Indy F1 PR Damage Control

[gma]

To turn this back to the original question ...

"Who suffered the biggest black eye in Public Relations?"

The fans - for their reaction of entitlement.

There's a cultural problem that people think they're entitled to everything - including a show.

F1 is not a show.

It is a sporting competition operated by a private entity. We have the choice of attending or watching or not. Buying a ticket to the event obligates the event to nothing beyond granting you access to the event to observe what occurs - regardless of what occurs.

Human drama at events like this come in all forms - your hero wins, loses, becomes injured, doesn't compete due to the flu or has to depart before the contest to be with an ailing parent. It rains and events are cancelled or postponed. Terrorist threats alter or cancel events. Competing nearby events split the talent pool and there aren't enough entries to justify a full payback. Some rookie wins the race. It goes on and on. All of this is life and competition and human drama – embrace the privilege of experiencing it and learning from it – or not.

Our ticket is the action of being witness to what occurs - regardless of the outcome. It guarantees us nothing and it does NOT justify angry, irresponsible and juvenile reactions derived from the misplaced emotion of feeling disrespected, jaded or denied. We are entitled to nothing but the opportunity to spectate.

Everything that occurred made sense. Everything that occurred was right. Everything that occurred was fair. Though positions differ, these details will be sorted out in time, but it's not our affair other than to offer an opinion, discuss and learn ... learn ...

But to break it down, the first shortcoming was the Michelin teams' failure to bring adequate equipment. No one else in the situation was obligated to alter anything to accommodate this shortcoming. The rules - as they stand now - justify the actions of everyone else who disagreed to bend for the sake of the Michelin teams.

We can have the opinion that everyone else was mean in not making some change to permit all cars to start, but remember - the rules are what are right and 'right is fair'.

We can say that people were mean in not doing something in order to put on a 20 car show. Remember – as I wrote above, F1 is not a show. No party had the obligation to guarantee the audience a 20-car event.

In short, the losers on the PR end are the people who don't yet have their hands around the neck of the concept that we can control so little of what happens and only how we react to it.

I won't spew here beyond this. I'll be producing a cast on this and will offer the link here for those who would like to listen.

Thx for reading.

HW

[Burt Munro]

Buying a ticket to the event obligates the event to nothing beyond granting you access to the event to observe what occurs - regardless of what occurs.

 

I strongly disagree!

Yes, we buy a ticket to observe what occurs.  There is a certain level of expectation that creates the value of the ticket.  

You buy a ticket to a High School basketball game with a certain level of the performance you will witness.  The expectation is consistant with the cost of the ticket - say $4 for a HS game.

You buy a ticket to the College Final Four in Basketball and have a different level of expectation and consequently a higher price to the ticket - let's say $250.  

When you purchase a ticket to the Formula 1 US Grand Prix you have a certain level of expectation of what you will observe.  If 14 cars crashed out and there were only 6 cars running at the end, you have no control over that.  If 20 cars start the preview lap and 14 pull off in unison, prior to the green flag, it's another situation completely.  

How much information were the fans given regarding this situation prior to the start of the race?  My understanding is that it was a complete surprise to those outside of the pit area.  Did they have sufficient information to make a judgement call as to whether the price of the ticket matched the intended value? I don't believe so.

I could go on and on with analogies related to perceived value, but I'm sure you get my point.  Yes, we have no control over the ultimate outcome of a race.  But a ticket holder is entitled to view an event that meets the value of the ticket - not an orchestrated political statement that is in effect a boycott.

[gma]

Good points, RWB,

but ...

" How much information were the fans given regarding this situation prior to the start of the race?  My understanding is that it was a complete surprise to those outside of the pit area. "

They knew. No one I spoke with was in the dark leading up to the event.

Even as the pit lane opened 15 minutes prior to start, the six Bridgestone cars immediately took the sighting lap and stopped on the grid. The balance of the field took their time and came very close to the closure of the pit lane exit, but all formed on the grid. This created confusion with many fans as many thought the 14 wouldn't race at all, but again; the ones I spoke with knew and understood what the issue was. It was explained very clearly over the track PA and almost everyone is in cellular communication with people in front of a TV. They knew.

