The world economic situation is not good. The Ferrari Formula 1 team won only one race in 2011. And yet Ferrari was able to report that it has increased its sales from 6,573 in 2010 to 7,195 in 2011, an increase of more than nine percent. This included a mammoth leap in the Greater China market of 62 percent, jumping from 478 sales in 2010 to 777 in 2011. US sales also climbed dramatically from 1,576 in 2010 to 1,958, a hike of more than 24 percent. The British market jumped by a similar percentage to 574. Overall the company recorded revenues of €2.2 billion, compared to €1.9 billion in 2010, an increase of 17 percent. Profits were up as well to round € 209 million. The company said that its online sales grew up 25 percent, its website traffic went up by 30 percent and its museum in Maranello had nearly a quarter of a million visitors. In short Ferrari is doing well… and intends to go on growing in the years ahead as it pushes further into the Asian markets.
- Comment
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
joeblogsf1 
Do you have similar sales figures for Canada? Just wondering.
There are only about 3 dealerships, I think they are all owned by the same guy, they can’t sell to many.
There are FOUR dealers in Canada and Remo Ferri only owns Toronto (Vaughan) and and Calgary’s operations. He also owns the Maserati operation at both dealerships. The sales numbers for Canada are dumped in with the US. No figures for 2011 but in 2010 Ferrari North America sold 1750 cars – a 20% increase over 2009. 2011 would appear to be another banner year for Ferrari across NA. I’ve heard a number such as 19 or 20 (one was a challenge race car) 458’s have been sold for the Canadian market between the spring of 2011 and year end 2011 across the four dealerships.
As far as per capita sales between the USA and Canada; just like Porsche in Canada, sales based upon population numbers, Canada is ahead of USA sales with Ferrari as well.
FYI: Remo has part’s distribution rights from the factory, sort of a reward for being the only sales/service in the country since day one.
Thanks for the detail. In most matters of consumption we are about 10% of what ever the Americans use, but exotic cars likely does not follow that trend because of weather. You can drive a Ferrari in many places in the USA everyday of the year and you can’t do that anywhere in Canada. It would be interesting to see if the bulk of sales are California and Florida.
You have just reminded me of the new UK Maserati importer back in the 80s, who assured me that they would henceforth sell 2000 cars per year and can he have a free sample please? At the time I worked for a top brand of in-car stereo manufacturer. (The previous years sales had been around 40)
It appears that they are doing something correctly, as it relates to marketing their products.
Not just their sports cars. They have aggressively marketed all the other bits that have a Ferrari name on it.
They are an extremely professional organization, with the right people in the right positions.
There is a fair amount of disposable income in the whole world.
Ferrari have positioned themselves to make the business work profitably for themselves, and for Fiat.
Mr. Ferrari would be proud.
Mercedes, and the other such Teams, will not be far behind, once they realize the bonanza that is available, if they all have not figured that out already.
Maybe the Formula One Management will figure it out as well, in time.
You are right about that. On Kalakua avenue in Waikiki, Hawaii, there is a Ferrari store which sells everything but sportscars (or any car for that matter). What you do find is cologne, key fobs, lego, duffel bags, and all manner of red clothing with the prancing horse on it. When I was last there, they had an actual F2003-GA parked in the window. One of the least expected sights I ever thought I would see in Hawaii.
Do you remember ‘Magnum P.I.’, a 80’s TV series where Tom Sellek, as Thomas Magnum, drives around Hawaii in a Ferrari 308 GTS righting wrongs (as you do)? Admittedly it was never parked in a shop window – although the way it was driven it might well have been.
Good music by Mike Post though (‘Hill Street Blues’, ‘The Rockford Files’ etc).
Not surprising Mike Post is a consistency there, all were produced or created by Donald Bellisario, who deserves and rewards study how well he guided those. Hill St Blues’ theme still is there in my head.
I loved Magnum PI, but that program did nothing, nothing at all for the self esteem of hormone laden fair headed kids trying to grow what they imagined might pass for a tache!
