F1 - the marketing and advertising of

[raymondu999]

Many brands don't really do branding. That's a truth. Some are purely retail pushing wares.

Agreed.

They don't advertise the 'trust' behind the brand primarily.

Sometimes trust isn't even what the point of them doing branding is at all. Especially if you're talking about a product as opposed to a service.

Yes, some do branding - because they want to sell something, whether a good or service, there's an agenda behind it.

That's the whole point of marketing. My point is - marketing your brand (as opposed to a product) severs any direct linkage between the product on show, and the product you buy. It's what consumers get out of it at the end of the day. Two broad scenarios:

A: If what consumers get out of the Pirelli branding in F1 is brand recognition, and the association that "Pirelli tyres are used in F1, so they must be good for sportscars" then it really doesn't matter whatsoever even if they had tyres that lasted only 10km.
B: If the consumer gets "I've seen Pirelli tyres in F1 - they only last 100km" out of the marketing - then we go into your line of reasoning.

I'm not saying your logic is wrong - I'm just doubting that consumers will see it the way you see it. I think most consumers will tend towards Scenario A rather than B.

Pirelli are only in F1 to promote themselves and sell tyres. They know this.

Everyone does. But just because they are marketing themselves with Product A (the F1 tyres) that does not mean that the consumer will think Product B (road tyres, which they are getting) is even similar in terms of character. If you were talking about more traditional marketing channels, this doesn't happen often - but F1 is a special case where there is a clear divide between what they are used for in the advertising, and what they will be used for by the consumer. The product association simply does not have to be there - and I speak from personal experience and research.

[Cam]

The product association simply does not have to be there - and I speak from personal experience and research.

Maybe we should spin this off into it's own thread - F1 and branding aspects - and we can go into it further as I am listening (reading) to you and you have some areas I agree and some that IMO just don't add up. That may be cultural too an dependent on demographics. You obviously have experience in this area however and I do respect your thoughts.

I for one, cannot see how a client (Pirelli) would agree to a campaign (F1) whereby they knew they would get no product association from it. It defeats the point - in my opinion. I cannot recall a successful campaign that didn't directly try to specifically get people to buy or contact - either directly or indirectly - through a direct association with a product or service, whether that was tagged off the product/service or through general branding whereby ultimately people sought the product/service they were selling.

The 2012 Pirelli tyres has done one thing - we're all talking about them. What's the old saying - no such thing as bad publicity?

[Cam]

The direction of F1 is governed by money, which comes from sponsors trying to sell things. This has pros and cons, both for the audience and the advertiser. Here's the place to discuss it.

[Cam]

So to kick things off, raymondu999 and I were discussing the finer points of the 2012 Pirelli F1 tyres. I think Pirelli are putting their brand in danger by making tyres that are not the best they can be (designed to fail) and that no-one understands how to use them, raymondu999 suggests there is a disconnect between a brand and the product and people will not joint the 2.

Thoughts?

[raymondu999]

So as I was saying (which will make sense after our friendly neighborhood mod moves the posts here ) what I meant is - advertising can give you product awareness and/or brand awareness, in very broad simple terms for the purpose of discussion.

Brand awareness being the scenario A I mentioned earlier - it's about showing the consumer about the brand and making people want to buy from the brand.
Product awareness is very straightforward - it's about showing the consumer the product - and making people want to buy it.

I personally think most people will get out of it brand awareness, but get that F1 tyres are specially engineered for F1, and by extension, bear very little to no similarities to the road product.

From what I understand in your posts - I think you're saying they're getting more product awareness, and people will think "Pirelli = tyres that last 100km. 120km if you Nurse them." Would I be right in this assessment?

With marketing, really, what's intended doesn't matter much - it's what the consumer gets out of it that matters more to the brand. There are ways to tailor marketing campaigns so that you definitely will get brand or product awareness specifically. But there is also a very big grey area. You can set up a marketing campaigned that is in its entirety geared towards creating brand awareness, but the consumer might get out of it product awareness instead. You might want to push product awareness, but the consumer might get brand awareness instead. At the end of the day it's not your intended effect that matters, it's the achieved effect. As is true for most things in the business world really.

Next issue is the one you bring up of no one understanding the Pirellis.

The apparent discombobulation IMO can't be a good thing, in that Pirelli is perceived to be making tyres so mysterious the world's best engineers can't figure them out. However in my view the market segment that actually knows of this confusion, generally speaking, has a deep enough understanding to know that F1 tyres are very much different to their street-riding cousins. Those who don't get that the F1 tyres are different from road tyres (the more superficial fans who only watch quali and the race and that's it) generally won't even know of the confusion the paddock is facing. There is indeed however a group of people (who I think to be a minority) that will be your average joes, turn on the telly, watch the exciting, whizzy cars drive around, and see, "Wow those cars are fast! And you know what? Those tyres are rubbish! I'd never get tyres that only lasted that long for my car. They should buy a better brand."

[Cam]

From what I understand in your posts - I think you're saying they're getting more product awareness, and people will think "Pirelli = tyres that last 100km. 120km if you Nurse them." Would I be right in this assessment?

