts off and most realise this, we are watching a sterilised tv version of what someone who doesn’t know, thinks Formula One should be. In the 50s to 90s we had less on board graphics, so we had to watch what the car did to see how the driver was performing. Now we get almost inside the driver’s helmet which is technically impressive but have you noticed there is very little input into controlling the car? And a fast corner doesn't look that difficult from the roll bar. On top of which the reliability has taken away that element of uncertainty that driver A will actually finish. So to counter that we issue daft penalties.

Originally Posted by Adam43

The noise I hear of F1 fans saying F1 is boring has been constant to me for 20 odd years. That’s what I question. How does this whinging differ from previous whinging? (I don’t mean whinging negatively). The same with some people, they just see bad in everything. It’s a little cry wolf. I don’t class you in this bracket Peter which is why I am intrigued by your view.

Well this is only part of my view but I hope you see my point.

[djinvicta]

Thank you Peter. How true.
I have no answer...
To me, the only way you make it exciting is to take the gizmos off..
As I have said many times...give them a left hand gear stick and a foot clutch...
Who wants a paddle gear change on a Fiat 600 when you go to Europcar?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

If it's dirt cheap, why won't it attract Tech companies?

I think you and Akra are talking past each other.

I think the point is that tech companies WILL sponsor Formula E because it is cheap.

Which leads to the notion that these same companies will NOT sponsor Formula 1 because it is expensive and maybe not viewed as not attractive in the right way (not green enough, speaking to the wrong demographics, etc.).

Richard

[chunterer]

Peter is largely spot on, Adam makes a decent counter argument.

I boil it down to this, answers (not) on a postcard please...

How many times in the last 30 years has there been multiple winners in a single season?

During those years was the actual racing good with more overtaking?

Were the seasons where the dominant team/car had both drivers going for it rather than a protected no.1 and no.2 scenario more interesting?

Do people remember the battles or how many times the title race was decided at the last race mostly?

i suspect some will say the seasons when there was a lot of winners and top racing was when there was a freak occurrence/anomaly in the regs. That maybe true to an extent.

Tyres and aero might be the biggest culprits?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Aren't there just too many GPs and the 'magic', if you will, of a country hosting it's own race is going out the window?

I used too look forward to seeing how a season would unfold but with so many races and a season that now goes through to the end of November, it just seems like overkill. Just a sausage machine, churning out race after race. The lack of actual racing just compounds the issue.

[E.B]

Great post Peter. I agree totally with what you are saying.

[S griffin]

I think there are too many races, and there are quite a few that aren't really that worth going to, as there is hardly anyone interested in from those countries coming to watch. And I feel too many gizmos to spice up racing, they just need simple cars that can challenge and excite at the same time

[Greem]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I think the point is that tech companies WILL sponsor Formula E because it is cheap.

Supply, demand. The more demand a presence, the more the price will rise. Eventually it'll be on a par with F1 as the demand to be a sponsor in F1 ebbs and their prices fall.

Right now it costs far less to develop, build and race an FE car than an F1 car - but the roadmap for FE eventually frees up more and more room to change the current spec parts. Then costs will rise, they'll need more money, and that will also drive up the cost of sponsorship.

Maybe eventually the two series will reach an equilibrium!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Greem

Supply, demand. The more demand a presence, the more the price will rise. Eventually it'll be on a par with F1 as the demand to be a sponsor in F1 ebbs and their prices fall.

Right now it costs far less to develop, build and race an FE car than an F1 car - but the roadmap for FE eventually frees up more and more room to change the current spec parts. Then costs will rise, they'll need more money, and that will also drive up the cost of sponsorship.

Maybe eventually the two series will reach an equilibrium!

I don't disagree with the basic economic theory, but will point out that sponsorship on the side of fast cars are not the only advertisement game in town. Additionally I would say this type of advertisement is probably on the decline (one reason is car culture is in a decline plus move to digital advertisement). I think if FE does move in a direction in which the cost of sponsorship significantly increases then a number of advertisers will just take their money elsewhere. For all we know FE is living in the sweet spot of actually being able to attract money by not asking for too much of it.

Note: I have no idea what actual rate cards are for FE and F1. I am just taking on faith what has been reported in this thread that FE is significantly cheaper.

Richard

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

If it's dirt cheap, why won't it attract Tech companies?

Because you can spend, for example, £1m on Formula E to get a sticker on a car that nobody will see, or spend £1m on Facebook advertising and be on a half a billion mobile phones.

Tech companies have literally built their own advertising systems online. There will be exceptions, but largely they don’t need places to advertise. They use systems they’ve created, or more relevant systems such as Google Adsense and Facebook.

