by Marc Bakker
EVERY five years, the Singapore Grand Prix contract is up for renewal and, just like last time, it has generated a lot of discussion. Sadly, this year’s discussions seem to have gotten off track (Hey, I had to work in a race-related analogy somewhere, may as well get it out of the way early).
It’s been an interesting week for fans and detractors of F1 alike and probably a very frustrating one for F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone. Comments and clarifications have been flying back and forth, with enough twists and turns to give even veteran F1 drivers whiplash (Okay, that was the last racing analogy, promise).
The narrative being built in the media is that Mr Ecclestone accused Singapore of not wanting to continue hosting Grand Prix races after the contract with F1 expires next year. He was skewered for his words, to the point where he had to “backtrack” and say nice things about Singapore again.
The problem is, not a lot of air-time is being given to what I believe are some salient points in the whole controversy. Such as:
1. Bernie has been misquoted
No media has mentioned this, but Mr Ecclestone was clearly misquoted. Specifically, those jumping on the “Bash Bernie Bandwagon” forgot to translate one very important word. That word is “maybe”.
If you read the original article as it was published in Auto Motor und Sport, the pertinent quote reads:
“Schauen Sie sich an, was wir für Singapur getan haben. Ja, der Grand Prix hat Singapur viel Geld gekostet. Aber er hat ihnen auch viel Geld gebracht. Singapur war plötzlich mehr als nur ein Flugplatz, um von dort irgendwo hin zu fliegen. Jetzt glauben sie, dass sie ihr Ziel erreicht haben und wollen vielleicht keinen Grand Prix mehr.”
This has been loosely translated as:
“Look at what we have done for Singapore. Yes, the Grand Prix has cost Singapore a lot of money, but we’ve also made them a lot of money. Singapore was suddenly more than just an airport to fly off to somewhere. Now they believe they have reached their goal and they do not want a Grand Prix anymore.”
This makes for a juicy headline, but the correct translation is that Singapore MAYBE doesn’t want a Grand Prix anymore, which isn’t as controversial and stands to reason since negotiations are ongoing. As far as negotiation tactics go, pretending you’re not that keen on the product you’re looking to buy is possibly the oldest trick in the book.
2. This is all part of larger negotiations
Make no mistake, this is a negotiation and both sides are determined to reach the most favourable conclusion. As part of the process, F1 needs to emphasise all the great things the Grand Prix brings and the local organisers need to point out that the Grand Prix isn’t what it used to be and should pay less for hosting it. It’s a dance as old as time.
Or, to put it in racing terms, this isn’t their first time around the track (So I lied; it’s hard to stop).
Every year, new cities are added and while others fall by the wayside. The same goes for drivers and, to a certain extent, for teams as well. It’s a constant struggle for F1 to find new players.
With new host cities come new sponsorship opportunities, not just for Mr Ecclestone, but for the F1 teams as well. Just as getting new drivers of different nationalities will draw in new sponsors from different parts of the world for teams and the sport. It also draws in more viewers and fans, which in turn also attracts more sponsors, etc. Everything is connected.
3. The busine$$ of F1 is largely about perception
If you look at past statements, Mr Ecclestone has gone out of his way to praise Singapore as the way forward for other F1 races and, despite having sold most of his rights to new owners, it’s in his own best interest for host cities to make their Grand Prix weekends a success.
This is because none of these negotiations take place in a vacuum. Other host cities are watching how things go with Singapore to see how much room they have to manoeuvre. There’s no better advertisement for the benefits of F1 than when host cities are successful.
One of the reasons why Singapore is such a big F1 success story is that Singapore boasts a very strong entertainment line up alongside the F1 race. A host of bands like Bon Jovi, Maroon 5, The Killers, Kylie Minogue, Robbie Williams, Rihanna, Shakira, Linkin Park and a veritable legion of 80s pop stars have graced the Padang Stage during the race weekend.
Arguably the music could even be more popular than the racing.
What really matters though is that the Singapore race makes for great television. This is where the true synergy lies for Singapore and for F1. The view of the Singapore skyline, the lights, the glitz, the glamour, the racing, the music, the parties; it all comes together to form one heck of a show. This has beneficial ripple effect for both F1 and Singapore.
Mr Ecclestone wasn’t exaggerating when he said the F1 helped put Singapore on the map, but what he can’t express until the negotiations are over, is that Singapore also helped to revitalise F1 and is showing how older races breathe new life and excitement (and money) into their traditional event formats. This is especially true for countries that don’t have a strong racing culture – which are most countries.
4. It’s a symbiotic relationship, but the balance of power has shifted
Much has been said of F1’s dwindling numbers in terms of viewership and attendance, but this is still a sport with an annual global viewership of 600 million. Not many sports can boast that kind of global numbers or that level of fanatical following. That’s what makes the sport so valuable for sponsors and for the host cities.
Dwindling viewership and attendance numbers are a real cause for concern to the sport and by extension to Mr Ecclestone. This is the underlying worry that the interview in Auto Motor und Sport was addressing.
What is being lost in the current discourse is that the interview was about the future of the sport and the very real threats to F1. The point that Mr Ecclestone was making is that the sport needs to stay exciting, because if it doesn’t, there will be an exodus of host cities and of teams. In some cases, that might be better for the sport (and by extension of the business).
There’s something about F1 that excites passions, for fans and non-fans alike. This discussion is far from over, not just because people are passionate about their views, but because there are real consequences to the decision to proceed or call it quits.
For example, hosting the Singapore Grand Prix doesn’t just bring in tourism dollars during race weekend, there are also visitors who come to Singapore’s shores throughout the year inspired by the beautiful skyline glimpsed on television.
Then there’s the prickly issue of all the jobs that having a race in Singapore creates, besides for the people who work directly at SGP, there are those who set up the track, lighting, and grandstands months before the race weekend starts.
And there’s the army of volunteers, race officials, security personnel, etc. Incidentally, this same army of race officials also officiate at karting and other motorsport-related events, so losing the Grand Prix might also impact the nascent local motorsports scene in unpredictable ways.
On the other side of the equation, there’s the inconvenience of road closures, low foot traffic during the F1 build up in certain malls and F&B establishments, etc.
This is not a simple decision to make and we’re all better served when we can move the discussion past our love and hate for the sport and focus on the benefits and drawbacks of F1 in Singapore. A good place to start is to not get distracted by inflammatory public statements, especially when they turn out to be misinterpreted.
Marc is Marketing Director at Right Hook Communications, a boutique PR agency that likes to push boundaries and buttons. He was involved in F1 for three years, as a member of ING Group’s ING Renault Formula 1 Sponsorship Team, attending races around the world, creating unforgettable experiences for guests, making sure the ING brand stood out from competitors and generally helping to get the most value out of the sponsorship.
Featured image by Natassya Siregar.
If you like this article, Like The Middle Ground‘s Facebook Page as well!
For breaking news, you can talk to us via email.
The post Why S’pore and F1 are good for each other – if the price is right appeared first on The Middle Ground.