planetf1.com

Shia Luck wrote:Would you let your daughter do a commercial for shower gel or moisturiser? How about a lead role in a Hollywood movie? Would you stop her from becoming a model / actor in the first place or limit the type of model or role she can be?

No, and I wouldn't stop her from becoming a Grid Girl either, if that's what she wanted to do. But then I'd also let her become a Trump campaign aide if for whatever twisted reason she wanted to do that. I wouldn't stop her from doing something I disapprove of.

I personally feel that the ubiquitous placing of exclusively female models in motorsport who serve no function except to be pretty is not a good thing, and a) encourages people to watch the series for sex appeal and b) implies that sex appeal is something you need to have for people to watch. I don't approve of selling your product on that basis, which is why I'm happy for the custom to have died out. And no, it wouldn't matter if it was males obviously chosen for the same criteria: I don't believe the Grid Girls are being taken advantage of or disadvantaged by their job, I just don't like the implications of their job.

I'd be happy to see F1 eliminate the Grid Girls and simply continue to employ those models as hostesses, ambassadors - whatever you want to call them - for the sport, who could fulfill the same useful functions that apparently they always have. But having a bunch of pretty women parade around the grid, stand around holding signs, clap for the drivers and finally decorate the podium for no purpose just doesn't do anything to advance the spectacle in my opinion.

The bottom line is that I'm sure plenty of women are happy to be used as sex appeal at a race in return for a decent amount of money. That doesn't mean I approve of the sport doing it: I think it's primitive and I don't like the perpetuation of the 'sex sells' stereotype. Yes, F1's Grid Girls were much classier than many, but the principle at the core of it is still the same: let's get a bunch of pretty women to stand around so (mostly male) viewers find the sport more interesting.

SDLRob wrote:How does removing Grid girls improve the sport? i just think there are better things to do than firing a load of people to keep a small (yet vocal) group of people (who i highly doubt watch F1 anyway) satisfied.... until they find something else to complain about.

it does nothing to improve F1...

Adding to that… some of the grid girls in some countries aren't exactly what I'd consider pleasing to the eye and in many places the women are dressed in more professional and even stewardess-like outfits as the carry the flag of their region.

As for those saying "about time", many other other sports and series feature pretty girls and cheerleaders and I don't recall it being an issue.
Placing the shoe on the other foot, whenever someone the likes of say David Beckham, Ryan Reynolds, Ryan Gosling, Channing Tatum, Chris Hemsworth or the like are shown exposing a little skin I don't hear it getting the same kind of scrutiny. This is just more incessant blood lust from the social police policing something that didn't need policing.

Exediron wrote:

Shia Luck wrote:Would you let your daughter do a commercial for shower gel or moisturiser? How about a lead role in a Hollywood movie? Would you stop her from becoming a model / actor in the first place or limit the type of model or role she can be?

I'd be happy to see F1 eliminate the Grid Girls and simply continue to employ those models as hostesses, ambassadors - whatever you want to call them - for the sport, who could fulfill the same useful functions that apparently they always have.

So it's OK for the sport to feature women in many roles but not grid girls… Makes perfect sense.

How about these women do all those things and the grid girl procession?

What most people don't realize is that many women who become professional cheerleaders or "dancers" like the Miami HEAT Dancers do so because of the opportunity of exposure which for them is the most difficult thing to come by in order to advance their careers. many of them want to model and act but find it difficult to catch that one break that leads to the rest of their lives and careers. I know this because I've worked with every professional sports franchise in South Florida for a decade and have become friends with many of their dancers and cheerleaders.

Ever heard of someone named Paula Abdul? Started as the hot Lakers cheerleader.
I don't get how featuring grid girls is considered exploitation yet The Bachelor is one of the most popular TV shows.
In case you've never seen it, they put shallow, attention hungry women on TV trying to PROVE they are the one to pick as a spouse in all of 2 weeks time.
Writing that I just realize I've come full circle!

One of the dancers I know… Trista Sutter who was runner up in the first season of the Bachelor and was subsequently feature as the "First Prize" for the spinoff, The Bachelorette, just happened to have been a Miami HEAT Dancer. Without the exposure she garnered as a Miami HEAT Dancer she more than likely would not have landed on TV. Things in life are vastly more complex than many imagine and what some people don't realize is that what they feel needs rectifying isn't necessarily of kilter.

