Type the phrase "Internet marketing tips" into a search engine, and you'll find scores of easy-money pitches laden with more hype than no-money-down real estate infomercials:
"Monopolize your market and automate 90 percent of your sales process — creating a 'hands-free' income that you can maintain in less than an hour per day."
While Internet marketing has grown into a thriving industry, it remains a feeding ground for swarms of "consultants" eager to fleece small business owners ignorant of its aims and methods.
"There are a lot of SEO [search engine optimization] experts selling nothing more than smoke and mirrors," says Mark Levit, managing partner of the New York ad agency Partners & Levit and a marketing professor at New York University.
"Anyone can hang out a shingle and claim they're an Internet marketing expert," says David Meerman Scott, author of Cashing In with Content, which argues a site's content is what drives its ultimate success. "Some search engine marketing firms make it out to be a black art that's proprietary, and which no layperson will ever understand, making small business owners feel they can't do it themselves."
A Constantly Evolving Field
Scott dates the birth of Internet marketing to August 1995 and Web-browsing pioneer Netscape's public stock offering. While only a decade has since passed, he says online marketing is already entering its third stage of development.
The first stage, running until 1999, involved just getting a site up with little consideration for the medium or the message. "It was primarily technology driven, the time when 'Webmasters' ran sites," he says. "You'd have to say, 'Please, Mr. Webmaster, will you put up this content for me?'"
From 2000 to recently, another group took control — site designers, advertising agencies, and "their three-fingered cousins in the search engine marketing space," Scott says. The emphasis: making a site visually attractive and manipulating its content to draw traffic.
Now comes the growing recognition that the content of a site, both its usability and information, is what drives key elements of business success — buying decisions and return traffic.
"The most successful sites excel in a number of areas: writing, navigation, friendliness, functionality, and relevance," says Anirudh Dhebar, a marketing professor at Babson College, which runs one of the country's leading entrepreneurship programs.
Know Your Audience
"The first step in any successful Internet marketing effort is to understand what audiences you're trying to reach and what you're trying to accomplish," Dhebar says. "That's a strategic decision, not a technical-implementation one."
Depending on your product or service, the chief aim may be to build your brand or strengthen customer loyalty, says Larry Weaver, director of Internet marketing services at Raleigh, N.C.-based Cii Associates, Inc. "You can measure your return on investment by tracking the conversion rate that's important to you, whether it's a phone call, a sale, a click-through, or a newsletter sign-up."
Anticipate the Customer's Every Need
"There's not a business in the U.S. that shouldn't have an Internet presence, if only as a reference point for consumers who increasingly go online to research even modestly priced purchases," Levit says. "It can be simple, but it needs a polished finish.
"Many small business owners still believe what a lot of the dot-coms did in the late nineties: Build it and they will come," he explains. "But if people encounter a site that's cluttered, unnavigable, or ugly, they immediately form a poor opinion about the company itself."
Once visitors arrive, a site should logically guide them toward the desired conversion goal with a "clear call to action" on every page, Weaver says.
"You can't force people to go where you want them to, but you can at least highly suggest it. We had one client who went nuts with SEO, but didn't have the phone number on every page. If e-mail sign-ups are what you're after, there should be a sign-up box on each page."
Taken a step further, a site can improve a company's productivity and efficiency. Miki Dzugan is awaiting the day when her dentist's office will let her sign up for an appointment on its Web site, and she can avoid getting an answering service when the office is closed for lunch.
"They apparently don't have enough of a call for online scheduling, but it will come," says Dzugan, president of Rapport Online, a St. Paul, Minn.-based Internet marketing firm.
In terms of information on a site, the goal should be to anticipate every question a Web searcher might ask and lead him or her to the proper answers in as streamlined a way as possible. That could be detailed information about the available products or services themselves, or in the case of a small tire retailer, an explanation of when to drop off a car, how long installation might take, and whether there's a shuttle vehicle available.
"You will have satiated potential buyers' intellectual hunger by showing thought leadership," Scott says. "You show them you're smart about your market category, you understand their problems, and you're providing this great stuff for free. I'm much more likely to do business with you than someone who sent me a direct-mail ad or who has a nice sign outside their building."
