Banning ad revenue

[Big Tea]

We may be able to deduce people's opinions of tattoos based on this thread

Mainly I just wanted to post deliveried bodywork and get people thinking about how F1 used to be funded. An aside, I think it's more prevalent in Europe than in diaspora nations, but there are anti-billboard legislation that prevent ads in places like parks and historic zones, roadsides, town centers. For peace of mind, and reduced distraction.

Not tat's (I dont like them and hate them on women) but what does grate on me is that people are brainwashed into paying well over the odds for cloths and items who's job is to advertise. They should be discounted as the wearer is doing the job for them. I sometimes feel like Mr invisible when I stand with other bikers who pay double what I did for the same gear but with adverts on.

[AR3-GP]

Subscribe to F1 TV and request they CGI modify the cars without sponsors.

[PlatinumZealot]

Advertising, just like tobacco smoke or vehicle emissions, one could claim is harmful to the consumer. Spam likely has deleterious effects upon cognitive health, thus the FIA might consider eliminating ads on the cars and on the tracks.

A side benefit would be an improvement to the aesthetics of the cars. The spectator would be able to view the car as a car, rather than a billboard. This would improved the spectator's experience, as they get to observe sculpture without distraction.

If museums are facing funding shortfalls, do they place stickers on the fine marble and bronze of their collection? Since the FIA is in the business of styling cars while making political statements, perhaps this is something they could consider.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/ab/08/4a/ab08 ... af8efe.jpg
https://livedoor.blogimg.jp/markzu-phot ... 25b9f5.jpg
https://i.redd.it/eh97sgvls7lz.png
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2d/38/d3 ... 1507cd.jpg
https://i.redd.it/d9i8v1o8ud151.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JMAcN3sAEIw/V ... 7-F1_7.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/tFdgaIk.jpeg

I dont see any peoblem with stickers on cars. But i hate modern way of advertising on the internet which became hostile to say the least. For example i use FB just to write few messages to my friends and family, i have blocked majority of people because i dont care about what have they eaten or where have they been. So my wall is pretty empty, but FB thought they are clever and smeared their adds all over it. So i took my time and sat down for an hour and reported every single ad i got, refreshing and doing it again and finally blocking the advertiser. After that i had a whole month of peace and whenever they try to do it again, i simply report them. In case of Youtube, i have simply stopped watching videos because they became unberable.....TV which i pay for is also horribly filled with ads, even though it is not free. And if i draw the line, i can say that all of this bullying with ads, makes me hate the product as well. So stickers on cars is the smallest problem to me.

It's quite simple. They offer their platform for "free" and you had agreed to their terms of use when you signed up, so no point in complaining. I think Youtube has a paid option if you want to be advertisment free though.

[SiLo]

Advertising, just like tobacco smoke or vehicle emissions, one could claim is harmful to the consumer. Spam likely has deleterious effects upon cognitive health, thus the FIA might consider eliminating ads on the cars and on the tracks.

A side benefit would be an improvement to the aesthetics of the cars. The spectator would be able to view the car as a car, rather than a billboard. This would improved the spectator's experience, as they get to observe sculpture without distraction.

If museums are facing funding shortfalls, do they place stickers on the fine marble and bronze of their collection? Since the FIA is in the business of styling cars while making political statements, perhaps this is something they could consider.

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/ab/08/4a/ab08 ... af8efe.jpg
https://livedoor.blogimg.jp/markzu-phot ... 25b9f5.jpg
https://i.redd.it/eh97sgvls7lz.png
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2d/38/d3 ... 1507cd.jpg
https://i.redd.it/d9i8v1o8ud151.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JMAcN3sAEIw/V ... 7-F1_7.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/tFdgaIk.jpeg

I dont see any peoblem with stickers on cars. But i hate modern way of advertising on the internet which became hostile to say the least. For example i use FB just to write few messages to my friends and family, i have blocked majority of people because i dont care about what have they eaten or where have they been. So my wall is pretty empty, but FB thought they are clever and smeared their adds all over it. So i took my time and sat down for an hour and reported every single ad i got, refreshing and doing it again and finally blocking the advertiser. After that i had a whole month of peace and whenever they try to do it again, i simply report them. In case of Youtube, i have simply stopped watching videos because they became unberable.....TV which i pay for is also horribly filled with ads, even though it is not free. And if i draw the line, i can say that all of this bullying with ads, makes me hate the product as well. So stickers on cars is the smallest problem to me.

