Discussion
janesmith1950 said:
Can we put this analogy to bed? Bolt commands bigger appearance fees than his peers because he brings in a much wider audience than there would be without him. Ferrari the same in F1. Their mere presence raises the profile of the competition and as such they feel entitled to a cut of the exra they generate.
If you cannot/do not want to acknowledge that, no problem. Simply carry on being frustrated and angry.
I'm on the McLaren side of the fence btw, and definately not a Ferrari fan.
I see very few Ferrari shirts in the crowd at F1 events in most countries, so I absolutely do not buy the fact that F1 needs Ferrari or that Ferrari's presence raises the profile of the competition. If it did and was demonstrated to do so, VW would have negotiated an entry into F1 off of the back of the Lamborghini brand. This is targeted at exactly the people who buy Ferraris.If you cannot/do not want to acknowledge that, no problem. Simply carry on being frustrated and angry.
I'm on the McLaren side of the fence btw, and definately not a Ferrari fan.
I am sure that Liberty will have floated the idea of a shareholding in them in return for a level playing field discussion on the future of Formula One leading to a new Concorde Agreement within the next two years.
janesmith1950 said:
I could, but I won't! 
Ferrari are sufficiently well funded that I don't think the additional income makes a jot of difference to their chances of designing and running a winning car. In the top 3 or four teams it's down to knowledge, skill and personnel rather than money. Put it another way- do you believe Mercedes won because they have more money at their disposal than Ferrari?
Yes I do. They were willing to invest much more at an early stage to get the PU right. They then invested heavily in the full package as a single unit. This is why they won. No other team went down that route, most because they do not develop their own engines, Ferrari because they are Ferrari.Ferrari are sufficiently well funded that I don't think the additional income makes a jot of difference to their chances of designing and running a winning car. In the top 3 or four teams it's down to knowledge, skill and personnel rather than money. Put it another way- do you believe Mercedes won because they have more money at their disposal than Ferrari?
KevinCamaroSS said:
Yes I do. They were willing to invest much more at an early stage to get the PU right. They then invested heavily in the full package as a single unit. This is why they won. No other team went down that route, most because they do not develop their own engines, Ferrari because they are Ferrari.
Agreed. I think it farcical to believe that the US$100m or more that Ferrari receive from FOM makes not one iota of difference to their investment in the car. Frank Williams gave an interview where he suggested that the amount of money available to Ferrari meant that they wasted it. He mentioned the fact that, in the period of active suspensions, the reservoirs were only reliable for a race or two, depending on revs used and other variables. Ferrari came to every race with a set of brand new reservoirs for each car. Williams employed a mechanic whose sole job was to refurbish them.
janesmith1950 said:
You're all viewing Ferrari as a race team rather than a brand.
As for the 100m analogy, not really. Giving Ferrari more money for merely taking part isn't like giving Bolt a head start. It's like paying him more than other atheletes to turn up and run. Which, coincidentally, is exactly what happens.
A little less now As for the 100m analogy, not really. Giving Ferrari more money for merely taking part isn't like giving Bolt a head start. It's like paying him more than other atheletes to turn up and run. Which, coincidentally, is exactly what happens.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/38744846rubystone said:
Agreed. I think it farcical to believe that the US$100m or more that Ferrari receive from FOM makes not one iota of difference to their investment in the car.
Do you think, if Ferrari F1 went to its backers and said "listen, we know what we need to do, we are just short of $100m", that the money would not be found? Really? In any case, do you really believe Ferrari are budget limited in their pursuit of the championship?Mercedes had better resources (knowledge and manpower) in the engine dept. than Ferrari and stole a march on everyone by applying them effectively.
As for Lamborghini, is that really a comparable brand to Ferrari? Ferrari make more money from licensing their identity than they do selling shiny road cars to the tiny percentage of people who can afford them. Lamborghini is not the same thing in any respect when you look at the wider picture.
janesmith1950 said:
Do you think, if Ferrari F1 went to its backers and said "listen, we know what we need to do, we are just short of $100m", that the money would not be found? Really? In any case, do you really believe Ferrari are budget limited in their pursuit of the championship?
Mercedes had better resources (knowledge and manpower) in the engine dept. than Ferrari and stole a march on everyone by applying them effectively.
As for Lamborghini, is that really a comparable brand to Ferrari? Ferrari make more money from licensing their identity than they do selling shiny road cars to the tiny percentage of people who can afford them. Lamborghini is not the same thing in any respect when you look at the wider picture.