FYI: http://magnum-mania.com/Articles/The_Ferrari.html
Who knew there was a Magnum PI cult? LOL
I guess that happens when kids grow up and can actually grow a tache 🙂
Worse, my pals were Saudi, Lebanese and so on back then, and already sported plenty body hair, habitual shades and comparative worldliness!
Was there an increase in Ferrari’s merchandise sales too?
This sort of economy doesn’t hurt the super rich. Usually theyre the ones causing it.
Your post doesn’t even make any sense! Ho does the ‘super rich’ as you call them cause ‘this sort of economy’. And ho are the ‘super rich’? I undertand that the very wealthy would have the money still and would be able to spend more, HOWEVER, how did the cause it?
Banks loaning money and governments, spending money and not regulating properly are the two groups that mostly caused it. Unless you are calling the execs the super rich which I think is wrong as I would consider people with 100’s of millions to be super rich and those who have jobs that they work at aren’t super rich. Those thast own companies and employ execs to run them are the super rich IMO.
e.g. I would call Fernandes, Branson, and Mateschich (spelling) super rich as they all have heaps of money, own companies and employ people to run the companies.
I think Nick’s statement is accurate. We have super rich men in North America whose greed directly caused the crash of 2008; the effects of which we are still feeling.
Who? I say it was the banks and government. You super rich people who you are yet to name? And how does someone with a lot of money even cause a financial crisis.
I don’t know your background, and I realise it is commonly held belief that those with monetry power must have caused it, but there is no financial or economic basis for that. It’s a political point rather than anything real. And it’s to be honest one of my biggest anoyences with ‘public understanding’.
Banks had some greed, but the execs who ran them didn’t profit directly from it, they, as well known take bonus’ regardless of whether they make heaps or heaps more. And I wouldn’t call them super rich at all. Usually on a few million maybe 20 million or so. A lot but not super. People who own the business, that’s who are the super rich. If you are employed, get up and go to work mon-fri often working on weekends you aren’t super rich regardless of salary as a gernal rule.
Who are the ‘super rich men’ and how did they cause it? A strong accusation needs evidence.
My comment was purposefully non-specific as it is pointless to get into a long debate about this on an F1 forum. Anyway, while my statement was obviously a tad hyperbolic, it is definitely accurate that a majority of the mega-wealthy oligarchs who wield immense power over the financial system have ruined, exploited and/or cheated (legally and illegally) millions of people from investors to employees to the government in exchange for unimaginable profits knowing the damage their action would inflict. There are countless well-documented examples of this behavior that anyone who has followed the news/financial sector would know off hand. If you’re really that uninformed, I can post a few…but hopefully not.
“How does someone with a lot of money even cause a financial disaster?” LOL, you’re cute. Are you one of those people who think that bad economies are caused by a few million peons with credit card debt?
In regards to the assertion that greedy and irresponsible home buyers were equally at fault for the economic disaster: sure, there were a lot of people who took on home mortgages knowing they couldn’t pay, but they made up a small fraction of the people who couldn’t/can’t afford their mortgage. More importantly, lets not forget that traditionally conservative banks, federally back home loan associations, etc. always followed strict and fairly simple standards for qualifying buyers as well as executing due diligence on buyers. However, with increased deregulation, declawed government oversight bodies, traditional depository banks turned investment bank, etc., etc. we pretty much got the worst of all worlds: an explosion of ultra risky loans with wildly overvalued MBS fueling skyrocketing stock markets creating a flimsy pyramid that spread so wide it impacted everyone regardless of whether or not they wanted a piece of the market…think pension funds responsible for hundreds of thousands of employees that were told by major banks and investment firms that their funds’ investment portfolio was primarily ultra-low exposure/risk and slow growing yet still got hammered when the bubble burst.
And these ‘super rich’/’ogligarchs’ are ___________. Please can you name they with all this power.
You can’t tell people to know when not to compete in a world where actions can be hidden behind companies. Regulation, or the lack thereof is responsible not execs for not being as morally righteous as whoever is disagreeing with them.
