F1 - the marketing and advertising of

[bhall]

Let's take another example. Last year when Hamilton was seemingly crashing in every race, every UK branch of Santander had huge posters of him to advertise their unbeatable offers.

I don't think anyone thought that association inferred that Santander would destroy your savings against a barrier in Spa. The general public simply see highly successful celebrity.

I think that example would be much more relevant if instead of being a celebrity race car driver, Lewis Hamilton was a celebrity accountant or broker.

What did Michael Jordan have to do with fast food? Nothing at all, but McDonald's didn't care and neither did consumers.

People are used to celebrity pitchmen.

Pirelli, on the other hand, prominently displays a product that, even though it's not even close to being representative to what they generally sell to the public, nevertheless doesn't exactly portray their wares in a wholly favorable light; their celebrity endorsement here is the product.

It doesn't do the brand any favors to have former world champions - not just Schumacher - current drivers, pundits and a significant portion of F1's fanbase constantly bemoaning a characteristic of the tires that they view very poorly. I can guarantee you that Paul Hemberey does not want to be forced to answer the kinds of questions he routinely faces these days.

The informed fan, will of course, know the score. The uninformed fan, of which there are many, will likely just associate the word Pirelli with something they simply do not like; they'll have an emotional response. Connotations are very important. If they weren't, the very nature of advertising would be a whole lot different.

You'll never see the names Adolf, O.J. or Osama topping a list of popular baby names for any given year; you'll never see another car called Edsel or Pinto; and the word NASCAR will never be associated with sophistication even if the cars were gilded and powered by small nuclear reactors.

[Fil]

Bhall, please have a read of my post on the previous page.

The vast majority of consumers will not have watched or had any interest in F1. They will have no negative connotations regarding Pirelli in F1.


Your example of NASCAR is the same. "never be associated with sophistication"
Yet modern car manufacturers are happily in the series. No car buyer will associate a Toyota Camry with being unsophisticated because of Toyota's NASCAR entry.

It's not about what's happening within the confines of the series, it's about the overarching brand association.

That's where F1 is so hugely powerful based on its legacy & brand values it has created for itself. That's why Pirelli are in it.
Any racing news or results are merely by-products that Marketing can choose to use, or usually ignore.

[raymondu999]

Pirelli, on the other hand, prominently displays a product that, even though it's not even close to being comparable to what they generally sell to the public, nevertheless doesn't exactly portray their wares in a favorable light, because their celebrity endorsement is the tires themselves.

I disagree. I see F1 as the "celebrity endorser" of the Pirelli brand.

[Fil]

Exactly.


It's like having your photo taken for the gossip mags, arm-in-arm & shaking hands with a celebrity.. instant credibility. People don't ask how firm your handshake was, they just assume you're somewhat equal to that celebrity. Brand association.

[Cam]

When I first started asking this question "does the tyre controversy damage the Pirelli brand', I was certain I would get 'yes, but not that much', instead it seems there's a resounding 'no'. Even if one customer changed their opinion, based on the F1 situation, I would have counted that as brand damage. Not much, but a degree. Personally, I don't know which is right, which is why I asked the question and seeing the range of responses has been great.

Does this work the same for Ferrari? The fact that they sell sports cars and yet they can't build a winning sports car, does this involvement in F1 effect the brand when they do not succeed or does the brand rise above the results?

[raymondu999]

The brand doesn't need to rise above the results, because it already IS above the results.There are more people in the world who want/drive a Ferrari than those who watch F1.

[bhall]

fil, I understand what you're saying, but I think my point has been lost here.

If association to F1 itself had significant value, neither Bridgestone nor Michelin would have left the sport. Instead, they pulled out because the return didn't match the investment. In other words, it didn't attract enough new customers.

Pirelli entered F1 to take advantage of F1's fan base as a way of introducing itself to them (us), not for those who are influenced by phrases like "The Official Tire of F1." Again, Bridgestone showed that doesn't work.

Reaching fans is one thing. Reaching fans with a compelling case is quite another.

The same is true for NASCAR. Nobody other than NASCAR fans buy a car that competes in NASCAR simply because it competes in NASCAR. Part of that is precisely because NASCAR fans are commonly portrayed as hicks. Moreover, brand loyalty amongst NASCAR fans is insane; it's practically generational. Those who can be reached have already been reached.

[raymondu999]

I still disagree. Let's just agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

[Cam]

Moreover, brand loyalty amongst NASCAR fans is insane; it's practically generational. Those who can be reached have already been reached.

Being generational is true from what I've seen. If you're dad was a Ford man, they you became a Ford man. Maybe not in every circumstance and yes, I understand that it didn't stop the son from liking/driving other cars. Most sports are like that perhaps e.g football?

F1 fans are certainly very passionate. You either like F1 or you don''t. I don't experience many casual viewers. In fact, I'm a minority among my group who prefer MotoGP and Touring Cars. They don't follow any tech in those categories. From talking with other F1 fans, it appears they are far more deeply involved and broadly educated in regards to the tech, simply because tech and development plays a large part in F1 coverage and support media. The EBD is a good example. Last year considerable air time was given by commentators trying to explain it. So even a casual viewer, while not fully grasping the concept, was certainly exposed to it and would have formed an opinion if they liked it or not. I think this aspect is unique to F1, would this be considered by major brands?

