The urbanisation of F1

The urbanisation of F1 Liberty Media seems to me to have adopted a thoroughly sensible approach to F1 thus far. The old rock hard approach to rights fees did not help the sport, even if it poured more money into the pockets of the greedy folk at CVC Capital Partners. They did not think to invest to grow the business, they simply took and took and took. Bernie suited their requirements. He did deals for the fun of it, squeezing more money from everyone, as a means of showing who was in charge. That was his thing, and he did it well, but it was an unsustainable long term strategy. Liberty will be tough, of that I am sure, but I think also they will treat the sport with more respect. They want people to like them and be happy to part with cash voluntarily, rather than feeling that it was screwed out of them. They believe there is much to still develop. I agree and have been banging on about it for some years now… It is never easy to please everyone, but I am also sure they are right about their plan to take racing to the people, rather than trying to get people to the racing. I think a big part of successful promotion is, as the saying goes, location, location, location. How anyone thought people would go to a marsh in a remote corner of Korea now seems a very strange decision. OK, if one has no worries about a government paying for a race, you can hold them in the forests of Siberia, or in the moving sands of Timbuktu, but what’s the point? The current trend, which I see developing further, is to take races into or close to big cities, destination cities, where the racing can form part of a much bigger festival. A big party. The best models for this are (in order of age) Monaco, Montreal, Melbourne, Mexico and Singapore. These cities hum with atmosphere when F1 comes to town. The key to success is finding the right location. Monaco is a tradition and the race is part of the city’s heritage. In Montreal the race is on an island, but it’s close to town by subway. Melbourne is in a public park and you get there on the tram. Mexico is a similar story. Singapore is not quite as good as the track closes city streets and is disruptive, but access is brilliant and it has worked wonders for the city. Shanghai has great access but the city is so big that the race doesn’t seem to make much of an impact. Others, like Interlagos, Austin, Barcelona, Monza and Hungary are a little more complicated, but still within easy reach of a big population centre, while the older traditional tracks at Spa, Suzuka, Austria, Silverstone and the Nürburgring are more challenging – wonderful though they are. It is perhaps worth looking at the trends in racing, in relation to changes in society, to understand this strange mix. At the very beginning of the history of motorsport, the races started and finished in city centres. It made sense. That was where the people were. Then, for obvious reasons, the races moved out of town, to areas of lower population or to purpose-built speedways. The fans travelled by train to attend. And then, as car ownership increased, new circuits sprang up in more remote places, old airfields, or in regions keen to promote their charms. The spread of cities, in the meantime, caused largely by cars, meant that the early speedways were swallowed up. Few survived. Most were buried beneath new housing. Times have moved on and with television fewer people bothered to struggle out to the legendary tracks, with their muddy fields, meagre infrastructure and high ticket costs. There were other leisure activities emerging and attendances fell. The development of CGI and the drive towards better safety in racing meant that the wow factor of motor racing wowed fewer people. With one or two exceptions, the races which flourished were close to cities – with easy access and public transport. Who wanted long drives and parking hassles? Building new speedways became harder because of the costs involved, and the rules and regulations that had to be followed. The environmentalists were also difficult. But then along came silent racing and Formula E was able to go back to places which could never have held Grands Prix. The trouble with Formula E is that it is neither fast nor viscerally exciting. The ground does not shake when a field of Formula E cars take off. If parkland tracks are the way to go, and F1 can help to make places nicer, or use wasted facilities, as happened in Albert Park and Sochi, for example, where disruption can be limited and to which people can easily travel, there must be opportunities out there. Let’s see F1 going after Long Beach again, let’s see what can be revived in New Jersey, or Floyd Bennett Field. And let’s take a look at places like Amelia Earhart Park in Miami. Please think about donating to the Jill Saward Fund, which aims to continue the work of my sister Jill Saward (1965-2017), who campaigned to help rape victims and to reduce the number of rapes in the world.