They didn’t know the damage that would be inflicted, they did it thinking that they could get away with it but it turned out that other were doing teh same thing and that there was some problems and people didn’t act the way they were expected and the GFC occured. Ask the guys in charge in 2007 what it would be liked in 2012 and I doubt they would ‘know’ that it was going to be like this.
The profits would be predicted on the other hand that’s how busness works, it’s not the cash you have now, but how your deals will end up with in a week, a month, 3 months, 6 months, year etc..
Please do post them. I clearly don’t agree, so I would love to read them.
No I’m not, I think it is, as I said before and also below in response to Brent’s post, bank execs and mostly governments for not regulating properly and not controlling themselves.
Credit card debt, while up over the last decade is less than a handful of the percent of debt in most western countries. Loans, Mortgage, Soverign debt etc… all are much much much greater.
You are yet to name one person or a group of people and you are also yet to name one practice or group of practices that resulted in it. You respond with gerneral statements. All I want is ___________ (name of ‘super rich’) did _____________ (how they abused their wealth) which created the economic crisis. I have written out what is my opinion in response to brent’s post can you please do the same because I don’t see any facts behind it, just words explaining something you know but haven’t referenced. It’s like talking about a great TV show that I haven’t watched….
Agree about the home buyers, there were idiots, a lot of them, however still small compared to banks and governments.
How did this make the stockmarkets go ‘sky high’? And why did the stockmarkets also drop recently (july 2010) all around the world in westernc ountries regarldess of wether they (the countries) were even ever in recession (Australia), or in a horrible mess (Greece).
What are trying to get at with you pyrimid analogy. The stock markets aren’t bricks in economies they are linked but not bricks holding debt up. Regardless of how stock markets go, soverign debt isn’t going to follow it. Not unless the government spends it!
The pension funds and the like are all part of superannuation. That is invested through the markets that people abiled from (hence the drop), among other enterties. Some parts have actually gone up because of people bailing from the stock market. Gold for example has been getting higher since it started.
That is because people bailed from the markets and the blue chip shares and the like as they were worried about the capital of the financial institutions they were investing in.
These are all results though, not the cause. The cause knocked it into play and when people get scared they panic. Fight or flight. People caused it roll on, but only because they heard thuder nearby and were worried the lightning was going to hit them. This caused the ball to start rolling which included what you stated.
This wasn’t the problem, the problem was what started it all. It’s like if a sports staidum were to catch fire during a big match. People would start running for the exit, pushing around to get there creating havoc as some push their bodies through and most get hurt. The problem isn’t really people trying to escape, yes some acted like idiots but you can’t really blame them for human instinct of pushing to run. What is to blame is the fire that caused the ball to start to roll.
You don’t think the men who ran Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley etc. etc. and made the decisions that caused the world economy to lose 5 years growth in 24 days, are not super rich, extremely powerful people? Do you think it was underlings that decided they would issue junk investments?
No, I don’t think they are super rich. I bet Branson, Diet Matsichit (spelling), Fernandes, Gates etc could all buy out each of the execs fortunes without having to worry too much.
The economy doesn’t grow constantly, it changes and changes with inflation. I don’t know what kind of analysis your trying to give with your 5 year figure but it sounds more example to the layman in some article than a fact.
I think it was the governments failing to regulate the banks and institutions that hold so much power and for the banks execs being idiots. However it’s a dog eat dog world and no exec is going to going to hold his company back as he will be fired and once a company falls behind it stays behind, it doesn’t movea t the same rate just behind, it starts fall once it isn’t int he same group, especially in the financial services area. If you think about it, there are financial insituations you would trust more than others, and chances are the ones you do compete with each other, and the ones that don’t are seen by the public as trustworthy and unable to make bigger deals as they then lack the money rolling into a big ball of trouble.
Personally I think it’s the governments role to regulate the companies so that when they (the institutions, companies, small busness, etc…) push the boundries nothing gets broken.
