McLaren has launched an animation company. Its first production is called “Tooned” and is a computer-generated image animated series that is designed to create greater engagement with McLaren fans and strengthen the team’s brand loyalty. The series features animated characters based on the two World Champions, Lewis Hamilton and Jenson Button, who did the voice-overs for their own characters, as well as the British actor and comedian Alexander Armstrong, who plays the role of Professor M, who builds the exotic machinery that the two drivers need to be successful in F1. The series debuted on Sky Sports F1 at the British Grand Prix.
McLaren Animation is a joint venture in partnership with the Oscar-winning visual effects and animation studio Framestore. McLaren gave Framestore a brief to create content based on Button and Hamilton. The only stipulations were that the end result must be amusing, must allow for space for additional branding for McLaren’s sponsor-partners, must be adaptable for worldwide territories and must have potential to run on a long-term basis. The scripts were written by Framestore’s own directors Chris Waitt and Henry Trotter, with input from Joel Morris and Jason Hazeley. Once the basic characters had been mapped out, dialogue was added with voice recording sessions, with the directors encouraging Armstrong and the drivers to improvise and spark off one another.
The initial 12 three-minute episodes of “Tooned” uses the camaraderie between Button and Hamilton to create a series of amusing adventures that test the patience of Professor M. It is, if you like, a modern version of the popular Wacky Races, made by Hanna-Barbera in the late 1960s. Amazingly this series consisted of only 17 20-minute programmes, but some of the characters remain enshrined in popular culture, notably Dick Dastardly and his dog Muttley, the Gruesome Twosome, Professor Pat Pending and, of course, Penelope Pitstop and Peter Perfect. Animation is a brilliant way in which to draw kids into motorsport and as the Formula One group is doing nothing to promote the sport, McLaren has taken the lead.
it is a very clever idea because not only does it appeal to a new audience, but it also adds value for McLaren’s sponsor-partners in an engaging way, particularly to the younger audiences, while at the same time getting across the message that McLaren is a high technology company.
The partnership is also considering additional ways of maximising the content’s reach and engagement through multiplatform executions such as racing games and apps. There is also potential for merchandising related to the series.
The remains enormous potential for the sport in the world of animation, as underlined by the success of Disney’s feature Cars, which NASCAR used to great effect. The Formula 1 demographic continues to be well-to-do, well-educated men with disposable income, but they are getting older all the time and, under private equity management the Formula One group has been focussed on generating as much money as possible, rather than investing in the sport. New generations are not flocking to F1. They have many more choices and the sport does nothing to attract youngsters. The perfect age to get kids interested in the sport is when they are pre-schoolers, aged between two to six. It is a time during which they soak up information and develop interests that will stay with them for life. It is the perfect age to deliver messages about road safety, the environment, team-building and the value of competition. The British animated series Roary the Racing does all of these things, but its owner Chapman Entertainment has failed to make the most of the idea and in August last year was put up for sale. There was no buyer, but in the end the company sold 27 percent of its shares to a private equity firm for just $1 million. Attempts to build up the brand since then have not really got off the ground because Target Entertainment, Chapman’s distribution partner, went into administration at the end of February. Chapman’s inventory includes 104 10-minute Roary shows.
Given the vast sums of money being taken out of Formula One by the current owners, buying the Roary franchise would cost next to nothing. It would open the way for new thinking in the business. F1 has the network to market Roary around the world. It could even encourage its broadcasters agree to include epsiodes as part of their TV package. It is a good way to educate new generations of F1 fans and at the same time, if managed well, could create substantial merchandising revenues that could add to the group’s bottom line. Franchises aimed at the pre-school age group that have been successful have have had impressive staying power. The Wizard of Oz, for example, dates back to 1900, Peter Pan and Peter Rabbit to 1902, Winnie the Pooh to 1926 and Mickey Mouse to 1928. Mary Poppins (1934), Thomas the Tank Engine (1946), Kermit the Frog (1955), Paddington Bear (1958) and Barney (1992) are all still popular with each new generation.
The Thomas franchise, which is now owned by Mattel, is reckoned to make around $150m a year in global sales and the company believes that it can grow much more.
To put everything into perspective, the Cars franchise, which began in 2006, has thus far consisted of two movies: Cars and Cars II. Thus far these have made $460 million and $560 million respectively at the box office, but it is worth noting that in that same period the merchandising related to the movies has grossed $2 billion EVERY year.
