48 weeks to go... construction must be at a blistering pace.
The trouble is, Bernie's not really interested in what the manufacturers want, never has been (they just complicate his business life anyway), he's only interested in where the $$$$'s are. The manufacturers can keep pushing, like a child in a sweet shop demanding sweets, but that doesn't mean they'll definitely get what they want, not while Bernie's around. IF the interest isn't high enough in the US and Bernie finds he can get more money elsewhere, no matter what the teams say, the F1 circus will leave town.
Not sure about that. After all the teams have to agree to bring the cars 20 times to the show (which is more than they want) and the teams can e.g. say that they're willing to take a pay cut from the golden pot *IF* Bernie is willing to make a US GP happen at bargain prices. IMHO this is all negotiable and the teams really want a US GP.
I think that the teams, together, can make Bernie do what they want. That's why he always divides and conquers them. Also, the larger and more prominent teams have a lot more sway than the rest - namely Ferrari, McLaren, Mercedes in that order. I think F1 in the USA is one of the rare occasions when the teams (the ones that matter anyway) are united in their demands. They want to be in the USA. It's sort of like when the teams banded together and told Bernie that Max had to go. Max and Bernie were old friends. Good old friends. But Bernie is a businessman - a sharp one at that - and he knew the writing was on the wall. I think the same is true of America. Bernie knows the writing is on the wall - he needs a USGP. Doesn't have to be in Austin, though.
There's a case in point straight away! For years the teams said they could only cope with 16 races, so Bernie put 17 on the calender and the teams complained but raced on 17 circuits. Then they said okay, 17 races is the max, so Bernie put 18 on the calender. Again they complained but raced on 18 circuits. "We definitely cannot do anymore than 18 races!" said the teams, result? - 19 races. "We're stretched to the limit now!" they complained, so Bernie gave them 20 races and low and behold, they race on 20 circuits. Despite all the complaints over the years about the number of races in a season, they now do 20 races a season, not because they want to but because Bernie tells them to. The teams didn't group together and tell Bernie: "This is not acceptable and we're not going to do it!" Based on the example above, I think the teams together can end up doing what Bernie wants and be convinced it's what they really want. Whilst that is all true, the big teams are also savvy enough to realize that it is not vital for them to be in the USA and that if the interest does not develop there then they will survive, as will F1. (It also seems to Me that McLaren are the ones pushing hardest to go racing in the USA, more than most the other teams, but then they are trying to set themselves up as the "new Ferrari" of road cars and the USA is their biggest emerging market). As it stands, it's a nice idea to race in the USA and it could pay handsomely but by the same token, it could end up being another in the long line of F1 flops in America. Does he really though?, why?, he has plenty of other countries queuing up to have a GP (whether they are sustainable for a long period of time is open to question mind you). Hearing Bernie say that F1 will never be big in America does not sound to Me like a man who is convinced he's really onto a winner and is giving it the hard sell. It just seems a bit half-hearted, as if he is just toying with the idea to appease the teams and make a fast buck. If it succeeds then he'll make loads of money (as will the teams), and he'll be happy. If it fails, then he'll be proved right that F1 cannot be big in America, make loads of money (unlike the teams), and he'll be happy. Don't get Me wrong BTW, I would love to see F1 succeed in the USA, I really would, but there's just a nagging doubt that it will fail to do so yet again in the long run.
Bottom line: outside of very few, nobody either knows nor cares about F1 over here, even other series attendence are declining as the 'instant and cheap' gratification becomes available via television and internet. try this, ask one person an hour today to name the current F1 champion, or if not able, name ONE current driver. Ask this of 5 random people and let's see what happens. You'll be lucky if they can do that for NASCAR. Just saying.......
Irrelevant. The car manufacturers need the race to peddle their cars and within 300 million Americans, you will find 50,000 fans wanting to see the race. The other 50,000 will come from Europe and South America.