Now ...

Here's the weird thing ...

20 cars started the 2005 USGP.

'Starting the race' is defined as assuming your spot on the grid. Note that the classification listed the 14 as 'out' - not 'dns'. Technically, they competed. They simply retired of their own volition after concluding that their equipment was not fit for the contest.

So ...

We DID get a 20 car start ... technically.

Ticket value ...

It's worth what you can get for it.

Period.

Tickets to Lebron James' high school game were in the hundreds of dollars because that's what the market would bear.

At the end of the day, regardless of what was paid for a ticket, the reality of the ticket does not change - it represents your permission to be at the event. It is not a contract of obligation on the part of the event to the ticket holder to conduct the event in a manner to the liking or dislike of the spectator. F1 and the competitors conducted the USGP in accordance with what was permitted by the rules that govern the operation of F1 - a private entity.

BTW, ...

Should Champ Car have sent the drivers onto the Fort Worth oval even though some were blacking out just for the sake of putting on a show? Should they have reset the blow-off valves so everyone was down 100 HP? Should they have added three or four chicanes? The fans that weekend got what they paid for - a motorsports contest. The outcome and what transpired was unusual, but the event still happened.

Good point, though. I'm glad you raised it. Thank you for doing so.

[Woofentino Pugrossi]

The decision of 7 teams not to race Sunday could have as much to do with internal issues within F1 as anything.....

Formula One is starkly divided.

In one camp is Max Mosley, the president of racing's world governing body, the FIA. He is joined by F1's multibillionaire commercial director, Bernie Ecclestone, and by Ferrari - the sport's most powerful team.
  
In the other camp are the nine remaining teams, and key Formula One manufacturers BMW, Mercedes and Renault. The group is considering running a breakaway series in 2008, and also has the support of Japan's two manufacturers in F1 - Toyota and Honda.

After two Michelin tires failed in Friday's practice sessions for the U.S. Grand Prix - one causing a wreck that prevented Toyota's Ralf Schumacher from competing - Michelin said its tires were unsafe for Indianapolis.

Michelin wanted a curve installed going into turn 13, slowing the cars and sparing the tires. Nine of the 10 teams backed the French tire company. But Mosley and Ferrari were opposed. Seven of F1's 10 teams use Michelin tires, with Ferrari, Jordan and Minardi running on Bridgestone.

Mosley has been playing hardball with the nine renegade teams, and the five manufacturers, ever since they boycotted meetings called by him in January and April to discuss regulations for the 2008 season. On Monday, the FIA summoned the seven teams that use Michelin tires to a hearing June 29.

Minardi team owner Paul Stoddart, who serves as spokesman for the nine teams, has called for Mosley to resign. Ecclestone's former lawyer and friend, Mosley has been accused of being dictatorial. Stoddart has called for "more transparency in how F1 is run, a precise regulatory process and a stable and consistent way the rules are applied."

The teams also want a bigger cut.

Formula One teams have complained that Ecclestone shares too little of the sport's commercial rights income, which was estimated at $800 million in 2003. Teams receive about 23 percent. Ecclestone has amassed a fortune estimated at $3.7 billion in three decades of running F1.

Joie Chitwood, CEO and president of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, called Sunday's fiasco in Indianapolis a dark day for the sport.

"Obviously, we are as disappointed over this event as anything that we've had in our history," he said.

Asked how it would affect F1's future in the U.S, he replied: "I would say it is a major setback."
 

Gotta link to that story?

[Burt Munro]

Trying to find the link.... I remember that it was an AP story and that I couldn't copy the link because it was protected.  I'll keep trying to find it!

[Scott]

All I know is, I've never been more rivited to the TV for an F1 race than I was during the pre-race coverage up to the actual start of the race.  If nothing else, it was way more interesting than most F1 races!

[Burt Munro]

Actually the story was from CBS Sportsline

http://cbs.sportsline.com/autoracing/story/8581180

[Woofentino Pugrossi]

Actually the story was from CBS Sportsline

http://cbs.sportsline.com/autoracing/story/8581180

Thanks