from F1 Center The urbanisation of F1 Liberty Media seems to me to have adopted a thoroughly sensible approach to F1 thus far. The old rock hard approach to rights fees did not help the sport, even if it poured more money into the pockets of the greedy folk at CVC Capital Partners. They did not think to invest to grow the business, they simply took and took and took. Bernie suited their requirements. He did deals for the fun of it, squeezing more money from everyone, as a means of showing who was in charge. That was his thing, and he did it well, but it was an unsustainable long term strategy. Liberty will be tough, of that I am sure, but I think also they will treat the sport with more respect. They want people to like them and be happy to part with cash voluntarily, rather than feeling that it was screwed out of them. They believe there is much to still develop. I agree and have been banging on about it for some years now… It is never easy to please everyone, but I am also sure they are right about their plan to take racing to the people, rather than trying to get people to the racing. I think a big part of successful promotion is, as the saying goes, location, location, location. How anyone thought people would go to a marsh in a remote corner of Korea now seems a very strange decision. OK, if one has no worries about a government paying for a race, you can hold them in the forests of Siberia, or in the moving sands of Timbuktu, but what’s the point? The current trend, which I see developing further, is to take races into or close to big cities, destination cities, where the racing can form part of a much bigger festival. A big party. The best models for this are (in order of age) Monaco, Montreal, Melbourne, Mexico and Singapore. These cities hum with atmosphere when F1 comes to town. The key to success is finding the right location. Monaco is a tradition and the race is part of the city’s heritage. In Montreal the race is on an island, but it’s close to town by subway. Melbourne is in a public park and you get there on the tram. Mexico is a similar story. Singapore is not quite as good as the track closes city streets and is disruptive, but access is brilliant and it has worked wonders for the city. Shanghai has great access but the city is so big that the race doesn’t seem to make much of an impact. Others, like Interlagos, Austin, Barcelona, Monza and Hungary are a little more complicated, but still within easy reach of a big population centre, while the older traditional tracks at Spa, Suzuka, Austria, Silverstone and the Nürburgring are more challenging – wonderful though they are. It is perhaps worth looking at the trends in racing, in relation to changes in society, to understand this strange mix. At the very beginning of the history of motorsport, the races started and finished in city centres. It made sense. That was where the people were. Then, for obvious reasons, the races moved out of town, to areas of lower population or to purpose-built speedways. The fans travelled by train to attend. And then, as car ownership increased, new circuits sprang up in more remote places, old airfields, or in regions keen to promote their charms. The spread of cities, in the meantime, caused largely by cars, meant that the early speedways were swallowed up. Few survived. Most were buried beneath new housing. Times have moved on and with television fewer people bothered to struggle out to the legendary tracks, with their muddy fields, meagre infrastructure and high ticket costs. There were other leisure activities emerging and attendances fell. The development of CGI and the drive towards better safety in racing meant that the wow factor of motor racing wowed fewer people. With one or two exceptions, the races which flourished were close to cities – with easy access and public transport. Who wanted long drives and parking hassles? Building new speedways became harder because of the costs involved, and the rules and regulations that had to be followed. The environmentalists were also difficult. But then along came silent racing and Formula E was able to go back to places which could never have held Grands Prix. The trouble with Formula E is that it is neither fast nor viscerally exciting. The ground does not shake when a field of Formula E cars take off. If parkland tracks are the way to go, and F1 can help to make places nicer, or use wasted facilities, as happened in Albert Park and Sochi, for example, where disruption can be limited and to which people can easily travel, there must be opportunities out there. Let’s see F1 going after Long Beach again, let’s see what can be revived in New Jersey, or Floyd Bennett Field. And let’s take a look at places like Amelia Earhart Park in Miami. Please think about donating to the Jill Saward Fund, which aims to continue the work of my sister Jill Saward (1965-2017), who campaigned to help rape victims and to reduce the number of rapes in the world. http://ift.tt/2jGpDDR