F1 is a good example. The FIA creates the rules and the teams push the boundries. If the FIA didn’t create good rules say in driver saftey then the teams, in the search for speed wouldn’t put as much preference into the saftey aspect. This would then cause problems as drivers would get badly injured and die. This is like how the banks saw loopholes that the government didn’t regulate and exploited trying to get ahead.
THe FIA knows that F1 is a sport and prefers to keep competition over over-regulating the series. Governments don’t need to keep banks and the like a sport and as suhc should regulate more. They didn’t, hence the problem.
Add in to all of this the governments in Europe, specificially countries like Greece and Italy who not only couldn’t regulate business properly but made horrible decisions themselves and blew money trying to buy public vote (especially in Greece) without thinking of the consequences. Once again each party trying to get ahead while ignoring the problems that could (and did) arise.
That is what I think happened and most financial analysts agree. So no, the bank execs didn’t ‘do it’ (by themselves I presume as you didn’t state anyone else), nor do I think they are ‘the super rich’.
Of course, people who signed up for loans they knew they had no chance in hell of repaying are absolutely victims who should be absolved of any responsibility whatsoever. “I knew I couldn’t repay you, ergo you ought not have lent me anything” they cry, to the chorus of supportive well intentioned nodders.
And I’m also, sadly one of those people helping Ferrari out. Puma Drift Cat III’s vs Puma SF Drift Cat III’s? OK, I’ll pay more for the Ferrari badged ones, whatever… =(
True, that’s where the debate comes in as the more left-wing opinion is that is the banks role or the government regulating the banks’ role to stop the banks from allowing people to do stupid things. The more right-wing opinion is that people should be left ot their own devices without the government steping in and if they did something stupid knowingly then they should be held accountable for their actions. No one forced them to buy what they couldn’t afford.
I prefer the later. Most governments prefer the former as it gets more votes to care about ‘people’.
And normally the left are all keen to think for people and nanny-state them unto death. In this case, however, they aren’t..?
The core concern was actually that risk had been effectively priced out of the market and debt was effectively free in the US. When the interbank lending rate (the “cash rate”) sits at just 25bps you can leverage yourself up to the eyeballs and not worry in the slightest.
The GFC was a domino effect that had a multitude of factors: Alan Greenspan’s naked politicisation of the US Federal Reserve; low cost of debt diluting risk, and stupid and greedy consumers who decided that owning a home was somehow a right, and signed on the dotted line to repay mortgages they could never afford in the first instance. Once the bottom fell out of the mortgage market in the US, it was akin to a plug being pulled in a bathtub, sucking everything down with it.
But of course, I’m just an economist. What do I know? It’s widely established as a fact of SCIENCE that mega-rich oligarchs like Ernst Stavro Blofeld caused the GFC by speculating and hedging and stuffs.
Thank-you. Atleast someone agrees with me!
Personally I would throw in some governmental idiocy as certain European countries did leave themselves in quite a risky state compared to what they should have been. And they hid behind the euro rather than supporting it.
Ender,
what was beautiful, just as the OIS reset to LIBOR minus the fluff, was how the media caught up with the 80s, and you had the 10yr Behind And Proud Of It hack journo lot putting on television programmes and the rest how it was all “risk trading”! Think they meant RiskArb, and got it all wrong 🙂
Not an economist. Just turned down too many sweet (short term pleasure) gigs because I went “WTF?” because i had read the papers. Remember RiskMetrics when they were JPM? I flipped off economics too, because, well, it was as much fun as listening to debates how quantum physics works in context. It doesn’t. You just get pseudo – religious factionalism. Option theory, simple to suss: smoke a cigar and watch the oh so beautiful pure Brownian motion occurring. Assuming you are in a vacuum! Anyhow, I solved all that by disappearing up my own into where no theory dare tread: advertising 🙂
Those self certs / liar loans, when I saw them advertised, I think on a bus somewhere, I just presumed they were a advance fee scam. Well, they were an advance fee scam, by the whole system. But I imagined scruffy back room brokers pulling a fast one, not Halifax underwriting the loan.