Some traffic-driving methods:
Search engine optimization. SEO experts often sell companies on making changes that "gunk up" their site, making it harder to read with little discernable improvement in search engine rankings. "SEO is most effective for businesses operating primarily in local or regional areas and those in niche markets," Dzugan says. "If you have a carpet-cleaning company in Stillwater, you can easily get to the top of the list for anyone who types in 'Stillwater carpet cleaners.'"
Cross-linking. Getting other Web sites to link to your own is not only a good SEO tool, but it also provides stamps of approval. "It's good to be proactive and get links on chamber sites, suppliers' pages, partner pages, directories, and publications that have some authority," Weaver says. "You want to get really relevant links from quality Web sites."
Pay-per-click. In bidding for paid-advertising spots on search engine pages, the highest costs per click are on keywords and phrases with the most competition. You can stretch your online-advertising budget by seeking out less costly words and phrases that your target audience will use. An online tool called WordTracker can help in that regard — you type in a common word or phrase and it gives you alternative words and phrases.
"Ultimately, you want to use Internet marketing to generate some amount of market research, to get a sense of where your customer base is going and where demand is trending," says Ward Hanson, policy forum director for the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research and an Internet marketing professor at the university's graduate business school from 1996 to 2003.
"You can get early feedback on issues and problems, understand your most intense demanders, and break down your customer base into more detailed categories," Hanson says. "You'll learn more about the specifics of who and why people are buying your product — and that's invaluable information."
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Where is Indian cricket heading?
I am sure all those who are reading this must be filled with enough stories about what the BCCI plans to do... Obviously the answer is TALK, TALK, GIVE EXCUSES...
The state of Indian cricket is abysmal. Right from "selecting the selectors" to player selection, things have always seemed bizzare. I was astounded to see people pouring comments on Dravid being the sole cause of Sachin and Saurav being dropped. This is mere bullshit!
I admit I am not a big fan of Saurav, but his presence in the Indian side always sends the wrong signals. He has never been a team player, always bothering only about himself and his records. Many may argue that since his comeback, he has averaged fifty plus in ODIs. But what has surprised me is that people have failed to notice the manner in which he scored those runs; scoring at a rate of 60 odd, leaving bad deliveries fearing that he may edge one behind, Ganguly is still a mere shadow of his former self. Somehow, he has not looked convincing.
By choosing Dinesh Mongia, the board is portraying a situation that can be understood in two different ways. Being a veteran, 31 years of age, he has experience playing for Liecestershire and holds enough Ranji experience to command a place in the side. For those who argue that 31 is too old, we must not forget that even Mike Hussey of Australia made his debut when he was 30. But with the BCCI telling the selectors to pick a young team, the selection of Mongia sends a message of a different wavelength.
I have seen many lament about the fact that we need an Australian coach who can make us mentally tough. This is insane. If India has to scale to that height, we need Australian players instead. Greg Chappel's era was a disaster, no doubt. There has been a lot of emphasis on India requiring a foreign coach, but the fact remains that a coach can only teach and strategize; the players must perform on the field.
The situation remains damp, with Tom Moody and Dav Whatmore throwing their hats in for the job. Irrespective of who is chosen, there will be debates sparking off regarding the selection. We wont hesitate to expect a legal skirmish within the board regarding players chosen from various "zones". Zonal bias has always been, and will always be, the black sheep of Indian cricket. But the fact remains that as long as we see politics and sport mingling, keep your fingers crossed. Who knows where the BCCI is heading?
The state of Indian cricket is abysmal. Right from "selecting the selectors" to player selection, things have always seemed bizzare. I was astounded to see people pouring comments on Dravid being the sole cause of Sachin and Saurav being dropped. This is mere bullshit!
I admit I am not a big fan of Saurav, but his presence in the Indian side always sends the wrong signals. He has never been a team player, always bothering only about himself and his records. Many may argue that since his comeback, he has averaged fifty plus in ODIs. But what has surprised me is that people have failed to notice the manner in which he scored those runs; scoring at a rate of 60 odd, leaving bad deliveries fearing that he may edge one behind, Ganguly is still a mere shadow of his former self. Somehow, he has not looked convincing.
By choosing Dinesh Mongia, the board is portraying a situation that can be understood in two different ways. Being a veteran, 31 years of age, he has experience playing for Liecestershire and holds enough Ranji experience to command a place in the side. For those who argue that 31 is too old, we must not forget that even Mike Hussey of Australia made his debut when he was 30. But with the BCCI telling the selectors to pick a young team, the selection of Mongia sends a message of a different wavelength.
