Christian Horner under Investigation

[mwillems]

Very true and ofcourse MV attracted alot of Dutch to F1 , Already alot of people were losing interest quickly.
These temporary fans enjoyed ofcourse the year of dominance , but they quickly move on to other sports.
Already last year such fans began moaning that it was getting boring if the same guy wins every race by far.
In the end they revert to not watching but just reading the results.
RB Marketing is more about extremes ofcourse.

There was an analysis of the ROI for Daimler's investment in Mercedes, they looked at all the print and digital coverage the brand got from the Merc F1 team and suggested that per year, to get that coverage it would be in the billions. At that time they were spending around £40m of their own money per year as the team were so well sponsored, it is now down to $30m.

It won't be much different for RB. They have very big sponsorship revenue aside from Red Bull. Sponsorship revenue alone is around $240m with $100m coming from Oracle each year. The turnover is near $400m with the team making a small profit. The money they put in will be dwarfed by the brand exposure F1 gives them in all sorts of markets around the world.

There were direct correlations in car sales and success also.

People buying high-end Mercedes road cars like to tell themselves there is F1 DNA passed down into their sports car or road car. The sell is completely different for a can of water, sugar and caffeine. There's no F1 DNA on the ingredients list on the side of the can.

'RB gives you wings' works because everyone can afford a can of Red Bull, it's not an aspirational product like a Mercedes car, it's about little Johnny buying a can of red bull on the way to the skate park. I'd be very surprised if RB F1 spend results in more effective marketing than sponsoring base jumpers and free runners who rack up millions of views on social media.

To make a small profit as an F1 Team means the investment risk is high for little reward which certain factions within might see better use of the F1 budget going into less risky and higher reward ventures.

This is all supposition as no one on the outside knows what's really going on at Red Bull if there are any corporate in-fighting shenanigans at all behind the Horner allegations. I just can't see Horner being guilty of the more lurid allegations at all, I can see him being a challenge to work for but that isn't illegal.

Red Bull use these events in lieu of advertising because they are better value for money, is the point being made in there amongst others. The investment per year that RB put into the team is small compared to the exposure they get out of it. They are an "edgy" energy drinks brand associating themselves with elite sporting performance.

They can spend much much less on sporting events that demonstrate actual high performance than they would paying to get into magazines, TV etc or sponsoring athletes and pretending they are associated with sporting performance. it doesn't matter what they are selling, it could be snake oil, it's just brand image and their method is brilliant, selling 10 billion euros of overpriced sugar and water per year.

The F1 team is the jewel in that crown and for what is probably around $60m per year, they get into televisions, newspapers, online articles and now onto Netflix in almost every country in the world for that investment.

Red Bull don't need any profit from their F1 team, they are already extracting enormous benefits from it.

A US national TV advertising campaign would cost around $342,000 per 30sec of air time, to broadcast, not even to make it. That's 170 runs for $60m. One run every 2 days, and no one is going to run that little. So you understand the cost benefit ratio here? They took this method and took it to another level.

Ferrari make more money from selling merchandise than they do cars. The revenue between the two is roughly equal, but the mark up on merchandise is much much bigger. They really do make money from selling the dream, not the product and the Ferrari F1 brand is a big part of that. So the ROI on an F1 team for some companies like RB is massive.

[KeiKo403]

This is getting way off topic with Red Bull budget but I’d suggest they get a much lower ROI on VCARB vs RBR. If any outfit were to be sold off or budget taken away from I’d say it’d be VCARB.

[Cs98]

Very true and ofcourse MV attracted alot of Dutch to F1 , Already alot of people were losing interest quickly.
These temporary fans enjoyed ofcourse the year of dominance , but they quickly move on to other sports.
Already last year such fans began moaning that it was getting boring if the same guy wins every race by far.
In the end they revert to not watching but just reading the results.
RB Marketing is more about extremes ofcourse.

There was an analysis of the ROI for Daimler's investment in Mercedes, they looked at all the print and digital coverage the brand got from the Merc F1 team and suggested that per year, to get that coverage it would be in the billions. At that time they were spending around £40m of their own money per year as the team were so well sponsored, it is now down to $30m.

It won't be much different for RB. They have very big sponsorship revenue aside from Red Bull. Sponsorship revenue alone is around $240m with $100m coming from Oracle each year. The turnover is near $400m with the team making a small profit. The money they put in will be dwarfed by the brand exposure F1 gives them in all sorts of markets around the world.

There were direct correlations in car sales and success also.

People buying high-end Mercedes road cars like to tell themselves there is F1 DNA passed down into their sports car or road car. The sell is completely different for a can of water, sugar and caffeine. There's no F1 DNA on the ingredients list on the side of the can.

'RB gives you wings' works because everyone can afford a can of Red Bull, it's not an aspirational product like a Mercedes car, it's about little Johnny buying a can of red bull on the way to the skate park. I'd be very surprised if RB F1 spend results in more effective marketing than sponsoring base jumpers and free runners who rack up millions of views on social media.

To make a small profit as an F1 Team means the investment risk is high for little reward which certain factions within might see better use of the F1 budget going into less risky and higher reward ventures.

This is all supposition as no one on the outside knows what's really going on at Red Bull if there are any corporate in-fighting shenanigans at all behind the Horner allegations. I just can't see Horner being guilty of the more lurid allegations at all, I can see him being a challenge to work for but that isn't illegal.

There's no investment risk, the team funds itself, it funds its own infrastructure and upgrades. The investment risk was years ago, now is only reward. RB would be exceptionally stupid to even think about selling. The doubling down on VCARB suggests they are very much still committed, and if they were to lose commitment VCARB would be sold way before RBR.

