If one suggests that the fans of a sport are getting old and the format needs to change it is inevitable that one will get two kinds of reaction: one will be from the old fans who think everything is peachy, and do not want to see any changes; the other will be from youngsters who ARE interested and think, therefore, that their whole generation is. There are always going to be exceptions to every rule, but everything that I see and know from first hand experience is that there clearly is a problem, as Luca di Montezemolo (and many others) have noted.
The question is not so much whether the problem exists because of the sport, or because of the changes that have happened in society since the beginning of the Digital Revolution. This continues to reshape our lives and is an upheaval on the scale of the Industrial Revolution, which began in 1750 and not only transformed the way in which people lived, but also affected almost every aspect of daily life, as industrial machinery replaced more traditional techniques. The digital revolution means that individuals now have instant access to information, which has fundamentally changed the way people live, learn and do business. The resulting society is still being formed, but what is clear is that in the post-digital revolution era, the structures of many industries will be changed. Our lives will be very different. We are seeing ever-increasing urban living and a decline in interest in the car in general. Once the automobile brought freedom, today it is often seen as creating hassles. The younger generations are happier to use alternative transportation, while some don’t feel the need to travel because the Internet will take them places – virtually. Participation in sports and other activities is going down as the Internet takes up more time. You can do so much more these days, without ever leaving home.
What is clear about the Internet is that when kids are growing up, they can do things that their parents and grandparents could never do. They can fight wars in space, command armies, drive racing cars, fly jet planes and build cities. None of it is real, but that is not the point. They get a kick out of doing it. Their heroes are people like Ken Block, who do wacky things with cars and then sell shoes to the kids. It seems that Formula 1 is simply too formulaic and not spectacular enough.
I don’t know what the right answer is, in terms of changing the sport to attract youngsters, but I do know that it is necessary to do something because despite what some people say the sport IS broken and does need fixing, even if it may not appear to be the case. The length of the races is always going to be a problem for the diehards because “it has always been like that”. Just like cricket was always five-day matches and white flannels until Kerry Packer came along and shook the tree a little.
Any sport needs to be open to new ideas, particularly one that sells itself on the idea of being fast-moving, cutting edge and innovative. One area where there is clearly a need for change is the sport’s involvement with the Internet. There are lots of websites and blogs churning out news, but the restrictions placed on the use of images means that webcasting is still in Year Zero. Podcasting does a little better. The problem is access to the right people. This cannot be done in the paddocks of the world because these exist only for those who pay the Formula One group massive amounts of money. It is good that they can do that, but the people making the programmes are not necessarily racing fans. They are just TV people putting stuff between the advertising. And, in any case, when it is all hidden behind pay-walls it is not accessible to youngsters.
This is a problem, but a far bigger problem I believe is that the characters in the sport are now so programmed by PR people that they rarely say anything interesting or intelligent. It is all very dull and the characters of the sport do not come through. This really needs to change. Racing drivers need to become heroes again, rather than corporate front men. In order for that to happen they need to feel that are free to say what they like. All too often the anal-retentive teams worry about what their sponsors might think and forget that what the sponsors actually want is to engage with the fans. OK, if you are a Santander driver and you say that it is a lousy bank, it is not very smart, but there is no problem in my mind about having an opinion and voicing it, and thus showing one’s character, rather than constantly hiding. The reality is that the easiest option for drivers is to be dull. If they do that, in the end people don’t want to talk to them because they know it is waste of time. The embodiment of this concept is Kimi Raikkonen, who is anything but dull when there are no media about, but is a shockingly poor interview. In this respect I think Red Bull has the right idea. They don’t seem to care much what the drivers say and so we can see that Mark Webber and Sebastian Vettel are real people. The problem runs deep because young drivers are trained early on to say nothing controversial. This is dressed up as “being professional” but there is nothing more boring than professional answers, or no answers at all. As a pressman I feel like I am an artist with a canvas and a brush, but no paint. It is enough to make you slash your wrists!
I know that F1 people hate to be told how to do things, but NASCAR does it much better. They have the hotheads like Kurt Busch and Tony Stewart who lose it and have punch-ups, they throw things at each other and make rude signs. Great! That is what real people do and while there will always be some matrons and vicars who will tut-tut, the rest of the world will love it. The key word here is “engagement”. F1 needs to get closer to its fans. It can be done within reason, but F1 is so focussed on squeezing the last penny out of every passer-by that it driving them away. NASCAR still squeezes the fans, but they part with the money because they think they are getting value, rather than being ripped off. F1 merchandising is a completely wasted concept. The teams all have highfalutin ideas about their brand values (blah-blah-blah) and forget that people just want to buy shirts and jackets that do not require a new mortgage. High-end product is all very well for those who can afford it, but a bit of mass market savvy would be a great idea as well.
The idea of changing start times is fraught with problems. At the moment viewers around the world know when a race will start and so can plan around that. Changing these times might reduce the number of viewers. Having said that, having the European races later in the day would push the TV coverage into prime time, while also creating bigger audiences in the United States, where the current scheduling means that the Grands Prix start at anti-social hours. The downside of later start times in Europe is that this would push the TV coverage into the late evening and night time in Asia, which would therefore impact on live TV viewer numbers.
Ultimately, Formula 1 needs to compromise. It needs to create solid packages of races in each time zone, in order to make the sport viable for TV companies, and that means a shift westward with more races in the Americas. In each time zone it is logical for the races to be run at sensible and regular times. That may mean that European audiences will have to stay up late to watch races in the Americas, but it is the best hope there is for creating the biggest possible global TV audiences.











Nice one Joe , I have to also add that it is interesting that the TV coverage is getting saturated and dull. The only exception being the BBC Red button post race that seems more laid back.
The reality is that all sport is so commercialised now, to get to the top, you have to be SO focused, there is no outside perspective, relying on results to do the talking and of course the PR man/woman. Look at tennis, football etc, they don’t know how to communicate…except when asking for a bigger pay cheque!
I feel shortening races is a negative reaction in diluting the product. If the product isn’t good enough it needs to be changed not less of it given but I don’t think the product is the problem.
I just don’t get what FOM are at. They are getting mega free advertisement on Youtube but they take down every video and never give an alternative. Other websites do a much better job of timing than their own but they are closed down like http://f1timing.povarnitsyn.ru/
Wish the drivers were not so politically correct all the time. Hamilton at Monaco last year in the BBC interview with Lee McKenzie was brilliant TV. Now if something is upsetting him he goes in a silent huff with a pile of short answers in interviews.
I totally agree with you Snowman. I have never understood why FOM takes down short clips on youtube; they promote the product and cost nothing. As regards the drivers’ interviews, I agree with you and Joe. I was hopeful that we were gong to see some new, interesting blood when Riciardo (sp) got a drive, but his first interview was just the same non-answers and sponsor mentions; if he had said how excited he was, or let a bit of character through I would have been interested in him but all the corporate speak just made me tune out.
Spot on – less of the same is not the (only) answer. I am, honestly, open minded to all changes to F1. But the sport’s attitude to its audience (actual and potential) is the key to unlocking it’s potential.
The sport has needed a change of ownership for some time. The teams and track owners should be the owners, selling their product and distributing the proceeds amongst themselves. That way the participants and investors in the sport make a better return and without the massive % take by CVC the rights can be sold to TV more cheaply, increasing tv and internet coverage, and tickest to races might be affordable to everybody, not just the corpoate guests or ultra hard core fans who will pay whatever it takes. Sadly they do not have the balls to call Bernies bluff and are so easily bought off by the crumbs from his table.
As noted on a previous thread, I have an inbuilt fear of change – not so much of change itself, but of misguided change, directed by people profession to know what a particular audience ‘wants’ (in this case them pesky kids).
The idea of shortening races is a great example of this. If, as you say, the kids want Ken Block, how exactly does shorter races provide them this? All shorter races provide is a shorter package. To any kids (or other valuable demographic) aren’t watching long races, why would they short ones? It’s a knee jerk recation following the model: kids don’t watch > what do I know about kids > ooooh, they have short attention spans > shorter races must be the answer.
Are kids watching the shorter, action packed BTCC races?
As previous commenters on the other post have mentioned, a big part of why F1 is not adapting to the digital era is it’s fundamental inability to flex to it – especially with regards to anything (you tube, website, social media) which it feels is giving away its valuable content for free. FOM does excellent, very funky race edits after each race. These should be viral hits, spreading across twitter and you tube. Instead, they are locked away, needing user registration to access them. result? No one bothers. F1 fans doing a great job of providing a free advertising service to F1 (check the WTF1 blog for an example) get they work blocked and threatened with legal action. FOM does not understand the new landscape on a fundamental level – and yet we think the same tired old men have the answer to winning round young viewers?
This all of course risks the same trap – I’m not say the above is or isn’t ‘THE’ key reason young people aren’t watching – but just throwing in the idea that it isn’t necessarily the product that is broken, but the packaging. Coca-Cola/McDonalds aren’t the world’s biggest brands because they make the best tasting food and drink. But they do understand marketing. (Ironically, remember the last time Coke did forget what it was that sold it’s products and launched ‘new’ Coke? Such a move would destroy F1)
Hi Chris, Let me start by telling you my age and background. I’m 33 and I feel right in the middle of generations.
I like you really am not keen on the shortening of races. Like many commenters on this blog we all value a race and not a sprint. One of my favourite races away from F1 is the Le Mans 24hours for example.
However, there really is something wrong and Joe is fundamentally correct in all of his assertions. I am lucky enough in the last few years to have attended many sporting events and one of the overriding things about Grand Prix’s is the age of the attendees. Cricket I feel is a great comparator here as it has a great history of test match’s but if you attend an international cricket fixture the crowds are much more mixed in age. How has cricket managed this? Well by introducing 50 over cricket and most recently 2020 cricket it has allowed people to view a sport in a much more condensed way.
I think F1 needs to have a mix of races. I think it could retain classic races at classic venues but at other venues it should look at sprint races and then a feature race like GP2. It can then appeal to different time zones because you could put a 30 minute sprint race on in the US at 6pm and the UK because it is a Saturday night could still watch at 11pm. The points system would need to be adapted but in principle you would find the shorter forms should attract people to the longer forms. I think the key thing 2020 has done in cricket is basically simplify the sport to a newcomer who then will look deeper into the strategies involved in a longer race. This does have dangers because in India test match cricket is dying out however in contrast in the UK it still remains strong.
Imagine trying to explain that to the other half, would never work! Explaining knock out qualifying is hard enough. One of the main reasons football is so popular is its simplicity. If you are playing a classic derby like Manchester United vs Manchester City, it is exactly the same as a conference match. The rules are the same, the points are the same, the length of the match is the same….ok well maybe not the length of match in terms of Manchester United…
The show can definitely be improved though, both for spectators and tv audiences. There are long gaps waiting at the track where nothing happens, let each of the teams be given 5 minutes to entertain the crowds (Red Bull X Fighters, Merc DTM cars, McLaren F1 Le Mans car demo’s).
