198 replies to this topic

[RedBaron]

Yes, the vibe coming out of this thread and in other places is that social media is the saviour because BE did not know what he was doing so it has to work.

 
I can assure you you're misinterpreting the vibe of the thread, no-one is under the illusion social media will save F1. The fact that I just told you that in no uncertain terms and you're still pushing it is baffling.
 
By Bernie's own admission he made a mistake:

 

"That's what I thought, I've been educated. I realise how important it is [social media]. I couldn't see at the time how or what I was told could possibly help Formula 1."

 

New and old owners agree social media could help Formula 1.

 

Print and word of mouth has not been stunted in Formula 1, however social media has been by the previous owners. Which is why it is a subject that is currently being discussion in numerous topics and is being pushed by Liberty.

 
This is what I have said about the previous owners (Bernie) and social media, that is the vibe. I'm struggling to get from what's been said in this thread and others to social media saving F1. 
 
I could - if you really insist - find it said again in clear uncertain terms in other threads discussing social media where I or others have said social media isn't the savoir of F1, it's just an untapped option.
 
In all honestly I'm surprised there's any confusion, it feels like some of us are repeating the same things over and over in response to the same queries. Surely it's pretty clear now.
 

If the money pot grows no matter how the number crunchers are happy and they do not care how many are watching the sport. The pot of money they have now is the starting point and there is no way they are going to be happy unless it grows so yes they want to see their strategy of using social media to add revenue.

There are only so many more years Formula 1 can grow the money pot before viewers decline considerably and the value is no longer there. That is why at some point the owners whoever they are at whatever stage will have to build long-term or they won't be able to to increase ROI. That involves changes to on track entertainment as well as adapting with the times, we can't predict how that will play out but Ross Brawn seems very level headed and premeditated when it comes to the core product.

 

Zak Brown on Liberty

 

 "They've sold it to strategic buyer as opposed to another financial buyer. So they will be making decisions that are strategic-led, what's best for the growth of the sport and the fans and the sponsors."

 

My point of all this is if the social network that should develop around F1 takes off and grows next year we should see a measurable difference at the first race so the jury is still out there on that. There will be those who say that a year is not long enough to gain any measurable growth but if it isn't then someone is laying down on the job or it is a flawed strategy. I think that the social media path is a valid thing that is inevitable once BE was booted but my gut feeling is those who it will reach are not interested in F1 and are involved in social media because it is an end in itself and they see that as the interest. If the numbers can be proven as growth derived from social media then I am wrong but I am a fence sitter concerning the whole thing right now.

 
You could be expecting results that would satisfy you too quickly, it will take time for Formula 1 to find the best social media route. Which content works and which doesn't, that isn't an excuse that's reality. Once they find the sweet spot it then has to break through on social media which takes time again. The core package also has to be good to co-inside with that, as with any promotion.
 
You can't just push a lot of content willy-nilly and expect to land in the laps of a new audience and see viewing figures rise. It definitely doesn't mean someone is laying down on the job or it's a flawed strategy. I'd be very interested in knowing what are you basing that statement on. 
 
However can see the results after the first race as Kristian posted in this very thread.
 

Formula 1's new owners Liberty Media have got off to a fast start in their plans to drive the sport's digital growth, after fans reacted in record numbers to the 2017 Championship's opening weekend in Melbourne on social media.
 
Over the weekend the sport's official channels on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram generated 230m impressions, 6m engagements and 27m video views.

 
As has been pointed out if you post more you'll likely get more interactions, but that is simplifying it to an extreme degree.
 

Looking at my circle of friends and family both young and old tells me they won't bite and that includes a large number who are actively engaged in motor sport. My son is 28 years old, has raced since he was eight and has never shown any inclination to watch F1 on TV, he reckons it is like watching paint dry after experiencing the racing he has done in sprint karts and super karts. He watches one race a year, the Bathurst 12 hour and that's it.

Your son is edging towards the age of not being the target audience at 28 so that isn't a great example. He also is not a very good example because how many F1 fans or potential fans have racing experience from the age of 8 to 28 and therefore find watching Formula 1 (motorsport) less entertaining than taking part?
 
Also your son isn't the norm finding motorsport dull while also competing. Probably all F1 drivers today were huge F1 fans growing up, watching races when they weren't competing and each had an F1 idol. You're taking a single questionable example and applying it to the latter ends of youth and the core youth in it's entirety.
 

But people are right, until the product improves, this will never have a huge impact.

That's a given though Chunder. Improve the product and use marketing strategy to push the product. Why is this still being repeated as opposition to social media? 
 
Formula 1 is putting in the work to have the marketing structure and opportunity there for when the product is a well oiled machine. There's no point waiting until that day comes and then thinking 'oh let's start a social media presence'
 

How F1 embraces that market is a sea change in the sport, and yes social media needs to be at the front of that, but it alone can't help much, the sport needs a total revolution to capture that market. And I fear that is never going to happen.

