When F1's heavy-handed charm offensive has left a bad taste

Liberty Media and the Formula One Group are publicly listed companies, which means a green or red number next to their stock price indicates just how well life is going. Naturally, this leads to plenty of PR spin to soften any bad news so the value is protected. This is nothing new and hardly exclusive to F1. But recently, the charm offensive bordered on the offensive.

When the championship was ascending the popularity mountain as Drive to Survive viewers tuned in to the 2021 dogfight between Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen, F1 was content to disclose the size of its TV audiences. On the eve of each season, growth and percentage gains were shouted about. Granted, contentious and compelling campaigns don’t come around often so a dip – the intrigue surrounding the landmark pivot to ground-effects for 2022 considered – is understandable. But now F1 keeps schtum.

Instead, it trumpets social media engagement to show F1 is still on the up. Although, recent analysis by social intelligence company Buzz Radar pointed to “significant drops in the overall mentions of F1, and dismal numbers in the growth of new followers”. Some thanks must go to Red Bull’s domination for that. F1 fired back, arguing the Buzz statistics were out by as much as 800%.

Around the same time, a rapid-fire run of sprint races arrived in Qatar, the USA and Brazil. They were unspectacular, so drivers and fans complained. But F1 hit back with 27 data points to prove how successful the Saturday format change is.

Apart from these percentages seeming selective, they drew questionable comparisons.
A sprint qualifying shootout will always attract more viewers than practice, plus there were holes in F1 noting the 2023 Azerbaijan GP generated 60% more impressions than the previous race in Australia. Much more of the world was awake for the Baku event. The audience jump could not be attributed solely to one round featuring a sprint.

Photo by: Jake Grant / Motorsport Images

Verstappen was critical of the whole Las Vegas event until he changed his tune post-race

Then came Las Vegas, the £355million posterchild for F1’s recent success. It got off to a tricky start when a water valve cover lifted, causing FP1 to be abandoned nine minutes in. Then FP2 was delayed by 2.5 hours before fans were turfed out.

Loose furniture has been a problem in Azerbaijan and Monaco in recent years. But it was the manner of the defence that put noses out of joint. No apology (most likely to avoid admitting liability for legal reasons), only a $200 voucher to spend on merchandise, and a sense organisers were patting themselves on the back when FP2 ran “successfully”.

Toto Wolff, a one-third owner of the Mercedes team, lost his rag when a journalist called out proceedings. He said: “It’s completely ridiculous! How can you even dare trying to talk bad about an event that sets the new standards to everything?”
Many suggested his impassioned response was partly motivated by an interest to see Vegas succeed as the value of his asset
might also be impacted.

Undoubtably, the race itself was brilliantly entertaining. But the champion had been privately encouraged to change his tune

The Sin City weekend then wrapped with the podium finishers being asked just how brilliant the shiny new event had been. These were cringey exchanges. The victorious Verstappen, a vocal critic throughout, was suddenly much more positive. Undoubtably, the race itself was brilliantly entertaining. But the champion had been privately encouraged to change his tune.

It’s this heavy-handed approach that inspires the chagrin. Yes, it’s the expectation for series chiefs to paint an especially positive picture. But not to the point where it feels as though people are being hit over the head with just how amazing everything always is for the sake of that share price.

Photo by: Andy Hone / Motorsport Images

Will F1 find a better tone to its Las Vegas GP hype for next year's event?