Formula 1 is thus in its infancy in understanding the power of animated media – and, as usual, McLaren is well ahead of the game.
It’s a novel approach and had my 7 year old in hysterics of laughter. He has already been indoctrinated in the zen of McLaren though. Hopefully they won’t look silly if Hamilton (however remote) finds a drive with another team next season.
I can’t remember such a clinical organisation ever trying to be so awkwardly cosy.
Like a German man trying to be romantic, it just seems awkward and slightly creepy.
I suppose at least they’re trying!
Anyone who can write that does not understand anything about McLaren.
Perhaps your point perfectly illustrates their problem?
I’ve been watching F1 for around 20 years now and despite neither liking them nor disliking them this has always been my impression of McLaren.
I can’t be the only one.
Just because a lot of people have the same impression does not make it the correct impression.
No, but it does make it McLaren’s problem.
Perhaps that’s why Lewis and JB do so many fun bits for BBC with Jake, Eddie and DC ? Maybe i’m being sucked in but it makes me laugh when they are larking about, it presents a more fun, less serious side to F1. I definitely think McLaren have benefitted from it. Remember Lewis and JB trying to park the McLaren trucks last year ? very funny stuff to watch, imo.
F1 desperately needs this connection with the fans, we are so massively shut out, not even able to look through a fence for fear us great unwashed may scare a sponsors daughter while they plough their way through smoked salmon blinis and Cava….
Since they changed to “Silver arrows”, Whitmarsh took the day to day reins, and Hamilton/Button joined I think the impression they give a lot of people, including me, has changed.They definitely come across as more open, and understanding that there has to be a fun element.
I loved the cartoon. I sat down to watch it expect to roll my eyes at the embarrassment of it all, but actually found it fun. Shame big Ron doesn’t put in an appearance (yet!).
There is a great bit of a Sky News report on Youtube, though where Ron Dennis seems to take us through the logical, analytic thought process that led them to decide to appear “more fun”
Very much in agreement. Since Ron stepped back a bit, the team seem a lot more open and engaging. I know it’s only an impression but it’s an impression all the same. I also think it helps that with Hamilton and JB, as different as they are as people, both share a love of the camera.
Surely the whole point of a branding campaign is to recognise the existing state of perceptions and then seek to repair them – not to regard existing perceptions as “just wrong”!!!
Seems to sum up a prevailing attitude in F1 though: “It isn’t us that have the image problem, it’s you that has the perception problem.” No wonder casual viewers don’t warm to the sport.
Neither does it make a wrong impression though given that’s a personal view?
I’d agree with the original poster, I see McLaren as a clinical organisation, an obsession with perfection. Having watched lord knows how many documentaries about them that’s my view of their team and thats the persona that Ron Dennis put across for years in the sport.
RE: the Cartoon; very good indeed, it reminded me a bit of Disney Pixars Cars films, but with some real F1 drivers. I can see some mileage in this one for Mclaren, although it does come close to trending on Cars toes given that film features Lewis Hamilton.
Ron, in real life, is a very human.
Perhaps very idiosyncratic, but there are no doubts that his heart and soul are in it.
Not something you can say about quite a number of the team principles.
Martin Whitmarsh is also a nice guy. I’ve no doubt that he’s absolutely ruthless (ask the folks in BAe that he sacked) but a nice guy who cares about racing.
Not met Ron, but I fail to see how anyone could interpret Ronspeak as it is delivered anything other than somewhat defensive and socially awkward. I mean this in a nice way, as I’ll explain. This sort of thing is very common amongst the highly concentrated / geek crowd.
I’ve been told myself before (long ago, it took some work) that I spoke incomprehensibly, or to write down what I just said, so it could be parsed. I also worked away a pretty fearsome temper (when the absurdity of being angry didn’t crack me up) which temper came from not being comprehended. Or having too many details in mind at the same time. That still happens.
I lately found myself in a yelling match (just one or a hundred!) with my new business partner, because I wanted him to follow some math or mechanics for a trade, and he simply thinks differently, more metaphorically, more “how can I explain this to a regular guy”. Not space to describe that, but I have gone through multi-year phases of being one side of the coin or the other, dependant need or circumstances.
