Perhaps you might like to consider a product that I have been (quietly) producing for 20 years. It is called JSBM (Joe Saward’s Business of Motorsport) and is a weekly newsletter with the stories behind the stories behind the stories, plus new ideas, new trends and innovation. And it is not just about Formula 1. It covers NASCAR, IndyCar, WEC, WRC, WTCC, WRX and even raid rallying and NHRA drag racing. It is read by the decision-makers of global motorsport: manufacturers, regulatory bodies, rights-holders, sponsors, teams and circuit executives. The award-winning publication comes out at 0900 GMT every Monday If you are interested, take a look here
Click on the picture to learn more about Joe
- Follow joeblogsf1 on WordPress.com
Click here to try GP+ - the fastest e-magazine in F1
I’m not an industry insider but it sounds like a brilliant tool.
And mud is not aware of you publishing anything!
Very interested in this, but puzzled why 16 x 12 = 192 and annual sub is 199?
Sounds like a fantastic publication for those who need this kind of insight and information. The pricing structure is unusual in that its cheaper to pay monthly (£192 for 12 months) than opt for the £199 annual fee – is there any rationale behind this apparent anomaly?
I would say I was trying to encourage monthly payments, wouldn’t you?
Sounds like an optimal usage of cashflow for the buyer.. which is what I’d expect from a product dealing with F1 and business!
This side of things is my passion. I have worked in a professional rugby team where profits were put before results and it never ends well.
Expect a subscription from me shortly Joe. It will be good to read up about the finance and commercial aspects of the sport without it coming a reporter whos finger is half way up Bernies jacksy.
How on earth do you find time to do all that?
There’s a truism that haunts endeavors such as programming and quantitatively measured things like financial trading, more than anyplace else because of the measurement possibilities: that those who outperform their peers tend to do so spectacularly. In some businesses, being productive becomes so accentuated by a number of factors that leverage real knowledge, that those who can do, do so many times more in valuable output, than their peers.
Sadly, rpaco, too many businesses never have that kind of possibility for leverage or multipliers of work inherent in them, or have multipliers but instead exaggerations of the wrong kind. It’s the first thing I look for īn anything: can what I do, with the full attention of what I can bring and the merit of all my energy, actually scale?
It is possible in publishing, at the scale Joe is publishing. But it gets a lot harder if the scale gets very much bigger. But, yes, at least in my experience I’m from my first experience accustomed to the fact some men will do ten times the work of others, in this game. It’s a fascinating thing to figure out and study, which I came to do for the real reason I couldn’t figure out why so many others “didn’t get it” on my office team, and seemed to do eff all practically. Put the right tools in front the right man, and kabingo! The problem is that too few people know the tools that are needed to simplify the whole publishing game, because no outperformers or such talents ever venture into the incredibly boring mechanics of so much of it, they are best served for their own ends elsewhere, even in other businesses. So no tools were made for the Joes of this world to punch the same weight as their ability, I mean to publish with the effect on the world of a major outfit, commensurate with their actual writing and related abilities, yet with a tiny office scale. I tend to start pulling my tail back between my legs, about now, in these conversations, because I have not yet cracked the tool chain provision that is required. It’s been a long road, but I am at least in private, far less embarrassed recently. All said, still tricky.
P.s.. actually I think n writing, it was always thus: that those who really can truly produce a wealth of output. Look up Wilberforce’s output at the Atheneum library, for one off the top of my head, who fits the polyhistor trait bang on the nose.
But I’m talking of course about magazine publishing, where one has to be exceedingly canny in so many other ways too. I set myself some such high hurdle tasks to complete, in terms of what I hint at at tools for the trade in this modern age, that I do keel them private still, if only because the ambition of them is so genuinely riddled with blatant arrogance in the ambition alone, and I myself am intertwined with their genesis, so therefore a quietened and shaded room is the best place to project such demonstrably ridiculous slides. Still, even with more yet to say, I’m not likely to quit, and some of that shall see light of day..
DWP (drinking while posting) is a serious offense.
I’ve often wondered the same thing. To do it all for the F1 news alone would be work enough, you’d think, but at least in Joe’s main sphere of activity… but to do it for all those other branches of motorsport as well is quite amazing. The man is a human whirlwind…
For those of you wondering just how much fun it is… or rather let’s reverse that, for a idea how much respect is paid to regular bread and butter reporters, here’s some fresh factual example of how publication staffers get treated these days: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-like-watch-worst-firing-ever-paul-petrone?trk=tod-home-art-list-large_
There’s a whole other debate about links, but being a island is not a effective panecea, not yet anyhow.
This is a great alternative. I support the GP+ mane cause of your blog posts, but don’t really need race recaps, stories about F1 history, etc. However, I do need this as someone involved in motorsports. Can’t believe I don’t remember you mentioning this publication before.
Autocorrect did something weird. Turned a typo of because into “mane cause?”