FE will attract traditional sponsors due to the low price point. However it does need to address the low viewer numbers too.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Because you can spend, for example, £1m on Formula E to get a sticker on a car that nobody will see, or spend £1m on Facebook advertising and be on a half a billion mobile phones.

Tech companies have literally built their own advertising systems online. There will be exceptions, but largely they don’t need places to advertise. They use systems they’ve created, or more relevant systems such as Google Adsense and Facebook.

FE will attract traditional sponsors due to the low price point. However it does need to address the low viewer numbers too.

Part of purpose of sponsoring is to raise one's company and/or product profile, so placing a sticker that no one will see is self defeating. You want your sticker on the sidepod or side of the airbox.

I can't say I've noticed Tech companies building their own online advertising systems, they seem to use whatever is available to other companies. On this Ten-Tenths page for example, there was an advert for electric guitars, now it's an advert for an IT training company. I agree with you there, FE will attract traditional sponsors due to the low price ut I think to the detrement of F1.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Part of purpose of sponsoring is to raise one's company and/or product profile, so placing a sticker that no one will see is self defeating. You want your sticker on the sidepod or side of the airbox.

I can't say I've noticed Tech companies building their own online advertising systems, they seem to use whatever is available to other companies. On this Ten-Tenths page for example, there was an advert for electric guitars, now it's an advert for an IT training company. I agree with you there, FE will attract traditional sponsors due to the low price ut I think to the detrement of F1.

Web advertising is far more complicated than traditional sticker advertising. The Ten Tenths adverts are served by a company called Quantcast. It uses smart algorithms to target the adverts to relevant consumers. The electric guitar company does not come to TenTenths and offer money for a slot. The ads are handled by these advertising agencies, which are tech companies. Tend to find there's a lot of cross over between web advertising agencies and AI development.

Google AdSense is possibly the largest advertising network on the web. Facebook is no longer a social media site, it's an advertising platform (that's where it makes its money). All of these pages are listed as some sort of business and Facebook is constantly putting on promotional offers to get you to use their targeted advertising. Because theRACINGLINE.net is listed as a business on Facebook, I get offers every day. "For $5 you can reach 1000 new people", that sort of thing. And it'll choose those people via AI too, so it's super effective. Twitter isn't much different either - the default Twitter site has sponsored and promoted tweets in the feed now.

You will get companies like SAP advertising, probably in both. They've been involved in F1 for ages. And you'll see the odd Microsoft sticker for their business developments, rather than the consumer. But the original vision for the tech companies was we'd have Google and Microsoft being title sponsors to replace the tobacco companies, and that hasn't happened. The web has become a far better platform to advertise on than a car, and much more cost effective - especially since it involves AI driven targeted positions.

If Facebook will charge $5 per 1000 people, then you'll get a million people for $5000. Or you can get a million British TV viewers on Sky for $40m. That's a gross simplification, obviously, but the numbers don't stack in F1s favour.

[bella]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Because you can spend, for example, £1m on Formula E to get a sticker on a car that nobody will see, or spend £1m on Facebook advertising and be on a half a billion mobile phones.

the only thing i'd say is that companies don't pay f1 teams for straight advertising, they're doing it mainly for association. facebook may get your advert seen, but f1 (and other motorsport at a similar level) gets you associated with the sport, the values of the sport, and the other brands associated with the sport.

what's interesting about liberty's shift in focus and attitude is that they're aiming for a different target audience, who have different attitudes and are interested in different brands and products. the lack of sponsors for years was a good demonstration that f1's traditional market had been rinsed. a younger attitude from f1 will help the teams capture a different type of money, and branch into different types of sponsorship. i'm thinking how a lot of the fashion industry is now really advertising by association - people buy products based on seeing it all over social media styled by real people. how will f1 get in on that?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by bella

the only thing i'd say is that companies don't pay f1 teams for straight advertising, they're doing it mainly for association. facebook may get your advert seen, but f1 (and other motorsport at a similar level) gets you associated with the sport, the values of the sport, and the other brands associated with the sport.

Totally - which works very well for branding to consumers, but not as much for business (within reason). Hence why we went through these times of tobacco and energy drinks, because they're consumer products. People buying server space aren't really that fussed if Microsoft is associated with the Renault GP team. Another reason tech isn't coming to F1 - the majority of tech companies are selling to other tech companies. Most of the world uses Rackspace products and almost nobody has heard of them.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Totally - which works very well for branding to consumers, but not as much for business (within reason). Hence why we went through these times of tobacco and energy drinks, because they're consumer products. People buying server space aren't really that fussed if Microsoft is associated with the Renault GP team. Another reason tech isn't coming to F1 - the majority of tech companies are selling to other tech companies. Most of the world uses Rackspace products and almost nobody has heard of them.