I’m suspicious of what is very, oh so very, vaguely linearised as Asperger’s Spectrum Disorder. I think kids, similarly with ADHD, are being too quickly diagnosed. At the high order end, it seems diagnosable, but just because a geek spends too much time writing code or playing with engines, and so is not exercising socially communicative parts of their mind, does not a conclusion make.
Further, the more deeply you become involved in a subject, the more control you feel should gravitate to you. That can cause some temper tantrums. So you get yourself a business partner with a different temperament.
For every time I have seen RD looking grim on the pit wall, I just thought, “concentrating hard, there”, and to some that may look very differently indeed.
This is very different from being ruthless, or a tyrant, it’s just wanting to attain a theoretical best, and being disappointed.
To be honest, I bet Ron is a riot in person. Off duty. If he is ever off duty . .
Only that serious look of his must have gone down very well with the Germans and many other suits who sponsor his team, when not so very long ago half of F1 looked like a whacked out rabble.
Any, and I really think any, super efficient outfit will look fairly alien to someone not used to it. I don’t mean quite as far as Canon of Japan, who have sensors in their corridors which sound alarms if staff walk too slowly to their next job, but think what the boys at General Motors must have thought when they first saw a Toyota plant.*
So you can quickly end up feeling socially awkward, even if nothing is the slightest bit wrong, and awkward is exactly how you should feel.
As an aside, I don’t see any car companies advertising anything but rigorous precision, when it comes to their machines. Only they spend F1 size budgets to soften the impression with emotion.
Further aside, I thought the idea of cold calling to sell ads was a perfect way to “get out of my shell”. I also learned (aged 17) that who do that for a living also feel awkward and nervous, and so there is or was a huge booze culture which made a dangerous impression on me.
So, I think the ultimate thing with these cartoons, is how far they soften up a already successful image, and what further they deliver emotionally. That and the marketing, of which I am uncertain, for later comment. But all good to see the effort.
* Real world assembly workers talking about that, here: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/nummi
(apols for the third time I posted that link, but it’s an excellent hour’s listening.)
And / or German man
I’m afraid that I never believe that ventures like these *do* engage new audiences. The notion that simply by doing an animation, suddenly kids will find some inspiration and loyalty to a brand is misguided. I think children are cleverer than that.
I believe that children engage in sport for sport’s sake. When I started watching (about 6,7,8 years old) I loved it because a) there was a team called McLaren and b) because it was really, really exciting.
And that’s the thing – provide excitement, provide great sport, and the younger generations will engage with F1.
What McLaren are trying to do, of course, is to get kids to engage instead with a brand. Sorry, but most kids see through that.
You are welcome to your opinion, but it clearly works.
Hey Joe. Do we know enough about it to state that it clearly works? If it’s only just been launched, it’ll surely take some time for conclusions to be drawn. Don’t get me wrong, I hope it works for them, as a fan of the team.
I think you need to read my post again.
Have you ever looked at the branding of cereals or watched TV on a Saturday morning. Kids may be smart, but advertising & branding appeals to a subconscious part of the brain so of course “it” works.
It may work, who knows, but digital animated media is surely far too young for anyone to draw firm conclusions about whether or not it works – particularly if the point is to inculcate a lifelong brand loyalty among young children. Personally, I’m very sceptical of this, and it’s very easy to parody things like this – by far the most “viewed” online animated series regarding F1 was the p*ss-take of the still-born USF1 venture. Brand loyalty is a complex matter, and it is just as easy to alienate as it is to cultivate loyalty.
I don’t see why the medium through which the message is delivered makes a big difference. If these were hand drawn animations, you’d be prepared to accept they will work but because they’re digital you’re not? It’s the concept and the execution that will determine the success, not the medium.
Dose McLaren have a secret test tunnel in real life?
(Only Joking) good idea from them
Nah, that is Ganassi racing.
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/nascar/the-secrets-of-laurel-hill/
True!
very interesting, I never knew this kind of thing existed.
Its sad, my kids grew up on Thomas now that they are adults, guess who still enjoys Thomas.
I do I was watching it on Chinese TV last week.
As you said new markets await.
For me McLaren have taken a novel step to attracting a new audience and for that you have to applaud them. Lets face it Ferrari probably dont need to do it as they have a unique brand who everyone knows about from a young age and never forgets them.
McLaren are trying to enhance their own world wide brand, which may never reach the level of Ferarri, but with their F1 history, unique factory, well liked drivers and recognisable livery they are a safe second as I dont see any other teams actively looking to build new audiences.