Dammit, I could have geared up good, like quite large indeed, actually known what I was in for (I can read terms which i grew up doing and do the math, ditto, yes) and been bailed out by neg rates! Instead I was spending capital like crazy to work on something I wanted to do long term . . . What A Sucker!
Anyhow, I am sorta over it. Almost . .
(I just worry how my thinking has been affected, for the more mercenary – and you know it worries me more that that is a general effect, not being tempered by study experience or thought, making every walk of life volatile and disinclined to effort.)
Footnote which requires a hundred more: go back a bit more to the Volker Rule. It wasn’t so dim, but neither did Mike Milken ever propose being downright insensible with junk financing. Chernow’s Lords Of Finance must be the best single read, but I still have a full “black and red” notebook indexing in a youthful scribble the volumes which carry the detail.
They won one race last year with Alonso, (also one win in 2009 with Kimi driving their worst car in a decade!)
I would like to ask Joe do you feel their current design team is again preparing to play catch up, as they do every year?
We do not have a clear picture yet.
The ultra-rich are recession proof!
I’ll tell you in 6 months if the ad numbers back that up!
I must admit that when I read the title, I thought that this post was about the Ferrari F2012! It’s a relief to see that I was wrong.
I just hope Ferrari can have a fast and reliable car in 2012 – as a fan, that’s what I care about the most! 😉
Joe: As you know, brand identity is always a key element for any manufacturer, and here in the Middle East Ferrari is clearly the make that brings a smile to most of my Saudi colleagues whenever we are discussing cars! And seeing any model of the “Prancing Horse” cruising the streets of Dubai or Abu Dhabi always brings a smile to my face as well. Forza Ferrari!!
Ferrari have huge brand credibility over much of the globe, unfortunately for Lotus Cars they cannot say the same. The acronym LOTUS (Lots of …etc) did not originate by chance and although it was a long time ago the image sticks, justified nowadays or not.
The figures above are presumably nothing to do with F1, but I suppose could include other racing categories, is this correct Joe?
It is unusual to show a substantial profit on the books in Italy (this of course depends upon which set we are privy to.) and attracts unwanted attention from “interested parties” including the tax man. Again was this EBIDTA Joe?
“I just hope Ferrari can have a fast and reliable car in 2012” – David. My experience (50+ years): Frankly-Expensive-Reducing-Reliablility-Assisting-Resultant-Indebtedness.
Fast Education (in) Really Ridiculous Amortization Reversal Induction.
(see Straight Eight Motors, Facel Vegas and all)
I wonder how big a dent Ron Dennis can put in these numbers with the McLaren sports car lineup?
As they say, the rich get richer!
If Ferrari only produce 7,000 cars a year, then there isn’t much market for Bahar/Lotus to get a share of. A Lotus wouldn’t even cross my mind if I could afford to own a new Ferrari.
Nor me, but I wouldn’t get a Ferrari either – too common. I would probably get a M600 or if I could find one (and afford), a ’92 Diablo SV.
I would need to be able to start from the backwoods and cruise 150mph so I would go with a Cessna 182.
yes thanks for those figures.
i was wondering for some time how many units ferrari were selling to get a picture of how mclarens sportscar operation compared (purely in volume of sales). Mclaren intend to be shifting 4000 units a year unltimately i believe.
its an expanding market so i wouldnt see them as taking sales from each other…and customer profiles probably quite different
The same as any manufacturer that has produced sports cars in the last 20 years believing their F1 success automatically translates across to sales.
Ferrari have been constant in motor-sport, be it F1 or Le Mans for 60 years, also the Mille Miglia and countless events which fans have bought into and supported the team through success and disaster.
Most importanty, America knows Ferrari, yet there is no real F1 heritage there.
The Mclaren F1 was not a sales success despite it’s outlandish performance.