[bhall]

It's not necessarily unique to F1. Passionate fans are passionate fans, regardless of the sport they follow.

In fact, that's exactly why companies sponsor sports in the first place; they're trying to reach the audience who follows the sport. Proctor & Gamble doesn't sponsor Williams to shill Head & Shoulders to farmers in Nebraska. They sponsor Williams to reach F1 fans all over the world.

It's pointless to sponsor an F1 team unless you're going for the F1 audience. Advertising must be precisely targeted else it just doesn't work.

Summer's Eve will never sponsor ESPN. Pennzoil will never sponsor Oprah. Trojan will never sponsor The Trinity Channel or whatever it's called. This is Marketing 101.

[Richard]

What they don't realise is that the tyre that comes with your car will often vary depending which assembly line produced that car.

It does?

I always thought it was done by a mass order from the factory to a single tyre manufacturer - which then sort of gets awarded the contract for that single make.

Some car manufacturers will sign up to a single brand, others will hedge their bets with 2 brands. Our local Volvo dealer told us the two choices used by Volvo, ours has Pirelli but I can't remember the other one. The point is that the car and tyre are not carefully matched by engineers for maximum performance, it's decided by the marketing and supply chain people. Even the wheel size is determined by marketing, some markets (UK afik) go for bigger wheels than others.

So there are a whole bundle of emotional drivers in our tyre choice. Seeing Pirelli on your current car, plus a picture of a smiling Hamilton reinforces that you're making the right decision to go with Pirelli.

I guess we can see consumers as ...

1 - The average user is vaguely aware that the person on the poster dives fast racing cars and has some sort endorsement of Pirelli.

2 - Geeks like us know that the tyres in F1 and road tyres are like chalk and cheese.

3 - I guess there is a middle ground of people who have enough knowledge to know Pirellis have low durability in F1, but have enough ignorance to think that is the same as the road tyres.

4 - Finally there are principled people like Cam who know that F1 has nothing to do with the tyres on his car, but for some reason makes the decision about their road purchase on the basis of the F1 degradation. Presumably a principled stand or a boycott (you ruined my sport so I'm not going to buy your product?)

I'd say the vast majority of retail sales (ie over 80-90%?) are to people in category 1, and a handful in 2. A tiny number in 3 and a hardly anyone in 4. Perhaps Pirelli do lose one or two sales due to F1 tyre degradation, but that would be hugely outweighed by having extra sales from a picture of Hamilton smiling at you when you say to the tyre fitter "I'll go for the Pirellis"

Finally, that's only retail sales - don't forget the fleet & OEM sales.

[raymondu999]

I would have voted your post up were you not a mod. Lol. A massive +1

[bhall]

If only it actually worked that way...

[raymondu999]

Mind explaining why you think it doesn't?

[bhall]

I feel like I have.

Nobody will buy Pirelli tires because they see a picture of Lewis Hamilton leaning against a stack of Pirelli tires. Nor will they buy Pirelli tires because they're used in F1. It just doesn't work that way. Something must set the endorsement from him, or whoever/whatever, apart from all the rest.

Why was Gatorade's "Be Like Mike" ad campaign with Michael Jordan so successful? It implied that if you drank Gatorade, you could play basketball like Michael Jordan, i.e., you could beat everyone.

Nike's "Bo Knows" ad campaign? (For those who don't know - haha - Bo Jackson is an American athlete famous for performing at a very high level in both the NFL and Major League Baseball.) Nike sold cross training shoes under the tag line "Bo Knows" because of the tacit implication that wearing those shoes would improve your abilities in everything.

Disney's famous "I'm going to Disney Land" Superbowl ads? They imply that champions go to Disney Land instead of Universal Studios or some other theme park.

Michelin understood that in order for their involvement in F1 to be commercially successful, something had to set them apart else their involvement wouldn't matter. That something was competition against another tire manufacturer. That's one of the reasons why they didn't even bother to submit a tender offer for the contract to be the exclusive tire provider for F1. Bridgestone learned this lesson, too. That's why they left the sport.

The psychology behind these kinds of endorsements is rooted in the idea that they denote an ability to share the success of whoever/whatever is endorsing them. This doesn't work if the winner of a race/championship uses the same stuff as the last place finisher. Again, this is why Bridgestone left.

Even Pirelli knows this. From the very beginning, they've said they want to compete against another tire manufacturer. They just didn't want to do it immediately upon entering the sport, because they were afraid of being mollywhopped by an experienced rival - perhaps rightly so.

Some say that any publicity is good publicity. Perhaps that's true for individuals, but it's certainly not the case for a company trying to make money. That's why Paul Hemberey constantly says "we were asked for this" every time someone puts a microphone in front of him. Just like his bosses know, he's perfectly aware of how powerful the psychology of product placement can be. Companies go to extraordinary lengths to avoid a lot of the publicity Pirelli is getting these days.

(For the record, NASCAR is a beast unto itself. The normal rules just don't apply. For whatever reason, their typical demographic has vastly different spending patterns when compared to other sports fans.)