McLaren are playing the long game – fair play….oh and bythe way, it was fun. For those that say McLaren are awkward or lack personality, think back to Alonso and Hamilton ads with Hakkinen etc. Even in the face of internal warfare, they took time out to see the funny side.
Good idea but having watched the first one my initial thought was “must try harder”. I thought it was a bit weak and not very funny. I showed it to my next door neighbour’s 8 year old grandson and his comment was “pathetic,” so McLaren have like their current car, considerable room for improvement.
Wilson
Still discounting the genius of Pixar in generating $$$ from Cars I see.
Pixar have rarely made a bad movie
Despite what some think of Cars – it was a box office hit- and so many others have been both critically acclaimed and box office hits
Just because something is animated doesn’t make in on the same playing field.
They can push out all the animated Mclaren advertising they want and kids wont remember it in the same way they remember Toy Story
You can make an animated F1 movie – and have as much merch as you want – and you just wont match the box office magic of Pixar- nor the rewards it brings
Its like someone thinking they can make an F1 movie – and coming up with Driven instead of Grand Prix.
Amusing stuff but they should have hired Nick Daman and Declan Brennan to do the scripts, the guys responsible for the hilarious usf1 animations
Nice story Joe. Just thought I’d add my thoughts: Personally, I think the animation is a great idea and well delivered. A quality production and amusing. McLaren continue to invest in order to reach out to the established fans of F1 and … to try to engage new ones. I’ve read that some suggest this is a brand build exercise. Well … of course that IS part of it!!! Formula One IS about brands! That is the business of F1. However, McLaren has a big heart. They are passionate about their racing and, again in my opinion, consistently use their creativity and generosity to do so much for the sport. If they reap any kind of return from that then I am delighted … effort deserves returns. Well done Guys. Perry
I always felt it was a shame that Andrea Moda Formula never got to this level of F1 sophistication.
Agreed … but we did have one thing in common with McLaren’s animation
… we made a lot of people laugh
Too true.
Thanks Joe … I must remember to come on here and banter more often
You’re always welcome.
All hail ex Stig.
Indeed you did especially late at night in the Plough.
Wasn’t Andrea Sassetti involved in an early version of The Sopranos?
Though I might have dreamt that…
nah, that was GridFillas.
Interesting that you mention computer games as a possible avenue of expansion.
Last year McLaren did a deal with iRacing, the most accurate racing sim out there, to bring the MP14 to the service (which already boasts Williams’ FW31 and a Lotus 79 – with a ’61 on the way).
McLaren then apparently did an exclusive deal with new-comer Simraceway which allows them to produce digital versions the entire F1 McLaren stable.
Seeing how as part of these deals manufacturers often get copies of car and aero models (and iRacing in particular has built their rep on mm accuracy of cars and tracks), perhaps McLaren see some technical value in such relationships instead of just marketing the brand?
(As an aside, I’ve often thought it’d be really cool if the teams donated their sim data in 2014 – when the new regs are in and they need to invest in new modelling anyway – so game devs/modders could create something special. Most of the teams run their simulators on the same software anyway so it would be as accurate as you could expect to get. Sure beats just chucking those millions of development dollars aside!)
I enjoyed it. But then I worked in animation for Pixar and so I have no reason to grow up despite hitting the big 3-0. McLaren may be a data driven company, but then so is Pixar, and you’d hardly call that environment ‘clinical’.
If anything I thought it showed McLaren have a sense of humour – it was certainly more successful than Red Bull Racing trying to portray it’s laid-back party-animal atmosphere (like a desperately needy 45 year old kids tv producer trying to pretend he’s 15). Yes Red Bull has a great image in x-racing and other extreme sports, but with Helmut stalking around and their current lead driver being a no-BS aussie (who I can’t imagine listens to the teams euro-crap techno when they win) they haven’t managed anything that was as clever and fun as this little short. If it helps get kids into the brand and the idea of motor-racing, even better, but it was enjoyable for this (rather over-aged) kid!
Aura,
farbeit for me to disagree with your experience, but I gained a different impression of PIXAR. Being that whilst heavily data oriented by necessity (going back to their first pretty grey cube which looks to me from the outside to riff off the Connexions Machine work on parallelism) to the sheer data and compute required, and then to a highly diverse influx of talent who simply set out to play with the cartoons they always wanted to.
