Last week in Madonna do Campiglio, Fernando Alonso made some interesting remarks about social media and it got me thinking about the whole question of how the sport is reported in the modern age, and by whom. The rise of “citizen journalism” has led to a blurring of the lines between traditional trained and experienced journalists and amateurs who are able to publish their work, because the Internet has no restrictions. Some view this a democratic thing, others as a danger because it has undermined the credibility of all news sources. One will often hear F1 people complaining about incorrect stories “on the Internet”. The description clearly means that they do not trust Internet news sources. For some this is why they have started to use Twitter, in order to take out the middle men and go directly to the fans.
“What I like is that now nothing is written about me, about my private life,” Fernando Alonso said last week. “Last year I was on holiday at home at the end of the year. I was in Italy and then in Russia and afterwards in Brazil and I talked about that without any problems. In previous years, without Twitter they might have said I was on the Moon with an elephant or in Kenya with Obama, they used to say all kinds of things. That was worse. Now there are no more inventions or fantasies.”
Fans can hear what Alonso has to say, but at the same time removing the media from the equation means that there is no-one to question what Fernando tells them, or to put his comments into perspective. The fans have a lot more chance of being led astray as a result if they believe those who seek to put out a false picture of themselves.
Journalists are there to filter the story into what they believe the truth to be. Those who do not question what they are being told quickly become propaganda tools and can thus be put into the same bracket as press officers, who are paid to say what the team wants them to say. Some journalists give up their independence because it is worth their while financially; some because they feel important being able to talk to key people, and thus do not dare to question what they are told. Whatever the case they become puppets. In the old days these kind of journalists were weeded out quickly. Word got around about them, but today there are outlets that keep them in the public eye. So it is increasingly difficult for fans to know who to trust. There are dozens and dozens of websites trying to give the impression that they are really involved in the F1 business, when in reality they are run by wannabes who cannot even imagine being able to get FIA accreditation, let alone earn enough money to afford to go to the races.
An additional problem is that the laws of copyright do not protect facts and ideas and so the unethical can use the work of others without needing to do anything more than change a few words here and there to avoid any legal questions. And with systems such as Google Translator, there are no longer any language divisions. No-one is safe from the news-trawlers and repackagers. They may cite some sources, to make things look better, but as they have no real understanding of how the business works and no contacts with the teams there is never any verification, nor even the attempt at it.
There are even operations nowadays that trawl the global media and repackage stories and create a news feed that is then sold to wannabe F1 websites and, increasingly, to professional organisations as well, because they do not wish to spend money to send journalists to races and do not really care if the cheap content is good or not. The people doing this claim that their information is trustworthy, but they have no idea whether it is or not and they tend to interpret things wrongly because they do not have any insider understanding of the sport. They cannot be sued because of the laws of copyright, but they are hated in the F1 paddock as teams often have to waste time and energy denying stories that are not true or interpretations that are wrong.
It is fairly easy to catch out the news trawlers by including statistics that are deliberately wrong in order to create “a barium meal” which highlights the copying, but because there is no copyright protection for facts, all one can really say is that these people are unethical.
The overall result of this is that the quality of news is weakening in every sphere. Proper journalists find that their editors will cut their budgets to save money, while freelances will struggle to pay the vast overheads of being where the action is. This favours the big organisations that have the money to send reporters to events, and it is their work that is being scalped by the news-trawlers.
The only people who can really benefit from the current situation are those who have strong and trusted brands and who know how to turn this into the money they need to keep their businesses afloat. It is certainly not easy to do that, but the power of the Internet is quite amazing. This morning, pottering about with the analytical stats on the blog, I stumbled upon a breakdown of readership int he last 24 hours. It was no surprise to see this dominated by the British, followed by the US, Australia, Canada, Holland, France, Germany, New Zealand, India and Ireland. It was interesting to see that the blog has almost as many Russian readers as it does Spaniards and it was surprising to see interest in places like Pakistan, Thailand and the Philippines. There were readers also in Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Albania, Bosnia, Oman, Iceland, Peru and even wildly exotic places such as the Cayman Islands, Afghanistan, Ecuador, Botswana, Cambodia, Montenegro, Gibraltar, Myanmar, Nepal, Kyrgyzstan, Paraguay, Guam and San Marino. It is good to know also that one is feeding the passion of F1 fans in Panama, Fiji, Sudan, the Åland Islands, Namibia and Mozambique. There may not be many of them, but they are out there!
Formula 1 is a niche market and while the TV viewing figures always sound really impressive, the number of people with more than a passing interest in the sport is much smaller than one would think. The sport has a very long way to go to even begin to compete with the big Twitter followings, headed these days by singer Lady Gaga with 32.9 million, followed by Justin Bieber (32.8 million) and Katy Perry (31 million). President Barack Obama ranks only fifth with 25.6 million. Hollywood stars do not get more than around five million followers while the best race driver I can find is Rubens Barrichello, who has 1.8 million Twitter followers. Fernando Alonso is the leader in the current F1 crowd with 1.4 million followers, chased by Lewis Hamilton and Jenson Button, each with 1.3 million and it is interesting to compare this to the big names in the United States. NASCAR’s most popular driver Dale Earnhardt Jr has 1.4 million “likes” on Facebook, but only 167,000 followers on Twitter because the account is not really active. By comparison Danica Patrick has only 288,000 “likes” on Facebook, but a whopping 689,000 followers on Twitter, although this is only slightly more than Juan Pablo Montoya. Danica’s following is about the same as Jimmie Johnson and Jeff Gordon combined, despite the pair having won nine NASCAR Cup titles between them.
The highest rated IndyCar driver is Dario Franchitti, with 83,700 Twitter followers, while Michael Andretti (83,000) and Helio Castroneves (77,000) are not far behind. Last year’s champion Ryan Hunter Reay can claim only 28,000.
Some Formula 1 journalists have more followers than the leading IndyCar drivers.
