Banning ad revenue

[DiogoBrand]

One thing you people need to remember, wether you're on the internet or watching some sport, is that when you use a product for free, then you're the product.
YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, Formula 1, Football, Android. All of those things you "use" without paying only exist to show you advertising.
Even Google, one of the biggest tech companies in the world, is actually an advertising company since that's the source of roughly 80% of their income.

So like I previously said, unless you people come up with a way for every motorsport, football team, social network, tv channel and so on to pay the bills without sponsor money, you'll continue to be "manipulated" by seeing logos where people have paid to put their logos.

[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?

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.

No point in letting someone know you exist if you don't gain something from it.

If there is one thing on this world that is based on manipulation, it has to be advertising. Or have you forgotten about Jared Fogle, I hope you have. Anyways the tl;dr is that he was obese, but due to dieting and eating Subway sandwiches, he lost a significant amount of weight.


If I can draw one conclusion from this story is that it heavily implies that Subway sandwiches were a contributor to his loss in weight, and thus, Subway sandwiches are healthy.

We then also have tobacco companies, who have for decades manipulated the population and lobbied to governments when it was already known that cigarettes were a significant health risk, it took around 3 decades before regulatory bodies actually began (strongly) regulating tobacco.

And there are also many campaigns against alcohol. A common one is "don't drink and drive". And luckily, alocohol companies have got you on that one with slogans that mimmick regulatory requirements. Heineken's slogan that you also see plastered on the tracks is eerily similar to a "don't drink and drive". This is manipulation 101; by making something relatable, the initial project becomes relatable to the product a company is trying to sell. And with this Heineken has subconsciously connected itself to "don't drink and drive".

Advertising is manipulation and manipulation alone. All those billboards with images, colors, etc. are all designed to invoke an emotion and/or strongly imply a desired consequence from consuming their product(s) in the targeted demographic(s).

If advertising was just "getting your name out there" placing your company name in Arial Black would have been more than sufficient.

[dialtone]

Advertising is manipulation and manipulation alone. All those billboards with images, colors, etc. are all designed to invoke an emotion and/or strongly imply a desired consequence from consuming their product(s) in the targeted demographic(s).

If advertising was just "getting your name out there" placing your company name in Arial Black would have been more than sufficient.

It’s pretty clear not only you don’t know what advertising is or does, but that your opinion is pretty unmovable so I see no point in continuing this discussion.

The sad part of it all, is that your way of thinking and talking is a negative contribution to the improvement of the very problems you raise without removing also the benefits that you are so blind to.

[vorticism]

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.

We are probably in agreement on most of this, aside from semantics.

-The switch from NA to turbo in the 70s was a switch, a choice teams made across seasons in interest of performance. Semantics.
-Intra sport politics cannot be denied, however fealty to politics outside of the sport is another matter. Recall the oil shortages in the 1970s, and road cars facing new emissions and fuel economy regulations. F1 could have referenced that with their racing engine technology at the time, but did not. No politics in that sense.
-"The switch to the hybrids was not road relevance, but tech relevance plus keeping ahead of all other racing series." Is there a difference between tech relevance and road relevance? As for keeping ahead of other series, F1 lap time have not changed much in twenty years.
-"High revving engines and the way they are used/produces is no longer relevant on any level, let alone on the road." Casting, forging, and machining are still relevant. Niche motorsport engines do not need relevance to any other engines necessarily. Even the turbo-hybrid engines are still marooned on that island with their custom fuels and odd regulations.

[Zynerji]

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.

We are probably in agreement on most of this, aside from semantics.

-The switch from NA to turbo in the 70s was a switch, a choice teams made across seasons in interest of performance. Semantics.
-Intra sport politics cannot be denied, however fealty to politics outside of the sport is another matter. Recall the oil shortages in the 1970s, and road cars facing new emissions and fuel economy regulations. F1 could have referenced that with their racing engine technology at the time, but did not. No politics in that sense.
-"The switch to the hybrids was not road relevance, but tech relevance plus keeping ahead of all other racing series." Is there a difference between tech relevance and road relevance? As for keeping ahead of other series, F1 lap time have not changed much in twenty years.
-"High revving engines and the way they are used/produces is no longer relevant on any level, let alone on the road." Casting, forging, and machining are still relevant. Niche motorsport engines do not need relevance to any other engines necessarily. Even the turbo-hybrid engines are still marooned on that island with their custom fuels and odd regulations.

I was cool until the drivers started kneeling.

That trash made me turn off for a good while...

[Jolle]

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.

We are probably in agreement on most of this, aside from semantics.

-The switch from NA to turbo in the 70s was a switch, a choice teams made across seasons in interest of performance. Semantics.
-Intra sport politics cannot be denied, however fealty to politics outside of the sport is another matter. Recall the oil shortages in the 1970s, and road cars facing new emissions and fuel economy regulations. F1 could have referenced that with their racing engine technology at the time, but did not. No politics in that sense.
-"The switch to the hybrids was not road relevance, but tech relevance plus keeping ahead of all other racing series." Is there a difference between tech relevance and road relevance? As for keeping ahead of other series, F1 lap time have not changed much in twenty years.
-"High revving engines and the way they are used/produces is no longer relevant on any level, let alone on the road." Casting, forging, and machining are still relevant. Niche motorsport engines do not need relevance to any other engines necessarily. Even the turbo-hybrid engines are still marooned on that island with their custom fuels and odd regulations.