Another HEAT Dancer, Johanna Gomez used her exposure with the Miami HEAT to get her foot in the door with a local news affiliate and is now a member of their daily telecast. The thing is that every year these sports franchises hold auditions and every year THOUSANDS of women show up to try and get on the roster for the same reasons. While some of the girls aren't of sound mind, most of them are college educated and have full-time careers while they dance or cheerlead for teams. One of those girls worked her way to become the HEAT's Choreographer while working her way up at Ryder Business Systems. Another of their choreographers happens to be one of my best friends and she's one of the best no-nonsense marketing minds you will ever meet.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:I don't get how featuring grid girls is considered exploitation yet The Bachelor is one of the most popular TV shows.

If you'll read my post a second time, you'll notice that exploitation has nothing to with it it. I don't like the low-brow marketing idea that you need sex appeal in everything: it's got nothing to do with exploitation.

I think the Grid Kids thing is great, love the idea of connecting the sport to grass roots this way. Just don't see why this is at the expense of the grid girls - could easily have both. Almost feels like a cheap way of justifying the decisions.

Also, this statement about grid girls "does not resonate with our brand values ". Anyone know what Liberty's brand values are exactly? They're not a brand, they're in investment company who sole reason for existence is return on investment and making very rich people even richer. That's it.

So Chase Carey removes the grid girls, but then says there will still be "pretty girls" at a GP.

I wish this guy would make his mind up..

Personally I think it's just another way of saving money - now they will have the kids do it free of charge !

CC "Actually if you just left it up to me, personally, I like the grid girls. But it’s not a decision for me, it’s a decision for fans."

For the fans? By the fans?

I don't get it....

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

KingVoid wrote:

DeadKenny wrote:Maybe in 10 or 20 years time, we will look back and wonder why we ever had grid girls and how disrespectful that was and how it sent a very mixed message to young girls about their value in society ?

I highly doubt that there are more than a thousand young girls on this entire planet who watch Formula 1. Teenage girls are literally the furthest thing away from F1's target demographic. They are too busy watching things like Game of Thrones to care about Formula 1.

Do you think that models in general are bad for young girls, because it's apparently wrong for an attractive woman to use her looks as a source of income?

You don't know this. Some of the most unusual people I know are fans of sports you wouldn't really put together. Hell, my girlfriend's mother, in her 70's is watching F1 religiously! Can't name a single driver, mainly because we don't speak the same language, but she is never missing a race. I also found out that my aunt, a school teacher, used to be a mad WRC fan, following Mouton back in the day and going to the Rally Acropolis. You just can't tell these things.

More than 10% of F1 fans are female, and 26% are under 25. So even assuming that the gender split is equal across genders that means that more than 2.5% of F1's fans are females under the age of 25. With ~400 million people watching Formula 1, that means there are around 10 million females under the age of 25 watching the sport.

(Source: https://f1survey.motorsport.com/ )

That figure is probably nonsense tbh.

Formula 1's official channel has 876,000 subscribers, and their most popular video on Formula 1's channel has 4.1 million viewers.

So 400 million people watch Formula 1, but less than 1% bother looking it up on YouTube?

UEFA Champions League final draws 400 million viewers, and Formula 1's popularity is not even in the same galaxy as the Champions League.

I've never subscribed to a YT F1 channel and I've been watching for 25 years plus. I think that probably speaks to age range or what generation the fans come from and their personal tastes more than as an indicator of F1's global audience.

Plus it only means 4m were interested in that specific video rather than only 1% bother to go to You Tube. (I've no idea what the video was)

The 400m figure is widely reported.

Is 400m the number of people who tune into Formula 1 at any given 15 minutes of the year? Or is 400m the number of people who actually follow, say at least 75% of the season?

Lotus49 wrote:I've never subscribed to a YT F1 channel and I've been watching for 25 years plus. I think that probably speaks to age range or what generation the fans come from and their personal tastes more than as an indicator of F1's global audience.

Plus it only means 4m were interested in that specific video rather than only 1% bother to go to You Tube. (I've no idea what the video was)

The 400m figure is widely reported.

yeah same. Never subscribed to YouTube, either. But I watch F1 practically religiously

KingVoid wrote:Formula 1's official channel has 876,000 subscribers, and their most popular video on Formula 1's channel has 4.1 million viewers.

So 400 million people watch Formula 1, but less than 1% bother looking it up on YouTube?

UEFA Champions League final draws 400 million viewers, and Formula 1's popularity is not even in the same galaxy as the Champions League.

Just as a little bit of trivia: the UEFA Champion's League YouTube channel has 827,000 subscribers. So maybe subscribers on a YouTube channel are not a reliable way of measuring a sport's viewership?

Not having them any more really isn't a ban. This is F1 deciding to drop grid girls, not the FIA announcing that no motorsport series will be allowed to have them.

That said, I think it's about time. Hopefully next to go will be the excessive focus on celebrities and random audience members (especially tiny children). I want to see the race action, the cars, the drivers, and the teams, and that's it. This whole focus on the 'glamour aspect' is misguided, in my opinion. It draws attention away from what's interesting. I'm not so wild about the grid kids thing either, and I don't understand why there must be a human holding the sign, but at least it could be cool for those kids and I suppose potentially help them with their racing careers down the road. And hey, maybe the broadcasters will decide to focus on them instead of the random kids in the audience. At least they'll be more relevant.

As far as the whole 'the sport is aimed at men' thing, maybe that was true at one point in the past, but it's a silly stance to keep which overlooks a sizeable portion of the audience and an even more sizeable portion of the potential audience. Just aim things at racing fans, focus on the racing (edit: and team/car development angle, lest this comment be misconstrued), and that'll be fine. No need to specifically pander to any other particular demographic, certainly not by trying to lure them in with attractive models, and especially not when doing so could be limiting the number of other people who are watching. That's just common sense from a business standpoint. I doubt very much anyone would be missing the grid girls if they'd never been there, so why is it such a big deal that they won't be from now on?

Zoue wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:I've never subscribed to a YT F1 channel and I've been watching for 25 years plus. I think that probably speaks to age range or what generation the fans come from and their personal tastes more than as an indicator of F1's global audience.

Plus it only means 4m were interested in that specific video rather than only 1% bother to go to You Tube. (I've no idea what the video was)

The 400m figure is widely reported.

yeah same. Never subscribed to YouTube, either. But I watch F1 practically religiously

Yeah, I really don't think the number of YouTube views/subscriptions is at all a reliable way to track interest in a sport. I watch every F1 session that is available here, read as much as I can about it online and in magazines, but hardly ever even look up a video on YouTube, much less subscribe to a channel. For that matter, I've never subscribed to a YouTube channel of any sort for anything I'm interested in.

Obviously 400 million isn't the number of dedicated fans. That's mostly going to be more general viewers who are watching on TV. Even if you assume the number of moderately dedicated fans is 4 million (which, considering that several responding so far don't look at YouTube videos, may be underselling it), that's still roughly 400,000 female fans and 80,000 of those under 25 using the percentage figures above -- but I see no reason to discount the general views for this reason. They always have the potential to become dedicated fans later, for one thing, and maybe some of those young female fans are more likely to do so if they don't perceive the unnecessary trappings of the sport as specifically catering to men. I doubt very much that there are young male fans out there who would never become F1 fans if it weren't for grid girls, so not having them hurts nothing in viewership terms.

For what it's worth, my impression from attending races is that the number of female attendees is significantly higher than 10%, probably closer to 30%. Maybe they're not all what we'd term fans, but they're at least interested enough to attend. I'm guessing the 10% is a low estimate. That survey didn't reach anything like everyone interested in the sport.

lucifers wrote:

ALESI wrote:

mcdo wrote:

ALESI wrote:I for one don't want any children on the grid... I don't care about the grid girls, but definitely don't want children there.

You know what this is don't you. They saw the positive publicity generated by Kimi and that crying kid...

And what's wrong with that?

I hate kids.

i for one dont hate kids but even i dont want them on the grid.

I have no issue with the kids on the grid but for those who do have an issue, you may wanna start skipping the prerace show.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/head ... rship.html

I'd rather have children on the grid that celebs who get interviewed on grids at their first ever F1 race. It's pathetic and an insult to those fans that have followed the sport, and spent a lot of money on watching it from shoddy grandstands and wet, muddy banks.

No interest in kids or celebs. I want the pre race show to be about F1, that's all. Now if there are kids or celebs or pretty women in the background while F1 is the feature, I can tolerate it, but I hate distractions such as WAGS etc.

Asphalt_World wrote:I'd rather have children on the grid that celebs who get interviewed on grids at their first ever F1 race. It's pathetic and an insult to those fans that have followed the sport, and spent a lot of money on watching it from shoddy grandstands and wet, muddy banks.

The next debate now, who escorts the kids to and on the grid? Some of them I assume will be well under the age of being able/allowed to act alone in a dangerous place.