Measuring social media accounts by followers is pointless. It’s all about reach and engagement and ROI if applicable.
I am sure you are right, so if you would like to explain how you measure engagement and what generates ROI then I would be happy to listen.
Depends on the network. On Facebook and Youtube, measure engagement (comments/likes) via insights/analytics. Twitter itself does not have detailed analytics natively so 3rd party software is needed. Some is very expensive (£10k+ per year) or free.
I work in the music business managing artists interests. Some of which have over 1 million fans. To prove a return of investment we want to generate awareness and ultimately make money. I said if applicable because I am sure the likes of Lewis and Fernando have social media managers working with them, companies such as The Audience.
In essence, it doesn’t really matter how many followers you have, the key questions are; are they reading what you post, are your followers conversing with you, are they sharing and creating content based on your postings.
Reach is the way to expand networks, so having a fulfilled fanbase is the key metric over amounts of followers etc.
How are you making money put of music these days James? I used to be an artist signed to Sony UK and gave up on music because frankly, you can’t sell it anymore. All the A&R men I knew are doing other things now. Live shows don’t make money unless you are Coldplay. No record sales, only publishing makes money and that’s only for the songwriters. Sad state of affairs.
As for F1 journalism, I think the creme rises to the top.
Joe, there’s an endless way of measuring ROI – we attempted it on Badger GP – one of our contributors works in Social Media – it makes for an interesting read: http://badgergp.com/2012/10/f1-2012-according-to-twitter-social-media-f1/
That is genuinely fascinating – and I’m not even a Twitter user.
It’s simple, you count your retweets and likes, call that an engagement measure, realise it means sweet FA so call it ‘brand spend’ or ‘WOM growth’.
BTW you’re starting to sound bitter about “wannabes who cannot even imagine being able to get FIA accreditation, let alone earn enough money to afford to go to the races.”
Some of the most useful and dedicated f1 sites would be unable to get accredited or travel to the race but just because this upsets you doesn’t mean they don’t have value. Worthless and incorrect news aggregators may be a bad thing but you are stuck in the last century if you don’t see the value of niche (broadcasting) or Fanatical community-based sites.
Klout is a tool that collates a person’s ‘social-networking’ worth, but it’s not a tool that can be used in the third-person (i.e. a person has to sign up and allow all their accounts to be logged and analysed, and said person can then choose to reveal their ‘Klout’).
In a nutshell, it’s not something that can really be measured using old school methods – I use the term worth because I follow people who post interesting stuff, not those who regurgitate press releases or have web teams that do the work for them.
Good example of engagement:
Last night, Gary Hartstein was relaying all the F1 Champions he’s had coffee with. I asked him to name them all, so he did…
I’ve stopped following, for example, Nico Rosberg, because the majority of ‘his’ tweets are PR ones done by a paid-for web drones (and are suffixed as such).
I bet he was relieved to read that question instead of the elephant-in-the-room one.
I’ve been dismayed about the lack of investigation and insight into Gary Hartstein’s firing. Many writers, including well-known accredited ones, have simply strung some Twitter messages together and called it reporting. Any fool can go and look through those. Do your jobs!
There is no job to be done. The FIA decided not to renew Gary’s contract. Even he did not know why, but that is their right. End of story.
From what I read Hartstein was asked to tender for the new contract prior to the end of his existing contract period. He submitted a tender that simply rolled his then-current T&C forward. The FIA decided not to go take up his tender and went with another supplier. Assuming that Roberts also submitted a tender you have to assume that either he’s going to do it cheaper or he’s offering terms that make his services better value. Standard corporate contracting decisions, not really anything to report.
You know far more about the process than I do.
Sharing a couple of links on social media engagement (http://www.altimetergroup.com/2009/07/engagementdb.html)
and ROI (http://www.altimetergroup.com/research/reports/the-social-media-roi-cookbook). Altimeter Group do a good job with this stuff although it may not address all related issues or questions.
Joe, agree completely on topic of the slide of “journalism” down a slimy slope. So much of the media, whether F1 or other areas, have lost journalistic standards whilst we see opportunists making a quick buck. Over time I have eliminated many media sources while looking for ones I believe I can trust. Who one trust depends so much on one’s own view of the world, but that’s a whole different topic…
Keep doing the good work Joe!
If interested, this is a good book on the subject:
Return On Influence: The Revolutionary Power of Klout, Social Scoring, and Influence Marketing
Joe – in your case, could you compare views on your blog with subscriptions to GP+?
These days its rare for me to fork out my own money for content on the internet. However, in your case, its certainly worthwhile.
You are the embodiment if the problem. You don’t want to spend money for something that costs money to create.
GP+ is the icing on the cake. Nickels and dimes compared to the content of the blog and GP+ together! Besides, WE have to support the one person that really knows what’s going on in F1! Airfare ain’t getting any cheaper…
I don’t wish to speak on behalf of ANJ, but I think what he’s saying is that some content IS worth paying for – your e-magazine for example. I infer that he is willing to pay for content IF that content is good quality and unique.
The problem, far from being people like him, is that so many outlets churn out regurgitated press releases or lazy stories, and some of the well-known “mainstream” media are the worst offenders. You disparage bloggers or those without paddock access, but very often it’s those same sources which break the news or provide the best insights.
I’m with Newey, I rarely pay for content – but that’s because most of it is free. That’s not our fault, we’re not the “embodiment if [sic] the problem.”
Consult with a company like Lithium, which measures consumer sentiment on social media. The data is available. It is the work of algorithms. There is a science and it is relatively precise.
Come on Joe you have a following in China to, but it’s all on VPN
I did not quote all the countries. There were too many. But it was merely a selection to show the range of the Internet.
You have my following from Singapore as well of course, which nowadays actually shows up as from Singapore
Have you ever considered embracing Twitter, Joe? I see your links are automatically tweeted, but there’s never any engagement from you or conversation.