I didn't disagree that Mercedes had a bigger budget than Ferrari. Ferrari ARE budget limited, despite what you might think. I don't understand your comments about Ferrari selling trinkets. Their brand value is built on their road cars, just as Lamborghini's is.Mercedes had better resources (knowledge and manpower) in the engine dept. than Ferrari and stole a march on everyone by applying them effectively.
As for Lamborghini, is that really a comparable brand to Ferrari? Ferrari make more money from licensing their identity than they do selling shiny road cars to the tiny percentage of people who can afford them. Lamborghini is not the same thing in any respect when you look at the wider picture.
Ferrari's brand value is their racing achievements and image fuelling sales of trinkets, the same trinkets that produce more income than the (relatively speaking) small number of road cars they sell.
They have a large parent and loyal, long term, well funded sponsors.
Either way, the conversation is going around the houses. Ferrari argue their involvement with F1 has been and is materially responsible for the series' commercial success. They expect to get payment over and above the teams they would say don't add that same value. Bernie and the other stakeholders have continued to indulge Ferrari for many years, without ever really calling their bluff. One might assume those people, being in positions of power and looking to maximise their own profits, would not have done so had Ferrari been incorrect.
They have a large parent and loyal, long term, well funded sponsors.
Either way, the conversation is going around the houses. Ferrari argue their involvement with F1 has been and is materially responsible for the series' commercial success. They expect to get payment over and above the teams they would say don't add that same value. Bernie and the other stakeholders have continued to indulge Ferrari for many years, without ever really calling their bluff. One might assume those people, being in positions of power and looking to maximise their own profits, would not have done so had Ferrari been incorrect.
Ferrari have failed to win a driver's championship for a decade. But no one would argue that their brand has suffered. So surely their brand is actually built on the 6,000 or so cars they sell every year which are seen in all the short places in the world? The trinkets add value, sure....but it's the cars that build and support the brand, not the racing.
FIAT are far from being well-funded either. Chrysler is a big drain on them and only protectionist policies at home permit them to own the market there.
FIAT are far from being well-funded either. Chrysler is a big drain on them and only protectionist policies at home permit them to own the market there.
rubystone said:
Ferrari have failed to win a driver's championship for a decade. But no one would argue that their brand has suffered. So surely their brand is actually built on the 6,000 or so cars they sell every year which are seen in all the short places in the world? The trinkets add value, sure....but it's the cars that build and support the brand, not the racing.
Their advertising is based on success in F1. The whole image of the company is one of 'bred on the track' sort of thing. A Ferrari is all image. Whilst F1 is not an essential, it is a substantial part of their brand. How badly their profits would be hit if they did pull out would depend to a great extent on the way it was presented by their PR department. I think even I could accurately predict the emphasis of their advertising. How much it would salvage is unknown.What is more or less set in stone is how F1 would be affected. Going by history, and there's nothing more certain, there would be a ripple, maybe two, and then it would go on as before.
As I said: Ferrari need F1 more than F1 needs Ferrari. My reasoning is that F1 needs Ferrari hardly at all.
KevinCamaroSS said:
Brawn's remit is technical and sporting, not contracts. It will be down to Chase Carey to decide on that I would have thought?
That's certainly how I read it. That said, Brawn's role clearly links in - they have to get the "show" that underpins the contracts right, and have a formula that isn't prohibitively expensive for the smaller teams that are part of that show.Interesting post from Joe Saward this evening drawn from Liberty's SEC filing. It would appear that Mr E's 2008 interaction with HMRC has not gone away and he's due back in court to dispute their new tax assessment of approaching £1bn.
https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2017/01/26/trawlin...
https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2017/01/26/trawlin...
Edited by stemll on Thursday 26th January 19:14
Derek Smith said:
Their advertising is based on success in F1. The whole image of the company is one of 'bred on the track' sort of thing. A Ferrari is all image. Whilst F1 is not an essential, it is a substantial part of their brand. How badly their profits would be hit if they did pull out would depend to a great extent on the way it was presented by their PR department. I think even I could accurately predict the emphasis of their advertising. How much it would salvage is unknown.
What is more or less set in stone is how F1 would be affected. Going by history, and there's nothing more certain, there would be a ripple, maybe two, and then it would go on as before.
As I said: Ferrari need F1 more than F1 needs Ferrari. My reasoning is that F1 needs Ferrari hardly at all.
They could pull out of F1 tomorrow and still sell thrice their production. In the days of Bahar yes, they pushed the F1 connection. But you won't find that featuring front and centre should you choose to visit your local dealer. What is more or less set in stone is how F1 would be affected. Going by history, and there's nothing more certain, there would be a ripple, maybe two, and then it would go on as before.
