Lewis Hamilton

Lewis Hamilton

Author
Discussion

vdn

6,906 posts

150 months

Thursday 17th October
quotequote all
Graveworm said:
cmoose said:
Highly speculative and I would say improbable. I doubt he bleatings influence anyone's behaviour in these matters one little bit. He might help sell clothes and other consumer goods. But it doesn't follow that people will make personal sacrifices or change their lifestyle in any substantial regard.
You think that he, or anyone, appealing to over 13 million people, who have elected to read what they say, will have no effect? That's twice the audience of an FA cup final and likely a pretty good demographic for this kind of message. Charities pay for TV advertising and appeals to much much smaller audiences, most of which have no previous connection with them. If even the equivalent of just one percent reduce their output by 10 percent that's the same as eliminating all the output of 13000 people - Or Newport if you prefer.

Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 17th October 20:31
yes

jm doc

1,142 posts

179 months

Thursday 17th October
quotequote all
rdjohn said:
Blink982 said:
Cards on table: I'm a huge fan of Lewis and can see both sides of the argument. I wont regurgitate the last 10 or so pages. Reading the various arguments for and against climate change and veganism reminds me of the easily persuaded simpleton character in The Fast Show who would change his mind every time someone put their side of the argument across. I simply don't know who or what to believe. It reminds me of the B word and Scottish Indyref, there is no middle ground you have to be on one side or the other.

Lewis comes across as an extremely positive person most of the time (when he's winning) but the tone and style of his IG post didn't sit right with me.

My phone was buzzing with notifications after his post to click on various outlets to read of Lewis' impending retirement. You can see that the media love him hes box office and gets clicks. Maybe there is a point to his post and if it came from him, his PR team need to have a word with him. If it came from his PR team, then he needs to have a word with them.

His message could have been delivered so much better without the virtuous lecturing and faux drama, particularly when you consider what he does for a living and his other non-eco friendly interests. The cynic in me thinks that its stunt to coincide with the movie launch but maybe he will follow it up with some positive action rather than another weird needy IG post.

I guess I hope he stops acting like a tit and just drives the car like we all he can but he certainly gets people talking and typing, that's "for sure".
A friend and fellow Lewis fan got talking with Ms Cullen earlier this year.

She said that whenever he has a bad race weekend, they frequently have “meaning of life” type conversations.

The typhoon on Saturday has probably taken more than 80 lives. F1 hunkered down and carried-on as if nothing had happened on Sunday.

Saturday was an example of Climate change demonstrating just how devastating it is going to get. With so many followers, I think that it would have been odd for Lewis to just shrug it off, without comment.

There will come a time when Lewis will retire, but it won’t be before the end of his contract next year - and probably, not even then.
What did Saturday have to do with climate change??


Kenny Powers

2,400 posts

74 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
jm doc said:
What did Saturday have to do with climate change??
I wondered about that one myself. That's quite some leap of imagination, even for the vegan army confused

E34-3.2

933 posts

26 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
Kenny Powers said:
jm doc said:
What did Saturday have to do with climate change??
I wondered about that one myself. That's quite some leap of imagination, even for the vegan army confused
Towards the end of this article by (Andrew Freedman), it mentioned that the latest typhoon intensity was due to climate warming: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.co...

True or not, I don't know but it kind of make sense.



Edited by E34-3.2 on Friday 18th October 07:29

Teddy Lop

1,844 posts

14 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
Thinking about it maybe he's hurting from the weekend at having a race win taken away, and this is his way of kicking off a bit - he's said some pretty dumb things in the past when not being treated fair.

Danny - 29 laps from start on mediums so heavy
Gasly, hulk, stroll - all 32+ laps on mediums 2nd stint.

