On the eve of the 2023 season, caytoo analysed the 300+ sponsors across Formula 1 to see how the landscape has changed and the key sectors that the individual teams should be prioritising.

Over the last months, the 10 Formula One teams and the organisation itself have signed nearly 14 new sponsors per month. When combined with the sponsors still there and the ones that have been lost, Information Technology has seen the biggest increase in the number of sponsors (+15), narrowly ahead of Financial Services (+14) and Consumer Goods (+8).

IT’s growth was driven by Software (now the #1 sub sector, up from #4) and Cybersecurity brands; Financial Services growth was driven by Investment/Trading brands (up from #12 to #7) while Consumer Goods was driven by Accessories brands such as luggage and sunglasses.

Consequently, IT and Consumer Goods are the most common sponsors in F1, each accounting for 22% of sponsors. IT and Formula 1 are particularly natural bedfellows; technology powers the sport and so many partnerships are technical supply or value in kind deals. Cognizant (Aston Martin) and Oracle’s RedBull deal show that the tech can power the car and the partnership delivers for the brand.

These true partnerships lower costs, provide technology and revenue for the team and brand assets for the partner. The demonstration of the technology in action adds authenticity by showing that it delivers elite performance.

Consumer Goods is also a natural partner; clothing, watches, sunglasses and luggage reflect the sport’s close links with fashion and its globetrotting DNA including some of the world’s most glamorous locations. In turn the rise of Investment/Trading brands – both B2C and B2B – mirror the sport’s significant financial status and its large segment of affluent followers.

In contrast, Industrials (-8) and Automotive (-6) saw the biggest decreases in the number of sponsors. Industrials’ decline was led by Manufacturing/Engineering firms while Automotive’s was driven by the departure of various components brands and truck manufacturers.

So, where are the gaps?

The key hypothesis of a gap analysis is that a rights holder should prioritise targeting sectors that are (a) the most likely to sponsor your competitors but in which (b) you don’t currently have a sponsor.

This is because the sales pitch can highlight how common it is for rival brands in that sector to sponsor the rights holder’s competitive set (inferring many of the target brand’s competitors deem it an effective marketing channel) but there is a rare opportunity left for the targeted brand to do the same.

In terms of gaps, all of the teams have an Automotive Components (unsurprisingly) and a Clothing/Apparel sponsor, while all but one have a Materials/Chemicals or Software sponsor (the same team the exception on both fronts). Only two teams don’t have an Investment/Trading sponsor while three don’t have an Accessories or IT Services/Hardware sponsor.

In other words, one of the team’s should prioritise targeting Materials/Chemicals and Software sponsors. This is because they can show the brands they are targeting that the brand’s competitors have a very high propensity to sponsor F1 teams, thus competitors seeing value in it, so the targeted brand should be doing the same. A form of FOMO.