When magazines and the “Top Gears” pick the Ferrari 458 over the technically more efficient Mclaren MP4/12C, it speaks volumes about the Brand and experience of the engineers, against science and efficiency as promoted By Ron.
Honda NSX anyone? Or would you rather have a Porsche? Same argument.
what makes you think that thet think it automatically translates to sales.
In my exerience, they know very well that formula one is about branding, therefore an indirect link to sales.
i dont think it really matters what car Top Gear pick … people with 160 grand to spend will choose a car that suits them, not jeremy clarkson.
People that buy a 458 are doing so for different reasoning than those that buy a 12C. Mclarens order books are very strong, so it will be some time before anyone can suggest they will have failed at what they are trying to do
Nice article Joe. Actually the success story behind increasing sales and profit margins, while not performing well on track with an ailing economy still fueling in, could be related to combination of elements and not a handful of reasons. Of course product comes first, even a Ferrari fanatic would not buy a new model if he is not convinced; so here they are gaining with the new models they have launched in the last 3-4 years. The marketing approach and activity have seen a major rebuffing for old strategies.
I have the chance to work close with them as I did work of 3 car launches here in Bahrain and our findings when doing the concept study got us to learn more about the way the car thought and designed. This is a major element that they can be credited with. I compare it a little bit with how Apple is gaining major market shares while there product is considered like the Ferrari of electronic gadgets.
I have noticed that here in the States that when I wear a Ferrari themed shirt to work, it has gotten favorable comments from many of the Asian-immigrant co workers. I never tried a McLaren shirt since I have standards but I doubt if it would have the same reaction.
It probably gets counted as merchandising but there is a specific Ferrari virtual Academy racing game online for 20 euros and next month Atari will release one for PS3/xbox360 and PC (although Amazon doesn’t have the last one) for Ferrari only that covers about 50 historic cars and some 35 tracks. It almost certainly will not come to close to the huge number of cars from multiple manufacturers like Gran Tourismo series but I can see Ferrari getting a good chunk for licensing fee.
What percentage of Ferrari revenues comes from immobile merchandise?
Could be as high as 25%. Sorry no sources to hand, as no point doing that unless I can read some hard data. The problem is classification. What is non-automotive? Track days are not automotive, meaning not chassis sales, in my book, and that owners club side of Ferrari is always busy, absolutely key to their promotion. I think they simply run clubs within clubs, the latest outer onion ring being Ferrari World, and one of the inner ones being who gets to take out say a FXX that will never exit a Ferrari owned gate. It is quite clever, and something Dennis isn’t likely to replicate, if only because he just likes to deliver the goods straight up, no twist. Compare to that, buying a California does not qualify you as hardcore in Ferrariland.
Interview Q for interns in a year or two: “so which poster do you put on your dorm wall?” Brownie points for choosing the MP4-12C. Double brownie points for explaining why that can be construed as a bad answer in my game. (which rather likes buy in to the promotions, you see, as self validation)
Surely published accounts in Italy can be viewed as part of PR. Often misleading, but designed to achieve a certain corporate image which may be quite different from the reality. (Rather like F1 budgets come to think of it)
BTW re yrs above, wasn’t it a De Tomaso?
Must be quite a lot, total revenue divided by cars sold = over €300,000 per unit, never bought a new Ferrari, so dont know ticket prices, but it must be more like half that
Hi Joe, is that € 209 million before or after their investment in the F1 team?
Does that 209M Euros profit include the expense on the F1 team? If not then perhaps things are not so rosy…
Andy, no it does not, but it also doesn’t include the massive income from the F11 team either….sponsorship, and the midgets pay out as well…
Notice reverse alphabetical publication on this one Joe.
Even if the F1 team does not win a single race in 2012 or 13 or 14 for that matter it will make very little difference to their road car sales, certainly in North America. The waiting lists are miles long and with literally hundreds of new millionaires created this year alone in Silicon Valley the lists will get even longer. An awful lot of companies would like to have Ferrari’s problem. Having said that I would love to see Fernando fight
Vettel for the Championship.