I know you’ve had difficulty in the past with random idiots commenting on your blog, but I think that if you can spare the time to embrace Twitter, you’d love it and you too would most likely have more followers than many Indycar drivers!
Just a thought…
Twitter is a way to alert people to things. Automatic tweets is therefore a good way to go. Beyond that I see no real point. There is no money in it and I need to use my time more productively. If I was salaried and could twitter away without needing to earn a living then perhaps I would feel differently.
Joe, I agree with most of what you say. I help run a website which in your eyes would probably fall into the category that you dislike. We have, however, had FIA accreditation on two occasions but also got duped into being supplied by said news feed for a while which on reflection was a mistake. The issue from my point of view is that websites get blanketed as all being the same, with no content worthy of reading, which is not the case. The ones that exist simply for the point of existing are making it more difficult for the few that do actually want to attend races and do it properly. I don’t claim to be a journalist, even though it’s the career I’m trying to pursue, but there are a lot of sites out there that are ruining reporting.
I don’t want to get in the way of a rumble but ‘googling’ MEASURE ENGAGEMENT returned this. An interesting read I thought. The problem with F1 is (in my view) that it doesn’t have a coherent idea of what it is ‘selling’ – until it does, there will be no ‘engagement’ as such.
Help if I added the link….
http://www.socialmediaexplorer.com/social-media-marketing/what-is-engagement-and-how-to-we-measure-it/
Interesting that Barrichello has 1.8 million followers, given that he tweets almost entirely in Portuguese which, with all due respect to the work of Vasco de Gama and his chums, is not really an international language these days.
Fernando on the other hand tweets simultaneously in English, Italian and Spanish, has had a significantly more succesful career than Barry by any measure, and yet can “only” muster 1.4 million.
I note high numbers from a lot of Brazilians. I guess the culture of Twitter is big there.
yeah, twitter is strong here in Brazil. I must say that Barrichelo allways translates his tweets. One in portuguese and one in english. Sometimes both languages in the same tweet.
Perhaps the low numbers indicate itelligence levels that realise how pathetic it is to be a twit or fbook sheep?
Hows the weather in 1954 ? I’m sure people once thought ‘how sad to watch images on a box in the corner of your living room, what deluded tv sheep.’ etc etc.
Very interesting article Joe. You’re such a pro as ever!
“The fans have a lot more chance of being led astray as a result if they believe those who seek to put out a false picture of themselves.”
I think this is dismissive of the capacity of fans to connect the dots themselves. Personally I prefer primary sources, and I like to build a picture – my own picture – on the basis of them. Most of us are not daft enough to take everything a driver tweets as unaffected, or the whole truth. They are all “brands” with agendas. Some athletes are remarkably blatant about it, the number of tennis stars that simply endorse, sorry tweet, their favourite breakfast cereal, laptop, watch etc is remarkable. It’s offensive that they think we are that easily milked.
I have very little respect for the accredited press in F1. They are massively sycophantic. The fans are lucky to get the odd crumb of real paddock info as it would seem certain magazines/websites are happy to stay on the gravy train rather than write real journalism. See also the rubbish journalism in the sport of cycling, where so pitifully few journalists were willing to ask the hard questions of a certain Lance Armstrong, and other dopers. As a result I care little whether I get my boring “factual” news from a trawler site or, say, Autosport even if the latter may have been first to bother to type up the story they mostly sourced from Twitter anyway.
Take the Red Bull/Lotus engineer switch. That was a story that originated on Twitter, from a comment made by a relation of Simon Rennie. In fact a good percentage of breaking stories pop up via someone directly on Twitter these days. If you have a half a brain it’s not hard to filter out the gems from the BS.
I like the way Fernando Alonso uses Twitter. Perhaps it may be interpreted at times as manipulative, but I’d rather my manipulation direct from the horse’s mouth rather than parsed through a compromised news outlet that will never have the courage to truly put contentious comments in context, or ask the difficult questions.
No, it is not dismissive. It is a reality. This is why propagandists exist.
Also, those places with low hirates, might they just be F1 fans and no doubt industry people on holiday? BTW, looking forward to your comments in Autocar as a contrast (not better/worse) to the previous incumbent
There are plusses and minuses to all the changes that have happened. I enjoy a lot of the driver twitter accounts and Fernando Alonso in particular has used his twitter account to change the opinion many fans had of his personality. If he had a twitter account a year earlier we would not have had the ludicrous story of him being involved in a plane crash for example. Equally the top drivers understand how to portray an image so the easily led and the partisan will believe everything they say without analysis.
In the end people will choose the sources they want to believe. There are even some people prepared to pay for GMM. I am surprised there is no comment in this post about him suing Adam Parr for use of his original work. Quite incredible that he would do that given his business.
Just because Fernando is on Twitter, doesn’t mean that stupid stories won’t get reported, they just might get debunked rather quickly :
http://www.loldig.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/james-blunt-epic-reaction-to-death-rumour-600×214.jpg
Joe the Pro – but never trust statistics!
With warm regards rom your Swedish reader, currently in Thailand (generating at least some of those figures)
I am personally responsible for at least three separate IP addresses accessing this blog from France – on a pretty much daily basis.
Good for you.
“The highest rated IndyCar driver is Dario Franchitti, with 83,700 Twitter followers, while Michael Andretti (83,000) and Helio Castroneves (77,000) are not far behind. Last year’s champion Ryan Hunter Reay can claim only 28,000.
Some Formula 1 journalists have more followers than the leading IndyCar drivers.”
Not surprising considering that your average IndyCar race is viewed by “only” several hundred thousands people.in the US.
Also, I suspect that Helio gets many followers thanks to his appearances in ABC’s “Dancing with the Stars” TV show. Perhaps Dario also gets some thanks to her popular wife, the actress Ashley Judd, who has 151.000 followers herself.
Anyway, for the record, the current Indycar driver with the most followers is Tony Kanaan with 574.000 – IndyCar has always maintained a big popularity in Brazil for some reason. Also, the 2006 Indianapolis 500 starter Arie Luyendyk Jr(son of the two time winner Arie Sr) has 122.000, mostly thanks to his role in the latest season of the “Bachelor” TV show.