Asphalt_World wrote:I'd rather have children on the grid that celebs who get interviewed on grids at their first ever F1 race. It's pathetic and an insult to those fans that have followed the sport, and spent a lot of money on watching it from shoddy grandstands and wet, muddy banks.

I don't have a problem with celebrities on the grid, other than the fact I usually have no idea who they are, and what they are celebrated for.

Haven't been here in a week. I thought there would be a lot more discussion over Alonso and the Fuji WEC change. Or IndyCar's initial success with their aeroscreen, making a mockery of F1's aeroscreen trial. Instead the top thread is still flippin' grid girls

I thought this was a motorsport forum

mcdo wrote:Haven't been here in a week. I thought there would be a lot more discussion over Alonso and the Fuji WEC change. Or IndyCar's initial success with their aeroscreen, making a mockery of F1's aeroscreen trial. Instead the top thread is still flippin' grid girls

I thought this was a motorsport forum

What is there to discuss? F1 didn't test a see-through screen decently, and the WEC situation is far from clear at the moment.

Fiki wrote:

mcdo wrote:Haven't been here in a week. I thought there would be a lot more discussion over Alonso and the Fuji WEC change. Or IndyCar's initial success with their aeroscreen, making a mockery of F1's aeroscreen trial. Instead the top thread is still flippin' grid girls

I thought this was a motorsport forum

What is there to discuss? F1 didn't test a see-through screen decently, and the WEC situation is far from clear at the moment.

Jesus Christ that's pathetic

Asphalt_World wrote:I'd rather have children on the grid that celebs who get interviewed on grids at their first ever F1 race. It's pathetic and an insult to those fans that have followed the sport, and spent a lot of money on watching it from shoddy grandstands and wet, muddy banks.

I dont mind the celebs as long as they are not doing the podium interviews.

mcdo wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mcdo wrote:Haven't been here in a week. I thought there would be a lot more discussion over Alonso and the Fuji WEC change. Or IndyCar's initial success with their aeroscreen, making a mockery of F1's aeroscreen trial. Instead the top thread is still flippin' grid girls

I thought this was a motorsport forum

What is there to discuss? F1 didn't test a see-through screen decently, and the WEC situation is far from clear at the moment.

Jesus Christ that's pathetic

Exediron wrote:

mcdo wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mcdo wrote:Haven't been here in a week. I thought there would be a lot more discussion over Alonso and the Fuji WEC change. Or IndyCar's initial success with their aeroscreen, making a mockery of F1's aeroscreen trial. Instead the top thread is still flippin' grid girls

I thought this was a motorsport forum

What is there to discuss? F1 didn't test a see-through screen decently, and the WEC situation is far from clear at the moment.

Jesus Christ that's pathetic

I agree.

Fiki wrote:

Exediron wrote:

mcdo wrote:

Fiki wrote:

mcdo wrote:Haven't been here in a week. I thought there would be a lot more discussion over Alonso and the Fuji WEC change. Or IndyCar's initial success with their aeroscreen, making a mockery of F1's aeroscreen trial. Instead the top thread is still flippin' grid girls

I thought this was a motorsport forum

What is there to discuss? F1 didn't test a see-through screen decently, and the WEC situation is far from clear at the moment.

Jesus Christ that's pathetic

I agree.

That's enough of that please, keep it on topic.

Now that Liberty have dealt with the grid girl issue, will they move on to countries hosting GPs with horrendous human rights records?

ALESI wrote:Now that Liberty have dealt with the grid girl issue, will they move on to countries hosting GPs with horrendous human rights records?

Sadly not $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

ALESI wrote:Now that Liberty have dealt with the grid girl issue, will they move on to countries hosting GPs with horrendous human rights records?

... including severest violations of women's rights. Hypocrisy at its best.

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

ALESI wrote:Now that Liberty have dealt with the grid girl issue, will they move on to countries hosting GPs with horrendous human rights records?

... including severest violations of women's rights. Hypocrisy at its best.

Yes, grid girls don't fit in with the values of the sport but producing propeganda for countries where women can get stoned to death for adultery apparently is.

I love it when folks get upset on behalf of other folks who are not upset at all. Personally, I'd be upset if I lost my job.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

ALESI wrote:Now that Liberty have dealt with the grid girl issue, will they move on to countries hosting GPs with horrendous human rights records?

... including severest violations of women's rights. Hypocrisy at its best.