I have seen many lament about the fact that we need an Australian coach who can make us mentally tough. This is insane. If India has to scale to that height, we need Australian players instead. Greg Chappel's era was a disaster, no doubt. There has been a lot of emphasis on India requiring a foreign coach, but the fact remains that a coach can only teach and strategize; the players must perform on the field.
The situation remains damp, with Tom Moody and Dav Whatmore throwing their hats in for the job. Irrespective of who is chosen, there will be debates sparking off regarding the selection. We wont hesitate to expect a legal skirmish within the board regarding players chosen from various "zones". Zonal bias has always been, and will always be, the black sheep of Indian cricket. But the fact remains that as long as we see politics and sport mingling, keep your fingers crossed. Who knows where the BCCI is heading?
Is Google heading the right way?
When we think of Starbucks, we think of coffee. When we think of FedEx, we think of overnight deliveries. When we think of Google, we think of search that works. But search is one among many of Google's products, others including GMail, Google Videos, Google Calendar, Google News, Blogger, Google Desktop Search, Picassa, Google Base, Orkut, GTalk, WiFi, Google Docs & Spreadsheets, Google Page Creator, Google Groups, Google Print, Google Reader, Google Notebook, Google Maps, and recently, YouTube. Yet, none of these pop into our mind when we think of Google. Clearly, there must be something wrong.The problem begins with how branding works. A Brand is essentially a word that the company owns in the mind of the consumers (think Search). There is only a limited space in the brain to store information, and as a result, any excess information is simply ignored as background noise.
Since 2000, Google has been creating a lot of great products that simply add more to the background noise.Google is an exciting company...maybe too exciting for its own good. In fact, the problem with Google is that it has too many Purple Cows.
The Purple Cow
"Cows, after you've seen one or two, are boring. A Purple Cow, though...now that would be something. Purple Cow describes something phenomenal, something counter intuitive and exciting and flat out unbelievable. Everyday consumers come face-to-face with a lot of boring stuff-a lot of brown cows-but you can bet they won't forget a Purple Cow. A purple cow is a product or service that's remarkable. "Remarkable" simply means that a customer is willing to make a remark about it. If you create remarkable products, people will talk about them. If that happens, the word will spread about and your sales will grow. That explains the success of most every fast-growing company of the last ten years" - Seth Godin, Purple Cow/Free Prize Inside.Most companies strive to create Purple Cows; mini cooper and hummer are famous because people notice them. Google, on the other hand, has too many Purple Cows; so many that, as a result, we pay less attention to them. The company isn't allocating the resources necessary for sneezers to pass along the word. Most of us early adopters don't go ahead and tell our friends and family about new Google services. This wouldn't be true if Google released products less frequently. By releasing too many great products too fast, Google has diluted the perceived value of their excellent services. The power of any brand is inversely proportional to its scope.Google is trying to create a product for everybody. The problem, though, is that their products target an already over crowded market. The “everybody” products are already taken. Web portals are a thing of the past. The early adopters and word-of-mouth sneezers are too occupied to take time off and spread Google's gospel. The hard fact is that Google is not a leader in anything outside search; therefore, they should narrow down their focus on search alone.Marketing Guru, Seth Godin points out that a company must design a product that is not only remarkable enough to attract early adopters - but is also flexible and attractive enough that those adopters will have an easy time spreading the idea to the rest of the curve.
He lists four events that lead to a product failure:
1. No one noticed it.
2. People noticed it but decided they didn't want to try it.
3. People tried it but decided not to keep using it.
4. People liked it but didn't tell their friends.
Google is marginally successful with the third point, but almost always fail at the fourth. New product releases are something the early adopters have come to expect from Google. Consequently, when Google does release a product, after a burst of few thousand sign ups, the adoption rate declines dramatically. The "buzz" ends with the early adopters, who simply move onto other applications soon afterward. Not surprisingly, they also fail to pass on the sneeze to the late adopters.