[organic]

Feels pretty clear this is an internal power struggle thing now

[Wouter]

Feels pretty clear this is an internal power struggle thing now

.
Yes, it seems so.

[dans79]

Feels pretty clear this is an internal power struggle thing now

If I had to guess, I'd say Horner tried to grab more power/control when Dietrich passed, and that alienated some people, and angered others, and now its all coming back to bit him!

[monkeyboy1976]

I have read somewhere that it relates back to the collapsing of the Porsche deal that GmbH wanted (the Horner kybosh) ?
edit: as previously mooted in this thread by Shakeman

[dans79]

I have read somewhere that it relates back to the collapsing of the Porsche deal that GmbH wanted (the Horner kybosh) ?

I could easily see that being the case, Horner would have lost power/control if the deal went through!

[Cs98]

I have read somewhere that it relates back to the collapsing of the Porsche deal that GmbH wanted (the Horner kybosh) ?

I could easily see that being the case, Horner would have lost power/control if the deal went through!

IIRC Marko was opposed to that deal as well. It would have ceded control to Porsche, which would have been unwise given the self-sufficient nature of the team and their success.

[Wouter]

I have read somewhere that it relates back to the collapsing of the Porsche deal that GmbH wanted (the Horner kybosh) ?

.
Do you have a link? This is what was known about the Porsche deal:

When it was leaked that Porsche was putting in place the necessary paperwork to green-light a 50% buy-in to Red Bull Technology, which is effectively the Red Bull F1 operation, the word in the paddock was this was something Red Bull owner Dietrich Mateschitz had opened the door to.
Red Bull Racing CEO Christian Horner, motorsport advisor Helmut Marko, and chief technical officer Adrian Newey saw red flags with the kind of 50/50% partnership that Porsche thought it would be getting.
Horner: “So, discussions have been ongoing for six or seven months. Those discussions have come to a conclusion and there is a decision not to continue.”
Horner and fellow members of Red Bull’s management team had indicated for a long time they were keen on retaining independence.
Horner has also maintained that there were only ever talks with Porsche, nothing more than that.

[Wouter]

I have read somewhere that it relates back to the collapsing of the Porsche deal that GmbH wanted (the Horner kybosh) ?

.
I could easily see that being the case, Horner would have lost power/control if the deal went through!

.
IIRC Marko was opposed to that deal as well. It would have ceded control to Porsche, which would have been unwise given the self-sufficient nature of the team and their success.

.
That is correct.

[SmallSoldier]

Can Red Bull Group afford to shoot the F1 team in the foot like this?

Have they even considered the consequences of Horner's character assassination, having made such a massive investment in the team the last 20 years only to bring it down with such a petty power struggle?

Seems like it's true what they say, more often than not the first generation of a successful family makes everyone rich, the second one squanders it all away and the third ends up with massive debt...

Is a potential exit by Horner synonym with Red Bull’s demise? Maybe for Red Bull GmbH who is the face of the team isn’t as important as some fans make it out to be? The fact that they have heavily invested in the team for 20 years should have created a foundation strong enough that can survive any “one” individual leaving the organization.

My guess is that whomever is making the call at Red Bull HQ thinks they can replace Horner and be as successful or more than they already are.

[Arcanum]

People on this thread should consider changing the lens they are looking at this from their favourite team (in many cases) to what is the law.

If Red Bull wanted to remove Horner, there are easier ways than an investigation like this.

The fact there is outside council involved in an investigation relating to behaviour is standard practice for large organisations. Legal and HR departments do not have the deep expertise in employment law so it's common to bring in outside council to ensure compliance.

If a grievance has been raised (grievance being the correct term) then the company has an obligation to follow the law. The outside council will likely make recommendations around what to do, and that takes some of the politics out of decisions.

The only aspect that looks political is the fact it was leaked. Normally these processes are highly confidential to protect everyone involved. It's particularly unfair to the person who raised the grievance, if it is genuine, because of fears of how it will impact their employment in the company and the industry. It takes a lot of courage for someone junior in an organisation to raise a *genuine* grievance, even if people believe otherwise from sensational articles in the news.

If something here is genuine, then it cannot be swept under the carpet. Patterns of behaviour damage companies long term in many ways. From subsequent cases if there is evidence that the company is not addressing behaviours, to repetitional damage in the wider public, to corrosive impacts internally.

If something here is not genuine, then it's massively unfair on Horner and a huge impact on his reputation and a distraction to the team.

Yet the point about whether Horner has done so much to lead the team is irrelevant. No matter what people on this forum might like. And while the leak does appear political, the process - in my experience - is not (or has limited space for politics). And having seen this kind of process play out, there are a lot easier ways to remove people if there's a power play going on.

[dialtone]

Can Red Bull Group afford to shoot the F1 team in the foot like this?

Have they even considered the consequences of Horner's character assassination, having made such a massive investment in the team the last 20 years only to bring it down with such a petty power struggle?

Seems like it's true what they say, more often than not the first generation of a successful family makes everyone rich, the second one squanders it all away and the third ends up with massive debt...

Yeah it doesn’t make sense. Marko just said they had to pay millons to keep Horner here instead of seeing him go to Ferrari last year.

RB isn’t doing any assassination. Just chill and wait for more information

[Wouter]

RB isn’t doing any assassination. Just chill and wait for more information

.
"RB isn’t doing any assassination." ?? Yes they did! They leaked inside info to the press.

As @arcanum said: " Normally these processes are highly confidential to protect everyone involved.
It's particularly unfair to the person who raised the grievance, if it is genuine, because of fears of how it will impact
their employment in the company and the industry."