Oh wow! 50K out of 300M! 50K out of 7Bn. Impressive. But irrelevent to the big picture to the other 295.5M The mainstream US will never embrace f1, and the car manufacturers will sell regardless.
true, they did year one at Indy, then declined fast. Just same will happen in TX or NJ, one or two then out. OT, what are the viewing figures for Speed coverage of F1? True it's crap but should be an indicator of the VAST following.
Wrong, the manufacturers/teams want the US to find sponsorship. Think selling a few thousand cars funds a team?
+1 and then some. BMW/Mercedes/Porsche/Audi sales all doing quite well. Without a SINGLE US F1 race for some time now. Ferrari do NOT need an F1 race in the US to sell cars when the waiting lists are years long at times. With Canada alone most of the market is reached to put it mildly. The teams keep seeing a large gap in coverage here and yet F1 continues to grow quite well mind you, without an F1 race in the US. F1 has not missed the US since it left Indy. Whitmarsh is the only vocal proponent on record of late with this F1 in the US desire over-whelming him. I would like to see F1 appreciated in the US with a strong fan base and meaningful, exciting race. To date it has not happend.
It's not the car sales they care about (except maybe mclaren), it's the sponsorship revenue. Increase in F1 viewership in USA = more the teams can charge. Having a race in USA can only help the interest in F1 here (two races more so)
From who and what company? NASCAR has about the maximum sponsorship one can imagine and a TV fan base to go along with it. Where on earth does F1 in the US expect to gain large American sponsors. Given all the other advert vehicles avail in the US where does F1 add to that in any meaningful way. The demand does not appear to be there or desired. TV ratings in the US for F1 are exactly what in number to justify this. What are the demographics and exact number. F1 in Indy attracted about 120k people or less towards the end. From what I've read and seen here, SpeedTv has not effectively increased its F1 exposure in any large way. The voices here appear to have tolerable coverage vs superb coverage. Austin is almost using F1 as a loss leader it would appear. The mantra is constant revenue stream with other events over time some not all are racing. F1 is not a viable long term sport in the US. I admire the appearance of effort for it there. There are many passionate fans of course. The Bernie himself this week on the BBC said he doesnt expect alot from F1 in the US. That pretty much sums it up. I would gather he has the numbers/sponsors/demographics to back up such an assertion.
Ratings on Fox for nascar droped 29% last year for ages 18-34. Average age of Nascar fan is 44; I hardly think those numbers paint a bright future for nascar. At&t, AMD, Dell. All American companies (two of which are based in Texas) that already do
I think it does. The USA is the biggest market for Ferrari (for example). Their team is largely funded by the USA. The USA is also the single biggest market (by far) by dollar volume and buying power. Yeah, you could equal the sales volume by piecing together numerous other markets - but they are non-contiguous and different in culture, language, etc. It's a pain in the ass. Much easier to just tell in one giant market - the USA.
If they dropped off F1, would F1 miss them? No. Ferrari has a Russian tech/computer partner. It has Shell for fluids. NASCAR will have to refine its formula. What is a fact is that F1 has never gained traction in the US. Bernie has little faith in the market and even recent history is proof. Its growing without the US. Another fact.
Ferrari is is a brand, its source of revenue is the trademark and items using its logo. The car side of the business is not the majority of its revenue. They(cars and all other items), are selling just wonderfully in this ongoing economic turmoil and lack of F1 in the US. Same with Mercedes. Sales are up and no F1.
And which one country has the highest sales of Ferrari merchandise? If you're going to suggest there is not a link between Ferraris racing heritage and their sales, well, we're not going to have a common point of reference for a debate. I say they are irrefutably linked. I am pretty sure Luca has echoed Whitmarsh's feeling that F1 needs to be in the USA. Not "needs" from a "it will die off if we don't" perspective, but rather from a "it's very important to our brand and business" perspective. I don't know any business that can afford to have it's overwhelmingly biggest PR/marketing effort be largely absent from it's largest (by far) market. It would be like Hollywood movie stars only doing interviews outside the USA for movies that are being made.