Anyone who says that they can truly measure engagement is generally lying thorugh their teeth. All you have, as Joe mentions, is a measure of people who are aware of something/somebody and have a twitter/facebook account.
Measuring how much money is generated by each person is virtually impossible too.
When it comes to marketing utilising social media, nobody really knows the truth other than it appears to be better to have it rather than not and that being stupid with it (such as Lewis Hamilton was) can be very damaging and once it’s out there, it’s out there for ever, so try to be as careful as you can be!
I’ve long read your articles on the web before twitter become prevalent as I like your insight / analysis and non – BS approach to F1. You have as many followers as Max Chilton, yet only a tenth of Lee “tell us what happened out there” McKenzie. Twitter is about generating large number of followers to give the illusion of importance.
I think in the case of the media, it is all about whether or not you are on TV. They get bigger numbers, which is obvious really. However, they are working for their companies not for themselves. One point is that some feel that the more followers you have the less likely you are to be fired, because you can take your followers with you.
It’s a shame that legitimate journalism is bring squeezed by this phenomenon. From my perspective (and for what my opinion is worth) good journalism stands out. Your blog and one other (I’m sure you’ll know it) are a brilliant at picking up on emerging themes and providing original analysis. Thus when junk news emerges we punters have enough of a awareness of trends etc to be able to disregard it. I’m so very sorry for the frustrations this sort of thing causes but the reality is that we need you now more than ever!
I use the other site too but without wanting to put words in Joes mouth I sometimes find the other sites articles PR driven. This is quite obvious when you look at how close his funding seems to be coming in from the teams. In fact the whole reason I am on this site now is because I read the Wolf story on the other first and wanted to see Joes perspective as in my opinion he is a more impartial source. I don’t heavily criticise the other site for doing this as it’s the way his financial structure is setup. As long as you take an informed view of his articles and read between the lines it is still very informative.
I often wonder how far an overly critical journalist of F1 would get if Bernie or a team manger didn’t like it. In your case Joe do you think your given some leeway because of your longevity and position within the sport. I imagine if you said something upsetting and were banned or excluded it would cause to much of a bad smell? Other journalists may not find themselves in such a position.
F1 does not ban good journalists. One or two people have not been granted passes in the past. Over a 20 year period I can think if two cases where people did not get passes and it was seen as being because of what they wrote. In both cases the journalists did not have the qualifications necessary to qualify for the passes. Before that things were a little wilder with FIA President Jean Marie Balestre being a little more heavy-handed. Bernie is smarter than that he pulls his enemies close and emasculates them by making them reliant on him…
Thanks for the reply thats the other reason I visit your site and I am not surprised by Bernies tactic. Would you say the teams do the same as Bernie? Or if you criticise them would you find it hard to gain access for interviews etc? I would say this in terms of an independent journalist such as yourself. The pr department of a team I think would struggle to send a broadsheet or tabloid journalist into exile for fear of bad press.
You forgot the one reader in South Korea! LOL
It would be absolutely fantastic if there were a discreet way of letting us know who is worthy of reading. Maybe a list of paddock regulars, perhaps? Who does attend most of the races?
No, I didn’t name all the countries. There were way too many. In fact I think there were several hundred in South Korea.
That’s great! I wonder if they are all expats like me.
I think with new media as with print and TV Caveat Emptor should always be the guiding motto. One should use critical thinking when reading stories nowadays and understand the value that each source provides. I follow Alonso on twitter and I have to say that I like his posts and see him in a better light, he comes across as someone who realizes how privileged he is for leading the life that he does and who has fun being an F1 driver. Having said that I do not for a second loose sight that this is part of his PR strategy (as is the case with all famous and not so famous people on twitter) so everything must be taken with a pinch of salt. W. Buxton gives a fun glimpse into the life of an F1 journalist and you keep us well informed of the inner workings of the F1 world. I also follow Fake Charlie Whiting for a bit of fun, but at no point would I mistake him, nor do I think he presents himself as a journalist. So the reader does bear some responsibility in making sure his sources are legitimate.
As far as journalists go, I think that the core fans in general can weed out the hacks for the most part, but its the passing fan that cannot distinguish between the real deal and the posers and sadly I see no way to take them out of the equation, the internet provides al lot of good things but some bad comes with it. I think that is a simple reality of todays world, at the end of the day cream will always rise, you just have to ignore the hacks and do your job. as best you can
Paul Kimmage is a great example of what you say Joe. Had he (and others) not doggedly pursued the truth about Lance Armstong, everyone would have swallowed the “I did not cheat, it’s just a witch hunt” story, spread by both the “friendly” press and Lance himself on through Twitter (https://twitter.com/lancearmstrong/status/224314837004599297) and we would be none the wiser.
Proper journalism definitely has it’s place and let’s hope it never loses it.
Hi Joe
Obviously you’re not the first journalist to suffer this point, as case in point is @arseblog (an Arsenal FC blogger before you block me!) and he tweeted that Carl Jenkinson’s (a right back at Arsenal) dad was a backing singer on Bonnie Tyler’s “Turn Around” single. Obviously this was pure fabrication.
This “fact” was picked up by a journalist, and the question was actually posed to Carl Jenkinson in a pre-match press conference, much to the hilarity of everyone at the press conference, and the subsequent followers of arseblog.
There’s no real point to this post, other than maybe if you feel in the mood you (and the other real F1 journalists) could spin a yarn and watch the repercussions. You never know, you could make it into some sort of game, but then that does assume you actually have some spare time!
Stephen
Hi Joe,
I am running one of the biggest Motorsportblogs in Germany, I am a journalist since 20 years on some different topics, but nevertheless I have my experience. But I am one those “internet guys” who are covering and tweeting news. We try to be professional as we can get, while working with some contacts and, of course, Twitter, personal blogs etc. We try to be as often at the track, as we can afford, making contacts, getting stories and so one. Our readers know, that we fact check and we do not running around and claiming, that we broke some news. We credit (via URL or retweet) the sources. It maybe easier not to, but this is not the way we work.