 

Agreed Chunder. Although you are a little more pessimistic than I am. I think it could happen or I'd like to think it could.
 

Yesterday, Vandoorne published a little video on Instagram. He was filming the escalator at Heathrow. Is this really what we want of social media ??
 
He wasn't promoting anything, juste filling the gap, kinf of.

You're confusing drivers on social media with Formula 1 using social media to promote Formula 1.
 
They are entirely different with different goals.

 

TL;DR We know the product needs to improve, we know social media alone won't turn Formula 1 around. Motorsport is in decline, if anything can turn that around it's F1, the strongest racing brand. Liberty and Bernie both agree social media is a worthwhile use of time (that is also very evident in other sports, brands etc) and it will take time but it's an avenue that can no longer be ignored.

Edited by RedBaron, 31 March 2017 - 08:08.

[Rinehart]

I work in Advertising.

RedBaron knows what he's talking about.

Very simply, all social media is, is the sharing of ideas and information between 2 people.

Everyone is involved in one form or another, as a giver or receiver or both, even those who think they are against it. Its funny reading people on here saying its a load of nonsense, when this thread is itself a social media channel! 

Before the internet, word of mouth, phone and post were the main channels. Now that we are all permanently connected the colloquial term "social media" is given to mean digital media because those channels dominate the sharing ecosystem. But social media remains fundamentally SHARING STUFF. 

To sell a product, a brand needs to create awareness, interest, value and aspiration in the mind of the consumer. Social media is great for brands because they can basically get you, if you're interested or passionate about something, say F1, to tell your best mate how bloody great it is. Peer recommendations are powerful and trustworthy. All they need to put in your lap is relevance, content and incentive. 

Social media is therefore a cheap, invasive, far-reaching and organic form of marketing that permeates the human network, influencing choice and opinion constantly. 

It's a growth accelerator and properly activated, for a global brand/product such as F1 it will make a huge difference, for absolute sure.

 

All that said, my question remains: How will a bigger F1 audience be good for me?... 

[chunder27]

I think in all honesty most of us are aware of the importance of social media as a modern form of advertising and marketing.

What I think we struggle to relate to is how F1 not being so interested in it in the past and with Liberty now wanting to push it, that is going to make any difference?

 

If FOM had got involved 15 years ago massively in social media, then it might have been able to balance out the freefall that is currently in place, but they didn't. Bernie got his wallet massively burned with his digital effort and I think dug his heels in as a result, they were still trying to publish F1 magazines 10 years ago of their own remember. They all failed too.

 

The issue as I see it, is engaging the huge live audience with F1 outside of events. Most GP's have a large attendance, but are all those fans keeping in touch out of the weeks between races, is there anything to keep them interested? That is what sponsors want, you clicking and sharing between races to expand their advertising audience, to warrant them wanting more and pushing new products and R&D.

 

Or have we just to accept that F1 is a bi-weekly thing lasting 9 months, that is not going to maintain our interest or develop a market for our money away from those races? 

Edited by chunder27, 31 March 2017 - 09:59.

[sopa]

The thing is that F1 is competing with many other fields of entertainment that attract people. And also they would be competing with everyone in social media.

 

To gain new people/fans... this means somebody has to lose out. Because each person has time just worth of 24/7 and nobody can follow everything. So this new fan likely has to abandon something.

 

Basic competition rules exist here too, be it social media or not. So the key still is how can F1 be so attractive that it can gain attention over other forms of entertainment.

[superden]

Everyone is involved in one form or another, as a giver or receiver or both.

[RedBaron]

I think in all honesty most of us are aware of the importance of social media as a modern form of advertising and marketing.
What I think we struggle to relate to is how F1 not being so interested in it in the past and with Liberty now wanting to push it, that is going to make any difference?

 
You answer your own question there Chunder.
 
How is it going to make a difference now? 
 
Because social media is an important form of advertising and marketing that hasn't been used before (at least until very recently).
 
Basically your own words.
 

The thing is that F1 is competing with many other fields of entertainment that attract people. And also they would be competing with everyone in social media.
 
To gain new people/fans... this means somebody has to lose out. Because each person has time just worth of 24/7 and nobody can follow everything. So this new fan likely has to abandon something.
 
Basic competition rules exist here too, be it social media or not. So the key still is how can F1 be so attractive that it can gain attention over other forms of entertainment.

 
You have to be in it to win it.
 
If Formula 1 isn't even competing in the right places it has no chance of getting that slice of the someones time.
 
It definitely won't be easy, like I said they can't just flood peoples social feeds with junk and expect to win over an entire generation. Multiple strategies have to be worked out, refined and tested against each other to find the one(s) that have the best results. That will take time but it is a very real and achievable target (when combined with other developments within the sport).
 