"Yeah lu there's no way your mediums will make it to 30 laps, lets chuck that likely race win in the trash and pop you in the 3rd you're guaranteed regardless just to be safe yeah"

I realise tyre usage etc makes it more complex than that but I'm really doubtful that they'd have cliff edged and he'd have lost 18 seconds to vettel over a couple of laps, and regardless of what you think of why merc did that, its gonna piss you off. Merc always had the win nailed on one way or the other, so why nobble him? At least ferrari nobbling lec for vettels singapore win made sense as it gave the team a 1-2.

jm doc

1,142 posts

179 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
Teddy Lop said:
Thinking about it maybe he's hurting from the weekend at having a race win taken away, and this is his way of kicking off a bit - he's said some pretty dumb things in the past when not being treated fair.

Danny - 29 laps from start on mediums so heavy
Gasly, hulk, stroll - all 32+ laps on mediums 2nd stint.

"Yeah lu there's no way your mediums will make it to 30 laps, lets chuck that likely race win in the trash and pop you in the 3rd you're guaranteed regardless just to be safe yeah"

I realise tyre usage etc makes it more complex than that but I'm really doubtful that they'd have cliff edged and he'd have lost 18 seconds to vettel over a couple of laps, and regardless of what you think of why merc did that, its gonna piss you off. Merc always had the win nailed on one way or the other, so why nobble him? At least ferrari nobbling lec for vettels singapore win made sense as it gave the team a 1-2.
Nail on head....

Liamjrhodes

120 posts

88 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
Crazy how much Hamilton divides opinion but it is good to get an insight into the personal lives of drives other than for a couple of hours on a race weekend. So glad the social media ban from years gone by was lifted. It seems to have opened up the drives much more, i really enjoy seeing Landos updates

But i have to agree with the few above, it seems like he is a bit down due to having the win taken away when he was perfectly capable of it

cmoose

45,174 posts

176 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
Graveworm said:
You think that he, or anyone, appealing to over 13 million people, who have elected to read what they say, will have no effect? That's twice the audience of an FA cup final and likely a pretty good demographic for this kind of message. Charities pay for TV advertising and appeals to much much smaller audiences, most of which have no previous connection with them. If even the equivalent of just one percent reduce their output by 10 percent that's the same as eliminating all the output of 13000 people - Or Newport if you prefer.
Classic mistake of conflation.

People reading stuff doesn't mean much. My view is that few if any people reading Hamilton's social media posts will make meaningful changes to their lifestyles. You may disagree. Fine. Neither of us can come close to proving it either way.

You claim they will change their behaviour and that offsets the idiotic hypocrisy of his posts. OK, show us the evidence of that.

vdn

6,906 posts

150 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
cmoose said:
Graveworm said:
You think that he, or anyone, appealing to over 13 million people, who have elected to read what they say, will have no effect? That's twice the audience of an FA cup final and likely a pretty good demographic for this kind of message. Charities pay for TV advertising and appeals to much much smaller audiences, most of which have no previous connection with them. If even the equivalent of just one percent reduce their output by 10 percent that's the same as eliminating all the output of 13000 people - Or Newport if you prefer.
Classic mistake of conflation.

People reading stuff doesn't mean much. My view is that few if any people reading Hamilton's social media posts will make meaningful changes to their lifestyles. You may disagree. Fine. Neither of us can come close to proving it either way.

You claim they will change their behaviour and that offsets the idiotic hypocrisy of his posts. OK, show us the evidence of that.
There are literally replies to the posts with people stating they’ve never thought of x, y or z before posting up pictures of vegan meals and the like.

If you think he has no influence, you’re a fool.

cmoose

45,174 posts

176 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
vdn said:
There are literally replies to the posts with people stating they’ve never thought of x, y or z before posting up pictures of vegan meals and the like.

If you think he has no influence, you’re a fool.
They can post pictures. They can have a vegan meal. This is not remotely proof of lifestyle change. And you're a fool if you think it is.

How many will actually change their lifestyle the next day when there's something else on social media grabbing their attention? Basically none is my view. If you can prove otherwise, go for it. Which, of course, you can't.

epom

6,464 posts

108 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
cmoose said:
Graveworm said:
You think that he, or anyone, appealing to over 13 million people, who have elected to read what they say, will have no effect? That's twice the audience of an FA cup final and likely a pretty good demographic for this kind of message. Charities pay for TV advertising and appeals to much much smaller audiences, most of which have no previous connection with them. If even the equivalent of just one percent reduce their output by 10 percent that's the same as eliminating all the output of 13000 people - Or Newport if you prefer.
Classic mistake of conflation.