As I said: Ferrari need F1 more than F1 needs Ferrari. My reasoning is that F1 needs Ferrari hardly at all.
rubystone said:
They could pull out of F1 tomorrow and still sell thrice their production. In the days of Bahar yes, they pushed the F1 connection. But you won't find that featuring front and centre should you choose to visit your local dealer.
You know motor racing, but it seems you don't know advertising, especially of premium products. Ferrari are in F1 for what they can get back. It works. They will want to continue to take part until it doesn't.Derek Smith said:
You know motor racing, but it seems you don't know advertising, especially of premium products. Ferrari are in F1 for what they can get back. It works. They will want to continue to take part until it doesn't.
I make a couple of expensive visits to my local Ferrari dealer every year. I am neither showered with F1 gifts nor confronted with cut outs of F1 cars or F1 branding. but perhaps they are unique to the Ferrari dealer network and the rest are all dressing their customers up in F1 gear and photographing them ?http://www.ferrari.com/en_gb/
Oh look! Not a sign of an F1 car on the official Ferrari.com website.
It seems that the lack of success in F1 may indeed have influenced Ferrari's branding?
rubystone said:
I make a couple of expensive visits to my local Ferrari dealer every year. I am neither showered with F1 gifts nor confronted with cut outs of F1 cars or F1 branding. but perhaps they are unique to the Ferrari dealer network and the rest are all dressing their customers up in F1 gear and photographing them ?
http://www.ferrari.com/en_gb/
Oh look! Not a sign of an F1 car on the official Ferrari.com website.
It seems that the lack of success in F1 may indeed have influenced Ferrari's branding?
Trinkets are not how advertising works.http://www.ferrari.com/en_gb/
Oh look! Not a sign of an F1 car on the official Ferrari.com website.
It seems that the lack of success in F1 may indeed have influenced Ferrari's branding?
Ferrari wants to be a premium product. It is one of the most successful car manufacturers with regards this aspect. Something identical to a Ferrari on performance, comfort and looks can be had much cheaper. Something much better than a Ferrari as regards reliability can be had in most high street main dealers.
People buy a Ferrari for many reasons but to keep up the sales level they now have, they need more than just a recommendation in Which?.
It would be wrong to suggest Ferrari is all image but it is closer to the truth than to say Ferrari doesn't depend on image.
The thing with advertising is that it works. It works on everyone. Indeed, one of the clever tricks of advertising is that it convinces people that they aren't affected in any way by advertising.
Ferrari would lose over the medium term if it gave up on F1. It would have to pitch elsewhere and, at the moment, there is not an elsewhere available.
Building a product's image, which is what advertising does, is a long term job. It is not all, nor even mainly, about a poster or a clever little advertising video, despite what Merc seems to think. It is a business, and one that is technical. I was in advertising for a number of years and I didn't fully understand it then, but I know the basics, and that's what F1 is to Ferrari, basics.
It's not about red pens and tacky corporate baseball caps.
Should be more about Ecclestone, but the man, whilst impressive, annoys me.
I don't think the modern world really gives two hoots about Ferrari's involvement in F1, any more than people buy a Renault because of theirs.... and on that note, if there were a reliance on the sport, Ferraris' is massively more important than the likes of Mercedes, Honda and Renault...
And does anyone here drink Redbull off the back of a successful Daniel Ricciardo performance?
(Is brand awareness worth the same as brand advertising which leads to sales?)
I'm aware of probably 95% of the stuff stuck on the sides of the cars, and the car brands themselves, and can't say I go out of my way to buy any of it... anyway.
I think it's worth calling Ferraris' bluff in the interest of closer racing and equality of opportunity for a great drive in a Sauber meaning more than snatching 10th place.
I don't think the modern world really gives two hoots about Ferrari's involvement in F1, any more than people buy a Renault because of theirs.... and on that note, if there were a reliance on the sport, Ferraris' is massively more important than the likes of Mercedes, Honda and Renault...
And does anyone here drink Redbull off the back of a successful Daniel Ricciardo performance?
(Is brand awareness worth the same as brand advertising which leads to sales?)
I'm aware of probably 95% of the stuff stuck on the sides of the cars, and the car brands themselves, and can't say I go out of my way to buy any of it... anyway.
I think it's worth calling Ferraris' bluff in the interest of closer racing and equality of opportunity for a great drive in a Sauber meaning more than snatching 10th place.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff