Tell Red Bull how you feel about their Drivers

[theblackangus]

To Dietrich Mateschitz, formula 1 is a marketing campaign for their energy drinks. Controversy like this can only be good for branding. When you see 2 RBR drivers wearing their overall appearing on the cover of the sport section, that is free marketing.

I'm not sure how its free?
Don't they pay alot to be in F1?
Controversy != Free branding. Nor good branding IMHO.

If they are looking for free advertising shouldn't they be sending Lance Armstrong gear to wear? Seems like they should by this reasoning. Or just send all the people in prison all over the world free gear? Costs much less than F1 and would seeming have a far greater reach.

To me this link of thinking comes from some sort of poor self rationalization.

[theblackangus]

If they did listen, they sure would fix the problem huh? Can you please explain to me how sacking a CEO, who has nothing to do with the games in any way, is listening to the community?

How is it that you believe the leader of a company has "Nothing to do with" what it does?
Last time I checked a leader is responsible for how the company is run. "I didnt know" isn't a valid excuse.

Oh and BTW this guy was happily trumpeting the micro-transaction model as his baby - that which you rightly say destroyed so many franchises.

A company is what the leaders promote. Fairly fitting that the CEO was let go, because as you say - many different studios were ruined, and each of those was not the decision of the studio I'd bet. This was a message from the board to its executive team that changes need to be made.

But sadly it will take alot to un-do the damage EA has done to itself.

[mx_tifoso]

...

Or just send all the people in prison all over the world free gear? Costs much less than F1 and would seeming have a far greater reach.

...

This is why we can't have nice things...

Everything has pretty rationale until you threw this wrench into the gears. I don't see the point of going to that extreme since it's not to difficult to see how attention from this weekend has undoubtedly given more exposure to Red Bull. Whether the action on track was positive or negative, it still makes people talk about them and as far as I'm concerned it wasn't something that did any legitimate harm to anyone so let's not make such a big deal about in terms of the corporation as a whole. I'm sure that the majority of consumers will continue to purchase the nasty stuff anyways, and unless someone is willing to dig into the sales records from Q1 until the end of the fiscal year to prove otherwise, I rest my case.

[mnmracer]

FWIW it appears that Dietrich Mateschitz is not pleased with what Vettel did.

was that from webber's father?

Mateschitz is to Webber what Marko is to Vettel.
Only Dietrich is higher in command (duh).

[theblackangus]

...

Or just send all the people in prison all over the world free gear? Costs much less than F1 and would seeming have a far greater reach.

...

This is why we can't have nice things...

Everything has pretty rationale until you threw this wrench into the gears. I don't see the point of going to that extreme since it's not to difficult to see how attention from this weekend has undoubtedly given more exposure to Red Bull. Whether the action on track was positive or negative, it still makes people talk about them and as far as I'm concerned it wasn't something that did any legitimate harm to anyone so let's not make such a big deal about in terms of the corporation as a whole. I'm sure that the majority of consumers will continue to purchase the nasty stuff anyways, and unless someone is willing to dig into the sales records from Q1 until the end of the fiscal year to prove otherwise, I rest my case.

Sorry I don't buy into having *any* talk is good talk. My example is supposed to be over the top, as its no less over the top saying "all marketing is good marketing" - Which appears to be what you are saying and truely why we cant have good things, because all the money to make something good is spent on marketing.

Honestly I'm kind confused how that sentence is OTT when the previous one wasn't!

You forgot to quote this:

Controversy != Free branding. Nor good branding IMHO.

Which was the point I was making with my two statements. Your specifically taking a comment out of context on purpose, and that's not very cool.

Im not sure how my comment at all deserves:

This is why we can't have nice things...

When you haven't choosen to comment on some of the more worthless comments in this thread.

[wesley123]

If they did listen, they sure would fix the problem huh? Can you please explain to me how sacking a CEO, who has nothing to do with the games in any way, is listening to the community?

How is it that you believe the leader of a company has "Nothing to do with" what it does?
Last time I checked a leader is responsible for how the company is run. "I didnt know" isn't a valid excuse.

The problem is that the games are crap and only go about taking big amounts of money.

Qho makes these games? The developers. Who leads these developpers? The group leader. Multiple of these groups are housed to do the same project, and together create a game. Who leads all these groups? The studio's director. This director is then again part of a group, has to respond to persons. However, he does not respond to the CEO, no he responds either to marketing, the team that gave the studio the job, or someone else. Not the CEO.

The CEO is the main face of a company and also the main spokesperson, he then is responsible for the company's image. He is probably the main chairman of all the stockholders, who together appoint people to high functions, like head of marketing for example.

So the CEO adds absolutely nothing to the game cash cow, it is however partly the shareholders that want to see a certain profit, but they have very little input how this profit is generated. Then at lower points it is decided how to make this profit.

A leader of the company, like the director or CEO is responsible for the companies image, much like the head of Marketing is responsible for the Marketing's team performance. Their heads will roll the first because his responsibility to uphold a good image didnt succeed.

But to add another something, the CEO probably has never ever even touched an EA game or any other game, he is only there to be the face of a company and it is his responsibility to uphold a good corporate image, that's all.

[theblackangus]

If they did listen, they sure would fix the problem huh? Can you please explain to me how sacking a CEO, who has nothing to do with the games in any way, is listening to the community?

A leader of the company, like the director or CEO is responsible for the companies image, much like the head of Marketing is responsible for the Marketing's team performance. Their heads will roll the first because his responsibility to uphold a good image didnt succeed.

And in this case the CEO was pushing - charge more for the same content, put the game out whether it was finished or not, and micro-transactions.

So at the end of the day - EA's image of poorly executed games from houses that have previously executed great games comes down to the corporate polices that the companies leaders up hold. You can't tell me every single studio and game that has been wrecked by EA all of a sudden had the same bad ideas once EA purchased them. Companies are like organisms - The brain tells the rest what to do, other bits to it to the best (or not) of their ability. If the brain cannot give the correct instructions to the fingers then they will never be able to pickup the correct pieces.

Are you saying that episodial, bugginess, and micro-transactional systems didn't ruin the games? Because those are what ruined them for me. All of those are over arching management decisions be it CEO, CIO, COO etc. (Extreme Bugginess is a management problem because no developer says - OK lets just ship our broken ****). The CEO is responsible, ultimately, for all the actions underneath him, those are the people he choose for the positions making bad decisions and telling him they are good decisions. He choose to say - Yes I agree with those bad decisions. So he should be the 1st to go, but hopefully won't be the only one to go. Surely your not saying the CEO has no influence in the company outside a small box of his direct reports?

At a good company everyone does have access to the C-level people and everyone opinions can count.
Lets take the Valve example - They have a much better track record than most and a much better management style than most. (IMHO).

Everyone at a company is responsible for that companies success. If you say "Not my job" then you are not being a team player nor a valuable player. At the C level its all their jobs, and for CEO its whatever needs to be done to make sure the company has harmony in function and results through out all organizations. I'm not saying that he micromanages down, but he certainly can turn a blind eye for product after product.

That is part of the problem in the world today - too many people say "Not my job". Success is everyone's job starting at the top.

[xxChrisxx]

Controversy != Free branding. Nor good branding IMHO.

It's actually a fairly common marketing tactic to drum up awareness or get more exposure, of which some companies go further than others, and to varying degrees of success. Benetton comes to mind of successful use of sometimes rather extreme controversy.

Someone disobeying a team order (of which the team really aren't at fault are they) and shafting his team mate; doing something that can only really be described as 'mildly naughty' in the grand scheme of things, doesn't exactly have the same impact.

If Vettel had mown down a row or orphans holding kittens to overtake Webber, then you may have a point.

[Cam]

When we look at team actions, we only have to look at at this classic example of how it all turn bad.

On 28 September 2008, on the fourteenth lap of the Singapore race, the Renault R28 driven by Piquet crashed into the circuit wall at turn seventeen

After an investigation, Renault F1 were charged with conspiracy on 4 September, and were to answer the charge on 21 September 2009.

Renault title sponsor ING has announced on Monday that it will end its association with the French team, and pull out of Formula One racing altogether, following the 2009 season.

Now, yes, ING have sited other factors, but the fact ING sponsored a F1 team that cheated - would have had serious implications and would have been at the front when they made this decision. No giant is infallible and public perceptions matter. If Red Bull are seen to allow cheating and bad conduct - that's not good PR.

That said, will they do anything about it, one can only guess.

[Richard]

So at the end of the day - EA's image of poorly executed games from houses that have previously executed great games comes down to the corporate polices that the companies leaders up hold.

So to apply that to RB, they are still winning races and championships (ie still making great games). So the tiff in Sepang will be quickly forgotten in PR terms, the PR machine will record it as another win.

[wesley123]

A leader of the company, like the director or CEO is responsible for the companies image, much like the head of Marketing is responsible for the Marketing's team performance. Their heads will roll the first because his responsibility to uphold a good image didnt succeed.

And in this case the CEO was pushing - charge more for the same content, put the game out whether it was finished or not, and micro-transactions.

He was not. The CEO doesnt have the right alone to make the decision, nope there are also chairholders who all have a piece of the cake. The shareholders can say "we want huge amounts of money." But between that and making a game there are a lot of ways to interpret this goal from the shareholders.

Also, there is the possibility from the CEO to state that "earning huge amounts of money" shouldnt be the main goal, who knows? Either way, he is not to blame, however he takes the heat because the company's image is a responsibility of him.

So he has nothing to do with the crap they made, but he has something to do with the image that was damaged. The next CEO will face the same thing because nothing has changed, why? because the CEO doesnt amke the games.

So at the end of the day - EA's image of poorly executed games from houses that have previously executed great games comes down to the corporate polices that the companies leaders up hold. You can't tell me every single studio and game that has been wrecked by EA all of a sudden had the same bad ideas once EA purchased them. Companies are like organisms - The brain tells the rest what to do, other bits to it to the best (or not) of their ability. If the brain cannot give the correct instructions to the fingers then they will never be able to pickup the correct pieces.

Nope I dont think that companies would suddenly have bad taste. I however do believe that they are pushed to near impossible date, have given goals of profit and have to meet those goals. And these numbers just come from other departments.

Are you saying that episodial, bugginess, and micro-transactional systems didn't ruin the games? Because those are what ruined them for me. All of those are over arching management decisions be it CEO, CIO, COO etc. (Extreme Bugginess is a management problem because no developer says - OK lets just ship our broken ****).

Sure none would say that, but no one would say "Oh I'm happy if our game rates a 5 out of 10". They however have to meet certain goals, set by other departments, which are based on the wishes of the shareholders.

The CEO is responsible, ultimately, for all the actions underneath him, those are the people he choose for the positions making bad decisions and telling him they are good decisions. He choose to say - Yes I agree with those bad decisions. So he should be the 1st to go, but hopefully won't be the only one to go. Surely your not saying the CEO has no influence in the company outside a small box of his direct reports?

The CEO does have his infulence yes, but he cant go around the Shareholders and neither can just say "Battlefield 4 is finished tomorrow." He has his influence yes, but that has it's limits.

Everyone at a company is responsible for that companies success. If you say "Not my job" then you are not being a team player nor a valuable player.

A team player also has it's limits, I mean as a programmer you arent going to help write the story for example. Still I agree the company as a whole is responsible. Yet there is one to represent every one of these employees.

That is part of the problem in the world today - too many people say "Not my job". Success is everyone's job starting at the top.

Honestly, wouldnt you if you got better off from it?

[theblackangus]

Everyone at a company is responsible for that companies success. If you say "Not my job" then you are not being a team player nor a valuable player.

A team player also has it's limits, I mean as a programmer you arent going to help write the story for example. Still I agree the company as a whole is responsible. Yet there is one to represent every one of these employees.

That is part of the problem in the world today - too many people say "Not my job". Success is everyone's job starting at the top.

Honestly, wouldnt you if you got better off from it?

Your are paid to bring success to a company with your work and dedication. And in most people's mind they are better off by not trying because they are getting paid and can muck around.

I certainly have never said - "Not my Job" to the company that provides me work.

As for the rest, I guess different corporate cultures between our companies.

[theblackangus]

Controversy != Free branding. Nor good branding IMHO.

It's actually a fairly common marketing tactic to drum up awareness or get more exposure, of which some companies go further than others, and to varying degrees of success. Benetton comes to mind of successful use of sometimes rather extreme controversy.

Someone disobeying a team order (of which the team really aren't at fault are they) and shafting his team mate; doing something that can only really be described as 'mildly naughty' in the grand scheme of things, doesn't exactly have the same impact.

If Vettel had mown down a row or orphans holding kittens to overtake Webber, then you may have a point.

A common tactic by poor marketers maybe.....

[wesley123]

Controversy != Free branding. Nor good branding IMHO.

It's actually a fairly common marketing tactic to drum up awareness or get more exposure, of which some companies go further than others, and to varying degrees of success. Benetton comes to mind of successful use of sometimes rather extreme controversy.

Someone disobeying a team order (of which the team really aren't at fault are they) and shafting his team mate; doing something that can only really be described as 'mildly naughty' in the grand scheme of things, doesn't exactly have the same impact.

If Vettel had mown down a row or orphans holding kittens to overtake Webber, then you may have a point.

A common tactic by poor marketers maybe.....

It is an tactic that is used once in a while and it actually works. Causing controversy raises human interest which attracts a person to the brand they are trying to sell, but of course there is a difference between causing controversy and just doing dumb stuff.

An recent example of good use of controversial marketing(is that a term?);

-Here on Holland there is a weekly(or was it daily?) show called Voetbal International(A program discussion soccer/football). This show has been going on for years with the same hosts. But a while ago 2 of the hosts got in an fight, calling eahc other names etc. etc. One of them walked out of the show. This was of course talked about a lot in the media after that, it was a huge hype for a few days that caused the show to regain a bit of attention.

Barely anyone gives a damn about actual quality but rather buys products on marketing, and in that a famous person is of importance, I mean, why would your hero lie to you right? Vettel is of unknown value to the red Bull brand, much as Travis Pastrana etc. etc.

An incident like this raiseses knowledge of the Red Bull brand, 90% doesnt even remotely have an idea what actually happened and will all think this guy they see on their Red Bull cans defeated his team mate and is therefore substantially better. Yes, for the people that actually follow F1 that sucks, but the rest of the world do not, and in the end it all goes to how much they sell, not how many people like the product.

Humans love controversy, and it is a highly succesful way to promote things, whether it is something in the news or a brand.

[Clew]

I'm not entirely angry with SV. He's a racer and did what he does best, passes everyone in sight. These drivers are under a lot of pressure in the heat of battle and loose it sometimes when the checkered flag is in sight. NR could have passed LH but kept his cool and didn't. I wonder what would have happened if LH and NR were first and second in the race. Would NR have stayed in second?