I know far more people who stopped watching in 2013 because of the tires.beelsebob wrote:The ratings are down for the exact same reason they were down in 2004 – dominance of one team and driver.GitanesBlondes wrote:And people wonder why ratings are down?
I just have to ask, not only to you, but also Gitanes, what are these ratings based off?beelsebob wrote:The ratings are down for the exact same reason they were down in 2004 – dominance of one team and driver.GitanesBlondes wrote:And people wonder why ratings are down?
And in most of its years has had a rather small viewership. The short term periods of lowest viewership relative to the era have tended to match up exactly with one driver, or team becoming significantly dominant. I also disagree that the sport has seen dominance on it's current level commonly in the past. We've only seen the same driver and team combination win four championships on the trot twice before in the entire history of the sport, and one of those was prior to TV coverage, the other one matches up with the other huge drop in TV viewership.wesley123 wrote:I just have to ask, not only to you, but also Gitanes, what are these ratings based off?beelsebob wrote:The ratings are down for the exact same reason they were down in 2004 – dominance of one team and driver.GitanesBlondes wrote:And people wonder why ratings are down?
Dominance is hardly ever a problem, it never really has been. In reality, the sport has seen dominance in most of it's years.
Correct, and correlated with a huge drop in viewership while schumacher won everything.Before Red Bull, it has been Ferrari
Williams only dominated for about 3 years, and at all times, Ferrari were in contact with them sufficiently to take championships down to the wire. Not only that, but a different driver was contesting the championship each time.and before that Williams
McLaren never really dominated the sport for several years on the trot. They had a few disparate years in which they had an exceptionally good car, but they did not have any series of more than a couple of years where their car could wipe the floor with everyone.and McLaren
But both prior to significant TV viewership.were the ones, also Lotus has seen some dominant years and so did Brabham iic.
Of course not for you – you're a hard core F1 fan, you're watching it for different reasons to the majority. The majority are looking for the hope that their driver comes first. When that's extinguished with 5 races still to run, 4 years running, they're not going to watch any more. Lack of competition has been repeatedly correlated with lack of viewership in other sports as well.Dominance is part of the sport, any sport and imo it is hardly a source to lesser ratings or viewers. At least, it is not for me.
It is worse than that. Just to put numbers on the F1 death spiral.GitanesBlondes wrote:And people wonder why ratings are down?
Surely this is something any 83 year old understands! Perhaps having someone in charge of.... well, everything.... who came of age during the interval between WWI and WWII is not such a great idea? Crikey, Luca D is ancient and he could be Bernie's son.Television based marketing isn't the dominant force it once was, younger generations are watching much less TV and so called "new media" marketing is growing fast.
Red Bull certainly is.Are teams valuing car space too high?
TrueGitanesBlondes wrote:For all intents and purposes F1 is "owned" and "run" by Ecclestone.
The fan in me agrees 100%. I try to watch NASCAR and most all I can see is a bunch of artificial contrivances designed to bunch up the pack. Not all, but most all. But to play devil's advocate, an advertiser surely sees a very different picture. When they look at a photo like the one below, they see a lot of big billboards each of which gets a ton of airtime, whether they're leading the race or two laps down.GitanesBlondes wrote:But, making the races tighter is not the answer...we've already been moving in that direction, and the result has been worst racing ever seen at any point in F1's history. The world does not need another spec series race, and it being seen as being better for F1 is illogical.
Let's hope that isn't the case, though it's looking more and more likely.GitanesBlondes wrote:McLaren as no title sponsor for the first time since Bruce McLaren was alive if I'm not mistaken.
It's a good question. Ideally, the price of the sponsorships would sort themselves out in the market and the teams would then adjust their budgets to match. And ideally, all the sponsorship deals would be fairly equal. Of course we know the second part isn't true, and I wonder if that fact doesn't lead some teams to forgo signing smaller sponsor deals just because they feel it will permanently relegate them to the midpack, or worse.Mysticf1 wrote:Are teams valuing car space too high?
This might be a good argument for customer teams. Not only would they be more competitive for less money, but the FIA could then hold a 'customer championship' alongside the constructors. That would give the customer teams a separate shot at prize money and perhaps more exposure.Moxie wrote:FOM doesn't need to subsidize smaller teams, but for crying out loud, FOM does need to give the small teams a chance to win something. Even though they are at the rear of the grid, those teams still spend a fortune just to place a car on the back row. That is a lot of money to spend for nothing. That is a lot of money to for which to beg from sponsors, with damned little hope of winning prize money.
Cost of playing the F1 game
The cost of entering F1 is much larger than it used to be. There is a $500,000 flat fee and a charge of $6,000 per point which the team scored in the previous year.
This leaves Red Bull racing with an entry fee payable this month to the FIA of $4,076,000. Cash strapped Lotus will have to find $2.39m, whilst one benefit to McLaren from arguably their worst ever year in F1 is their 2014 entrance fee is a mere $1.232m.
In fact, Jean and his cronies in the Place de Concorde will receive some $11,800,000 from the teams entrance fees as a contribution towards their annual fine wine and snails expenses.
The Ferrari/Philip Morris relationship is a mystery to me as well. At the time, there was a rumor that Ferrari was essentially selling the entire livery of the car to PM, who in turn sold off space to other sponsors - becoming an agent of sorts for the team. I don't know if there was any truth to that or not.rich1701 wrote:Phillip Morris has an interesting view on marketing in F1. They ended their partnership with Mclaren in the mid 90s because they had no star drivers at the time. They insisted on Mansell being in the car for 95 even though he was arguably past it. In 96 they demanded a reduction in their support but Ron Dennis wouldn't have any of it and found a sponsor who would pay Mclaren's desired market value. The stature of a driver for some sponsors is a key factor in sponsorship value. Phillip Morris's continued involvement with Ferrari does intrigue me still. I'm surprised that Ferrari's subliminal "logo" is still worth so much to Phillip Morris, over time surely it's value will be diminished. I guess they have realised f1 isn't really attracting a new demographic of viewers, that is viewership is relatively static with long term fans who already have the association with Marlboro in formula 1.
In fact, as time moves on it's subliminal message increases.rich1701 wrote:I'm surprised that Ferrari's subliminal "logo" is still worth so much to Phillip Morris, over time surely it's value will be diminished. I guess they have realised f1 isn't really attracting a new demographic of viewers, that is viewership is relatively static with long term fans who already have the association with Marlboro in formula 1.