It's quite simple. They offer their platform for "free" and you had agreed to their terms of use when you signed up, so no point in complaining. I think Youtube has a paid option if you want to be advertisment free though.

I bought a years subscription through India via VPN for £11.

[wesley123]

It's totally ridiculous to say it's manipulation

Except it isn't. It's literally the whole point of advertising. Because why would you spend huge sums of money on marketing if it doesn't do anything?

Advertising, just like tobacco smoke or vehicle emissions, one could claim is harmful to the consumer. Spam likely has deleterious effects upon cognitive health, thus the FIA might consider eliminating ads on the cars and on the tracks.

I definitely don't disagree on it. I honestly do agree on it as a whole. But how realistic is it? Sponsorship does pay the bills for the sport(and many other sports).

However, on the other hand, an ethical aspect has surely arisen over the Russian invasion, which raises a whole different issue; The vast majority of deals and/or sponsorship money involve companies who have achieved their wealth through the disregard of human rights or other unethical means. I'm interested in seeing which sponsorships would ever hold if you ban any of the companies that might be considered unethical in some way.

[dialtone]

Advertising is as old as the world is. It's totally ridiculous to say it's manipulation or that it's harmful.

I hope you´re not trying to say that since it´s old, it can´t be harmful. I can provide you a very long list of even older activities wich are extremelly harmful, but we didn´t know until someone did analyse it in detail. That´s progress.

this is a strawman, I didn't make that argument so no reason to comment, just saying that something that survives that long is clearly useful. And every activity is harmful, frequent cycling has long term effects of slight increase in cardiac arrest due to thickening of heart's walls. Like in F1, everything is a balance and trade-offs.

This sport is literally a form of advertising for car brands... smh.

Yes, but car brands manufacturing cars is normal advertising based on their own merits, not on how many $$$$ they´re willing to invest on comercials

I don't know what this means. You decide what's good or bad? Who pays for car development for Haas? We all see the complains from people that F1 is going towards paytv and decreasing the viewers, seems to me people like free stuff, and advertising pays for it, your moral compass isn't optimizing for what people actually want despite what they may say or what you may think, they act in a different way.

Maybe folks you should try to run your own small business and try to get your name known without any form of advertising and then let's see how people discover you.

World and people did exist before TV and internet, and they even were happy and successful

Also existed for millenia without cars or planes or trains or internet or fire or any technology. Should we go back to that?

[dialtone]

It's totally ridiculous to say it's manipulation

Except it isn't. It's literally the whole point of advertising. Because why would you spend huge sums of money on marketing if it doesn't do anything?

In my opinion this is a very moralistic and simplistic point of view. The, extremely high level, point of advertising is to let the general public know that your brand exists. If you think this is manipulation... boy what are you doing here? The mere talking with other people may change their opinion thus is manipulation according to your definition.

[PlatinumZealot]

Advertising sure does work. I bought some brands because of F1 alone. Casio, Tommy Hilfiger among others.

[Jolle]

And how do you envision this ban on external funds? Are all names/companies that invest in F1 or a team banned from the sport? Or just the brands without any logical connection? Daimler invested in a team 99% because of branding/sponsoring, as did Renault and Exor. Or do you envision some teams to be resurrected who do it for the love of the sport? All teams are businesses.. They either make money racing (or at least that's their objective) or use it as a relative cheap form of marketing.

A model could be like the NBA of course, but this would be in spec cars (nobody can invest remember) and will look a lot like A1 GP. If that is your thing, just watch some A1... oh no.. nobody was interested...

Weren't you the member that wanted to ban all car manufacturers?