Ferrari have had record sales and revenue and its been years since F1 was in the US. Clearly not a requirement for success at all. The brand/mystique is the power. Evidently F1 not required. In fact luxury brands/car sales are doing quite well worldwide(China helps), and no F1 in the US. F1 in China is a failure. Id say some decoupling is evident.
It would an interesting question to the whole membership of just this Ferrari chat forum, "Do you watch and follow Formula 1 Racing?'. How about those Ferrari hat sales? Let's say they sell one to every attendee of an F1 race here, that would be 175K at Indy, I know we bought a Schummie one each year. Does that eclipse sales through dealerships/Ferrari store/on-line? probably not close. The brand is standalone, like Coke etc..
Ferrari makes more money selling merchandise than cars. Why? Because they build exotic street cars AND have the racing history to back that up. You only get that pedigree by competing in the top league of motorsports, that's why the car manufacturers are all in it. The US is the worlds biggest car market. Win on Sunday, sell on Monday. It is really pretty obvious and simple.
Thats been my point. In the US market Ferrari are doing just fine with no race. A race is icing on an already full and wonderful cake. Even without it the BRAND grows more valuable each year in the US and around the world. Its an amazing brand in terms of sheer power.
We beg to differ. +1 on the first part, and a big "no!" on the second. The team is largely (I've heard totally in the past) funded by Philip Morris & their Marlboro brand. IIRC, at least one story has the cost of "Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro" at over $100MM per year. Marlboro is then allowed to resell some signage space - The Santander money for example goes mostly to them apparently...... Now, I'll concede Marlboro is a US company but the lack of a US GP deosn't seem to have deterred their willingness to spend to be associated with the second best known brand on the planet. Add in Bernie money, and you're funding your F1 team. I'd be willing to bet that not one $ comes from Ferrari's road car sales. Licensing agreements etc *may* kick in some $, but even that is a lot of what I think feeds their monster profits and not the team. Which, as noted, they're doing remarkably successfully without a race here. Ferrari simply doesn't have a (worthwhile! ) marketing department - They don't need one..... It wasn't that long ago you couldn't even get on the wait list if you weren't already a used owner! The power of the brand has come about over a long time with lots of exposure - I'd also be willing to bet they don't sell one more car as a result of a race in Austin or wherever - If you want a Ferrari, you have your reasons and watching an F1 race "locally" isn't one of them. Merchandise sales will spike at the track, but again, a relative piss in the ocean overall. The old adage of "race on Sunday, sell on Monday" simply doesn't work for F1. Most teams don't even have cars to sell..... Cheers, Ian
"Which, as noted, they're doing remarkably successfully without a race here. Ferrari simply doesn't have a (worthwhile! ) marketing department - They don't need one..... It wasn't that long ago you couldn't even get on the wait list if you weren't already a used owner! The power of the brand has come about over a long time with lots of exposure - I'd also be willing to bet they don't sell one more car as a result of a race in Austin or wherever - If you want a Ferrari, you have your reasons and watching an F1 race "locally" isn't one of them. Merchandise sales will spike at the track, but again, a relative piss in the ocean overall. The old adage of "race on Sunday, sell on Monday" simply doesn't work for F1. Most teams don't even have cars to sell..... Cheers, Ian ************** From the web: The interim financial results for 2009, which were released earlier this month, were "a positive result", according to the Ferrari board, because the first half of 2008 was the most financially successful year in the company's entire history. One bright spot this year was that all the activities relating to the Ferrari brand (licensing and retail) were growing significantly, with revenues up by 22.7 per cent overall compared with the first six months of 2008. There are 29 Ferrari stores worldwide, and more openings are expected next year. For 2009.
What Ian said: The old adage of "race on Sunday, sell on Monday" simply doesn't work for F1. Most teams don't even have cars to sell..... Cheers, Ian