I agree with the simplicity. I am not trying to reinvent the wheel I think we need short races at good times. I very much agreed with what Luca said when he said we have races in the middle of the afternoon in the summer when everyone is on holiday at the beach.
Quite right.
You spend the day at a sterile circuit, 500 yards away from the track and then you get even slower cars racing past in procession for half an hour, then a massive gap, until some other boring formula does another half an hour, then another gap, then you get ninety minutes of F1, then you get to queue for a couple of hours to get out of the car park. I wouldn’t even consider just going to the race day of an F1 weekend, it’s just horrific value for money, 90 mins of racing for £230, just to sit down ?
This is one thing the Singapore GP does very much right. In between and after the races there are other forms of entertainment all around the track. Katy Perry is headlining after the race on Sunday this year for instance. There are actually people buying general admission tickets just for the concerts as well.
The one time I went to the Spore GP there wasn’t a single dull moment on either Saturday or Sunday really.
I don’t disagree that F1 could look at it’s format. But I do disagree that the race length is the fundamental format issue. It seems to suggest that either young people or our American cousins struggle to maintain concentration for more than an hour. It’s not true.
Football, as far as I can see, is not struggling to gain young fans. A football match is about the length of a Grand Prix. Cricket is a bit of a false comparison – you are talking about condensing a very slow paced game played over 5 days (5 DAYS!) into a shorter format. Not about changing GPs from 90 mins to 50 mins.
Some of the other ideas in some comments have risked being like that football advert with the silly ‘if Americans made soccer’s rules’ ideas.
The fact remains that F1 has struggled, completely, to adapt to the new technological environment (which is as sad as it is ironic). Look at how long it took to bring HD to races. Heaven and Earth should have been moved to make F1 a leader in HD.
The one decent scheme we had was Bernie’s pay-per-view scheme in the early 2000s – it was a decent starting point in interactive TV. But, true to form, it was locked away behind a stupidly high paywall. F1′s greed has been a key barrier to it making the most of new technology, and it’s again ironic that this greed is starting to hurt, as viewers turn to easy accessible, interactive media.
Everyone keeps talking Ken Block – instead of simply asking how F1 can replicate what Ken Block does, can we not look at how he promotes the videos via viral media. F1 drivers are (technically) banned from even doing a donut! Let alone filming it and turning it into a viral!
I think a major difference is as well, many youngsters can easily and cheaply play football themselves. In competition. And look up to the guys doing the same in the big leagues.
Youngsters going racing on the other hand, now THAT is a lot harder.
I had a friend who was pretty good at karting, he once participated in a competition organized by a major brand looking for new racers and came fourth out of 200. Sadly only the 3 first went to the next part of the programme. When he was younger, him and his parents had looked into going into competitive karting, but when they saw the costs…
+1
That’s a really good article. Thanks.
An interesting piece Joe, touching on many areas affecting F1 these days. Plenty to reflect on.
Well, I’m an old fan and I don’t think F1 is peachy. Predictably, perhaps, I think it was better in the ’70s when I first got interested.
I don’t accept the premise that F1 needs more fans. It has too much money sloshing around this is what brings in the big sponsors and the corporate attitudes of all involved. Fewer fans would mean fewer sponsors then the racing could be left to those with a passion for the sport rather than what it can bring them.
Phil
Agree 100%, I think that there is no silver bullet, but there what’s needed is changes to many areas of the sport, personally I have no idea if shortening the races will bring in more people but clearly running the sport like it is the 1980′s when it is supposed to be the standard bearer for cutting edge technology simply makes no sense.
For far too long F1 has treated fans and potential fans like they should feel privileged by the mere chance to watch a race or follow the championship, it’s about time that FOM and the FIA realize that that’s not what people (of all ages) want, we want to be engaged, entertained, surprised at many levels, not just on the track but off of it as well.
I understand that Bernie wants to maximize income, but squeezing the fans dry while you leave a huge frontier (internet, new media, mobile communications) virtually untapped makes no sense, specially when the fans are asking for it, or better yet screaming for it.
You’ve more or less said this in your piece but the reason F1 is like it is, is down to greed.
You can give me emerging markets and TV viewers all you want, but the reason F1 is in Bahrain, China, etc… is the those countries and more specifically the governments running them are able to buy a race for no other reason than vanity while not needing to justify the expense to tax payers.
Other sports are now run similarly, football for example but this is a grassroots sport and in the UK at least this is all some people have to look forward to and so will part with their last pound and take whatever abuse is handed to them to support their team. F1 is elitist and it doesn’t enjoy the same position as football when it comes to the majority of people who support it.
I could afford to attend several of the European races each season if I wanted to but I refuse to based on the fact the price is completely unjustified. I believe more and more people will take this position.
I’ll probably always follow F1, I’m in the camp who thinks shorter races and overtaking buttons are ridiculous but they’d need to go further than that for me to stop watching. That said the sport ‘is broken’ and the only way it’ll ever be fixed I believe is for the teams to own / control the sport.
Check Williams latest financials if you want to know how much chance there is of that happening – short term economics will never lead to long term prosperity Frank, I bet Adam told you that already didn’t he…
“I could afford to attend several of the European races each season if I wanted to but I refuse to based on the fact the price is completely unjustified. I believe more and more people will take this position.”
Well I cannot afford to and an increasing number will realise that they are being ripped off in order to make millionaires and billionaires a lot richer.
But the falling audiences do not affect Bernie….yet, they must do in the end, when sponsors drop out and Sky find it not profitable to show F1, you will end up with even more football.
Agreed. Although I only have slightly more faith in the teams than CVC, in terms of their ability to run a championship. The teams have demonstrated a remarkable determination to make profit and reduce risk as far as I can tell… well the grande ones at least. In a perfect world I’d like to see the FIA running the sport commercially but the EU has already said that can’t happen.
I couldn’t agree more Joe. I feel sad for instance that Lewis Hamilton’s latest attempt at twitter have been ridiculed by some. Okay he made a mistake perhaps with some sensitive information but at least he was trying to show something of himself, with tweets on Grenada and his Auntie etc before then.
There is a saying on the tip of my tongue about change, or rather not changing and dying. My 25 year old son love’s motorsport, but has little time for F1. Drifting is his thing. I know many of his age like that. F1 needs to reach out to that audience or suffer the consequences. It needs a Kerry Packer.
Two things seem to me to be almost directly intended to drive newer/younger fans away:
1. Over-zealous copyright claims removing any exciting F1 footage from Youtube (and any others). This removes the user-driven “commercials” for the sport from the very place that the people we want to engage go to. Seems utter madness to me.
2. As you so rightly say: over PR-ed drivers who, as a result, lack any character whatsoever. F1 needs to thrust the drivers front and centre and the teams need to let them say anything they want. I’m sure fans will love it and that’s the point. Even those who come across as total asses will engage fans!!
Shortening races is daft, in my opinion. As has been said elsewhere, if a fan can watch other sports and movies etc. for well over 90 minutes, they can watch a race…IF they care about who’s taking part (see drivers, above) and if it’s not a dull procession (which, frankly, would be dull if only 45 minutes long).
I certainly agree when it comes to F1′s seeming inability to embrace new technology. One obvious example is the Live Timing mobile app, which is a great idea – except that it comes at a cost of £15, which works out at not very good value when you consider that it’s only of any use on 20 weekends in the year. Then next year you’ll have to buy a whole new app.
Compare that to the England and Wales Cricket Board’s app, which provides live scoring for every international and English county cricket match, as well as some miscellaneous news and stats, all for free.
Not to worry Joe. Next month,at the ITU World conference in Dubai, the Russians,Sauds, Chinese and even Brazilians,will wrest control of this Internet thing away from the Americans and they will finally be able to pull the plug on this confounding thing that has caused so much disruption. Then we can return to our normal programming, kids will have to watch what we provide them, problem solved.
Lessons were learned at Tunis in 2009.
I don’t know why there is so much concern with the time of the race broadcasts on TV. I am sure that most race fans are recording the GPs to watch at their convenience and replay what they want to see without commercials interfering. If the interest is in a younger demographic then F1 should look at additional and alternate broadcast devices and channels. Bernie was never behind the times and had the right idea years ago. The audience just wasn’t up to it. He should revisit that concept again.
I’m pretty sure that most fans are watching it live – in certain territories this might not be the case, but I’d happily wager that worldwide, more than 50% of people who consider themselves F1 fans are watching live instead of recording and running the social media gauntlet.
I have to wake up at 8am on race weekends to catch the live coverage and I’d rather do that than have to avoid the internet, twitter or any new outlet in order not to find out the results. There is always something to be said about knowing that the events you are watching are happening live.
8 am? Lucky you!!! In the US of A European races are on at 5:00 am for the west coast where I live. I watch the Sky or BBC broadcast on the intertubes; I know the content is protected, but what’s a guy to do? The US coverage is problematic, so I really like the English broadcast. I would be happy to pay a reasonable fee for broadcasts, but that’s not happening. On the subject of cost, the Sky fees are outrageous and I suspect viewership is going to drop quickly. There seems to be a disconnect between cost and value with F1 and I think there is trouble brewing in the near future.
I suspect 6wT is in the US of A.
But you’re both right, 8am roughly corresponds to the east coast, 5am to the west. Central and Mountain time fill the gap.
I’m not sure moving the races back later in the day (until 4 or 5pm, or even 8pm), is that big a problem for Asian viewing figures.
English premier league football plays at those kinds of times, and nobody is saying that it’s struggling for viewers in asia.
But if those fans are watching the Football, who will watch F1?
Football has an audience that F1 can only dream of, worldwide support for teams based in different contients and watch them every weekend, as you correctly state. I fear that by trying to muscle in on the same times as Football, F1 will actually suffer a drop in TV audiences.
Joe – that should have read “Lessons were learned at Tunis in 2005″
It is far too artificial, the engine regulations may help with costs, but do little to attract new fans and hold on to existing. The constant adjustments to racing reg’s do nothing for the sport or the fans and confuse those already engaged.
Short races are a non-starter for this fan, I’d just not bother, simple as that.
This year has seen some of the best racing for years, but the whole sport is teetering on the brink because of gross mis-management over a whole raft of aspects of the sport, all basically tied to money.
Access to replays of the race of of practice sessions is blocked, for what reason? Nobody seems to know.
Too many fingers in the pie.
Joe — Yank media member here. Some feedback from my vantage point:
1. Yes, the state of auto racing PR has been deplorable for some time, in every series I’ve ever tried to cover. Most PR people think that their role is to refuse interviews, keep their driver away from the press, open up press conference with inane boring questions, and make sure their people wear the correct logos. That one can be a credentialed member of the media that follows a series and never having once met some of the team PR people speaks volumes.
2. No, NASCAR isn’t doing it better. NASCAR got fat and big on the basis of the legendary Winston tobacco company sponsorship and — above all — marketing expertise. Since the departure of tobacco money, NASCAR has reached their apogee and now has fallen back to early 1990′s ratings and ticket sales. Perhaps one of the culprits of motor sports malaise, then, is the lack of tobacco money and marketing?