I work in Advertising.
RedBaron knows what he's talking about.
Very simply, all social media is, is the sharing of ideas and information between 2 people.
Everyone is involved in one form or another, as a giver or receiver or both, even those who think they are against it. Its funny reading people on here saying its a load of nonsense, when this thread is itself a social media channel! 
Before the internet, word of mouth, phone and post were the main channels. Now that we are all permanently connected the colloquial term "social media" is given to mean digital media because those channels dominate the sharing ecosystem. But social media remains fundamentally SHARING STUFF. 
To sell a product, a brand needs to create awareness, interest, value and aspiration in the mind of the consumer. Social media is great for brands because they can basically get you, if you're interested or passionate about something, say F1, to tell your best mate how bloody great it is. Peer recommendations are powerful and trustworthy. All they need to put in your lap is relevance, content and incentive. 
Social media is therefore a cheap, invasive, far-reaching and organic form of marketing that permeates the human network, influencing choice and opinion constantly. 
It's a growth accelerator and properly activated, for a global brand/product such as F1 it will make a huge difference, for absolute sure.
 
All that said, my question remains: How will a bigger F1 audience be good for me?... 

 
Great post, line 2 especially 
 
It's not necessarily just about gaining a bigger audience an important part of it is just securing a future audience.
 
Although the way I see it a bigger audience is good for Formula 1, which is good for fans.
 
A larger and more diverse audience means a greater pool of sponsors wanting to be involved up and down the grid. This could secure better finances for existing teams as well supporting new teams. Better financed teams could bring a higher rate of competitiveness throughout the grid, more money to hire more employees to work on development and currently under funded areas. Of course this means larger teams would also get a financial boost, but securing financial stability for the smaller teams would be a huge win (especially if the payment structure isn't likely to change greatly).
 
Manor were the only team to my knowledge who have had real funding from the new wave of app based companies. Shazam and Airbnb to name just two. I'm sure they didn't pay top dollar but this shows that sponsorship interest is there from a whole new breed of companies. If F1 grows a new audience (not just youth) one that isn't only interested in Rolex and banking the paragraph above could be a reality.
 
As has been outlined (by I think Silverstone) the more people they get to attend GPs the cheaper tickets can be the following season. So the greater the audience, the greater the attendance (seems fair to assume) and ticket prices don't need to be so high so the events are profitable and accessible. Formula 1 can go to more traditional circuits or exciting places based on location not just to whichever new government is willing to pay the highest price. Of course highest price will always be a factor, but maybe the difference between figures on each cheque wouldn't be so vast so a decision that's best for F1 would be easier to come to.

Sounds good to me as a fan. Plus I'd like more people talking and getting excited about Formula 1.

[chunder27]

But don't you think that this new wave of companies involved through social media are just "dabbling"  Dipping their toe in with a smaller team to see if their imprint improves? Remember how Virgin did it with Brawn, and then got in there with a new team and lasted a very short time before realising it was pointless.

 

How do you measure that imprint? By clicks on their website through sponsor tags on a team site?  Through things on social media? I don't know.

 

What we need is sustainable sponsors surely from this "new" age of social media advertising. Not people who are testing the water, as a lot of them will walk away after a short time. You have to allow that obviously for them to research their investment and realise its potential.

 

Not sure I agree with you about cheap tickets RB, that shows very little sign of changing due to the hosting fees, and Liberty are not stupid enough to stop that money spinner. Circuits are struggling enough as it is. Silverstone is hardly cheap, when you compare to any other big motorsport event.

[Rinehart]

 
You answer your own question there Chunder.
 
How is it going to make a difference now? 
 
Because social media is an important form of advertising and marketing that hasn't been used before (at least until very recently).
 
Basically your own words.
 
 
You have to be in it to win it.
 
If Formula 1 isn't even competing in the right places it has no chance of getting that slice of the someones time.
 
It definitely won't be easy, like I said they can't just flood peoples social feeds with junk and expect to win over an entire generation. Multiple strategies have to be worked out, refined and tested against each other to find the one(s) that have the best results. That will take time but it is a very real and achievable target (when combined with other developments within the sport).
 
 
Great post, line 2 especially 
 
It's not necessarily just about gaining a bigger audience an important part of it is just securing a future audience.
 
Although the way I see it a bigger audience is good for Formula 1, which is good for fans.
 
A larger and more diverse audience means a greater pool of sponsors wanting to be involved up and down the grid. This could secure better finances for existing teams as well supporting new teams. Better financed teams could bring a higher rate of competitiveness throughout the grid, more money to hire more employees to work on development and currently under funded areas. Of course this means larger teams would also get a financial boost, but securing financial stability for the smaller teams would be a huge win (especially if the payment structure isn't likely to change greatly).
 
