FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[F1er]

http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/36348.html

RBR and Macca got the most BANG for their buck! While Ferrari spent twice the money and came up short!

[texasmr2]

http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/36348.html

RBR and Macca got the most BANG for their buck! While Ferrari spent twice the money and came up short!

LOCK LOCK LOCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[F1er]

http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/36348.html

RBR and Macca got the most BANG for their buck! While Ferrari spent twice the money and came up short!

LOCK LOCK LOCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So after reading that article?? if you even did?? your response is LOCK??

Arent you a basket full of cherries .....

I'm gonna have to [ignore] from now on

[texasmr2]

I'm gonna have to [ignore] from now on

[racechick]

That was an interesting read. Thanks. Fascinating how the finance works out.

[What's Burning?]

Interesting even though RB spend 240m granted spread over two teams, they list McLaren as having spent 65m on it's team... so RB is outspending even the top teams.

Then it begs the question, how much of that car exposure comes from the driver's notoriety. Perhaps it's why Sauber is so high on the list.

[spankyham]

Very good article. But I think there is a key point missing from both the Ferrari and McLaren data. The comparison to RB is of Ferrari and McLarens 2nd position sponsors to RB's first.

You should compare the benefit derived by Ferrari itself as well as McLaren itself to make a true cost/benefit comparison. During the motor industries worst years on record in recent history (Toyota, Honda, Ford, GM & Chrysler to name a few) Ferrari has had two stellar years eclipsing sales and growth in all markets. For example to critical China market was up over 20% and the US was also double digit. I'd be surprised if Macca's weren't in the same boat - look at what they spent on their new production factory.

[vaptin]

Interesting read, surprised by how much Ferrari's budget was compared to their rivals, so is the spend how much they spent into this years cars? Because Ferrari I think also got a new wind tunnel, and maybe also the driver academy would't had a big impact, both are long term finical costs.

It does look quite bad for the performance of Ferrari's staff, there still is a big question mark over their relatively younger and almost certainly unproven staff that they now have in.

The data about how the return and expsore from sponsorship from the big teams was really interesting, though the critical knowledge is really how much value do the sponsors gain by having their image on f1, rather than simply comparing it to the cost of a conventional tv ad, is the f1 sponsorship more effective?

All together, the 141 brands with on-car logos in Formula One in 2010 gained exposure worth $1.2bn, an average of $62m per grand prix. This included not just sponsors and team owners, but the engine manufacturers, the team names themselves and charities, such as the FIA's Make Roads Safe campaign which appeared free-of-charge on all the teams' cars throughout the year. The campaign got coverage from this which would have cost it $1.3m if it had bought the time as standard TV advertising.

The closest challenger to Red Bull's supremacy was McLaren's title sponsor Vodafone, which drew exposure worth $122.5m throughout the year, giving the mobile phone provider a return of almost 190% on the $65m it spends annually. It was followed by Ferrari's major new partner Santander, which got exposure worth $99.3m, a 200% return on its $50m annual spending. With returns like this, it's easy to see why companies are so keen to get involved in F1.

It certainly looks rosy for the top of f1 teams (from a sponsors point of view) my concern is mid car pretty decent teams like Williams and Sauber seem to be struggling for sponsors.

[Robert12010]

well at least mclaren won something!

[What's Burning?]

The data about how the return and expsore from sponsorship from the big teams was really interesting, though the critical knowledge is really how much value do the sponsors gain by having their image on f1, rather than simply comparing it to the cost of a conventional tv ad, is the f1 sponsorship more effective?

F1 delivers a global audience, there are not many sports that have the world wide reach and visibility AND marketing behind F1. The other (and more important) factor is that F1 delivers on a demographic that is much higher sought by advertisers... it is very focused, with the audience having a higher level of income as well as more disposable income, generally more savvy and better educated than fans of other sport, so that's why advertisers are willing to put up the big bucks. You can get volumes in other sports, but F1 is seen by advertisers as the most valuable demographic.

[darwin dali]

generally more savvy and better educated than fans of other sport,

Really? I sometimes doubt that when I read this forum!

[Robert12010]

generally more savvy and better educated than fans of other sport,

Really? I sometimes doubt that when I read this forum!