3. No, having drivers throw helmets (or in the case of IndyCar, flipping the bird at sanctioning officials on live TV) isn’t the answer. But you do make a great point — the average NASCAR/F1/IndyCar race is staged like an IBM product release, and the press conferences about as interesting.
4. What **HAS** caught on here in the ‘States is that “extreme rally” stuff. You know, the one where they have a ramp in the middle of the course, water hazards, cross-overs, etc. And in fact, a veteran PR media person friend of mine (a really good one) just scored a really great job with Fiat/Chrysler to promote that sport. Perhaps we should have the water sprinklers at every F1 event, with a computer program that *might* turn on the sprinklers, kinda like a simulated weather front moving through?
4. Arrrrgh not Global bl**dy Rallycross !!
My facebook feed is full of Tanner Foust and Kenny from The Block acting like rallycross has just been invented in the US. It was the first motorsport I ever watched, Lydden Hill in Kent (once mooted as a mclaren facility for a test track) with various scandinavians and brits driving ex Grp B rally cars, I go back every year. Some of the you tube comment feeds for the global rallycross with the brits and europeans are brilliant, the americans haven’t a clue that Red Bull and Ken Block did not invent rally cross in 2010.
BUT – I have to say, it seems to have REALLY caught the imagination of the motorsport public over there. Monster energy seem to be right behind it with Ken Block and the racing is fast, furious and I would imagine, affordable and easily viewable.
Have a look at this example of classic Rallycross
Nice example of other motorsport. Perhaps one of the worst aspects of F1 is that it has virtually killed-off every other form of motor racing for TV viewers.
Maybe I qualify for newer audience, since I’m 26. I’ve been watching F1 since I was a kid, but I’m getting more and more frustrated. I don’t even watch 50% of the races nowadays.
So, that’s what I want:
I would love to see less technical restrictions. I would love to see the engineers come up with innovative solutions as they did in the past decades. I don’t like all cars being almost equal. Sure there must be some restrictions (maybe cc or horsepower), but why must all engines be the same? Why can’t we have V12 competing again V8 turbos? Why can’t we have some crazy engineer coming up with a totally new concept? The current rules hinder innovation.
I don’t like “video game” rules. Of course, every sport has a set of arbitrary rules, but some seem more unnatural than others. F1 has a large set of “unnatural” rules now IMHO. Example: press a button to overtake. This is also related to having less rules. I want less rules. I want drivers and strategists to have more freedom do come up with new strategies to win a race.
And of course. I want to have full coverage on the Internet. I want HD live streaming of every F1 event (practice, qualify, race, everything). I want it to be available for a reasonable price. I want it to be available in any device I might use (on the Web, on the iPad, on the phone).
Well, maybe I should look for another motor racing sport.
Sadly, the costs of running a full-on high-tech racing series would quickly kill it. Not to mention the safety concerns for drivers, crowd and crews — the world will not tolerate the death toll of years past. Since major auto racing is financed much more by ad revenue (directly with sponsorship and indirectly with TV rights) than R&D money, there is no one inside of the sport that has a financial interest in spending lots of money for high-end technology, nor will tolerate death and mayhem.
Yes f1 needs to get tech savvy, sky has done a great job in supplying it’s customers with different ways to view F1 plus all the data feeds. But I for one, and expect a lot of other people never use the data feeds, I just want to watch the practice/qual/race, preferable live. When I was working in Malaysia for a few months I tried to watch the f1 on the internet because it’s not shown on TV. I had no luck. So what’s the problem? a pure internet service is required, even through subscription. People are moving away from regular TV, in our house quite often we (four of us) are sitting in the living room, each with a laptop watching different programs. it’s up to Bernie to create an internet service. I’m not sure about the shorter races, being the cynic that I am, I suspect more advertising opportunities.
Sky have one less option than the BBC, (when the BBC has live races).
Couldn’t agree more about the difficulty in viewing F1 when overseas in the Far East. It’s not a new problem, I’ve had it for years. Internet access would easily solve it.
“quite often we (four of us) are sitting in the living room, each with a laptop watching different programs” WOW
I have been known to throw a ‘hissy fit’ and made the wife take the kids out so I could watch a GP in peace but the whole family sitting IN a room in ISOLATION….. That’s just wrong.
At least it makes me feel better about simply telling my kids to be quiet when I want to hear what the commentator says!!!!
Interesting point about NASCAR being a bit more fun due to letting the drivers show their personalities. I agree that F1 drivers should be given more freedom to express their views but comparing NASCAR to F1 is like comparing Lidl to Waitrose. F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport and as such has spent decades formulating it’s James Bond image and to be honest that aspect of it really works. It’s aspirational on many levels with Monaco being the supreme melding of sport and culture.
When I think of F1 characters I go back to people like Senna, Hunt, Graham Hill, Rindt, Stewart but those real characters are pretty few and far between (by the way I’m only 40 but view the classic ages of F1 with an enormous amount of respect).
Part of the problem with today’s drivers lacking character is, I believe, more to do with the way they are groomed into their roles combined with the typical F1 driver ‘lack of imagination’ (which they needed to avoid dwelling on the realisation of how dangerous their predicament actually was). I’m always stunned when I hear F1 drivers say they “don’t really read books” when asked in magazines like F1 Racing. Some of them really are dull-as-ditch-water.
In today’s grid I suspect only a handful would actually be able to posit an original and thought provoking comment (Alonso being, by far and away, the most animated). Hamilton is another that seems capable of speaking his mind and often does but it immediately castigated by the press and the FIA.
So, how does one go about attracting a young digi-savvy audience? Using sales of racing games on consoles and PCs is a good indication of the popularity of motorsports amongst the young but it tends to be things like Need For Speed or WRC games that attract more than the F1 games (possibly because, like the sport itself, they’re too bogged down in countless settings).
However, possibly one of the biggest drawbacks is the pricing of the sport. Attending a GP can be the equivalent of a two week holiday in the sun when you’ve added transport, food and hotel/camping costs to the price of the ticket. And if you’re still enough of fan to want to be able to see all of the races live on TV you’re expected to shell out for Sky TV too. No young person will ever be able to afford even a fraction of the associated costs. But therein lies the dichotomy of F1…it’s exclusivity which is also it’s USP. The minute you start to tinker with the formula (no pun intended) you run the risk of devaluing your brand. Think of clothing brands like Burberry that have become devoid of any real value because they allowed the brand to be mass marketed.
Perhaps the the trick would be to spend more money on GP2 and raise it’s profile since this would appear to have more youth appeal due to it’s more relaxed approach.
Having said all that it seems that PGA golf managed to pull off marketing itself to a younger market and now has many young cool golfers within it’s ranks. However, they mostly all tow the line (with the exception of people like Poulter for example) when it comes to making statements just like F1 drivers do.
Personally, I think that F1 needs to tap into alternative finance streams and price themselves competitively enough for free-to-air channels to afford them. In a digital age they can add value through an F1 streaming portal that allows numerous add-ons such as better telemetry, uncensored pit radio multiple camera angles and the ability to download races as video files etc. Added to that could be better consistency of rules and, as first mentioned, greater freedom of speech. If it’s accepted that drivers can say what they like then the sponsors will have to deal with that and those products that are comfortable with the concept of individuality as a brand tool would have no issue.
Finally, one thought that struck me about sponsorship; obviously the most successful drivers get the best sponsorship but what struck me as ironic, after watching Jenson Button at Spa, was how little air time a leading driver gets. Surely that would piss off a sponsor?
Anyhoo, stream-of-conscious rant over. Sterling work Mr. Saward. You are a very valued voice amongst the general white noise of F1 commentary.
While many sqillions are being made and huge egos are being massaged, I don’t see much changing. This business about shorter races will offend many but, at least it shows someone thinking and trying to do something. Montizemolo may be positioning and getting press coverage but, at least he’s come out and said something.
The racing has to more spectacular for ‘kids’ and the whole thing less wrapped up in itself. When was the last time you saw a youngster get really excited about some bored looking drivers being driven around a circuit? Get rid of an awful lot of this downforce, stuff Kers where it belongs and stop ripping so many fans off with overpriced junk and realise that with the Digital Age it really isn’t the best show in town. Oh, and let Joe run the show! Then again.
In February this year FOM announced a deal with TATA, the worlds biggest internet infrastructure provider and voice communication wholesaler. TATA will provide the technology and content to deliver F1 to the world. The big question is, what’s in the content?
The F1X theme park in Dubai was a good idea to broaden the appeal of F1, although it would have been better located next door to Disneyland Paris.
Formula One has all the ingredients to attract a family audience, it will be interesting to see what Michael Payne & Christian Vogt, the newly appointed marketings directors can come up with…
Applause and gratitude in abundance!
This is probably the best post I’ve ever read on your Blog Joe, and, as you know, I’ve been coming here since you began the blog.
Queue music for ears…
JoeQ/
This is a problem, but a far bigger problem I believe is that the characters in the sport are now so programmed by PR people that they rarely say anything interesting or intelligent. It is all very dull and the characters of the sport do not come through. This really needs to change. Racing drivers need to become heroes again, rather than corporate front men. In order for that to happen they need to feel that are free to say what they like.
/JoeQ
“And when it is all hidden behind pay-walls it is not accessible to youngsters.” It is very accessible to youngsters. It was my twenty year son old who told me how to watch F1 online for free. Just ask a teenager, they know how to get free sport online. Why is he keen on F1? Because, I was able to take him and his two brothers to Silverstone on the Friday before a GP when it was £10 for an adult and kids go free. Of course Silverstone can’t afford to sell Friday tickets at that price anymore and we know why.
I think this is being discussed with legal means of viewing F1 in mind. It is entirely possible to watch F1 on line for free but it not legal.
Brilliant user name, by the way
As a fan of formula 1 without ever visiting races, you can take my opinion with a grain of salt…
What F1 should be about, IMO, is the best drivers in the world with the fastest cars on the best and most beautiful racetracks of the world. F1 should be about the spectacle of high speed, high quality racing first, and about innovation and hightech second. KERS and (double) DRS and blown diffusors is all well and good, but it does not make the sport exciting, it does not make a good story. The story is between the drivers and teams fighting it out on the track.
If F1 would cut the costs drastically, it would become less dependent on corporate sponsorships, with more room for drivers to speak their mind. Also, it should make staging and visiting the races much more affordable. Altough I think your observations on Nascar are correct, I think F1 is a very different sport, Nascar is much closer to the fans as the cars look like the normal street cars, there are much more races and they are all in 1 country. F1 is global, much more hightech, and much more expensive. Also I think the drivers in F1 are in a different league to most Nascar drivers, which are more like fast touring car drivers, really.