Manor were the only team to my knowledge who have had real funding from the new wave of app based companies. Shazam and Airbnb to name just two. I'm sure they didn't pay top dollar but this shows that sponsorship interest is there from a whole new breed of companies. If F1 grows a new audience (not just youth) one that isn't only interested in Rolex and banking the paragraph above could be a reality.
 
As has been outlined (by I think Silverstone) the more people they get to attend GPs the cheaper tickets can be the following season. So the greater the audience, the greater the attendance (seems fair to assume) and ticket prices don't need to be so high so the events are profitable and accessible. Formula 1 can go to more traditional circuits or exciting places based on location not just to whichever new government is willing to pay the highest price. Of course highest price will always be a factor, but maybe the difference between figures on each cheque wouldn't be so vast so a decision that's best for F1 would be easier to come to.

Sounds good to me as a fan. Plus I'd like more people talking and getting excited about Formula 1.

Its both. 

Retaining fans is about servicing Interest and rewarding Loyalty. Acquiring new fans is about driving Awareness and offering Incentive.

Social Media (as part of a mix of all media as you've said) can be used to promote both. Just depends what message/content/benefit you're pushing.

I don't know who they're going to do it. One thing I know is that there is a HUGE difference in the expertise of countries to promote their home Grand Prix. The difference between how Singapore do it versus say China is literally and metaphorically night and day. So I think Liberty's plan to centralise marketing is a great one, as I beleive there is a vast amount of low hanging fruit (potential new audience) as well as casual audience whose bond with F1 can easily be strengthened. 

[RedBaron]

But don't you think that this new wave of companies involved through social media are just "dabbling"  Dipping their toe in with a smaller team to see if their imprint improves? Remember how Virgin did it with Brawn, and then got in there with a new team and lasted a very short time before realising it was pointless.

  
Exactly, I am sure sponsors do dabble and test the waters and often they may see that Formula 1 isn't for them as the audience doesn't respond to their products. 
 
That is why a more diverse and larger Formula 1 audience would be significantly more appealing to a wider range of sponsors over the current audience alone.
  
Virgin isn't really a good example, they liked what they saw and decided F1 was for their brand(s) so much so that they entered with their own team based on many promises of budget caps etc which never materialised, it was much harder than expected so they sold up.

 

How do you measure that imprint? By clicks on their website through sponsor tags on a team site?  Through things on social media? I don't know.

 
I don't pretend to know how to measure sponsorship results, but that isn't a question specific to social media making advances in the audience. That is something that exists whether there are a thousand people watching or a million. Whether the audience is coming from social media or whether they are the older generation who are life long racing fans. That's also true of any sport.

 

 

What we need is sustainable sponsors surely from this "new" age of social media advertising. Not people who are testing the water, as a lot of them will walk away after a short time. You have to allow that obviously for them to research their investment and realise its potential.

 
Some sponsors come and go regardless of their product or audience.
 
What is more appealing to a greater number of companies?
 

40-80 year old audience of 400 million

 

15-80 year old audience of 600 million 

 
(Forget the millions and the age it's just a simple example to demonstrate a larger more diverse audience, I am categorically not saying social media will drive an additional 200 million viewers)
 
 

Not sure I agree with you about cheap tickets RB, that shows very little sign of changing due to the hosting fees, and Liberty are not stupid enough to stop that money spinner. Circuits are struggling enough as it is. Silverstone is hardly cheap, when you compare to any other big motorsport event.

The hosting fees are largely irrelevant to the point (although lower fees would help). That point was also based on a direct quote from Silverstone, I posted it elsewhere on the forum. Maybe in the TV viewing figures thread, not my own assumption.
 
Tickets are high priced because if few attend they must make up the numbers financially to avoid a loss.
 
If a circuit is paying £1000 ( ) to host a race and only 10 people turn up then the circuit assumes in order to avoid a loss each person has to pay £100 per ticket next season.
 
But if 100 people turn up then next season they only need to charge £10 per ticket to not make a loss.
 
So a larger audience and greater attendance works for circuits.

[chunder27]

I am not so sure it is that simple fella.

 

Silverstone signed an escalating deal stupidly, so have to raise their prices regardless, hence all the furore in the past few months.

 

They can only make money from tickets, all the advertising and stuff is paid to Bernie, hence why it looks the same everywhere as I imagine he pushes year long deals rather than race by race.

 

So the only way they can make money at tracks is food, camping, buses, and tickets. And if that fee is escalating every year, guess what...

 

The theory is great, and does work for a lot of sport, but also people running tracks are not stupid, in a motorsport I watch, at the very basic club level, the trend was to always try and make an extra effort for the big events, put on a band, get some entertainment to make the downtime more fun. Events happened every week, but once a year there is one special, huge event like this.

 

But then a promoter told us he was not going to do that, and people turned up anyway a no frills event he called it, thankfully the racing was good so it flattered the event, but the same event has been held twice since and has been appalling, BUT the same amount of people still turned up anyway.