Not exactly. It's hard for a consumer to make the distinction. As I've said, Pirelli (from what I can see) have not backed up with product ads or branding ads for that matter. I see no product ads relating to my car, nor do I see a branding campaign asking me believe in them. So we're left with what we can see. The only thing I see is Pirelli in F1 and Pirelli under fire for it's tyres - as would most other people who follow F1. Even a casual viewer hears the contention and that raises doubt. That to me is damaging. Whether they are following orders or not is beside the point, they're making a product which is copping criticism - that's what the buying audience is seeing.

With marketing, really, what's intended doesn't matter much - it's what the consumer gets out of it that matters more to the brand......At the end of the day it's not your intended effect that matters, it's the achieved effect.

Agreed. Which is why I feel this is a risky move for Pirelli. They have everything to loose. Goodyear, Michellin, Bridgestone etc, were never in this same situation. All they had to do was make awesome tyres that got better.

Let's look an Renault - the Engine supplier. Clients are lining up to buy what they know works. Proven winner. Now let's say Renault did a Pirelli and their engines all of a sudden either went like a shower of $hit or spluttered, depending on the ambient air temp. They were asked to make it by the FIA. Would people still line up for Renault engines? Would Renault agree to make these engines?

Regardless of the back story, the front page is what people read and take away. You're always remembered for the war you lost, not the battles you win. Personally, with information so easily at hand now, consumers have access to far more information, yet they are not nearly as capable of distilling it to something that makes real sense. Pirelli have their brand b@lls in the FIA hands and I can't see a rub for benefit.

[Cam]

However in my view the market segment that actually knows of this confusion, generally speaking, has a deep enough understanding to know that F1 tyres are very much different to their street-riding cousins. Those who don't get that the F1 tyres are different from road tyres (the more superficial fans who only watch quali and the race and that's it) generally won't even know of the confusion the paddock is facing.

Pirelli are joining the dots from F1 to consumer - as I've been saying, this is their plan. So when a pundant hears criticism of the tyres in F1 and see this - what happens? Look at the tagline for the P Zeros "A range of UHP products that meet the sporting needs of the modern driver"...... Many would argue the performance sucks and is difficult to understand.

[Jersey Tom]

Will I put Pirellis on my car? I dunno, maybe if they make something good. At the moment I am quite happy with the Dunlops I have on!

For one, I'd say the performance of a brand's race tires and their consumer tires don't necessarily have anything to do with each other. Even the "sporty" consumer tires... the requirements the two applications have are so wildly different.

The marketing people at any of these companies are smart though. They know what to say and how to say it to get people to INTERPRET it a certain way. For example, if you say "The technology we develop in F1 inspires what we put in our performance street tires" it SOUNDS like it implies technology transfer - but "inspires" is the key word there. Pretty vague.

Then beyond that... it's all about how the announcers and people that get interviewed spin things. Even if the product itself is junk and disintegrates in a handful of laps (whether or not that's entirely on Pirelli or not is a separate discussion) it's spun to be a positive thing - and that's what the home audience hears. They're not dumb. They're not going to lambaste their team or sponsors or organizing body if something isn't great. Criticism should be held for internal discussion rather than being aired out in public to the fans. That is, of course, unless your driver has no filter and is destructive... warning, strong language:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqRBGvA9uec[/youtube]

[Nando]

To the TS,

Any advertisement, is good advertisement.

General population knows F1 have Pirelli´s, therefore they want Pirelli´s.

[Jersey Tom]

Any advertisement, is good advertisement.

No.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0la4BO6D-zw[/youtube]

Crap tires are not conducive to good racing. In NASCAR, they're not afraid to tell you this straight up. Or whine on national TV after finishing 2nd.

F1 is a little different.

[Nando]

And what do you know, Goodyear is still alive and still sell tires.

They are still the most succesful tire manufacturer in Formula 1 history.
Most starts, most wins and contructor points then any other manufacturer.
By quite some margin Tony seems to have forgotten that.

Who cares what Tony Stewart says?
Rednecks..

Only idiots would think "Oh those F1tires don´t last long so obviously their road tires won´t either".

What Pirelli is advertising is their brand, not their longevity.
These tires are creating a PR stunt like nothing else. Formula 1 is now based around Pirelli in terms of PR.
Everyone talks Pirelli now which means $$$ for Pirelli.

[Nando]

It should also be noted that Goodyear´s last year they won 6 races...

So what Tony says means zero, unless you live in a trailor with the IQ of a rock.

[bhall]

Any advertising is good advertising? Name your first born son Adolf.

Bad connotations can be very powerful.

[montes]

My 2 cents:

[...]tagline for the P Zeros "A range of UHP products that meet the sporting needs of the modern driver"...... Many would argue the performance sucks and is difficult to understand.[...]

I think UHP tires are not for granny's car They are for a special niche market as raymondu pointed out.

[...]No, people will think F1 tyres are the same as my car - that's the point of it.[...]

As such, I think these people from this special niche market, can tell that there is a "slight" difference between whatever car they want to "shoe" and an F1 car. Even if, ad absurdum, the tires would be the same, if an F1 "car" is 10 times my car then the tires might be they'd last 10 times more.

[Jersey Tom]

Who cares what Tony Stewart says?

The NASCAR demographic a.k.a. a large portion of the US consumer market, i.e. who Goodyear are marketing to. You can call people rednecks, but they have money and they buy tires.

Point being... yes hype is often good, but certainly not always. Or with Firestone / Ford, Michelin at Indy...