I was cool until the drivers started kneeling.

That trash made me turn off for a good while...

in what way was that trash in your opinion?

[Rodak]

Advertising on the cars is absolutely fine and makes them look complete.

Your issue is more with online, targeted ads it sounds like.

In terms of F1, this idea would gain zero traction whatsoever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How ironic. Your post ends with advertising.....

[Rodak]

..... thus the FIA might consider eliminating ads on the cars and on the tracks.

That certainly won't happen as Liberty Media, who own F1, get all the trackside advertising revenues.

[Zynerji]

We are probably in agreement on most of this, aside from semantics.

-The switch from NA to turbo in the 70s was a switch, a choice teams made across seasons in interest of performance. Semantics.
-Intra sport politics cannot be denied, however fealty to politics outside of the sport is another matter. Recall the oil shortages in the 1970s, and road cars facing new emissions and fuel economy regulations. F1 could have referenced that with their racing engine technology at the time, but did not. No politics in that sense.
-"The switch to the hybrids was not road relevance, but tech relevance plus keeping ahead of all other racing series." Is there a difference between tech relevance and road relevance? As for keeping ahead of other series, F1 lap time have not changed much in twenty years.
-"High revving engines and the way they are used/produces is no longer relevant on any level, let alone on the road." Casting, forging, and machining are still relevant. Niche motorsport engines do not need relevance to any other engines necessarily. Even the turbo-hybrid engines are still marooned on that island with their custom fuels and odd regulations.

I was cool until the drivers started kneeling.

That trash made me turn off for a good while...

in what way was that trash in your opinion?

Use Twitter for personal crusades. There is zero place for demonstration at work.

[Jolle]

I was cool until the drivers started kneeling.

That trash made me turn off for a good while...

in what way was that trash in your opinion?

Use Twitter for personal crusades. There is zero place for demonstration at work.

Why? As far as I could see, this demonstration was fully supported by their employers.

[Zynerji]

in what way was that trash in your opinion?

Use Twitter for personal crusades. There is zero place for demonstration at work.

Why? As far as I could see, this demonstration was fully supported by their employers.

Sure. And it all turned out to be bullshit when the Russian kid got kicked out due to his birthplace.

Do what you want on you own time. F1 is bigger than your personal crusade.

[Jolle]

Use Twitter for personal crusades. There is zero place for demonstration at work.

Why? As far as I could see, this demonstration was fully supported by their employers.

Sure. And it all turned out to be bullshit when the Russian kid got kicked out due to his birthplace.

Do what you want on you own time. F1 is bigger than your personal crusade.

F1 didn’t kick Mazepin out… but what have your “ohh woke” rants got to do with ads?

[Zynerji]

Why? As far as I could see, this demonstration was fully supported by their employers.

Sure. And it all turned out to be bullshit when the Russian kid got kicked out due to his birthplace.

Do what you want on you own time. F1 is bigger than your personal crusade.

F1 didn’t kick Mazepin out… but what have your “ohh woke” rants got to do with ads?

Removing ads for products/companies that you deem "bad" is Woke. The problem is that the subjective nature of that angle of attack is obvious, and based upon emotion and not fact. I mean CrowdStrike is currently under investigation in the US for spying on our previous President, but still displayed on the Mercedes. That probably shouldn't be, but it is, and not really my place to complain about it.

Please keep any semblance of this notion out of professional sports. Period.

[Jolle]

Sure. And it all turned out to be bullshit when the Russian kid got kicked out due to his birthplace.

Do what you want on you own time. F1 is bigger than your personal crusade.

F1 didn’t kick Mazepin out… but what have your “ohh woke” rants got to do with ads?

Removing ads for products/companies that you deem "bad" is Woke. The problem is that the subjective nature of that angle of attack is obvious, and based upon emotion and not fact. I mean CrowdStrike is currently under investigation in the US for spying on our previous President, but still displayed on the Mercedes. That probably shouldn't be, but it is, and not really my place to complain about it.

Please keep any semblance of this notion out of professional sports. Period.

First off, dropping Mazapin and his dads company was the decision of the HAAS team, a private company who has every right to decide who to do business with and more important who not. Not only would it reflect bad on other partners in the team (because of the active link to Putin), payment would be in doubt (as we've seen now, Nikita's assets are frozen for instance). Mazarin wasn't dropped because he's Russian, he was dropped because his money wasn't good anymore. Other Russian drivers are still welcome.

Second, Crowdstrike isn't under investigation. The former US president tried to link it towards some conspiracy believing the company is Ukrainian, which it's not.

[hollus]

Politics off, thank you. The delete button gets worn off.