 

SO you can fleece people and they will take it. Maybe not for long, but you can.

[RedBaron]

I am not so sure it is that simple fella.

 

Silverstone signed an escalating deal stupidly, so have to raise their prices regardless, hence all the furore in the past few months.

 

They can only make money from tickets, all the advertising and stuff is paid to Bernie, hence why it looks the same everywhere as I imagine he pushes year long deals rather than race by race.

 

So the only way they can make money at tracks is food, camping, buses, and tickets. And if that fee is escalating every year, guess what...

 

The theory is great, and does work for a lot of sport, but also people running tracks are not stupid, in a motorsport I watch, at the very basic club level, the trend was to always try and make an extra effort for the big events, put on a band, get some entertainment to make the downtime more fun. Events happened every week, but once a year there is one special, huge event like this.

 

I was just simplifying the example, there are additional costs as well as additional revenue streams for circuits.

 

You're not questioning me anyway, you're questioning Silverstone. I'd hope they know far more about the business than we do.

 

I'm simply passing on what they've said. Higher attendance = lower ticket prices the following year.

 

"As I've said, if the fans support us at a grand prix, and we can maybe get 200,000 people in on a Sunday, that allows me to lower the price for the following year. We're then able to reinvest a proportion of the profits back into the ticketing model to maintain the levels of support from the fans.

 

"If crowd numbers fall, which is what happened under the old management's regime, the reaction was, 'We still have to pay Bernie Ecclestone, so we have to put the price up'. That means fewer people can afford it, the numbers fall and the price goes up again."

 

[Nathan]

They can only make money from tickets, all the advertising and stuff is paid to Bernie

 

Chunder, you already look behind the times enough

[savvy2210]

It would seem that that some people want to have a chat with the British tax people about F1's sweetheart tax deal they have with them. This is being reported on 'Pit pass f1'.

Edited by savvy2210, 31 March 2017 - 17:40.

[minime]

I was just simplifying the example, there are additional costs as well as additional revenue streams for circuits.

 

You're not questioning me anyway, you're questioning Silverstone. I'd hope they know far more about the business than we do.

 

I'm simply passing on what they've said. Higher attendance = lower ticket prices the following year.

 

 

The old market forces at work model, whoever would have thunk it. The slide continues form here as a general rule, no promoter ever gave a discount if the numbers dropped to encourage higher numbers, that is against their religion. 

[Risil]

(I've moved a short conversation about exclusivity and access in F1 vs NASCAR to the Declining Interest in F1 thread at the request of a member. If you're wondering where one of your posts has gone, that's where.)

[RedBaron]

 

Lewis Hamilton was the first to find the boundary's of Liberty Media's new social media rules.

 

F1's new owners have allowed drivers and teams unprecedented rights to publish content online, something once limited under Bernie in an attempt to retain the rights and usage.

 

However, earlier this month Liberty Media put in a request to Lewis Hamilton to remove a video he uploaded to his Instagram showing his pole position run during the Chinese GP. 

 

They deemed it to be outside of the new rules and something that Liberty Media still retains ownership and usage over. 

 

So what did Liberty actually say to the teams?...

 

Liberty simply asked that what ever is uploaded, is for the intent of 'bringing fans closer'

 

"This season, Formula One has issued a new set of social media guidelines allowing teams and drivers to film and record their activities so as to bring the sport closer to the fans," A Liberty Media spokesperson explained.

 

"All teams and drivers have embraced this approach with enthusiasm, resulting in a surge of interest in F1 across social media"

 

"However, F1 does not want drivers posting international feed footage as this has been licensed to broadcasters' partners, in many cases exclusively"

 

"All teams and drivers have a clear understating of this and whenever a mistake is made, teams and drivers are asked to take down any relevant footage."

 

From F1.co.uk

[Marklar]

From F1.co.uk

I didnt saw that video. Was it from an unique perspective or basically the same onboard we get to see like in the broadcast? If the later it is understandable for them to ask to remove it, the former not though.

Edited by Marklar, 18 April 2017 - 09:04.

[RedBaron]

I didnt saw that video. Was it from an unique perspective or basically the same onboard we get to see like in the broadcast? If the later it is understandable for them to ask to remove it, the former not though.

 
I didn't see the video, so I assume it was from the official feed.
 
It is understandable based on the way F1 operates, yes. However F1 should change the way it operates.
 
It's so backwards. In the future they can't include social media shares of clips by at least drivers/teams in broadcasting contracts. 
 
It's self defeating in this day and age to limit your social sharing to basically 2 'companies' per country. Those being; the official F1 social profiles and each countries official broadcaster social profiles. They are it seems the only ones allowed to share footage. That number could be doubled, doubled again and then tripled, plus some more if at least drivers and teams were granted permission to share footage. Reaching considerably further.
 