One thing I’ve learned in the last years by reporting about motorsport is, that it is really, really complicated to get into the business, even to get recognized. Most of the Teams and even the PR-folks form the car companies are not very enthusiastic about giving some information and so on. It took me some time to get in all the mail newsletter and I am still not getting the photos as quick as I would need them. There are series, that are surprisingly supportive, like the ACO, SRO and the NASCAR, but the FIA and the F1 are not.
Getting an media pass for even one F1 Race is still impossible, and we are covering every race, every test and so on. Any idiot can get a media pass, if he is working for TV, but not Online. The only chance I got to get in, was via invitation by some company. I took it, but also made it clear to my readers, that I could only did some behind the scenes, because I got invited.
It is not, that I do not want to be there, I cannot get an media pass, because I am “just the online guy”. The other problem is: how I would finance all the travel expenses? But I will not get any decent funding via reporting for other media outlets, ads or sponsorship, when I am not at the track. It is a Catch 22.
The way journalism works has changed a lot in the last years. You know that, you are sometimes breaking stories at your blog and not in a newspaper. And you do that, because you know, that the publicity you get here, will help you at other occasions. The Internet is not that “bad thing” that kills professional journalism, it is just a new media channel. Unfortunately (for me) it is very hard to create a business model, because of the problems, I described.
So – as long, as the F1 (and other series) are keeping up the walls, it will be hard to find new journalists, who are covering the sport in the way you wish for.
I do not believe that if you have the credentials you speak of you will not at least be listened to,. When was the last time you tried?
Last year, I will try it again this year. Looking for some european races, and maybe bahrain, because I heard from a fellow british journalist, that it could be a little easier to get in… if I get visa.
Do you credit your sources when quoting from them? (I’ve had Harvard referencing drilled into me so I must say it)
If you read my blog you will know the answer to that.
As a German you shouldn’t have any trouble getting a Visa on arrival for Bahrain?
“The other problem is: how I would finance all the travel expenses?”
Joe, how do you finance your travel expenses?
I was under the impression that you worked your rear end off…
This is how I do it.
I (and the majority of your readers) know. I was being sarcastic.
Alonso has got 194,000 followers on Instagram, 79,000 for Hamilton.
Interesting article. My own opinion is that news is now pretty boring because it is a discreet fact. For example, Lewis Hamilton joins Mercedes. Basically that line is the entire story.
Journalists are seldom required to reveal this because everyone knows already from sources such as driver twitter feeds or facebook.
Modern journalism is now becoming purely about analysis and opinion. I think most people expect journalists to be extremely bias. For example, read the economic analysis and blogs in the Guardian compared to the Telegraph. People source analysis from the source that thinks their way.
I read this blog because I want to hear your perspective. I already know the story. I like your musings on the business side of F1 and your views on how it should be run correctly because it is very similar to my own leanings.
Perhaps it is time for journalists particularly on entertainment blogs (such as F1 blogs) to show even more bias and even more opinionated ranting.
I don’t want to know what happening, I want to know what you think of it!!
I agree totally. The world is different now. We live with information overload. I am a news addict. I use Flipboard to get 99% of my news now, and you get the most of the facts simply by scrolling through the sea of headlines. I only click on a small portion of the headlines I actually see. My motives for reading something are usually that I want to further my opinion on an issue, want more details, or because there is something forward-looking or speculative about the matter, and I want the perspective of the writer.
The copycat websites annoy me, but I pretty much follow everything I can. Over time I develop an opinion on which websites are actually legit and which aren’t, but it isn’t clear from first glance who is copying who. But over time, one learns who to listen to and who not to. Usually with F1 sites, it’s not so much what they do report but what they DON’T report that makes them credible in my eyes.
Early in my days as an F1 fan I used to go by a rule that I wouldn’t consider something a legitimate story until it was written up on grandprix.com. Now, I think the world has changed and things become important merely because they are being talked about – whether they are true or not. It shouldn’t be this way, but it is.
I have a small blog that I write only because I live in America and have no one to discuss F1 with. Plus I get personal enjoyment from writing. I don’t know how people can just repackage other people’s stuff, not only ethically, but it reflects on their intelligence and their writing ability.
Thanks for your reply. Let me know your blog address, and I’ll add to your discussion!!
I think bloggers should stick to opinions rather than news reports, especially if they weren’t there (i.e. at the races and/or in the paddock/have insider access). As for news trawlers, it’s actually quite easy to block them from your website if you maintain a database of IP addresses and block them from the server firewall. They deserve to be blocked if they offer nothing of value in exchange which in 99% of cases they don’t.
An avid fan from Bangladesh says hello. Thank you so much for understanding the power of internet that gives us the taste of this great circus.
Through your writing I am able to get closer to the F1,and get better understanding of the sports. Thank you for everything.
If monetizing online visitors / followers/ etc. were such an easy thing to do, as some of the “experts” up here have commented, Facebook’s shares would be around $700.
I used to follow a few F1 related people on Twitter, but it becomes a full time job ploughing through the multitude of re-tweets of rubbish before one can actually find something worthwhile. It also seems to aim for the lowest common denominator very quickly.
It seems to me that twitter is an absolute dream for a PR department of, well anything really. They can very easily generate stories, ideas or corporate images with very few staff involved in tweeting and re-tweeting.