People reading stuff doesn't mean much. My view is that few if any people reading Hamilton's social media posts will make meaningful changes to their lifestyles. You may disagree. Fine. Neither of us can come close to proving it either way.

You claim they will change their behaviour and that offsets the idiotic hypocrisy of his posts. OK, show us the evidence of that.
I’ve just had a veggie Omelette, but I added chicken and bacon. I’m so confused.

Graveworm

2,623 posts

18 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
cmoose said:
People reading stuff doesn't mean much. My view is that few if any people reading Hamilton's social media posts will make meaningful changes to their lifestyles. You may disagree. Fine. Neither of us can come close to proving it either way.

You claim they will change their behaviour and that offsets the idiotic hypocrisy of his posts. OK, show us the evidence of that.
You claim people reading stuff doesn't mean much - well it does seem to have got a president elected amongst other things. do you have any evidence that it doesn't mean much?

74% of people say that they change their buying behaviour based on Social Media posts. This also discounts his ability to directly access powerful and influential figures along with re-posts and media coverage of everything he says. I was being very very conservative just to show how illogical your claim was. I just pointed out if 1% of the direct readership buy less meat and/or choose fewer flight holidays it would make a huge impact. The generic evidence linked, along with many more studies and the specific posts, replying to his post, are evidence that it's likely to be much more than that You, without any contrary evidence, dismiss them based on your entrenched view.


Edited by Graveworm on Friday 18th October 18:31

cmoose

45,174 posts

176 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
Graveworm said:
You claim people reading stuff doesn't mean much - well it does seem to have got a president elected amongst other things. do you have any evidence that it doesn't mean much?

74% of people say that they change their buying behaviour based on Social Media posts. This also discounts his ability to directly access powerful and influential figures along with re-posts and media coverage of everything he says. I was being very very conservative just to show how illogical your claim was. I just pointed out if 1% of the direct readership buy less meat and/or choose fewer flight holidays it would make a huge impact. The generic evidence linked, along with many more studies and the specific posts, replying to his post, are evidence that it's likely to be much more than that You, without any contrary evidence, dismiss them based on your entrenched view.
What evidence for your first claim do you have? Even if it's true, it relates to a very large campaign and pertains to a one off vote on a single day, not sustained lifestyles changes.

It's a very significant claim to say that anybody at all has made meaningful and long lasting changes to their lifestyle based on the post that Hamilton subsequently (apparently) deleted. I'd say there's little evidence it would have any impact and if it was deleted then it's even less likely to have any impact.

Your numbers are just made up to suit your position and have no basis in any evidence. You have provided absolutely no evidence of anything relevant. Moreover, it's not me making extraordinary claims - that people make meaningful long term lifestyle changes based on something an F1 driver posts on social media - it's you. So, it's up to you to provide the evidence.

If you want someone to buy a tshirt or post something similar on instagram, then the likes of Lewis Hamilton are proven to be effective. Someone posting a vegan meal on social media is ultimately meaningless. It doesn't even remotely prove they've meaningfully changed the way they live.

Will they care the next day, let alone the next week, month or year? That's the question. Not whether they've jumped on a bandwagon to post a picture before having their heads turned by whatever they see a few hours later on another instagram account.

vdn

6,906 posts

150 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
cmoose said:
vdn said:
There are literally replies to the posts with people stating they’ve never thought of x, y or z before posting up pictures of vegan meals and the like.

If you think he has no influence, you’re a fool.
They can post pictures. They can have a vegan meal. This is not remotely proof of lifestyle change. And you're a fool if you think it is.

How many will actually change their lifestyle the next day when there's something else on social media grabbing their attention? Basically none is my view. If you can prove otherwise, go for it. Which, of course, you can't.
rofl

You’re as thick as they come.

Of course; many won’t give two hoots; many will react poorly; many will react positively.

Simple as that.

From what you’re saying; no band / artist / sportsman or woman has ever influenced anyone; because you want first hand, specific proof.