The question is how to make the hightech comprehensible, keep the costs down to a reasonable level, and provide better access for fans, by making visiting races cheaper, offering a better show for them (more information, better access to drivers and teams) as well as providing much more quality information available online (from F1, teams and drivers) focusing on the real stories, the rivalries, not on gimmicks. Quite a lot to work on really.
I guess if they really want to be innovative, they should start by finding a much more innovative way of managing the sport, then is currently the case… The real problem is the status quo between Bernie, the teams, the sponsors, the FIA, all with very different interests… THIS is what should be worked on!
Apart from F1, I am a long time BTCC fan. I was at first horrified by the dumbing down to three sprints instead of one long race, but it works. Three races per race day, with weight penalties for the second race and a part reversed grid for the third. The ultimate in logical grid order perhaps is seen in UK Stock car racing (not the slightest resemblance to USA stocks) where the champions start at the back of the grid and have to work their way through to the front, of course it is a contact sport and the cars and circuits are built accordingly. BTCC used to be an unofficial contact sport as well, but it is now frowned upon, though it still happens.
Some USA style showbiz razz may pep it up, but the prices need cutting in half. Circuits need to be allowed to make money, not have it surgically removed in advance by Bernie. The tv rights should be sufficient to pay the teams prize money , let the circuits keep the proceeds, let’s loose CVC.
Those sort of changes could not be even walked past the door of the FIA on the other side of the street, without causing multiple heart attacks. The big problem is that no real change can come about without a basic restructuring of the finance and governance of F1, those currently in charge of those areas have vested interests in keeping them just as they are. Bernie may juggle a few percent of prize money and offer some “B” or “C” shares in any of half a dozen companies, as he has done in the past, but they prove worthless in the long run.
Not until Bernie has gone can any real change be considered, but even then he has locked in contracts for many years to come; a fact that may be the death of F1 if it has to continue as it is now.
As far as I can see F1 has to die before it can be resurrected with bells and whistles. The costs are so great that in it’s re-incarnation it cannot be the same, the era of big promotional money availability will be over. (it is going to take 5 to 10 years to die) As privateers, it will be a billionaires only sport. But we shall be well into electric/hybrids by then, with major road car manufacturers involved as the relevance of the technology converges with that of road cars.
As far as having evening races goes, this restricts them to tracks with flood lighting, ruling out most european circuits at a US viable timeslot and as in some venues now the setting sun renders some parts of the track invisible as they are burnt out, the driver unable to see anything to the front, even rear flashing lights. We expect to get up in the middle of the night to watch races. So don’t change it.
What does need to change is the streaming availability online. A live stream from FOM or Formula1.com for £10 per race I would buy, though I am still angry with the BBC’s decision to chop its coverage in half. Still I suppose we are lucky they did not cancel it altogether and spend it on polo and Henley.
Bernie was years ahead on digital tv, unfortunately we were not ready for it, so of course he has sold it or its rights, he had great plans for split screen and data. Did the 100 year deal include the internet? I would guess it has more coverage than a Sheldon Cooper room-mate agreement. So I should think it covers all forms of dissemination, current and future.
Let it be known, I am 27. Since we are on the topic of viewer age I feel that disclosure is valid in this context.
F1 needs to learn how to exploit social media, plain and simple. Length of races has nothing to do with capturing youngsters in MY opinion. Kids do have shorter attention spans… but only with things they feel are boring. Put “Call of Duty” or “Halo” in their hands and they will be sitting in front of the TV for hours and hours on end. This last year I managed to get some close friends hooked on F1. When they found out that races were under two hours they said “wow, these races are short”! Look at a NASCAR race! I would say the average American is a perfect example of a short attention span, and yet we live with NASCAR invading our screens for three or four hours. Sure, the driver personalities are there… and you may see some fights and middle fingers… but the racing is a snooze fest! Tune in for the last 20 minutes of the race and you have seen all you need. But if you tune in for the last 20 minutes of an F1 race you probably will wonder how Vettel or Alonso managed to make it from tenth to second! You feel like you missed something.
I do NOT think shorter races are the answer. I do agree that a change in broadcast time slot would help. Throw in more social media. Keep the racing the same, give more access to content and drivers, lose the PR watchdogs, and get the races in the right time slot on the TV.
I like your suggestion of adding more races in the Americas, Joe! But I am biased
.
I agree with much of what you are saying… I just have 2 things to add to the discussion
1) Times. In Australia and eastern Asian countries currently European races are at 10pm. Having afternoon in Europe races is the lastest for eastern asians, Australians etc… to watch. Especially going into a Monday. Canada, Abu Dhabi, Brazil. One of the reason why people I know get a bit anoyed with F1 is because it all comes down to the last race or a race in Abu Dhabi or Brazil (’10, ’09, ’08, ’07, etc…), and we can’t watch it at 2am on monday morning.
2) As a younger person (under 25, over 18) who likes F1 and sees some friends like F1 and other not I could just like to add that changing F1 wouldn’t create as much change as changing the surroundings!
The Web. Vids put up (not just race edit and pole lap), actualy highlights. Maybe charge a few dollars or whatever, but give me the option to see highlights when they want.
Make it accessible. To go to F1 races. to see in online, on TV. Maybe do a deal as a one off to get it streamed to a cinema chain in a country? Finale or something. Only need a handful in a big city and it gets excitment about it. Make it something and people will look forward to it.
Make it less old-rich-man-1950s style. Everytime I see the winner drive in and park his car and then wonder past a bunch of girls dressed up and then up the stairs past all the grid girls in their (usually santander) dresses, I tend to think ‘hellooo 1950′s!’. Grid girls in F1 (and motorsport generally) actually make the cheerleaders in America seem like a vital part and as if they add something! Want to get more women watching? Don’t fill the screen pre and post race with women doing nothing other than standing there. Race edits too. about 1/4 of it is just women walking out with poles and then walking it, camera being incredibly trashy.
My generation don’t like that. My generation leans more to the left (just as pretty much everything generation in modern times has done in relation to prior). It just goes against everything and looks incredibly outdated and stupid.
And finally PR, which Joe touched on. I think Vettel still infront of cameras does PR. Unless he crashed or his engine blew he is very PR. Hamilton is also rather PR but I like him more when he goes and makes stupid refernces. I didn’t think it was smart or great, but it was lovely to see he had a sense of humour. Webber is a fan favourite for a reason. He speaks his mind. He says F1 shouldnt go to Bahrain. He wacks his glass down on the table after British Quali last year.
Yes Alonso is anoying but he has personality. Raikkonen too. Most other drivers are either toeing the line or are whinging about why they didn’t get the result they thought they could have or should have. Montoya, was angry but still was better than watching generic Nick Heidfeld or whomever.
And finally when F1 comes into town they should do something. Not fly in, do kangaroo watching, or sheep sheering. Make a sand castle in team logo etc… and race and go home. Say something or do something. People like characters. People want difference not blandness.
I think F1 could get a major boost by changing its surroundings rather than trying to change itself. It would be less likely to alienate itself at the same time.
Two shorter races would be good, I suppose. More chance of a pile up.
But the cricket analogy is a good one. 20/20 is fun for wild slogging and quick drama. Yet nothing beats the tension of the last day of a 5 day Test. You don’t always get that in a Test, but when you do it beats 20/20 cricket hands down for entertainment.
So if we had two shorter races, would we ever get the sort of excitement we had in Canada last year? Probably not.
Epic GPs don’t happen often. But they are worth waiting for.
Could they have some shorter sprint races, of say 30 minutes that gave a few extra points, or maybe send out the 4 fastest cars from qualifying to do 2 or 3 10 minute sprints to decide the final pole sitter? Maybe they could have sprinklers on the track (only kidding!)
Amazing article, Joe. Congrats
The only conclusion that after read this is that Mr. Lewis ‘Brand’ Hamilton is doing a great job in trying to engage with his ‘young’ fans and sell a cool image for them.
Some diehard fans will doom him for that, but lets be honest: Hamilton is the only thing fresh in a sport with an old fashioned image like is F1 these days.
Mr. Saward,
A well thought out article. I agree with your focus on the macro view of economics and social groups. In my opinion, the next generation, worldwide, have to adjust to diminished expectations and F1 as an elitist entertainment/business is unattractive to them. The current business model of F1 will quite likely marginalize it further in a world economy in decline. I think the core justification for racing, including F1, is to test manufacturers technology couples with drivers abilities in an open and fair competition. This would define a sport not an show. I believe that there is an audience who are interested in this type of competition and it would benefit the sport if the sanctioning bodies concerned themselves with producing fair and open competitions and spent less time on greed and crafting a show. This would diminish F1 in wealth and profitability which might free it from the ills it suffers from today. This isn’t likely to happen.
Crap, I partially read Joe’s post and wrote the below. I’m still gonna post it but having actually read all of what Joe wrote, I realize a lot of what I’ve written is in agreement with him. Enjoy
….
I’m all for the sport reinventing itself to attract new viewers and take advantage of new technologies but I don’t believe drastic changes (shortening races for example) are the answer.
1. The sport is still woefully behind most others in taking advantage of the internet (it’s still incredibly hard to come by race/qualifying highlights and interesting behind the scenes content online and I must say the little FOM provides is far from adequate). FOM and all teams should first throw their attention at this aspect before considering altering the structure of the races (just to stick with the race shortening idea for now). A decent idea would be a reality TV show a la The Team that gives fans/casual viewers insight behind the lives of the F1 circus or an F1 team/driver
2. As you’ve also mentioned before Joe, merchandising and licensing are woefully underexploited in the sport. Why isn’t F1 featured in animated films by hollywood (a la Nascar in Cars)? Ipad/iphone/android apps (minus the too expensive F1 timing app)? physical toys (minus the too expensive f1 models that aren’t really toys)? Then the obvious team merchandising… anyone notice most of the team clothing for sale are ugly and unimaginative? I don’t mind the price as most major sports gear (premiership, NFL, NBA, etc.) are not cheap but they should be at least attractive. Perhaps the sport should pursue these avenues before altering the actual structure of the sport?
3. With regard to length, F1 is hardly the longest sporting series out there. Soccer/Football is 90 minutes and very low scoring. Baseball is 2-3 hours and difficult to watch unless you’re die-hard fan or seated at the stadium. NBA Basketball is about 3 hours. NFL football about 4. All their ratings are quite strong (at least in the U.S.) and are not lacking in attracting younger viewers. Right now most f1 races are under 2 hours, so I don’t see any anomaly there.
4. If there is a glaring problem with the age of F1 fans and an apparent lack of younger fans, the sport and teams should strongly assess their outreach efforts to the public. The corporate image is hardly a way to attract 12 year olds. Maybe they should consider giving the drivers and team members some slack in how they express themselves. I find it hard to believe sponsor considerations are the main reason as this isn’t as glaring a problem in other forms of sport (in the U.S. there’s rarely as much outcry when a sportsman says something silly over twitter as we saw with Lewis H.).
5. Finally, … I lost my train of thought but you get the idea. The sport has some low hanging fruit to pursue before making drastic changes to its essence. If they spend a couple of years tackling the above and see little to negative returns, then I’ll eat my words and accept major/significant changes are warranted.