Maybe if Joe has a sex change and a lot of plastic surgery and looses a couple of kilos, he too can achieve Lee Mack’s (oops) Lee Mackenzie’s, twitterati figures. These come from her established work and appearance on tv, she has time to tweet because she has a regular paid job for the BBC. I expect Suzi Perry will very quickly build up a huge twitter following from F1 in addition to her existing MotoGP and leather followers no to mention Ginge. (She has time atm because she lost both MotoGP and the Gadget show) I hope she can shout at EJ and keep him in check during in the few FTA GPs we are allowed to see in the uk
This “Like” thingy on blogs seems to be aimed at thirteen year olds or pre-teens. On my own blog I have had “so and so thinks this is pretty awesome”! Rubbish! it is usually me complaining about something, how can that possibly be awesome? I will get the “awesome” button removed when I remember. But again that lowers the whole media credibility image. (the media’s not my own, which remains firmly: “reactionary old git”)
But this is a market which is changing, like a lot of other markets which have been affected by the internet, some have been destroyed, new ones have been created out of nothing. Magazines, newspapers and books have become de-materialised to some extent but still retain their value as an entity. There must come a time however when the readership of the de-materialised version of the material outweighs the traditional hard copy printed version. At that point one has to ask why is it worth retaining all this print machinery and the physical distribution/logistical network. GP+ and The BOM are only possible because of the internet. Motoring News and Autocar are but two of the publications I used to buy, both now on the internet. I still walk to the shops every day to get my wife’s Daily Panic, but wonder how long before it’s costs push it into the ether and my exercise ends.
Joe,
As a journalist, I understand your frustration. However, we cannot put all people and websites on the same bag.
There are a lot of websites just copying and pasting news from other media outlets. But there are also a lot of websites trying to give some F1 information as accurate as possible – reflecting about main stories on Formula One and linking to original authors.
As far as I know much of these websites are pretty honest with their readers. They say they are not covering F1 on track and they usually recommend people to access trusted websites. But they are online to give some opinion, to debate about motorsport with other fans.
Besides, those websites also help some independent journalists like you. the mainstream media are full of greed. They usually prefer not put a link for your website even if you break a news story. However, those websites help readers to know who is publishing that. That’s the case of F1 Fanatic in UK, for example. But there’s a lot of others websites doing it – responsibly – around the world.
So, I think you are wrong when you mix apple and oranges here.
In my opinion, you are either a professional F1 journalist, or you are not. It was never easy to become one and it should not be easy today, but youngsters are doing it today, just as I once did it, by going out there and doing it, risking things and making it happen. I have no patience for those who sit at home and whine that it is hard.
Why does a certain “Business Editor” of a certain website and occasional Telegraph columnist come to mind?
For you , Joe , the tweet could be the bait for this blog .
This is coming , admittedly , from a dinosaur who can’t attach a picture to an e-mail without help , but it might have some merit .
I found you through a compiler , but that was before this twitter thing took off .
Now , if you spent a moment with twitter , and made it cryptic enough to tantalize the masses , you could potentially up the readership significantly , couldn’t you ?
From my chair , you can get a certain amount of a following by being famous to begin with , and you can build one pretty quickly by being first up with something juicy .
I’m not sure how much it’s happening , but it seems like most are just using it to generally “build the brand” , rather than point folks in a specific marketting direction .
Lewis likely went up a few followers when he made his famous “fox paw” , tweeting telemetry , and I’m not suggesting quite the same level from yourself , but you do have a knack for seeing the truths through the fog of F1 , and you tend to see them early .
A few cryptic tweets might bring a whole lot of interest here , where you can make some coin to support all this .
You’ve likely gone through all this already , and if so , sorry , but just in case you missed it , I thought I’d spit it out there .
I think I’ve mooted this before, but if I were running a serious website or blog, I’d be keeping a up to date list of all the IP addresses as they relate to bots, crawlers and scrapers, and serving them up barium meals thrice daily, automated. A old boy who went by the name Fravia, who cryptically wrote extensively about his frustrations both with the, ahem, inaccessibility of commercial content as well as the underbelly of the web that is the subject here, delivered wily essays on how to “capture” crawler bots, or as they were more frequently referred to, spiders, thereby infuriating those who sought to, irony of ironies, pilfer his materials on how bad they were. Today, some content distribution networks, CloudFlare make the most noise about their ability, make sure suspicious IP ranges never get near the actual website you run.
I think if I wee dealing with someone lifting my content, and they were based on a range in Romania or somewhere where about no law is ever going to apply, I might think of getting a little “grey” about my response. Careful, though, botnets are freely traded, and denial of service attacks annoyingly cheap to procure, at least as announced in frequent reports. But if you know the subject and area I refer to in my first paragraph, you wouldn’t be silly, blatant, or expose yourself to direct ire or liabilities.
Inevitably there is a cultural problem. A generation has grown up expecting certain freedoms, and just to take one fairly uncontentious such freedom, think of discussion forums. Early on, websites who provided free for all discussion, had a potential advantage. How dull it is, to visit a website to read someone’s serious efforts, without slagging them off, nitpicking, or indulging in bun fights with other readers! To a certain extent, featureitis crept in. Many news sites still have local clippings features, despite things like ReadItLater, Instapaper and others provide a more functional and universal service. But there’s a expectation that I think skews towards the young demographics, of interactivity, something to do, fiddle with, a button to press, and it’s very hard to define when any of that is useful to anyone when delivering real journalism. However it does all play into the hands of addictive tendency. A “aggregator” website, even if scraped illegally and blatantly, might look busy and annoying, or it might entice with much to click. When Reuters puts aggregation sidebars on their front page, they are paying attention in part to the perception of busy information, only doing so in a normal commercial context. They decided to join them, as it were, and websites that have positive reputations generally, Drudge Report, HuffPo, were responded to in kind. But, hang on a minute, certainly the latter, HuffPo really isn’t that far removed from the truly dubious aggregators. (Drudge is obviously a page of links, and at least in that sense truer to itself, not posing as more than it is) Moreover HuffPo has been sold about at lunatic valuations into a division of big business. There must be something in this, beyond what is worth a look into, the bitter labor disputes they had with apparently indentured “contributors”.