Anything that stunts social media growth is backwards.

[superden]

Meet the new boss.

Same as the old boss.

Won't get fooled again.

[RedBaron]

Meet the new boss.

Same as the old boss.

Won't get fooled again.

 

 

In some case, maybe many, but I don't think this is one of them.

 

Liberty have opened up social media to some degree.

 

Contractually they are probably bound to the previous owners vision, which is a great shame.

[JeePee]

I love their Facebook channel. Pole laps, race highlights and so on, the same day as the race.

 

Who would have thought about that 2 years ago?

[Nonesuch]

I wasn't too bothered by how FOM used to manage its online presence, but their recent activity on YouTube has been quite nice to see.

 

Highlights, driver chats and even things like the radio messages are good fun.

 

That they wised up to not spoiling the result of a race in the video title within three races suggests some proper attention is being paid to the responses, too.

[Dander]

I didnt saw that video. Was it from an unique perspective or basically the same onboard we get to see like in the broadcast? If the later it is understandable for them to ask to remove it, the former not though.

 

 

 
I didn't see the video, so I assume it was from the official feed.
 
It is understandable based on the way F1 operates, yes. However F1 should change the way it operates.
 
It's so backwards. In the future they can't include social media shares of clips by at least drivers/teams in broadcasting contracts. 
 
It's self defeating in this day and age to limit your social sharing to basically 2 'companies' per country. Those being; the official F1 social profiles and each countries official broadcaster social profiles. They are it seems the only ones allowed to share footage. That number could be doubled, doubled again and then tripled, plus some more if at least drivers and teams were granted permission to share footage. Reaching considerably further.
 
Anything that stunts social media growth is backwards.

 

It was the onboard replay from the official feed, if my memory serves me right.

[pdac]

 

 

From F1.co.uk

 

Could it be a problem with contracts that FOM have with others (i.e. FOM would be OK with it, but they must respect contractual obligations).

[RedBaron]

Could it be a problem with contracts that FOM have with others (i.e. FOM would be OK with it, but they must respect contractual obligations).

 

In the future they can't include social media shares of clips by at least drivers/teams in broadcasting contracts. 

 

[jonpollak]

Wonder what you here would make of the 'self-promotion/marketing' angle of the @JennaFryer piece which decries the participation of ALO @ Indy?

 

http://apne.ws/2puWyPS

 

Reddit Reactions

 

 

Jp

Edited by jonpollak, 18 April 2017 - 19:04.

[superden]

Well ... **** you Fryer.

[SCUDmissile]

I wasn't too bothered by how FOM used to manage its online presence, but their recent activity on YouTube has been quite nice to see.

Highlights, driver chats and even things like the radio messages are good fun.

That they wised up to not spoiling the result of a race in the video title within three races suggests some proper attention is being paid to the responses, too.

Yep it is a really nice touch.

Aah how good it feels not having dinosaurs around.

[jonpollak]

Well ... **** you Fryer.

Well...

@JennaFryer has gone all @KellyannePolls with her 'Alternative Facts'.
Sad that she had to drag her child @SydFryer into the fire.

But I must say that it got people talking and in this day and age of ambiguous intentions I wonder why she felt this would be an appropriate vehicle for, what seemed to me, an ill-informed and cringeworthy, nationalistic rant.

I'd dare say... the wine was talking.

 

Jp

[Kristian]

FOM have their hands tied by current broadcast agreements at the moment - if TV broadcasters have contracts saying they have exclusive rights to footage, then they can technically take legal action if this is breached.

 

Liberty's desires will take some time to come through. The next batch of new TV rights contracts will be interesting to see. 

[Marklar]

Autosport‏Verified account @autosport  11m11 minutes ago

More

An #F1 event could take place in central London this summer – with a street demonstration among the ideas tabled: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/129300 …

[BRG]

Well, that's hardly new.  They did that some years ago.  Even Bernie thought that it was a good idea.

[superden]

Well, that's hardly new. They did that some years ago. Even Bernie thought that it was a good idea.

I went to that. It was utter chaos.

[BRG]

Yes.  I was working in town then and walked across the park to take a look.  Saw the chaos, hear a F1 engine and went home as it was clear that was all that I would see or hear.

Edited by BRG, 04 May 2017 - 19:16.

[7MGTEsup]

Who is the Nico Rosburg guy they are talking about in the comments section

 

Wonder what you here would make of the 'self-promotion/marketing' angle of the @JennaFryer piece which decries the participation of ALO @ Indy?

 

http://apne.ws/2puWyPS

 

Reddit Reactions

 

 

Jp

 

Who is the Nico Rosburg guy they are talking about in the comments section?

[spacekid]

Well, that's hardly new. They did that some years ago. Even Bernie thought that it was a good idea.