PS – I really do feel there’s more at play
Racing (horse racing) remains the same for centuries. Why they should change something in motor racing? It\’s not a show to follow a one day long popular trends. If this kind of racing is too week to be itself – then just stop it.
An extremely astute analysis, though likely falling on deaf ears in any quarter where it might really matter. There’s a genuine challenge here, perhaps best highlighted by the fact that teenage driving licence applications have been in steady decline for a decade now.
Outside F1, there have been a few signs of the sport adapting to the digital revolution: the success of the Nissan/’PlayStation GT Academy programme, Ben Bowlby’s open source concept for the DeltaWing, and rapidly improving webcasts of sportscar racing.
A positive response to the problems of our energy future would also help. In my opinion, the world economy is going to bump along the bottom for few more years before sustainable energy emerges as the engine of the next boom. At that point, manufacturers will not be able to justify their participation in racing if the sport fails to give them a credible platform for developing and showcasing their energy-efficient technology.
I don’t really see the link between F1 fandom and driving (as in, having your own license).
I’ve long been into cars and F1, going back to a faint recollection of Senna’s death but no idea of the context or why it mattered. I was 9.
But I didn’t drive until I was 25, it didn’t seem necessary as a sixth former and wasn’t affordable as a student.
My brother was the same but conversely has no interest in cars, so perhaps it’s more about where and how we grew up.
And Joe goes deeeep…
I’m going to try to hit a few of these points in one go; First, as a younger fan, I’m in a position to remember the early 80′s televised races, watching TV on a Sunday afternoon. It didn’t happen often, but I knew there was more than NASCAR, which is about all you’d see on American broadcast TV, or even cable. So at least here, it’s not a surprise that younger audiences aren’t interested, their impressions of auto racing are drawn from that exposure, and unless you are raised in certain areas or types of household (i.e. the deep south east half of our country) stock car racing isn’t a regular distraction. Thankfully, road racing is becoming more popular again, with the recent Rolex/ALMS merger putting it under the NASCAR brands roof and hands who made that series popular. Hopefully they won’t drop the ball and it’ll build interest in more diverse racing.
That said, I’m about to fall out of that prime 18-34 age bracket where marketers aim to establish brands, BUT I grew up surrounded by tech that younger people take for granted today – I was an early adopter. This difference between the generational acceptance and use of integrated technology outside of ‘work’ is huge, and the people making the big decisions are typically older. Not to suggest they “don’t get it” but they have to spend large amounts of money to figure it out, and they ARE dropping the ball on implementation. It’s all the more confusing when you look at the astonishing technology being introduced, the mobile media and computing and data communication fields are just exploding with new ideas and faster standards. One industry is pushing the hardware while another produces the software, but the content just…isn’t there. Around the world, people have adopted smartphones, but where is the presence of F1? I mean the OFFICIAL presence? *scratches head …even online I still cannot enjoy this sport without shelling out money for other crap bundled with it that I do not want. At any rate, simply changing the start time of the races won’t matter much if you have to jump through hoops to watch it live someplace else in the world. If I’m up at 3AM central time to watch ANYWAYS then what would change?
As for the personalities I usually fast forward or find something else to do when they interview. Unless they’ve had some drama worth noting the televised interviews are the same every weekend. ONLY Kimi gives a good interview, IMHO, because he’s so boring yet you know there is a lot going on behind those sunglasses. Hamilton and Alonso are rockstars, but Kimi is a question mark, it’s intriguing. I bet the ladies love him…
But please don’t suggest they should in any way try to replicate American stock car personality. Besides the fact that they’re groomed just as much by PR people, when they do slip up they act like total jackasses. I’m reminded of staged wrestling, like the WWE or…whatever. Another American ‘sport’ where the action was pre-planned for ratings and merch sales. I like it when Schumi or Alonso throw their gloves or the steering wheel in a fit of passion, but I don’t want to see them fistfighting or calling names. Prove yourself on the track, eh?
Lastly, that official merch is way overpriced. If I wanted to pick up a Hamilton hat I could just as easily buy some other, more useful clothing. A jacket would set me back more than a new pair of very nice shoes. Keeping in mind this is American terms, imagine how relatively expensive that gear is in someplace like India or rural China? How many months/years of food could you buy for a Hubelot watch? 50 pounds for a Caterham windbreaker, fine, but how about an official $10 Ferrari t shirt?
Keep the thoughts coming, Joe, these are definitely topics that need to be discussed. – NMJeff
1. The answer is not shortening the length of races. Here in Canada, Ice Hockey games run 2.5 to 3 hours, and that has no impact on attracting or turning away the kids.
2. F1 absolutely needs to embrace more internet activity, streaming, social media, etc. I know live timing statistics are available, but that does no good for those of us outside the European time zone who watch 80% of the races on some form of delay. Having the ability to access ALL race sessions (FP, Qualy, Race) in streaming/download format (as if it were live) even after the fact would be a major step forward.
I think that just basic flow of information is needed. With tyres being all the rage nowadays, I still find it frustratingly difficult to figure out which drivers are using which tyres. I still scratch my head at the tyre banding colours. A silver, white, yellow band…really? On TV, with the camera angles, lighting, and speed of cars going by, can you really tell the difference!? They should have a heavy thick whitewall for whatever compund is the softer one for the weekend, nothing for the harder (or vice versa) and use red/blue for wets.
Maybe they could put a little graphic beside the drivers name on TV during the race for tyres. I know they put up a chart a couple times in the race, but I want to know what Hamiltion is running vs Perez vs Di Resta vs Massa, etc in real time. Telling me ten laps later doesn’t help…
I know the tyre issue seems small, but I think it is reflective of a disconnect in the sport with the fans.
3. I see the fundamental problem (and I do feel there is a problem that needs to be fixed) is with the ownership of the sport and the reality that a HUGE chunk of the money flowing into the sport doesn’t STAY in the sport. It pays the CVC debts. They’re not in it for the sport. They’re not even in it to make money. They’re in it to pay off their debts. That’s not a long-term sustainable system, and that lack of ‘personality’ and passion from the top levels of the sport is reflected all the way down. When the people running the sport don’t care about anything other than their own investment debts, the sport can’t properly function. And why should I pay an arm and a leg to watch live when a good portion of my money isn’t even going to the sport?
F1 can add all the gimicks, driver buttons, passing, shorter races, jumps, water obstacles, Ken Block clones, or fancy social media that it wants, but when the foundation is rotten, then it makes no real difference in the long-run because it’s all just a cheap coat of paint on a structure that needs an overhaul.
Joe, is this really you? Let alone the spelling errors and ommited words, which is very unlike you, are you actually suggesting that drivers should have punch-ups in order to engage the audience? I thought fans followed sports to watch athletes perform at that particular discipline, not for their personalities. People who act by the latter, may as well start reading OK and HELLO type magazines; they definitely don\’t need to start dabbling with the finer details of tyre strategy, and pit-stop undercuts. Athletes, as I\’m sure you know much better than me, exhibit their personality through their performance. Stick the top ten drivers in identically looking cars and overalls, and you would still be able to tell one from the other, purely by their respective driving style. No need for fingers or skate shoe sales.
Furthermore, you accuse today\’s drivers as lacking personality and frankness. Did Alonso\’s podium interview at Hockenheim this year led you to this conclusion by any chance? I\’ll just quickly refresh your memory
Niki Lauda: \”Fernando, tell us what winning here today means to you\”
Fernando Alonso: \”Well, usually I\’m not really interested in politics. But in these days, for a Spanish man, driving an Italian car designed by a Greek man, winning the German GP feels pretty good.\”
How\’s that for speaking your mind and being subtly controversial?
I wholeheartedly agree on your point about the rapidly changing world due to the communication revolution, as I also agree that any industry must change in order to remain relevant and appealing to its demographic; something which of course applies to F1 as well. But please, come up with a better suggestion than punch-ups or any of the ostentatious malarkeys featured in Nascar.
As always, with utmost respect.
Yes, it is really me. I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that they should be themselves.
I miss Mika’s monosyllabic conferences. I thought those performance art.
Hmm, so who do I like hearing now?
Paul di Resta – knows how to engage, seems to have been shut up though.
Nico Rosberg – crikey he knows how to charm but a lot of that is how he simply acts relaxed and that’s just nice to see.
Lewis if he’s a bit upset and trying to joke (DWB, dear me, that “controversy” has me on the floor in mirth to this day)
MW – you know you’re getting it straight. Even if he clenches his teeth you hear it loud and clear.
I don’t have enough German by a country mile, but I know MSC is distinctly more lyrical in his own tongue. I may not get the language, but I can attune to a distinct set of inflections and intonations which have led me to skim RTL for anything of him this year.
Hmm, this last thought, and sorry guys (it’s something I am not proud of) my languages are plain poor, but maybe we can shake up interest by getting the best journalism translated?
If you did that more often, could drivers at least feel they were speaking to their undoubtedly global fan base more clearly?
For every language class I sat, you do the “how to get by in boring daily situations” thing. At least for a while. I wonder if that is the best way to go about the teaching, even. But F1 drivers are a diverse lot, in a often English dominated garage, and I wonder how much they may revert – notwithstanding fluency – to doing the “order in a cafe” thing?
It’s quite amazing, when you think about it, from footballers (so long since I watched a game, but I think of Arsene Wenger’s long interest to bring up francophone youngsters) to, well I cannot think of a exception from the requirement to have better than proficiency in English in sports.
(Hmm, Table Tennis? Just guessing. Anyhow, shout if you can think of a obvious sport not requiring interview in English.)
Now it’s not rocket science to work out that because Joe lives in the country origin of F1 and therefore speaks French, he’s able to bring us far more than a vicarious sunday driver monoglot.
So I think, what market for a magazine to bring together the best authors / journos from each language?
Maybe it has been tried and crashed. The readership here like one man’s style in particular. Try it with many more, however well translated, and you have a different thing.
But what if simply drivers knew they could speak their hearts and it reach their fans more widely?
Sure the entire grid are fluent English speakers, that’s also function of the career path. But what nuances am I missing in say FA’s Spanish interviews? Would what he says in his native speech make me more interested in him as a driver?
Is there enough of difference to even make a feature article compendium?
Basically, is it actually so buttoned lips all around?
Surely it is impossible that experienced F1 journos around the world are all immune to human subtleties.
Maybe get the best native language quotes translated best, a round-up.
Sometimes I’d rather wish there was some irreversibly debilitating genetic malfunction which will cause the extinction of PR types, but I’d rather try a positive approach.
. . .
Not much has’t been tried in publishing or magazines, so take my thoughts as pie in the sky. But it could yet be fun, to know more of the names of the worldwide writers who are as much a part of F1 as the drivers, and anything that has half a chance to convey better what is the mind of Fernando, or Michael, or even someone as communicative and almost native English speaking as Seb V, would be welcome with me. I’d be just as interested to better know the true journos, from other lands, who have dedicated themselves to the sport.