As you were wink

Graveworm

2,623 posts

18 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
cmoose said:
What evidence for your first claim do you have? Even if it's true, it relates to a very large campaign and pertains to a one off vote on a single day, not sustained lifestyles changes.

Your numbers are just made up to suit your position and have no basis in any evidence. You have provided absolutely no evidence of anything relevant. Moreover, it's not me making extraordinary claims - that people make meaningful long term lifestyle changes based on something an F1 driver posts on social media - it's you. So, it's up to you to provide the evidence.
.
Seriously:
https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-...

My number came directly from the linked study others have concluded a higher percentage. Your attempts to discredit them or reduce their relevance is less credible given it not backed by any evidence and that
1) Organisations that seek to change peoples behaviour, for many years, have been spending millions to do exactly what you claim it doesn't.
2) The amount of change needed to make a significant impact is insignificant when numbers are so large..
3) 1 percent of the direct audience is a tiny figure it's likely to be way more than that due to the other channels, media coverage, discussions, re-posts and knock on effects.


vdn

6,906 posts

150 months

Saturday 19th October
quotequote all
Graveworm said:
cmoose said:
What evidence for your first claim do you have? Even if it's true, it relates to a very large campaign and pertains to a one off vote on a single day, not sustained lifestyles changes.

Your numbers are just made up to suit your position and have no basis in any evidence. You have provided absolutely no evidence of anything relevant. Moreover, it's not me making extraordinary claims - that people make meaningful long term lifestyle changes based on something an F1 driver posts on social media - it's you. So, it's up to you to provide the evidence.
.
Seriously:
https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-...

My number came directly from the linked study others have concluded a higher percentage. Your attempts to discredit them or reduce their relevance is less credible given it not backed by any evidence and that
1) Organisations that seek to change peoples behaviour, for many years, have been spending millions to do exactly what you claim it doesn't.
2) The amount of change needed to make a significant impact is insignificant when numbers are so large..
3) 1 percent of the direct audience is a tiny figure it's likely to be way more than that due to the other channels, media coverage, discussions, re-posts and knock on effects.
I wouldn’t bother; he’s as daft as a brush. Companies / corps are wasting billions on social media / influencer marketing apparently. Typical PH genius at work I’m afraid.

rofl

TarquinMX5

101 posts

27 months

Saturday 19th October
quotequote all
I haven't read the numerous posts on this thread but it's rather amusing to see a person who earns (if that's the right word) quite a few pounds each year by driving a good car round and around a circuit (for what purpose? - it's hardly necessary for anything I can think of, other than providing leisure-viewing for a few people), travels by private jet, helicopter or large-engined car, trying to lecture others how to behave to 'save the planet'. No doubt his employers also saw the disconnect.

With the greatest of respect to his ability to drive, at which he's probably 'above average' (difficult to know for sure as he has access to better-than-average cars), it's a bit rich trying to tell others 'to save the planet'.

The problem with these people who fancy themselves as 'influencers' is that many of them often adopt a 'do as I say, not as I do' attitude. Reminds me of that group of people who call themselves politicians.

Am I right in thinking that this car-driver who says we should all go vegan has a financial interest in a vegan restaurant chain? Hmmmm.

Perhaps he should concentrate on driving.

paulguitar

3,756 posts

60 months

Saturday 19th October
quotequote all
TarquinMX5 said:
his ability to drive, at which he's probably 'above average'
You are opening yourself up to a fair bit of ridicule posting something like that here where a lot of people are quite well informed about F1.

eccles

11,002 posts

169 months

Saturday 19th October
quotequote all
paulguitar said:
TarquinMX5 said:
his ability to drive, at which he's probably 'above average'
You are opening yourself up to a fair bit of ridicule posting something like that here where a lot of people are quite well informed about F1.
And you're opening up yourself to ridicule with a reply like that!rolleyes

paulguitar

3,756 posts

60 months

Saturday 19th October
quotequote all
eccles said:
And you're opening up yourself to ridicule with a reply like that!rolleyes
Why is that?