I really enjoyed that, although I was lucky that I was able to get there early enough to get a view.

If I remember they used the V10 cars and the sound of one of those things echoing round the buildings as the car approached was awesome. Technological marvels that they are I can't see the current turbos having the same impact.

I'd pay to see a V10 F1 car in the flesh again. I wouldn't go look at one of this generation for free.

My other abiding memory of the day is Tony Jardine acting as hype man. It was, in the parlance of today's youth, a bit cringe.

[spacekid]

Want to get more casual viewers tuning in? Remove the huge run off areas and use tracks and regulations likely to result in 3 or 4 Kubica at Canada type accidents that get on the news every year. I guarantee more people will tune in.

I'm sorry if that sounds cynical but we have to accept that motorsport is quite niche. People like air shows and the circus because of the element of danger. Take that away and you lose some of your casual audience. Who wants to see someone walking a tightrope 1 foot off the ground? Now do the same trick but between the twin towers and you have a cultural phenomenon.

Evem those of us on this board who are dedicated motor sports fans tend to agree that F1 can be quite dull much of the time. You can't put lipstick on a pig, but the focus has to be on making the on track action appealing (not by crashes, that was me being faceatious, but I definitely feel F1 is lacking some 'wow' factor at the moment).

Otherwise all the social media and marketing in the world might get people to watch once, but it won't get them to watch twice. The debacle that was Silverstone last year springs to mind. The fact the cars were unable to run was embarrassing (yes I understand the reasons why) and transformed a potential spectacle into, well, a spectacle. If I wasn't already a fan and that was my first time watching, I wouldn't bother again.

[RedBaron]

Want to get more casual viewers tuning in? Remove the huge run off areas and use tracks and regulations likely to result in 3 or 4 Kubica at Canada type accidents that get on the news every year. I guarantee more people will tune in.

I'm sorry if that sounds cynical but we have to accept that motorsport is quite niche. People like air shows and the circus because of the element of danger. Take that away and you lose some of your casual audience. Who wants to see someone walking a tightrope 1 foot off the ground? Now do the same trick but between the twin towers and you have a cultural phenomenon.

Evem those of us on this board who are dedicated motor sports fans tend to agree that F1 can be quite dull much of the time. You can't put lipstick on a pig, but the focus has to be on making the on track action appealing (not by crashes, that was me being faceatious, but I definitely feel F1 is lacking some 'wow' factor at the moment).

Otherwise all the social media and marketing in the world might get people to watch once, but it won't get them to watch twice. The debacle that was Silverstone last year springs to mind. The fact the cars were unable to run was embarrassing (yes I understand the reasons why) and transformed a potential spectacle into, well, a spectacle. If I wasn't already a fan and that was my first time watching, I wouldn't bother again.

 
Forget on track action in this topic. Forget changing run offs, forget louder engines, forget better looking cars, forget cars that can fight. Forget all of it.
 
That is the product and it's been discussed to death in a million topics. This topic is marketing and promotion not how to improve the product.
 
We all know a good product is required. That is a given.
 
I've said it before and I'll definitely have to say it a hundred times more: 
 
First off changing marketing strategies is much easier than the product itself which requires agreement from others and many other factors. That is why you see more marketing changes than on track changes.
 
Also you want strong marketing regardless if the product is good or bad. It's not at all a case of putting lipstick on a pig, if you think Liberty are working on marketing in order to trick people into watching something average you're very much mistaken. They are simply putting in the foundations towards a much bigger plan that includes the product.
 
Everything needs to come together.

[spacekid]

Fair enough Red Baron, although the point I'm trying to make is that F1s best marketing would be itself.

I shall be interested to see what Liberty do (not say) about FTA. As an established fan of several decades asking me to pay for the product is an ok-ish strategy. I probably won't because for the past few years I think the product has been ****, but plenty will. But no amount of social media is going to make someone subscribe to a service to watch something they have until now had no interest in. And I can't see the parties who buy the exclusive rights being too happy with too much of the product being splashed about on YouTube for free.

Without wanting to sound like the old fuddy duddy that I am, I tend to feel that 'young people' are somewhat patronised when it comes to discussions like this. Without a doubt social media is ingrained in many people's interactions, but it isn't going to make somebody like something they have no interest in, and it's absence won't make them dislike something they enjoy.

[RedBaron]

Read back a few pages and see the answers to your misconceptions about social media and the role it plays.

[spacekid]

I've read it, I just have a differing opinion (not that it's worth the server space it's saved on).

We'll see how things play out.

[RedBaron]

Results of the fan survey in PDF format:

 

Formula 1 in 2017 (pdf)

 

Edited by RedBaron, 26 May 2017 - 13:00.

[Kristian]

Results of the fan survey in PDF format:

 

http://docdro.id/aUq92zn

 

Interesting, good to see more young people on it. 

