Thanks as I am aware of the sponsorships, tv rights, advertising etc. . Did'nt know about the 60's. I guess I was referring to the fans from a venue perspective....whether its monetary or visual; no fans or very little fans then the venue closes or shuts down. Where would F1 go if it was not for the fans to host its venues.
Not entirely accurate. The growth of F1 and other racing series in the late sixties was fueled by restrictions(and the eventual ban) on advertising cigarettes on television and in print. These restrictions varied by market and became increasingly restrictive over time. Tobacco companies had huge ad budgets and still needed to promote their products via mass media. They began sponsorship of racing teams to get their brands on TV screens and in print; also individual races and race series(Winston Cup in Nascar). Big tobacco poured money into racing and it paid-off. Other industries followed suit.
Some GPs in the Far East have been held with very few spectators at the track, because there was hardly any tradition of motor racing in these countries. But they were part of the championship, and the sponsors insisted going there, because it allowed them to advertise their wares to the TV audience of these countries.
Agree with that, but it's really the FIA allowing "extra sporting" advertising on cars that gave a shot in the arm to F1. Before, it was very subdued with only limited amount of stickers allowed on cars, and they had to be related to the automotive industry (Tyres, petrol, oil, plugs, batteries, etc...), and most cars were sporting their country colours, more or less. Chapman signed with BAT (?) and branded his cars GOLD LEAF instead of Lotus, opening a new era. Marlboro followed at BRM, etc... and before long, most of the field was sponsored by cigarette brands.
Spot-on William. I remember when Gold Leaf Team Lotus debuted(I think in the Tasman Series) there was quite a hue and cry by purists of the sport.
I remember reading an interview with Lou Stanley, team manager and last owner of BRM. He signed the sponsorship deal with Philip Morris and the team became Marlboro-BRM. He was explaining that when tobacco sponsorship arrived to F1, the sport came of age; until then it had been run on an amateur basis, and there wasn't much money in it. Stanley explained that team started to spend lots of money on the cars, not only changing parts more often, but developing bits all year rounds. Teams could now afford more chassis and more engines per season, recruit more staff, etc. Team hospitality started to entertain the sponsors, with catering facilities, etc... A few months before mechanics used to take a break sitting on an oil can eating sandwiches, now they had a marquee to relax, a chef to cook for them, and so on. Stanley added that the drivers soon smelled the money and asking higher retainers, and the rest of the staff too!!! F1 lost it's innocence then, according to Stanley, becoming big business. BRM soon closed its door, like Cooper because they wouldn't bow to the wishes of sponsors who wanted to run the teams. Marlboro emigrated to McLaren, imposed a new team manager -Ron Dennis- who sacked the previous management. But it's definitely sponsors who put money first for F1 to grow, and then, but only then it became attractive to a large audience.
I think you're misunderstanding. He's not saying fans sponsor F1 by going to races...it's when they stop watching. No people watching the races on TV = no sponsor money = no racing.
The argument was about the fans being the most important stockholders in F1. I don't think they are, and their power to influence is over-estimated in my view, in spite of these officials surveys. F1 can afford to lose some audience before panic will set in the paddock. Just look when a GP is not on the calendar anymore, it hardly affects the business. No French GP? No German GP? So what? But imagine some big sponsors pulling out and that would send shock waves in F1 circles. If Mercedes and Renault were to synchronise their withdrawal, more the half of the grid would be without engines, and probably a couple of team could go bust. We don't know when Dieter Mateschitz will want to pack up, but the loss of Red Bull would be more felt than a cancelled British GP, in spite of what the Brits think. Red Bull probably employs 1500 people in F1, so you can imagine the leverage that guy has!!
You still don't comprehend. What value would sponsorship be if there is no audience, or an ever smaller one? Mclaren unable to get a big sponsor for years (even when they where still good) should speak volumes. Sauber, no sponsors. HRT ran sponsorless (and went broke), manor sponsorless, and went broke. Panic well and truly should set in. F1 has lost 60 MILLION viewers in the last 3 years. That's a lot of eyes. F1 should well and truly be prepared for a shock Renault/Mercedes exit. F1 engines should be much simpler, independents should be able to build working engines and make money selling them. At the same time teams should also be able to make money. Without viewers, there's no sponsors, and without the same viewers, the FOM money sack will be rather empty, which means won't make any money, they've just spend 100+ million. I can paint you a picture but it won't be pretty. F1 is well and truly in crisis mode.
+1 The ratings data and value per viewer is all quantified. In the UK it's benchmarked by BARB. Lower audience share / lower demographics = lower ad revenue + lower price point for sponsorship. All media buyers are aware of the recent drop in F1. Liberty needs to bring the spectacle and unpredictability back, or advertisers will continue to jump the sinking ship.
I've watched F1 since I was a teenager when Dad used to hang a cardboard list of the races and we would update the results over the year. I have never, ever, ever bought anything at all due to F1 or any motorsport sponsorship. I think my addiction to Alfa Romeo may have started due to reading my father's motorsport (Autosport) books on the history of motorsport and of course F1 (and pre-F1), but I've never bought a new Alfa Romeo. Now maybe others have a different view? I believe F1 would die without the manufacturers, not the sponsors. I believe if sponsors ran away the manufacturers would step up. Yes costs would go down but I also believe the F1 teams waste a lot of money on hospitality and other elaborate things, so there are cost savings if they allow their egos to deflate a little I'm not sure F1 as we know it will continue in the changing world of the modern automobile, but human-beings will continue to want to prove themselves and compete. Pete
I bought my Ferraris because of Ferrari's involvement in F1 .......... commitment doesn't come much deeper than that ! And by some coincidence both my football team and Ferrari seem to win at the same times
BTW: All these posters wanting a return to simpler engines for F1, are they digging IndyCars then? Because that is exactly what they want F1 to be, other than they are turbo charged. So if F1 has it all wrong regards complex power units, fans should be turning to IndyCars but I don't believe they are ... ? Pete
Just like everything else, F1 has to live according to its income. That means that if its revenue is reduced, so should be the expenses. If spectators and viewers are less, Liberty will receive less, and redistribute less to the teams. Maybe the calendar will have to come down to only 12 or 15 GPs only, and some teams will have to learn to be more thrifty and not waste money on huge retainers, inflated wages, lavish hospitality suites, etc ... That could also mean cutting down on constant development, employing less staff, etc... Maybe the same cars could be used several years, and the engines overhauled and put back in service instead of being replaced. But that doesn't mean that F1 would die. It may not stay as a top entertainment anymore, and go back to being more of a sport, with less business.