Treading softly here, in general, but I showed my octogenarian mom Madagascar last night (on my hopefully now fixed system) and I’ve never seen her so enthralled. As I watched her transfixed, and Snow White was just out when she was a little girl, I started paying more attention, this time not to whether I’d dialled in the calibration correctly. What I saw, on review, was that *every* *single* nuance of every picture delivered a emotional message. Over and above the story, yet connecting in a wave of narrative arcs.
That takes a huge amount of talent and budget, and I am not directly comparing the PIXAR work with Mclaren’s toon. But what I am saying is that the emotional content and how to animate it seems to take a tremendous amount of effort – and people – to deliver. This is where I fear the Mclaren toon could fail. Someone above commented on the lack of story in the new, non original Thomas The Tank Engine CGI toons. I’ve watched them, and agree. What would be interesting to know is how long this has been in development. Read the press releases, and I read Ronspeak, in the bad meaning of Ronspeak, and not the connective tissue of telling the creative process that sells any in the press press but regurgitators, nor buyers at MIPTV. That said, Sky is a captive channel, as of now. Just with no viewers.
As a boy there was a BBC Horizon docu, on PIXAR, and they showed Luxo Jnr. Prompted me to write them ask for a tea boy’s job. Lacked two things: a relevant PhD and having majority age! My father also drew me (crude but he had the narrative down pat) strip toons of my cuddly toys. Those are gone now, lost in storage flood, but I can remember every one of them. They were on till receipt paper rolls, and often the full length.
Well, my pop had an easy job, to sell me, drawing amateurishly about the toys I loved. Harder sell when they’re not your toys . . but the writing is not easy, ever.
What concerns me is the distribution of the Mclaren toon, and how well it will develop, and what emotive connexion it can make.
I also believe that in cartoon land, real or semi real characters are the hardest to portray. Nothing at all to do with personal character rights, but because there is always going to be a direct comparison that to take away with sufficient ~ and generic ~ caricature in the drawings is very hard.
I shall see if this one respins on Sky, and look it over properly.
But I wonder the following:
– How much competition for time does even a 3 min short get? Up against Mushimonsters? No chance with some young kids whose parents I know.
– Where is the distribution? What point if just on Sky? Just ask Karen, or see her posts for the numbers. So, is that really promoting, outside the F1 and animation press?
– Is the 3m min short format designed for budget, or to counteract the perceived attention span deficit? Knowing that helps a lot, as to how you position.
– Is the format simply too short, or the narrative too narrow, to demand the repeats that have propelled all the greats Joe cited in this post, to fame? I did not see the comparisons, and so took some time to think.
– Complexity, and reviewing complexity, is not only key to the immediately above point, but a key aspect of learning. The bit I caught of this, looks too simplistic. Even for very young kids. My own idea of the reverse of the Uncanny Valley, is that you must create a believable separate world.
– How does one get this presented to a target audience, at the right time? Childrens’ programming is usually squarely at the time when parents need some peace, not when they are viewing a F1 channel.
I’ll skip all the usual Qs as to when it gets “social traction” and is reposted on YouTube etc, even though I am aware too much of the demographic aimed for is already on social networks . .
rather I think this a intelligent kick up the bum, from RD et.al. to tell F1 to get promoting itself.
If anyone has not seen this, oh, shame on you, The Pixar Story: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1059955/
. . .
I have no plans to grow up, neither did my pop, so all this matters!!
yours, ~ j
I agree with all your points Joe. If you see how much money is left laying around not being picked up by F1 it’s staggering.
My 5 year old is hooked on the sport, and has been since he was 3. He could name almost all the drivers at age 3, before the season started. When he turned 5 he could name the tracks, know their layout, name the countries by the flag or track drawing, and is crazy about drawing tracks anywhere and using anything available. What got him so hooked? Cars, the movie.
With Cars 2 introducing open-wheeled cars and cars from other genres of motorsport, it amazes me that these sports haven’t tried to ride that wave. Imagine a cartoon spinoff following Francesco’s trials against fellow F1 cars, or Raoul Caroule’s rally attempts. DTM, WTCC, WRC, F1, LMS, they’re all featured in the movie, and are just waiting to be expanded upon.
The biggest supermarket chain in the Netherlands has soccer stickers and collectorbooks running almost every year, and especially around WC and EC they are well sought after. How often have I thought and been asked by my son “why aren’t there stickercampaigns of F1?”