 

My comments: 

 

The word least associated with the F1 brand is "fun"    But its got more exciting. 

 

Interesting having different winners is the least voted for key feature of F1. 

 

Race attendance is falling quite dramatically in Europe. 

 

Weirdly the 16-24 age group seem to really like Abu Dhabi. They must love the flashing hotel. 

 

Monaco is seen as the most important race for fans, despite the bashing you tend to see of it on here.

 

Fans seem to want more refuelling and a tyre war (which I'm sure, if happened, then would want to be reversed again, as per the usual "F1 fan cycle")

[RedBaron]

I'm not entirely sure what we can take from this age of participants chart - in regards to discussions about the age of F1 fans.
 
Is it a result of the survey being pushed on social media more, so it attracted a larger younger audience and therefore the age range is skewed?
 
Has the younger audience grown due to an increased social presence, reasons devoid of social media or combined?

 

Are the older F1 fans tried of surveys so didn't bother with it?

 

Does the age of survey participants correctly reflect the age of fans?
 
25-44 seems to have dropped, while older participants have remained constant and younger have increased.

[RedBaron]

Interesting, good to see more young people on it. 

 

My comments: 

 

The word least associated with the F1 brand is "fun"    But its got more exciting. 

 

Interesting having different winners is the least voted for key feature of F1. 

 

Race attendance is falling quite dramatically in Europe. 

 

Weirdly the 16-24 age group seem to really like Abu Dhabi. They must love the flashing hotel. 

 

Monaco is seen as the most important race for fans, despite the bashing you tend to see of it on here.

 

Fans seem to want more refuelling and a tyre war (which I'm sure, if happened, then would want to be reversed again, as per the usual "F1 fan cycle")

 

Good picks!

 

Here are some 'fast facts' highlighted by the Autosport article

 

• Respondents to the 2017 survey spent $8.8m on F1 merchandise in 2016
• 6,249 Finns took part - nearly all, bar 399, voted for Kimi Raikkonen or Valtteri Bottas as their favourite driver
• Mercedes Benz is the most popular team in the UK, but not in its 'home' market of Germany
• 25 per cent of 16-34 year olds want to watch F1 live streaming, via laptop or mobile; while only 7 per cent of 45+ year olds do
• Less than 0.5 per cent of fans want to watch in highlights-only format
• Over two thirds of fans completed the survey on mobile or tablet
• Max Verstappen is more popular among 45+ age group than 16-24 year olds
• Only nine recognised United Nations countries weren't represented in the survey - South Sudan, Palau, Marshall Islands, Sao Tome & Principe, Samoa, Vanuatu, Nauru, Aruba & Equatorial Guinea
• Nearly two thirds of all respondents put Monaco, Monza, Spa-Francorchamps and Silverstone in their list of five essential Grands Prix
• The percentage of fans describing Formula 1 as 'exciting' nearly tripled between 2015 to 2017

[chunder27]

I find that figure about merch truly astonishing. If it's true. I don't think it can be.

And really rather sad.

 

Also astonished that we get a figure telling us exciting races tripled in the last 3 years, what was the figure to start with?  1%

 

2/3rds of fans completed it on phone or tablet

 

That tells more than anything else on this survey I think.

 

And is also rather a shame. People don't use computers anymore. I would be far more lost without a PC than a phone or tablet. My phone is a contacts book and a phone, nothing more. I have tried the other stuff but it is slow, tedious, small and rather ad stricken.  Kids must have immense patience is all I can say.

 

Different winners += least important?  Utter rot I think

[SophieB]

F1 stuck in 'Stone Age' compared to NFL and football - Lewis Hamilton

 

Asked if drivers would be considered more in the future, Hamilton replied: "Nope. It hasn't ever been the case up until now, so I don't anticipate it being the case in the future.

 

"But I do believe in Chase [Carey, F1 CEO] and his team wanting to bring change.

Subscribe to Autosport Plus

Premium motorsport journalism in an
ad-free experience.

Subscribe today

"Really, Formula 1 has been in the Stone Age compared to NFL and soccer and all big other sports and we're trying to catch up, but it's a long process.

"It's a big job for Chase - he has only come in a couple of years ago, before that social media wasn't allowed in. Bernie [Ecclestone, former F1 CEO] said it was not important.

"Now something as big as social media is huge and a really powerful platform, and now that's allowed if people want to use it."

 

[RacingGreen]

I see from Autosport that Mark Webber thinks the fans have too much media access already ( https://www.autospor...far-with-access ) 

 

I'm not surprised by Webber's attitude here as I've been to a couple of events where he hasn't waved to / acknowledged fans or signed autographs for the "little people" being far too special and important himself.  Hope those with influence ignore his elitist attitudes. 

Edited by RacingGreen, 16 July 2018 - 19:54.

[danmills]

Vettel is superb to fans.