Less GP's (to that degree) won't cut costs...they still have to build that car, they can't charge that much for sponsorship (as the cars get viewed MUCH less). The lavish hospitality is there to entertain their sponsors who in turn take their important clients there. Do you think they'll be impressed with a couple of wooden benches and tap water? You can't say that cars have to be used several years, that immediately puts a stalemate on the cars progressing! Build a **** car, be a **** car for the next X years. When you have Ferrari/Mercedes/Red Bull with seemingly endless budgets, you can't say ''well just spend less'' to the others, it just means they'll fall back that much more. IMO the only way to truly bring costs back is simplify aero (this is turn much improves racing) and simplify the engines. There's quite simply less money to spend on things then. With improved racing and better engine note (note I'm not saying LOUD AS **** ENGINES), viewers will return therefore a better ROI for sponsors. Liberty/Brawn also want to do something about the FOM money that teams receive so that teams have a chance of surviving. I'm definitely not being socialist here and saying that ''everyone should earn the same, man'', but from a business point of view a better distribution of $ is quite smart. Allow the teams to make a buck instead of worrying when they'll fold because they scored 1 point less.
If F1 makes less money, there are ways to make it cheaper. What looks like very complex and costly engines now will be much less costly once the technology is fully mastered, so I expect hybrid power units to become cheaper in the long run. If they keep to the same engine rules beyond 2020, they will save the constructors lots of money in research, development, etc... Simplify the chassis and the aero and freeze the constant redesign. Ban wind tunnels, that will reduce most the time and money spent on aero. The same chassis and body could be carried on for a minimum of 2 years, say. Saves a lot in manufacturing cost too. Less staff, less technicians, would cut the payroll. F1 should consider customer cars to reduce costs. Less GPs would mean less staff needed to operate the teams, and with less events, the tracks would probably get more spectators at each GP. Probably that the teams and sponsors should consider to offer retainers more in line with the health of the sport (losing audience, I heard), so no more $40M a year. Stop the "historical rights" money received by some teams, and redistribute the proceeds more in tune with results, without inbuilt financial advantage given to Ferrari, Mercedes, etc.... Most industries that suffer a downturn manage to survive by "shedding the fat" as they say, and abandon the lavish spending they once enjoyed; just look at the film industry, the theatre, etc... They survive because they cut costs; F1 would have just to do the same if it suffers a drop in audience.
Obviously it's not a Spec series, but the rules are so closed and so limited that it makes all cars have similar concepts. There are 4-6 seconds difference because Top teams spend huge amounts of money on very small pieces and details, imperceptible to most of the fans who make these differences. A true open regulation would admit different types of developments and possibilities, as was the F1 of the 80's or 90's where there were B12, V12, V10, V8, V6 turbo, 4L turbo, 6-wheeler etc. Any idea was possible to develop, not today. Only you have to look LMP1 where Porsche use a V4 2.0 turbo, Toyota use a V6 2.4 turbo and used a V8 3.7 in the past, Audi had a V6 4.0 TDI, Nissan made a few years ago a crazy project of a car with front engine and front-wheel drive with low drag and great aerodynamic tunnels, the project was a disaster but it was captivating and kept me stuck for a long time. Even Judd has a 5.5 V10 available and could be used if a private wants. This does not happen in Formula 1, there is nothing different there, no crazy project that can catch your attention and I think a lot of people would love to have much more open rules. And I do not agree that this would increase costs, regulations are becoming more restrictive and yet each time the budget is higher. Larger budgets are spent, in the development of tiny details. The teams will always spend the entire budget available no matter how limited the regulation.
You are right. F1 rules bring uniformity and don't allow innovation. Too many imposed parameters, and no individuality tolerated. We had to face it, the Golden Age of F1 is behind us. Now we have to live with a choreographed dog and pony show that swallows lots of money and don't deliver much in terms of excitement. I still will watch it, as long as it doesn't cost me.
Did he really say F1 is supposed to follow what road cars are doing? Can't wait for parking assist. It really has become Formula Dumb
When it takes away from the purpose of a race team it wastes money and importantly focus. These teams should not be putting 100% into attracting sponsors, they should be putting 100% into their cars and ensuring next season's car is going to be better. This is what is wrong with modern motorsport, not just F1, it has become so expensive that the focus is now on how to stay alive as a team. In the old days it was crazy expensive too, and we forget this because to us now the cars look so simple, but it was funded by very rich people and not that many participated. Now every Tom Dick and Harry wants to be a racing driver and there is not enough money to go around ... causing the focus to be on hospitality where each team is really fighting against the other teams. Liberty Media should really televise the hospitality circus instead of the racing because that is what the modern F1 teams do best, and a heck of a lot more passing . Pathetic IMO ... again I hope in vain for sponsorship to piss off so we can return to racing for racing's sake! Pete