I’m going to break ranks and say that we really need to give FOM some credit – if nothing else for their moves in the video gaming world.
There have been various F1 games down the years. The purists wet dream was Geoff Crammond’s “Grand Prix” series on PC, but we’re going back a fair way here. There have been a few console titles with varying success (and who each had to find their own way around Jacques Villeneuve’s refusal to appear in them) but never anything with any lasting impact.
There were also, back in the day, a couple of team management sims which I loved because I’m an armchair megalomanic.
And then a couple of years ago, a new game came along from a team at Codemasters called “Grid” – a racing title very similar on paper to all other racing simulations, real cars, real tracks, develop from a starter in hatchbacks to LMP1 racing. Fine.
The genius of Grid is accessibility, to save those who don’t care from inevitably boredom, Grid includes some clever innovations in how a racing game works which make it much easier for younger and/or more casual gamers to get into semi-realistic racing (which is usually the preserve of purists).
Now, I don’t know who approached whom, but Codemasters came away with the license to make an annual F1 title – this years edition is set to be released pretty soon and it’ll be the third. They’ve all been receiving good reviews in the gaming press, partly because they brought all those smart innovations, those little things which make it a bit easier to step into Lewis Hamilton’s car without being THAT talented, and not just destroy yourself on the first corner. And yet there’s still detail and unforgiving challenge for the hardcore.
That deal to bring/let Codemasters in was a smart move. Someone saw the most exciting and accessible real-world racing game to date and said “these guys can do the job”.
And yes, it’s Codemasters who’re making F1 Race Stars as well, a slightly silly, cartoony take on F1, perfectly aimed at the kids of the world.
Will it work? Frankly I’ve no idea. there’s a fair argument that most people who buy these games are fans already, it’s true. But some really aren’t, some just play them because their mates say “I want to show you this great new game I have” and off you go.
It’s how I know an uncanny amount about NHL ice hockey in the ’96/’97 season : because I played it to death on the Sega Mega Drive as a kid (and always lost to my older brother).
P.S. But I still want a team management game back.
I quite agree. I have bought F1 2009 on the Wii and F1 2010 and 2011 for the XBOX 360 – purely because i’m an F1 fan since I was about 5, i’ll be 34 in December. i’ll probably buy F1 2012, too, despite the fact it’s probably almost identical to 2012 and 2011 !
RE the team management thing, you want F1 manager like that Football Manager game lots of my mates play. and the FIFA football game franchise is incredible, FIFA 12 is coming out soon and the buzz about it is astonishing. Even wives and girlfriends of mates of mine on facebook: ‘I’ll be a FIFA 12 / Call of Duty widow soon..’
Call of Duty is so mainstream, if someone said ‘COD’ to me, I don’t think of fish n chips, I know instantly they’re referring to the Call of Duty games.
I’m a Football Manager player already, but I’d take F1 over football any day – sadly there’s no future for the incredibly unstable “Grand Prix World” (with its rather brilliant 4 quarter-screen interface like your own mini pit-wall) nor even the frankly poor EA effort “F1 Manager”.
Both games are based on the days when Damon Hill was at Jordan.
Rather than shorten races, add some qualifying points – make Saturday 3 sprints.
Two problems with prime time, the first is daylight, you can have a decent delay on a 2pm start time, not on a 5pm start time; the second problem is trouser wearing – the man of the house may be able to watch the GP at 2pm, but if it were to clash with big brother or x factor he is on the laptop
Saturday sprints is not a bad idea, actually… FP3 is cut down to 1 hour, followed immediately by a 20-min Q1 with the fastest dozen moving into a 10-min Q2. Then on Saturday afternoon a pair of 40 minute sprint races (or something), with half-points awarded for the result, and the sprint finishing order sets the grid for the full-length race the next day.
But I think the single biggest factor which is preventing the under-30s from becoming F1 fans is that it is not delivered through the channels they consume media on. There is an ever-increasing population which doesn’t even bother to own televisions — broadcasting races on a niche pay television channel is not the way to a large young fan-base.
Stream a standard-definition BBC feed of each race on YouTube for free, on the other hand, and see how many people you attract to the sport…
I can just see it… 2015… when Tilke will be designing tracks with crossover chicanes, jumps, and a loop-the-loop.
He’d even make them boring
Formula One is the worlds ultimate extreme sport.
Is that enough to engage a teenage audience?
But it’s not though is it, and that’s part of the problem. It’s become too safe, drivers wrapped up in cotton wool and a safety car in case someone breaks a nail cos a car is in a gravel trap 500 yards from the tarmac. It’s TOO sterile.
Nah. Rally racing, skydiving, downhill mountain biking, motocross, wing suits, cliff jumping… all far more extreme than Formula One by a long shot.
hahahaha!
Formula One is the worlds ultimate extreme sport.
Is that enough to engage a teenage audience?
Spike his drink?
Nah, still wouldn’t work. I reckon he just presses a button in a CAD programme . .
Sometimes my only hope is that F1 will go bust. Enough parts of it nearly are anyhow. Then maybe we’d look afresh at tracks we could use because car safety is a space age away from what it was. Hmm, tracks without nice soft runoffs . .. might rid us of reckless drivers. . might even entice some drivers, who like a number of fans believe, that F1 has become too soft. I’m sure many would like to push it on far more challenging tracks, knowing they are in some of the safest machines that exist.
JT has been so quiet, at least compared with his predecessor, I can’t tell if he’s up to something, being a regular guy manager, head down, or much at all. But it is sad that he has inherited a legacy of long strangulated formulae. I think racetracks grow up too, from humble origins. Or they could again.
So my spec as to if F1 goes bust changing much, as to circuits and much besides, is likely still estopped by the FIA.
Joe, if your a fan you will watch the race anytime. I live in Canada and a lot of the non-european races start at 2 or 3 in the morning. Yet I will get up to watch. Why try to change start times to attract other countries? The true fans will watch regardless of the time.
True but if there are only 10 of you what is the point?
Why not have a mixture of features? Why does every race have to be the same length? We could have 3 hour races, and sets of 20 minute sprints all in the same season! We could have baseball caps at £10, we could have family tickets at £200 with a seat! We could have all sorts of things and still have F1. We could have budget caps and no rules and let innovation and driver talent rule…. So much possibility if we are open minded.
Provocative stuff, Joe, and I hope that some of the F1 decision makers pay attention. They probably don’t acknowledge the fundamental problem, that whilst F1 looks healthy and has stopped losing teams, its growth prospects are limited.
On timing of races: The early afternoon start time in Europe means that races are held at the hottest time of the day. I’m not too concerned about the teams — it’s their problem to work around the heat — but it provides a poor spectating experience. It is true that most viewers experience F1 via TV or internet equivalent, but spectators make the event an experience. The F1 races where there are few spectators at the circuit tend to be the ones that we forget. The timing and pricing of races has to factor getting a big enthusiastic crowd.
On TV and internet coverage: Bernie Ecclestone learned a lot about TV in the 1980s and ensured that he had broadcast rights and a recording crew for every race. And then he stopped learning, it seems. Previous comments have mentioned blocking fan mash-ups or snippets of copyright material. It’s as if BCE has missed out on the last 20 years of social/tech change.
When YouTube first set up, broadcasters and music rights holders blocked fan submissions — as was their copyright ability. And then they realised it was better financially to license long recordings (for a fee) and to turn a blind eye to fan contributions that helped promote the band or production.
On merchandising: Few people will buy expensive clothing that will be worn a couple of times before it becomes last year’s model owing to sponsor changes. Replica football shirts are overpriced but fans have a lot of times to wear them before they go out of date. My official Blackpool FC scarf is timeless because it is only branded with the name of the club. I *might* buy a classy Williams branded summer jacket if I knew it would look contemporary next year or the one after. Having people wearing F1 team (not sponsor) branded clothing increases awareness.
I suppose though, that F1 needs merchandising that gets people doing things that increase interest. Licensing a car design to Scalextric is allegedly profitable but is it short termism? Why not give away the design in return for better team branding on the Christmas boxed set?
On dull stars: Is that a contradiction? Mark Webber is correctly noted as a driver who sometimes says what he thinks about F1 or his own team, but there is more to it than that. Webber is not stupid and he is more politically astute than some of his colleagues; he calculates what he can get away with saying, and if he can’t say what he thinks, he’ll talk about something else that is interesting. When he quits F1, he is a natural in the commentary box for football (most flavours), cricket, speedway. Remember also that Webber broke his leg in an out of season sports event; it is to the credit of Red Bull management that they acknowledged it as “a normal happening in life”.
Few drivers are as worldly wise as Webber so it is reasonable for them to shut up when asked a political question. Even when asked about driver conduct on the track, it may be sensible for them to be noncommittal. Reluctance to answer may mean that the journalist is asking a profoundly stupid or impossible-to-answer-politely question.
Lewis Hamilton has complained that his McLaren contract requires him to attend too many sponsor promotions. I have no idea what the contract demands, but he said this long before his contract was up for renewal so we should assume that it is not a bargaining position. If we accept his words, we have to acknowledge ennui, that presenting the same act on stage becomes tiresome. He needs space for Lewis Hamilton.
If poor Lewis think there are too many corporate events then maybe he should contemplate Frank Sinatra’s letter to George Micheal. One event could be points given out for pole position on Saturday then reverse grid on Sunday.
I am not familiar with Frank Sinatra’s letter to George Michael.
F1′s had drivers every bit as outspoken Tony Stewart or Kyle Busch. One of them was Jacques Villeneuve.
The response to Villeneuve’s candidness? For a terribly mild critique of the sport’s management, he was hauled on the carpet by the head of the FIA, forced to fly right round the world just before a critical race weekend, then given a spurious punishment that nearly cost him the world championship.
The novelty of a driver actually speaking his mind was so unfathomable to the F1 press that they ran countless stories making him out as a complete loose cannon. They regularly pulled out-of-context quotes from longer interviews to manufacture provocative headlines. They do this with others, but made a meal of Villeneuve.
The largest cost was probably to Villeneuve’s career. Many believe that Villeneuve’s outspoken nature is what prevented him from moving to McLaren after Williams lost their engine supply. Such a move would have put him in the frame for a trio of world championships.
It’s no wonder that current drivers largely keep their opinions to themselves. Those that speak their mind in the F1 paddock tend to pay a terrible price.
Is this state of affairs the fault of the teams? The fault of the sport’s management? The fault of the F1 press?
Yes!
The fault of the drivers? Not so much.
I agree with most points made but shortening races is not the answer. To attract younger fans and keep the older ones something needs to be done about the tracks F1 races on. Only the old classics these days provide exciting racing…….the new Tilke tracks are so sanitised they just produce borefests and are not tracks fans particularly can be bothered to pay to go to. Also tracks like Bahrain where the grandstands are empty and it looks like a private race for some rich sheiks does not add to the appeal.Neither do artificial gimmicks like DRS on these tracks provoke any real interest. The series is just becoming to “grandma appealing” and turning off older diehard fans like me in the process as well.