The eternal water cooler debate for a dull day, is whether if established media had moved more quickly, they would not have been so subjected. The problem is in my opinion, that they were asked wholesale to move to a model where you need to take on considerable new staff and facilities, and there was no revenue, at a time the capex to run a large website was simply enormous. The most amazing land grab I’ve seen, by technology and telecoms companies. If I have to pinpoint one fatal blow for so many publications, it has to be the fact that during the time this was going on, about nobody had a clue who to hire to address the web “market”, because it was all made up on the hop. There is certainly a cohort no older than my generation who thought they were working in “meedjya” when they for their own sakes needed a honest job, and who now extrapolate the “empowerment” of cheap internet services as a birthright to “publish”. One only needs look at the homogeneity of both content and design, even before questioning the value of what is out there, to realize there is a awful lot of making it up on the hoof still going on.
But take a alternative view, and most blogs are vain and vacuous affairs, emanating desperation in their uniformity, and late adolescent sense of putting off the day that honest job must pay the milk bill. In this circumstance, is it misdirection to wonder if the one eyed leading the blind are anything but a market one wants to monetize, or that they would ever form a market serious papers or magazines would address or retain readers from? I think there’s a sense of surreality, that because the internet lets us stare at nincompoops as readily as it does allow us to observe constituencies we would not otherwise observe, and that surreality does not equate to logic which says they are untapped market or willfully mislead, or that arguing for their betterment by removing the distractions of bottom feeders is a purposeful activity.
If one thing strikes me as a travesty on the web, it’s the way links became weighted as a currency. Inbound links became highly valuable, the more-so from a serious site, and outbound links were marked as “link farming” or detracted from a site’s score. Then when blogging took off, there was a circular exchange of links, creating a feedback loop of self reference to citation to self reference so awful that I remember staring at the debate about giving credit to the blogger who *first _linked_ a primary source*!!!
Now, it’s very neat if you are in the middle of this, punting the adverts, at the same time as deciding the value of those links and how they will show when someone innocently types a subject into the magic glowing box in front of them.
Bluntly speaking, there’s a fundamental that caused untold damage. But this has been the status quo for a fair while now, and I think tilting at such systemic effects by blaming the creation of those deliberate system choices by companies neither you nor I nor seemingly governments can get to listen, is counterproductive.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot in the past year, and whack – a – mole technical and legal responses seem to be self defeating, getting upset may be a equal sink – hole of time, and lobbying maybe a option only for the self flagellant.
I think the answer is to deploy what tech one can positively, at the same time as looking to address as large a part of the possible market at the right price points. The classical case in point is Microsoft’s renowned laziness as to piracy of their software in undeveloped markets. They win in the end, because their system crowds out the rest. Can a English language publication syndicate in languages at next to no cost? Maybe, there’s a million potential translators out there who would maybe love to “syndicate” a genuine publication. Risky? You bet. But it depends on whether the loss of a market compared with saturating it with your brand is a equation, and a host of factors I’d never know if I got right. But this is to a large extent not that far from the model major magazines take. Want this month’s Wired? Then subscribe. Last month’s, maybe excluding some premium features? It’s on their site, generating traffic and advertising impressions. There’s more than one way to skin the circulation pussycat.
When it comes to GP+, I index my subscription with a forensic search engine called dtsearch, which is just that much neater at looking for combinatorial searches when I cannot recall just what I am looking for. If that were rolled into a app on a tablet that could keep track of my search patterns to optimize those, I must say I’d be happy as larry, and I it’s be pretty awesome if that were polished enough you could hand your ipad over to someone less informed about F1 and they could draw up the stories and references at a touch when you are busy rating about your pet love or hate.
More words than I planned, but it’s a big subject, and the thing this boils down to, is that as a actual author and publisher, you get to decide in what way you present, you’re always going to have the chance to be a step ahead of the leeches, because they cannot screen scrape your head, and there is a smörgåsbord of tools that go more than half way to delivering cool features that are about the content. People who simply plagiarize and copy do not have any incentive to market themselves, despite, maybe having grown up with these amazing computing tools in idle childhood, they may have a technical edge somewhere else.
As contentious as this is, I think traditional publishers could be more confident. There has been a travesty, but far too much of the lobbying and draconian law that has been introduced emanates from either willful understanding of the technology, or, so easily as often, those who simply have weak tenure over their jobs for other reasons. Meanwhile, maybe not for print, but for music, there is study after study correlating piracy with increased music consumption fueling purchases. The BBC pays what it feels like for royalties, they are effectively except from normal negotiation. Not many of my contemporaries never bought a album because it was played on John Peel’s show.
Bottom line, Joe, you HAVE a strong and trusted brand. Use it more!
Facebook has run its course for many adults, you either like or hate it, spend hours on it or shut the account down. Twitter I find difficult to engage with, it is Facebook but at 10 times the speed. Analysis of information is difficult and often the ‘background noise’ drowns out what little real information is there.
I have given both up and now concentrate of this blog only for F1 news. I cannot walk around all day with a smartphone pressed to my face, I have a regular mobile cell phone that sends and receives calls, and that’s about it.
What comes after Twitter and Facebook?
I’m online almost all day, so pop into Joe’s blog to see what’s happening, but that’s the only one. The BBC F1 coverage is really bad now, the responses to some of the Andrew Benson articles are pretty awful and the ‘fans’ are so predictable that it just isn’t worth going there.
Getting old and crusty, but still appreciate good, solid news reporting.
Thanks, Joe!
When I was a kid, I dreamed about having access to “insider” information from the teams and drivers. Now, I realize that most of what’s written (and broadcast) about F1 is nonsense or PR flack, and reading it is a collosal waste of time.
What drives me nuts is when a supposedly quality website (Autosport) will take a press release and divide it into several smaller articles that all say nothing, with completely over-the-top headlines.
While the volume of information is greater, finding quality is harder (contents of this blog excepted). Before races were televised, you could rely on Jenkinson at Motorsport, or Roebuck at Autosport and get a picture of what it was like to be there. Today, you can watch hours of wall-to-wall coverage, read endless websites and not really know more than what your own eyes could see.