Roary or a Cars2 spin-off are both but starting points for a greater audience, one that will join early and stay for a longer time. I hope your ideas get read by the powers that are and want to be.
Thanks Joe for making it clear once again. I had the same reflexion yesterday, and immediately thought how can it be with GSK through Lucozade already here.
If I may add it too, Lucozade is even more relevant considering they are backing more or less obviously the drivers from McLaren Young Program. It goes from Nyck de Vries, whose car is totally Lucozaded, to Hector Hurst where Lucozade is not written but the car definitely has the colors.
I think McLaren would be better spending their resources on making their car better than making a cartoon. Never been a fan of these corporate type of cartoons.Leave that to Hanna and Barbera but then I’m old and grumpy.
Your final point is valid.
What me being old and grumpy or Hanna and Barbera making class cartoons.?
In Brazil, Dick Dastardly is a nickname for Michael Schumacher.
“Formula One group is doing nothing to promote the sport, McLaren has taken the lead.”
This is the sad fact that I have mentioned a few times, FOM is the official promoter of F1 yet it “seems” to have done almost nothing in that direction.
F1 promoting road safety in it’s low key way does nothing to promote the sport to the masses.
Apparently it was Motor sport week in the uk last week, I found out only because it was mentioned in a blog somewhere; what was it about ? I still don’t know, I have not seen a single newspaper article or advert, let alone anything on terrestrial tv. If Todt’s brief was to lower the profile of F1 then he is doing an excellent job.
Bernie has not appeared to promote either any of the races or the sport itself. Before the vast increase in fees we even used to have the British GP advertised on tv. Of course that is not necessary nowadays.
McLaren’s image to me, is better captured by “How to build a supercar” a BBC documentary. I cannot see McLaren ever being “cuddly” nor is it the sort of image they need. Efficiency, cleanliness, supreme technical skill and ability, ingenuity advanced high level computing power CFD, FEA materials science. StilI didn’t see it, but I did fall asleep during “Cars” a film, which, strangely my wife loved.
Who’da thunk that Dick Dastardly and Penelope Pitstop would end up on the same team! I’d like to see a cartoon of that!
This is a very VERY smart move on the part of McLaren. I approve.
Would have been more “interesting” if they had done it in the Lewis and Alonso season. lol
This is another smart move by McLaren. In typical fashion this is done by a top notch crew, it is funny, clever, plays off all the right classic spy story lines. Lets hope they keep it up.
This is not the first time McLaren have been associated with attracting kids to F1, 10 years ago Lisa Dennis had a series of books, which my kids used to read.
Happy with the investment Mclaren making in F1′s future…should be FIA, commercial rights holders doing this though.
More pressing is the question why Williams went off a cliff with Sam Michael in charge and why Mclaren are doing the same now they’ve hired him.
Fantasic they’ve managed to save 20 seconds on messy pit stops – shame they’ve lost 36 seconds on RB (gap to Lewis at end of race).
They’ve never been the same since the legendary pit bull Big Ron stood aside. Maybe its time for the very nice Martin W to take a long hard look at himself and other key personnel.
Mclaren lost Newey to RB, Fry to Ferrari…….
Williams suffered because (as they openly admitted) Sam Michael was doing to much technical stuff and a jack (zing) of all trades is a master of none.
Whether he was placed in that position by his own doing or managerial machinations (Parr’s cost saving?) isn’t quite so clear cut.
The majority of McLaren’s pit stop blunders have been simple mistakes/human error and/or technical failings. The former happen whilst the latter have been sorted as they’ve cropped up and have often occured when McLaren have been testing new technology to improve their performance.
The real finger needs to be pointed at the McLaren development staff & the race strategists, both of which seem to be stuck in their own ruts.
Small (but largely irrelevant) clarification – the Thomas & Friends ‘brand’ is distinct between toys and media.
The former is currently (as you say) with Mattel, although Tomy produce the Wooden (Brio) stuff it acquired by purchasing Learning Curve.
The latter is with HIT Entertainment (see also: Bob the Builder, Fireman Sam & many other revitalised favourites), who seem to have the overall rights agreement with Britt Allcroft, as they handle the merchandise rights too.