Yes, grid girls don't fit in with the values of the sport but producing propeganda for countries where women can get stoned to death for adultery apparently is.

Sad, but true.

LBET wrote:I love it when folks get upset on behalf of other folks who are not upset at all. Personally, I'd be upset if I lost my job.

But did they really lose their job?

As far as I know, and I could very easily be wrong here, the agency employs the girls and the promoter engages the agency on an annual basis. Or, the agency gets the gig and they then go out & find the models to work it. Either way, once the event is over, there is no more job, unless of course the agency has signed a multi year contract to provide models for the race, and in that instance, it's the agency that's lost the work and if they want to keep these girls on their books then they'll have to go out and find more work.

Jezza13 wrote:

LBET wrote:I love it when folks get upset on behalf of other folks who are not upset at all. Personally, I'd be upset if I lost my job.

But did they really lose their job?

As far as I know, and I could very easily be wrong here, the agency employs the girls and the promoter engages the agency on an annual basis. Or, the agency gets the gig and they then go out & find the models to work it. Either way, once the event is over, there is no more job, unless of course the agency has signed a multi year contract to provide models for the race, and in that instance, it's the agency that's lost the work and if they want to keep these girls on their books then they'll have to go out and find more work.

No, they haven't lost their job, they've just lost a job. They're basically contractors; the F1 gig was probably the highest-paid one they did every year, but it was also probably only one weekend for each girl. Saying they've been put out of work is like implying that if F1 changes billboard design firms they've put that designer out of work. They won't get that (admittedly lucrative) contract next year, but they're still employed in the same profession they always were.

Exediron wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

LBET wrote:I love it when folks get upset on behalf of other folks who are not upset at all. Personally, I'd be upset if I lost my job.

But did they really lose their job?

As far as I know, and I could very easily be wrong here, the agency employs the girls and the promoter engages the agency on an annual basis. Or, the agency gets the gig and they then go out & find the models to work it. Either way, once the event is over, there is no more job, unless of course the agency has signed a multi year contract to provide models for the race, and in that instance, it's the agency that's lost the work and if they want to keep these girls on their books then they'll have to go out and find more work.

No, they haven't lost their job, they've just lost a job. They're basically contractors; the F1 gig was probably the highest-paid one they did every year, but it was also probably only one weekend for each girl. Saying they've been put out of work is like implying that if F1 changes billboard design firms they've put that designer out of work. They won't get that (admittedly lucrative) contract next year, but they're still employed in the same profession they always were.

Yeah that's what I thought.

What I've really enjoyed about this is watching the all feminists going for each others throats with the extreme saying about time because it exploits women and the moderates upset because they've lost a source of income from something they chose to do because of politically correct crap.

Now that they get kids instead of grown-up girls, I can't understand we don't get the same people up in arms about child abuse or children work.
A matter of time or do we have to wait for a handful of baby girls popping up among the baby boys ?

Harpo wrote:Now that they get kids instead of grown-up girls, I can't understand we don't get the same people up in arms about child abuse or children work.
A matter of time or do we have to wait for a handful of baby girls popping up among the baby boys ?

Don't think it's comparable, really. You've had ball boys and girls in tennis for as long as I can remember. I'm pretty confident all of them do it because they love the sport, not because they are press-ganged into it.

Not that I think the grid kids is a good idea. I think having little kids running around such a busy and high pressure environment right at the beginning of a race is a recipe for disaster, and in general I have an aversion to such saccharine nonsense. But I do get the kids themselves will love it and it will be a tremendous experience for them.

Harpo wrote:Now that they get kids instead of grown-up girls, I can't understand we don't get the same people up in arms about child abuse or children work.

Because that has nothing to do with why some of us were against grid girls?

That aside, I don't think anybody believes the grid kids are there for us to view as eye candy (or at least I hope not), so it's really not comparable at all.

Exediron wrote:

Harpo wrote:Now that they get kids instead of grown-up girls, I can't understand we don't get the same people up in arms about child abuse or children work.

Because that has nothing to do with why some of us were against grid girls?

It's because they have nothing to do with the reasons of being against grid girls, that the reasons of being against grid kids are different...

Not that I care that much about all this. They could as well have tried grid bassets, grid canaries and even grid goldfishes in grid aquarium (now that i write this, I wonder why they didn't come up with such a good idea).

Alright, enough of the strawman. Unless the kids are going to wear the outfits of the models from 2017 it's a moot point. And don't even get me started on the challenges of modifying clothes for a goldfish.