[Miha_v]

I always loved the way f1 cars looked visually; from iconic Williams Camels, to Marlboro Ferraris, West Mclarens, Jordan Benson & Hedges, Red Bull cars of nowadays, Petronas coloured Mercedes (and Sauber prior to that)... without sponsors, they would look badly as Prost, Jordan cars did, before they went bankrupt / were bought out.



Without sponsors, we would never have seen the iconic liveries we've seen.
So no - lack of sponsors does not make cars look better at all. I would argue it's the opposite; it makes them look boring and dull.

[dialtone]

That Williams is one of my favorite liveries of all time.

[vorticism]

Not sure why they were so pro elf, though. Not very inclusive. What about dwarves and gnomes?

Advertising sure does work. I bought some brands because of F1 alone. Casio, Tommy Hilfiger among others.

True. I lost my savings with Bybit, then started buying a lot of Johnnie Walker.

Weren't you the member that wanted to ban all car manufacturers?

I brought up the suggestion as a study of cause and effect. Engine regulations typically were driven by parity, budget considerations, and perhaps safety. In 2014 for the first time politics and marketing were added to that list. Spurred by funding dynamics of the current iteration of this sport.

[Jolle]

Not sure why they were so pro elf, though. Not very inclusive. What about dwarves and gnomes?

Advertising sure does work. I bought some brands because of F1 alone. Casio, Tommy Hilfiger among others.

True. I lost my savings with Bybit, then started buying a lot of Johnnie Walker.

Weren't you the member that wanted to ban all car manufacturers?

I brought up the suggestion as a study of cause and effect. Engine regulations typically were driven by parity, budget considerations, and perhaps safety. In 2014 for the first time politics and marketing were added to that list. Spurred by funding dynamics of the current iteration of this sport.

I don't know how much of the history of the sport you are following, but politics and marketing are the two main reasons we have F1 in the first place. Also with every engine formula change, these played the most important role.

[vorticism]

I don't know how much of the history of the sport you are following, but politics and marketing are the two main reasons we have F1 in the first place. Also with every engine formula change, these played the most important role.

True, we may have to clarify what we mean by the term. The change from V10 to V8 was for cost control. The change from turbo to NA was (I believe) due to safety and cost concerns. The change from NA to turbo in the 70s was due to performance gains. The change from NA to turbo-hybrid was due to concerns for road relevance and greenwashing/political pandering. Turns out they're not all that road relevant after all, having what Pat Fry called an unnatural set of constraints due to the regulations. Will we ever see the fuel chemistry, single DI, single spark, high compression, five bar boost format applied to a road car? Probably not. Even the Merc hypercar is detuned somewhat to run on pump gas and probably added port injection.

[Jolle]

I don't know how much of the history of the sport you are following, but politics and marketing are the two main reasons we have F1 in the first place. Also with every engine formula change, these played the most important role.

True, we may have to clarify what we mean by the term. The change from V10 to V8 was for cost control. The change from turbo to NA was (I believe) due to safety and cost concerns. The change from NA to turbo in the 70s was due to performance gains. The change from NA to turbo-hybrid was due to concerns for road relevance and greenwashing/political pandering. Turns out they're not all that road relevant after all, having what Pat Fry called an unnatural set of constraints due to the regulations. Will we ever see the fuel chemistry, single DI, single spark, high compression, five bar boost format applied to a road car? Probably not. Even the Merc hypercar is detuned somewhat to run on pump gas and probably added port injection.

First off, there wasn't a switch from NA to turbo's, it was that turbo's were always allowed and Renault just made use of that. The ban on turbo motors was on one side the safety (but could of handled otherwise) but much more the pressure from the engine manufacturers who couldn't get this formula right (as for instance the two biggest players for decades, Ferrari and Ford). On the political side, Ecclestone, who by then took full control of F1, wanted to shift power to "his" teams again, and needed that cheap V8 back. Hence: NA.

The switch to the hybrids was not road relevance, but tech relevance plus keeping ahead of all other racing series. This was postponed due to the financial crisis and the backing out of several big brands on the grid. High revving engines and the way they are used/produces is no longer relevant on any level, let alone on the road.