I can’t comment on internet feeds as living in the sticks that is just not an option for me. I watch all races live………..no matter what time of day as its part of the excitement……..can’t imagine recording a race and “watching it sometime later”…….
Totally agree about the stupid prices for merchandising…..most fans just want a decently priced cap and T to show support for the fave team or driver- and not expect to pay more than their weekend GP ticket for it.
Also the sport does need to be more accessible to the average fan…….getting near to a team or driver is not the easiest thing in the world and the mad crush for pitlane walks is just madness and highly dangerous. We saw several people being crushed and needing medical help in Spa for example.
Pricing to go to a race? Not expensive unless you want the best boring squashed grandstand seat. We and a load of folks go to Spa every year. Why? The track is superb, guaranteed a good race whatever the weather and €130 for a weekend ticket is not astronomical either.
One thing that bugs me about TV coverage which is a turnoff not just here in Germany but in other countries too is that they seem to be convinced that ALL F1 fans are totally partisan and they need to realise that a lot of F1 fans love the sport and don’t want just one particular local driver rammed down their throats all the time. I have switched to Austrian TV because of that.
Enough ranting from me.
Joe, you’ve mentioned a couple times in recent articles that the youth of today are less interested in cars. To me, that is a worrying statement as if it is the case, surely whatever changes are made to F1 will be somewhat academic. If nobody is interested in the core of the entertainment any more, perhaps the future is not so rosy whatever steps are taken? Should we be laying down tracks and racing electric trains instead?
Also, it would do us no harm to remember that the youth of today become the middle aged of tomorrow, and as they mature many will want different things from their entertainment to when they were younger. As well as different generations having different wants and needs, generations can change within themselves over time.
With these points in mind, I think evolution rather than revolution is the way forward. Look at an F1 car from the 50′s alongside a modern day example and the lineage is unrecognisable, yet the path between them has been gradual, as has the evolution of the rules and ownership of the sport. I believe if the marketing hurdles – removal of fan video montages and the like on youtube is ridiculous – and the power struggles can be sorted out, the ‘formula’ for the racing needs tweaking at best.
Over-reacting and changing too much in one go risks alienating the existing fan base and diluting the heritage of the sport.
There is no if, the car manufacturers are already facing that. However the developing markets will offset and hide this trend.
Much like everything else, I fear F1 is continually being dumbed-down to appeal to a wider audience, whilst pillaging the pockets for more money.
Anybody who thinks the problem is too-long races is working hard to blame fans for their alleged-shortcomings. Reminds me of one of the French car makers who, upon withdrawing from the American market in failure, blamed Americans for not appreciating their cars.
Leave it to F1 to blame the audience. Whatever it takes to avoid looking in the mirror…
No-one is blaming the audience.
Well, if the point wasn’t that young folks are incapable of paying attention for 90 minutes, then what was the point of the short-races “solution”? That the sport is just too boring to be of interest?
There’s a lot of sense in this article and even more in the comments, particularly around the short-sighted internet restriction issue. The trouble is that they are getting said here on this blog. How do we get this message through to those numbskulls at the top who can actually make changes??
They are not numbskulls. They just have different goals. These happen to be right for them and wrong for the sport.
The numbskulls bit wasn’t really the point. How to get the message across was the point. Is restricting the exposure on new media best for them? Probably not, long term.
They just don’t get the concept of using the internet as a promotional vehicle. They look at the balance sheet and say, “Revenues are $Squillions, so why do we need it?” and “How dare they use our product without paying!” For FOM it’s just business. Cash in exchange for a product.
- better racing by showing what’s happening
- no complicated artificial rules
- encourage fan’s video’s and video edits
- combine live races with live around the globe virtual racegame competitions
- use other music especially when the champagne gets sprayed or maybe stop that alltogether
Some excellent points in your original post Joe, I agree with you completely. Siberianlady makes an excellent point about TV coverage. I moved from the UK to New Zealand just over a year ago and have recently subscribed to Sky TV to get some decent programmes and especially the GP coverage. It’s awful! All Sky does is to re-broadcast the “official” feed with the BBC commentary of qualifying and the race itself. This often is quite surreal as the BBC viewers are watching a local replay of something while Sky viewers are watching the official feed – the commentary or comments are about something we are not watching. Sky TV do not have any presenters to comment on what is happening or analyse performance, so at the end of a race (after the official podium interviews [also awful by the way]) it all just stops. This is no way to engage and inform viewers and will be a self-defeating approach if it continues.
F1 is a fantastic sport; interesting and exciting. Motorsport in general is a brilliant thing to be involved with and as the pinnacle of single-seater racing F1 must get its act together and realise that short-term money-making as dictated by the “bean-counters” is a flawed and ultimately fatal approach.
If they shorten the F1 races will the admission price to attend these races be reduced accordingly?
Will the sponsorship money being paid to an F1 team then be reduced aswell?
Joe –
This whole argument is over-complicating matters.
Young people turn into grown-ups.
I didn’t sit through a whole grand prix until I was 10 years old. I didn’t like wine until I was 16. I didn’t like beer until I was 21.
The F1 world does not need to capture the time and income of 10 year olds, it needs to appeal to adults. Last time I checked, one is an adult for longer than one is a child and one certainly has more cash.
F1 has rarely spontaneously attracted a child as a lifelong fan, it’s far too complex. It’s parents passing on their passion that inspires a generation. The same can be said for most sports.
Golf is not panicking about its survival. Most sporting events last 90 minutes or more. We are trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
F1 is complicated; it appeals to smart people, to geeks, to petrol heads, to girls that like men with fast cars and balls (not footballs).
Dumbing down is not the answer because it irradiates the essence of what F1 is. At what cost do we make change. The sport is thriving. It makes billions. Improve interactivity, availability and experience. Do not ruin the fundamentals. Football has remained unchanged for 100 years, they just added services and media and show.
We have 25 minute races is Touring cars, is this surpassing F1? No. Are kids worshiping Jason Plato above Alonso? No.
The F1 management make assumptions like old men, totally disconnected with youth, it seems.
Vive 300km races. Vive F1.
If they are not interested as children I doubt many will find F1 as adults.
I think the best thing the FOM/FIA can do is ensure the competition is close. Nothing turned fans off (unless you supported that team) than a white wash season. Whether its dumb luck or intentional, this season has been close and featured multiple winners. In my opinion, a close contest draws the crowd – whatever the sport.
I’m not convinced about the shorter races as yet, but watching Hamilton lead from start to finish on the weekend wasn’t interesting for the casual fan. It only got exciting once Perez started carving up the field.
Yes, and the excitement provided by Perez was only possible becuase it was a 53 lap race and not just 25 laps.
Hi Joe, massive appreciation for the effort you put in for these opinion peices. It’s why I come here (I don’t care for PR releases that websites rehash, nor do I care for gossip peices on whether my favourite driver has a new girlfriend).
I agree with a lot that you have said but do not agree that the format needs changing.
It’s almost as though F1 has built a rod for its own back. The sport (F1 owners, teams and track owners) wants to attract sponsors to cover the extreme costs that come with F1. COSTS are the problem in F1. You want sponsors that pay millions? Then you want drivers with impeccible PR skills that are associated with your brand. But then the fans (especially, as you alluded to, the younger ones) start turning off because it’s boring. Then the sponsers start walking away because no one is watching anymore. So you’re left with no fans and no sponsors.
The problem is that you can’t have carnage like Nascar if sponsors want drivers that represent their brand globably. Nascar has different sponsors to F1 and maybe they are ok with drivers that want to smash each other in the face. I dont think Vodafone, Etihad or some tech company wants that.
What is the solution?
Sell F1 back to the teams so they own it. Too many decisions in F1 are for short term money grabs at the cost of fans. The teams get more revenue, less need for sponsors and they can pick races where fans will attend, charge less for race hosting fees so that fans can afford to attend, and put it on free TV so that fans can watch. Get more bums on seats and eyes on the TV. Less PR driven drivers as well. Joe, how much money is going out of F1 and into some bankers pockets? That money doesnt get reinvested in F1 whereas if it went to teams, it would be reinvested.
Ohhh, and want F1 to be more “extreme”? Give them a few more horsepower under their right foot and get rid of these ceramic brakes. That will seperate the men from the boys.
Oh, and F1 has been rating so well here in Austrlia that channel 10 (one of the big 4 television networks here) has switched it over to their main channel in prime time. If it were to ever go to pay tv here, it would kill the sport in Australia. More evidence that pay tv is not the way to go if you want to grow a sport like F1.
Remove the drivers from their cloistered pedestals and allow them (insist??) to mingle with the patrons.
Open up pit lane prior to the race, or before Friday practice, to allow the fans to feel they “belong”.
Allow the drivers some post race celebrations in the car such as making donuts. I know, they hardly have enough fuel to return to pit lane. Well insist the tanks are larger!
Allow youtube postings of race high lights.
I’m sure all of the above has been said before, I just can’t believe F1 has gotten so rigid they can’t see their own failings.
Just clicked through from the F1 Live Timing App to ‘purchase’ some tickets for the US grand prix: Weekend pass, turn 15, Corner Grandstand, Top Level.
Get this..
£969.52. But oh no, that’s not for a pair, aww hell no y’all, that’s £969.52 EACH.
Add on £1000 for return flights for two to Texas, £500 (at least, I would think) for a hotel room, you’re looking at £4000 for a weekend..
Obscene prices.
I actually can’t believe my eyes !
Just you wait and see what kind of motel room your 500 a night buys you in Austin Texas and you will never want to even hear about F1 ever again. Except, when you actually hear, smell and taste the cars running around the track and then all will be forgiven, again… Until, the next time. And, so on…and, so on…
Haha very true ! so probably £1500 for a weekend in somewhere that has a roof ?!
There’s lots of people willing to charge a fortune for a ticket.
I just now went to the race site, and the most expensive seat I found high-up at Turn 15 was $533. I paid a good deal less for a seat elsewhere but, then again, I didn’t wait until it was too late. The prices are not nearly as nice as Indy F1 prices were, but not as bad as I feared either. Not saying they’re a bargain. They’re not. At these prices, I doubt how sustainable it is. But going by a price found at the first place you look just isn’t good shopping.
I also found a hotel suite (not a room, but a suite) for about $200/night. Of course, I did that when the date was announced, not after the place filled up.
As for the airline cost, I’m not sure who you’re mad at about that…
Correction: I did find a few $800 tickets… among the best seats in the house if you care to watch racing instead of the pits and related buildings. Too rich for my blood, that’s for sure. A few yards over and they’re $533. Not sure how either price translates into £962.
That’s the reason why I also am not going, tho my airfare from Connecticut would be less expensive.
Another fantasy shattered by predatory pricing!
If you want a real laugh check out the preferred seat licensing agreements. A little financial trick they picked up from American football. You are asked to buy a license for the PRIVILEGE of buying tickets!
