Formula 1 motor racing

As a fan of motorsport I find the current dispute between the teams and the FIA as governing body over the proposed rules from 2010 including a budget cap both fascinating and frustrating in equal measure - fascinating from the perspective of understanding the power struggles in the sport and how it has been run in the past, many details of which are being revealed after years of secrecy and frustrating because the politics is getting in the way of the sport.

As a marketer, however, I noticed an interesting point with regards to the proposals for the budget cap. That is that marketing expenditure is not included within the £40million cap which as I write is in the rules for those teams choosing to run to the cap in 2010. The regulations specifically stating:

Section 5.4 - Relevant expenditure shall include all expenditure, valued in accordance with these Regulations, which, irrespective of its source, is directly or indirectly connected with the CRT’s (Cost-Regulated Team) participation in the Championship save for expenditure : (a) the sole purpose of which is marketing or hospitality;

In my view, and generally accepted within marketing, product development is a marketing activity. The product of a Formula 1 team is the car they produce. Therefore taking the regulation literally, as a marketer, the teams would not be limited on the amount of money they spend on car development which is precisely the area the FIA are trying to limit!

It does say in the rules "In the event that the provisions of these Regulations admit of more than one interpretation, they shall be interpreted in a manner designed to facilitate the achievement of the overriding objective" which I guess would over-rule my thought, as would the rule "The burden is on the CRTs to ensure that they comply with the letter and the spirit both of these Regulations in general and the Cost Cap in Article 5 in particular.". Despite those comments, however, I do get the feeling that the FIA do not understand the term "marketing" and are therefore responsible for another crime against marketing!

The Apprentice 2009

I wasn't intending to mention the programme The Apprentice again on here, but after watching this weeks episode - rebranding Margate - I changed my mind. Prior to this episode the series has had less misuse of the word marketing than previously, but in one episode that maybe changed. There were numerous mentions of "marketing" which should have been "promotion", this coming from the teams, Sir Alan and the clients of the activity - the agencies and the Margate councillors.

This type of use of the word marketing has come to be expected on the programme, but the real issue I had this week was that the task was billed as "rebranding". I don't think it was re-branding, the requirement of the teams was "repositioning". In deciding which market to appeal to they were creating a position for Margate in the holiday destination market, their slogans being designed (hopefully on their part) to make Margate attractive to their selected audience. Rebranding would have required a lot more work than could possibly be achieved in a two or three day activity - true rebranding would involve many of the businesses in Margate and could take two or three years to achieve.

As for the output of the losing team - trying to associate a half empty leaflet and a picture which required, rather than painted, a thousand words as a poster with "marketing" was a true crime against marketing.