That's a good point bella makes about brand association but I wasn't thinking of Tech companies going to F1 but to FE. One of the series sponsors is Qualcomm.

[chillibowl]

strategies for marketing are evolving too quickly to say what the future will hold. no doubt many companies will look for a mix of traditional advertising as well as online stuff with some currently doing more of one then the other.

so we are certainly in a transition period but i do think the trend is pretty clear...companies are moving away from traditional advertising spaces.

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Totally - which works very well for branding to consumers, but not as much for business (within reason). Hence why we went through these times of tobacco and energy drinks, because they're consumer products. People buying server space aren't really that fussed if Microsoft is associated with the Renault GP team. Another reason tech isn't coming to F1 - the majority of tech companies are selling to other tech companies. Most of the world uses Rackspace products and almost nobody has heard of them.

going off on a bit of a tangent/bit of a different take on that.

F1 went down a different path many years ago when they priced out regular consumer product companies in favour of more lucrative B2B deals with multinationals to which most viewers and consumers have little access to their products and/or have knowledge about.

this Mclaren deal with DELL (who i thought went bankrupt years ago) is an example of this. they went out of (or are going out of) business because they built useless but overly expensive computers and had terrible customer services.

brand association is an important factor but somewhere along the line F1 sort of became a billboard for companies that i, as a consumer, dont want to be associated with.

i can understand why forward looking companies dont want to branded by association with cigarettes, unhealthy energy drinks, foreclosed banks, failing tech companies etc.

forget number of viewers issues, i think there is an argument to be made that F1 in and of itself is not a healthy adverting platform because of the brand association it has made over the years.

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by bella

the only thing i'd say is that companies don't pay f1 teams for straight advertising, they're doing it mainly for association. facebook may get your advert seen, but f1 (and other motorsport at a similar level) gets you associated with the sport, the values of the sport, and the other brands associated with the sport.

what's interesting about liberty's shift in focus and attitude is that they're aiming for a different target audience, who have different attitudes and are interested in different brands and products. the lack of sponsors for years was a good demonstration that f1's traditional market had been rinsed. a younger attitude from f1 will help the teams capture a different type of money, and branch into different types of sponsorship. i'm thinking how a lot of the fashion industry is now really advertising by association - people buy products based on seeing it all over social media styled by real people. how will f1 get in on that?

If Liberty do reach a new market of subscribers, they will also have the direct route to them, so the sponsorship people at the teams may as well clear their desks as the phone won't ring.

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

[crmalcolm]

My original thought of 'tech companies' was more about the tech manufacturers, such as Samsung or LG, as opposed to those who sell specialised eqpt.

So probably best viewed as consumer tech?

[NaBUru38]

F1's demographics are very strange, both massive and hardcore.

Several advertisers are luxury consumer products (Martini, Rolex). Others are car products (Shell, Pirelli, manufacturers of course). Others are business services (NEC, SAP, Randstad).

In any case, putting a logo on an F1 car or a billboard isn't the same as putting a logo on a random website. Being in F1 is a brand message.

[Armco Bender]

Doesn't matter how many logo's or stickers you put on a pig...its still a pig.
When F1 put on decent racing thier target market will watch it.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Armco Bender

Doesn't matter how many logo's or stickers you put on a pig...its still a pig.
When F1 put on decent racing thier target market will watch it.

But a percentage of that target market that will stop watching because F1 will be behind a pay wall.

[Armco Bender]

But a percentage of that target market that will stop watching because F1 will be behind a pay wall.

Well its hard to see the pig if its hiding behind a wall..

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Armco Bender

Doesn't matter how many logo's or stickers you put on a pig...its still a pig.
When F1 put on decent racing thier target market will watch it.

Yup, they need to remember at the end of the day it is a sport, and the sport is racing.


Well its hard to see the pig if its hiding behind a wall.. Armco

So you'd better take your audience with you! Spot the mistake.

[Akrapovic]

F1 is a brand image. And that's why you won't see big tech companies in as title sponsors. Google, Facebook and Microsoft don't need to brand themselves with racing cars. And other huge companies such as Rackspace don't care about branding to the public - they're selling to other massive tech companies.

If tech companies were going to come to F1 as title sponsors, they'd already be here. That ship has sailed.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

F1 is a brand image. And that's why you won't see big tech companies in as title sponsors. Google, Facebook and Microsoft don't need to brand themselves with racing cars. And other huge companies such as Rackspace don't care about branding to the public - they're selling to other massive tech companies.

If tech companies were going to come to F1 as title sponsors, they'd already be here. That ship has sailed.

F1's major appeal was introducing consumers to, and injecting glamour into high volume mass market items, now most of the risk has gone and the wide marketing reach is being slaughtered by putting the sport behind a paywall.

Seems like a recipe for a disaster.