Are things better today? I don’t know.
Middle-aged man rant over.
Agree on your comments Chris. It seems that very few journalists are actually using their access to ask more than “Dorothy Dixer” questions to PR hacks. Whats the point of that?
I think Joe is getting too focused on the numbers. Sure there are lots of people that can click a button and follow someone on twitter or like someone on Facebook. But Joe’s target market is not the average coach potato. The more hardcore fans WILL seek out better analysis and information which in turn brings them to blogs like Joe’s, or Scarb’s diagrams, etc. Its not a question of having an allegiance to one or the other, more finding each’s specialty and combining pieces of information to form your own view on events.
Most of all I appreciate Joe’s interaction on this blog. I know it probably takes up a lot of his time, but it shows a willingness to acknowledge his readers (ie not take them for granted) and is happy to provide additional insight. This engagement is what makes people want to try GP+ and them eventually rust on.
Twitter followers and Facebook likes are easily automated and, for example, empirical research indicates that upward of 2/3 of Lady GaGa’s Twitter followers are non existent. As a consequence both metrics are seriously flawed and are not a serious measure of anything, let alone worth. The information is easy enough to find. I do not have the latest media report to hand, but it was conducted by a global agency (Burson Marsteller) and looked at the social media activity of Heads of State (http://twiplomacy.com). The mechanics of automated followers and likes were discussed. As always: caveat emptor!
Nothing beats a well written article, such as those appearing on this blog or by Roebuck or Peter Windsor (hope none of those comparisons are offensive). A good article will analyse yet also tell a story, often anchored with a historical perspective that few Johhny-come-latelies are able to achieve.
I think Pat Symonds has some interesting takes on race reviews in F1 Racing, he’s been a good read in the past year.
Speaking of Press Officers, who was the F1 Racing guy who went to McLaren. Was it Bishop? I didn’t rate his writing style at all (I’ve never seen someone use the word ‘parenthetically’ so often). Would teams prefer someone with a blander style, as this is the nature of their releases?
Yes, Matt Bishop.
To read about an honest and real perspective on social media, read:
http://adcontrarian.blogspot.co.nz/
He is one of the few people that cuts through the crap and gives stats, facts and a real view on social media and business, or how useful it really is. (he also runs a $100 million ad company btw)
Also, just because people click ‘follow’ doesn’t necessarily mean ANYTHING.
I followed a few F1 journos purely because all it cost was 1 click. They were all boring so I unfollowed most of them.
But most people will keep following them, or rather, not unfollow them, just for the sake of it.
Does it MEAN anything?
I mean “F1 journalism” can make people read it, because people have nothing better to do. But it’s hardly “war journalism”, is it? Free media can get people chatting about it online, but if an ‘F1 journalist’ (let’s just take James Allen as an example) didn’t have a website, then people who wanted to chat about it could just use another website.
But about social media, read what James Moodle says above:
“are they reading what you post, are your followers conversing with you, are they sharing and creating content based on your postings”
then read the acontrarian website and you will have a really good laugh. Especially about “sharing and creating content”, the Emperor’s new clothes.
Also, Joe, it seems that in your last paragraph section, you are using Twitter followers as an indication of the popularity of people?
Is this wrong?
In which case why even mention F1 and Twitter? It may be me but I did not see the relation, or at least I did not see the final conclusion regarding what Twitter has to do with all of this?
Considering the global scale of the web it is very apparent how little quality F1 coverage or f1 coverage for that matter there is at all. Theoretically the quality such as your content should rise to the top if people have any sense of appreciation. So there really should be an opportunity here.
The problem really is the unfair monetization of the current internet advertising model. I would think judging by the constant barrage of shock headlines and out of context quotes designed to get “clicks” that most of the internet parasites are deriving some form of revenue, so essentially they are being rewarded for producing crap with stolen content. User specific targeted advertising needs to continue to evolve so quality readerships are available to advertisers.
While I have no desire to subscribe for daily F1 news I would have no problem with quality advertising that is targeted to your demographic being side-screen as I and I would hope your other readers would like to see you rewarded for your work. (car advertising makes a lot of sense, bmw, benz, etc) judging by most comments on your site I think you have some “quality eyeballs” vs people with a pulse that tend to be found on the “repeater” sites.
Somethings pretty wrong when the lowest common denominator is making money for selling old rope and the quality guys are not getting paid.
There has to be a template available which could contain the blog and have targeted live advertising scrolling through side-screen. Not that intrusive for the reader – don’t mind seeing the latest deals from BMW, Watches, etc
Keep up the good work and hopefully sooner rather than later some tech wizard will figure out a way to appropriately monetize your readership to your benefit.
Sadly the news in general these days has become infotainment. Woodward and Bernstein would probably be fired these days for not covering the Kardashians while they were bringing down a presidency. Sad comment on humanity
“Journalists are there to filter the story into what they believe the truth to be”.
This is not accurate, the role of a journalist is to seek out the true story not provide the one they believe to be true. If you pursue what you believe the truth to be then you will look for and find information that supports your theory rather than finding the truth. Witness our friends at BBC Newsnight and their cock-up in relation to Lord McAlpine. They believed the story to be true, found substance to support it and then went to air secure in the knowledge of what they believed to be true.
I do accept though, in your defence that in F1 the truth is a very grey area and much of the breaking “news” is hidden behind layers of “ronspeak”, PR bull(etins) and confustication. As such you are correct in that you must make a decision as to what the truth is based on your sources, on their integrity and their previous accuracy.
Luckily though it is sport and rumour and misinformation only serves to build up the hype for when the actual story breaks. Thankfully, getting it wrong in F1 has few implications for the wider world, However the onus, as you have said many times, is on the provider of the news, to make every effort to get the story right – it is a matter of reputation and provides the delight associated with breaking a story first
That you for that sermon. It is nice to know what my job is.
Your welcome Joe