The CGI TV series, currently produced by Nitrogen in Canada, are really visually impressive (certainly a step up from the Bob the Builder & Fireman Sam CGI), although the storylines are generally dire (and have been since they ran out of Awdry stories and HIT took over the brand).
Still, it seems to be keeping my 2 year old interested in the property. Hopefully it’ll last until I can crack out the *proper* Railway Series books of my youth.
So, anyway, Formula One!
I have often wondered how much the often-reviled movie “Days of Thunder”, has to do with the popularity of NASCAR. It came out on the cusp of it becoming popular and did signal; that Hollywood to it seriously enough to make a star powered movie about it. So much so that people routinely refer to Kyle Busch as “Rowdy” in chats and forums. Scoff if you will, and I do, but there is something about using the magic of cinema, an TV, if done correctly.
Randy Bernard is trying to do a Pixar type film about a young IndyCar making on the circuit. It may not get made or flop badly But it is worth trying to get the youth audience.
Awesome article – one wonders what directions FOM would develop in if you and James Allen had the reins…
I grew up as a Bruce Mclaren fan in the 60′s and had all the original RW Audry books….Thomas, Henry et al. I know what kids like because I have spent 30 years teaching them
What McLaren are doing and what you have mentioned regarding Pixar shows that CVC is hardly scratching the surface.
Bernie is brillaint at doing deals and has since the the 80′s built F1 the way a car dealer and business broker would.
But he doesn’t have the marketing and creative juices that would visualize the potential that F1 marketing has for children. Few people do, but advertising companies understand very well that what kids want mum buys for them…
Hence my belief that F1 should be targeting mothers, not older gentlemen.
Joe, it has been estimated that out of 75 million NASCAR fans in the States, about 40% of them are women. A few years ago they tried a licensing agreement with Harlequin romance novels. I don’t know if they still have them looking at Harlequin and Amazon websites it has been over a year since any came out. But those romance novels sell an awful lot of copies, and as the Roman emperor Vespasian remarked, money has no smell.
F1 is very popular but you are right that leadership can not sit on its laurels and expect it was always be this way. There is a lot of competition for the entertainment dollar/euro/yen/yuan and some other forward thinking sport could
take F1′s place.
Where are the F1 toys which float in your bath, or dangle above your cot?
Or cloth books with nice stories which help toddlers learn essential early words, like “camshaft” or “Bernoulli Effect”?
Has anyone ever made any novelty F1 car slippers for kids?
I’d go back to being a kid for some of that.
As for targeting mothers, I seem by accident to be doing too much of that . .
Hello John,
Be careful about getting small children interested in Bernoulli effects or camshafts.
It leads to them growing up (and I do use that term very loosely) into engineering geeks who find delight in building aeroplanes or spacecraft or F1 cars… and can’t have that.
As an aside, I loved the recent BBC4 programme about Gordon Murray “How to go fast and Influence people” I’d commend it to anyone with an interest in F1 and/or engineering. It’s the sort of stuff that got me into F1 (though watching too much Thunderbirds is what probably doomed me into getting into aerodynamics) .
If Joe doesn’t mind me posting links:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01f11hp/How_to_Go_Faster_and_Influence_People_The_Gordon_Murray_F1_Story/
(UK only)
Here is a pertinent question: why do people think Bernie is so good at managing F1 when he is leaving so much money on the table?
Wrong, wrong, wrong! A car company must do cars. Not expensive hi-fi. Not ECUs. Not cartoons! Wrong, wrong, wrong!
And Porsche Design caused the firm to fail? And no car company should be in finance? So
E companies can rub their stomachs and pat their heads at the same time.
Should Saab have stayed making aeroplanes, BMW making aeroplane engines and Lamborghini stuck to building tractors?
Joe,
Porsche Design have been doing this for ages including the secret stuff the do for customers and lately even venturing into designing cockpits for planes. There’s a big market for this stuff. But you might agree when I say this is rather an exception to the rule. GM eventually got rid of GMAC when it became too big to handle. GE has used its finance subsidiary to massage its accounts with “creative accounting” for decades. But this is another story. I think it’s wrong for an F1 company to try emulating Steve Jobs with Pixar. But I will be glad to admit I was wrong by 2025 if Ron Dennis’ heirs will be made billionaires (in £) when they sell McLaren Industrial Light & Magic to Hollywood.
On a similar topic of attracting kids to F1
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-07-13-codemasters-announces-f1-race-stars