It’s not just the seat licensing trick… it’s the badness of their offer. Their seat licenses *expire* in 15 years, so they’re a depreciating asset. This differs from seat licenses that have perpetual life and therefore can (and sometimes do) appreciate significantly.
This makes the COTA licenses nothing but a very expensive surcharge. Except for those for whom it might be a cost of doing business, only a dope would buy them. What’s offensive is not so much the license concept itself but rather the fact that COTA is treating their customer base as idiots.
Finally! Someone has spoken my mind! I’ve been saying the exact same thing for years to clients and people I worked with (which included Proton/Lotus Malaysia) but no one wanted to listen.
I’ve always told people that there is a whole generation of people out there now who don’t know what a world without Internet is like and if we fail to adapt then we will go the way of dinosaurs.
People are too used to concentrated bursts of information on demand nowadays and TV has become a “by-the-way” medium. I can’t remember the last time I rushed home because I had to catch something on the telly.
Well said and on point as usual!
A very good point on the merchandsing side.
I’ve said this for many years that the teams really ramp up the costs compared to similar products for other sports etc. I’m sure they sell a lot at the actual GP’s but what about elsewhere? I managed to get some tickets from a supplier a few years ago to go to the Friday practice and took my kids along. They both wanted a cap and t-shirt etc and when you looked at the team stands they were £35-40 for a cap and similar for a t-shirt, not a small amount for the average F1 fan who doesn’t earn vast amounts of money but just loves the sport. So they only got one or the other, at £20-25 each they would very probably have got both.
As an opposite, when Lotus racing—->Team Lotus—–Caterham started in F1 they had no merchandise initially as the focused on setting up the team, the team attended an event I was involved in at Snetterton (Lotus Festival) where the whole team turned up, all 3 drivers, Mike Gascoyne, Tony Fernades etc They set up a small stand selling some Baseball caps they had made up, simple white with the logo on the front, they sold them for £10 and although it was a Lotus event at times it looked like almost everyone had bought one on.
I also attended a factory tour a few months later and they were giving the same caps out for free to everyone who attended, along with mugs, pens keyrings etc.
The attitude was very different to other teams (Other factory tours have given almost nothing to the attendees other than the tour, which is what you are there for but the ‘goody bag’ from Lotus Racing was a very nice touch that probably cost them almost nothing).
No need to point to NASCAR for social media success and drivers with personalities. There’s some great ding dongs between btcc drivers on twitter after every race. The drivers are also happy to interact with their fans Taking a lot of time to answer messages.
The other problem I see is that at the same time the teams went live socially with McLaren pit wall, live tweets during races, live timing, driver tracker. They then went and restricted access to live races and nullified the whole bloody lot.
F1 has never been better. Except in the seventies, when … and in the eighties, when … but in the nineties and naughties (note spelling) the tint on my glasses faded. Now the tint is back and rosier than it has ever been.
Don’t change a thing. If it’s not broken don’t fix it.
regards,
Heroes and Villains – that is what is missing from F1. Well some might argue we have our villains in Maldonado, and Grosjean.
I was eight when James Hunt won the 1976 championship, and to me he was everything I aspired to be. He drove fast cars, had great battles (both on and off track), and looked as if he’d been up all night partying. It wasn’t until I was older that I realised that the later was true. To my eight year old mind he wouldn’t have been out of place on a James Bond set.
Even when he retired and became a TV commentator, he told it like it was, and pulled no punches, calling people idiots etc. In today’s world it’s refreshing when we get someone who is outspoken. I love reading Niki Lauda’s comments as he is like a blast from the past.
Where are the heroes? The closest thing we have is probably Kimi Raikkonen but he hardly ever talks to the press, but when he does it’s usually worth listening to.
“My life would be much more easier had I been a f1-driver in the 70’s with the guys. I was definitely born in the wrong era.”
One of my favourites was this exchange with Martin Brundle on the grid.
Martin Brundle: “Kimi Raikkonen doesn’t seem interested in the proceedings going on up there. Kimi, you missed the presentation by Pele.”
Kimi (nonchalantly): “Yeah.”
Martin: ”Will you get over it?”
Kimi: “Yeah. I was having a shit.”
Martin: “OK, thanks for that! Obviously you’ll have a nice light car on the grid, then.”
Bring back the heroes…
Shortening the races in order to appeal to the short attention spans of the ‘internet generation’ might attract a new audience but it is also a notoriously fickle audience. In 3-5 years they will almost certainly have moved on to the Next Big Thing. Meanwhile, if the core fan-base has been alienated, where does that ultimately leave the sport?
American football is over 3 hours long with only a small fraction of that actually action but nobody is crying out for that to be changed
Of course, none of this even touches the outrageous demands of F1 on would-be local promoters. From what I’m told by the Indy people, F1 makes the average spoiled rock star look downright docile and reasonable. For starters, the sanctioning fee — when divided by the number of out of town fans who show up — was about $250 per fan. Tough to demand that from a ticket price.
Over 70% of spectators at the US Grand Prix held at Indianapolis came from outside Indiana, and they generated just of US$170,000,000 for the local economy every year.
Even accepting your figures — and I don’t — that still leaves IMS paying $25 million for the fee, and an out of control Bernie demanding some pretty damned expensive stuff (seriously, a separate cooler for “warm water” for the French?!?!). You address neither of those concerns. In the USA, the Gov’t isn’t gonna pay for that sanctioning fee. And Indy already had 2 major auto races that dwarfed this event ,another that tied it (NHRA Nationals), 8 American Football games that probably tied it, not to mention a bunch of other sporting events.
I’ve been to Indy on many occasions since, not to mention hanging in the IndyCar paddock. Not once has someone told me that “Yeah, we used to make tons of money F1 weekend and we wish they’d come back.” Not one person. You’d think that if the $170mill was true, someone would be missing that event?
Shockingly good post Joe. Literally can’t find a single word to disagree with. I often think that the main example of how ridiculous the straitlaced attitude to the sport has become is the attitude towards ontrack celebrations. Doughnuts are technically prohibited. What?!!!
A joyous racewinner (or maybe a lower team’s driver who gets a precious point) spinning a burnout in front of the stands would almost certainly make that evening’s news. Some kids WILL see the 3 second clip and will start the process in his or her head to start connecting the dots that suggest F1 = excitement. It’s so bloody obvious! And yet they ban such displays… why? Think of this year when Alonso stopped in front of the Spanish fans to applaud them…it was a beautiful, beautiful episode, and yet the commentators kept reflecting on how it was actually ‘illegal’ to stop out on the track, and that Alonso would have to claim some car issue to justify it. What a stupid, stupid state of affairs!
We need personality, fire, passion, cheek and rebellion from the drivers, because every youth in the land is going to listen to DiResta or whoever droning about about tyre degradation and how great the team is blah blah and they’re going to switch off.
Honestly, the FIA has a lot to answer for in neutering the sport’s daredevil appeal to casual viewers…I just hope it’s not too late to reverse the toxic process…
As an American in the Eastern time-zone, I hafta say I like races which start at 8am…this means I can enjoy the race with my breakfast in the morning then have the rest of the day to do weekend things. Having said that, it’s makes perfect logic to have more races in the Americas. More races on Sunday afternoons in this market will only help F1 grow here and it’ll mean evening broadcasts in Europe which won’t hurt either.
Of course, having two shorter races means you have to get fans to tune in twice in a weekend…that may not be as easy. Also, one other factor which may not be an issue but I haven’t seen mentioned; engines…wouldn’t this mean they’d be built a bit different? Rather than X number of races of 300km…they’d now have to race in 2x races of shorter distances. Small difference, possibly, but a difference which could be a factor.
I went to my son’s comprehensive school and ask them a simple question ”Does formula one impress you guys” the answer i got back was a simple ”no” ”why not i ask” one spoke up and said ” F1 cars top out at just over 200 mph and some road cars can do more then that and they are called exotic cars” ” I said what of the tech” ” old hat im afraid” so twenty years ago there were if any exotic cars that were faster than an f1 car, but this is not the point, the younger generation are just not interested unless the formula is changed. In my time drivers like james hunt were mega stars and spoke their mind today they are a product of the team and cant speak or they dont know how too, we cant go backwards, only forward thinking will get this mess sorted you have to ask the teenagers in the schools what will make them interested in this sport, as they will be the future audiences….
“What is clear about the Internet is that when kids are growing up, they can do things that their parents and grandparents could never do. They can fight wars in space, command armies, drive racing cars, fly jet planes and build cities.”
>>Thats not Internet. What you’ve said here is the case since the 90s: Grand Prix games, EA’s official F1 games, rFactor by ISI from 2006. You dont need internet to play games. And growing while playing racing simulator doesnt mean you then want real F1 races to be shorter, thats not how it works. You got interested in a sport, you start to follow it, get into it more and more and at certain level of “being a fan” of the sport you understand more and dont want it to be simpler and more stupid. What need to be changed are things at “entry point”, meaning how to get more new people into the sport, and not how to annoy those who are already in it, and heres how internet can be helpful: F1 management could use it to built a community around the sport, all those facebooks, twitters, you tubes can be used to attract “kids” – but FOM is failing at this, instead there are talks of shortening the races to attract those “kids”, which is stupid – they already have no problem with watching 90-minute football match, so there is no problem with watching ~90 minute F1 race!
I’m still not sure about what the ‘internet’ does to change a person’s view of a sport like F1. It keeps getting bandied about that the ‘internet generation’ have shorter attention spans and somehow have different ways of perceiving reality!! I consider myself a fairly switched on person. I have used computers since I was 14 (1984) and used the internet/web since the days of usenet and Compuserve etc. I stream media, I have 6TBs of network attached storage, 75Mbps broadband, a Facebook page and twitter Account, smartphone etc, etc, etc and amazingly I still enjoy watching a two hour race.
If young people are only interested in things that don’t last very long how come ‘Avatar’, at nearly three hours long, was such a success with the teenage market? How come teenagers (and myself) are able to play a video game (yes even a racing game) for several hours in one sitting.
It’s all too easy to claim technology and the web are having a direct impact on people’s psychology but there needs to be real-world evidence to back it up. It may be that financial and delivery models have changed (look at the music business) but people still have a very real-world attachment to ‘things’ and concepts. Golf has a huge following and tournaments last several days. I don’t get what the big deal is with attracting youngsters. F1 has always been a niche sporting event and the only way a younger person wouldn’t become interested in it is because they have no emotional connection to it. The BBC has probably done more to increase interest amongst the young in the sport in the UK than any other single thing and a considerable amount of that effort was squandered by allowing Sky to grab half of it. That was quite possibly one of the dumbest business decisions the sport has ever made.
Surely the main problem is the cost of watching the thing, either on track, or via pay TV, or the internet ? When the cheapest weekend in Belgium, Italy, Germany or the UK will cost six or seven hundred pounds, it’s not a surprise that younger people are not getting engaged. Glastonbury festival is deemed expensive but worth it, and you get five days of interactive craziness for three to four hundred quid if you are pretty prudent.