Advertisements don't bite
I have repeatedly heard Google executives assert that great products do not require promotion; this probably stems from the fact that, unlike other dot-com companies, Google Search did not spend millions on advertising to gain the limelight it enjoys today. Google's CEO Eric Schmidt said "We believe that we should be launching more products than what will ultimately become phenomenally popular. The way you find really successful new innovation is to release five things and hope that one or two of them really take off. I think by that metric we've been doing really, really well. We should be able to put products out there and, without a lot of promotion, a good product will grow."The only problem is that Google's products haven't been doing really, really well. The company continues to pass on the opportunity to put more resources into their products. The strategy that made Google Search successful isn't likely to make their other services successful as well. Google needs to do justice to its top notch software developers by improvising its current strategy for marketing products. The products are great, but they fail to catch on. It is Google's executives at fault, not the developers."You can have the most wonderful product in the world, but if people don't know about it, it's not going to be worth much...from a pure business point of view, the benefits of being written about far outweigh the drawbacks" - The Art of Deal, Donald Trump.
Microsoft was born in a blaze of publicity. However, as the publicity dried out, the giant had to adopt massive advertising to defend its position. Google will lose their current momentum eventually, and they too will revert back to advertisements. First publicity, then advertising is the general rule...sooner or later a leader has to shift its branding strategy from publicity to advertising.
Googleplexity
"Go back in history. By far the most successful brands are those that kept a narrow focus and then expanded the category as opposed to those brands that tried to expand their names into other categories" - The 22 Immutable Laws of BrandingBy frequently releasing products, Google hopes to ensure rapid growth even if its search engine loses steam. Users would have more reasons to stay on Google's sites rather than move on to services offered by close rivals, Yahoo and Microsoft. This strategy is no different than Ford or Chevrolet releasing new models of cars to satisfy everyone.
In the short term this might lead to a few more sales, however, in the long run it makes it more difficult to maintain the company
[1]. Google became a global phenomenon not by trying to be all things to everyone; they became outrageously successful by doing one thing insanely great; search. Now, however, they are beginning to lose focus by expanding out instead of vertically integrating
[2].ConclusionIn conclusion, the company has many great products; however, most of these never reach beyond the tech savvy crowd. For a product to be successful, it must be transferred from the innovators to the rest of the crowd. Since Google has so many Purple Cows, and the company offers little marketing leverage to these products, the word of mouth simply doesn't reach beyond Digg or TechCrunch readers. Google's half hearted attempt at pushing their products out the door is detrimental to the product, and in the long run, also to the company. For the future, Google can do two things to insure growth; stop releasing products that have little relevance to its core business and aggressively market the products it already has out on the Internet. In short, Google needs products that complement its Search Business.
Notes:
[1] The emphasis in most companies is on the short term...while milking may bring in easy money in the short term, in the long term it wears down the brand until it no longer stands for anything. Fortunately, Google is beginning to realize the problem with creating too many irrelevant products. However, I feel that by entering print/radio advertisements, they continue to take steps away from Search.
[2] "Good things happen when you contract rather than expand your business." - The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding.
[3] My ideas are never my own. In fact, I don't think any idea can ever be independently developed. The thoughts presented here were inspired by the authors of these books: "Purple Cow ", "Crossing the Chasm ", "The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding ", "The Search ", and "The Google Story ".
Since 2000, Google has been creating a lot of great products that simply add more to the background noise.Google is an exciting company...maybe too exciting for its own good. In fact, the problem with Google is that it has too many Purple Cows.
The Purple Cow
"Cows, after you've seen one or two, are boring. A Purple Cow, though...now that would be something. Purple Cow describes something phenomenal, something counter intuitive and exciting and flat out unbelievable. Everyday consumers come face-to-face with a lot of boring stuff-a lot of brown cows-but you can bet they won't forget a Purple Cow. A purple cow is a product or service that's remarkable. "Remarkable" simply means that a customer is willing to make a remark about it. If you create remarkable products, people will talk about them. If that happens, the word will spread about and your sales will grow. That explains the success of most every fast-growing company of the last ten years" - Seth Godin, Purple Cow/Free Prize Inside.Most companies strive to create Purple Cows; mini cooper and hummer are famous because people notice them. Google, on the other hand, has too many Purple Cows; so many that, as a result, we pay less attention to them. The company isn't allocating the resources necessary for sneezers to pass along the word. Most of us early adopters don't go ahead and tell our friends and family about new Google services. This wouldn't be true if Google released products less frequently. By releasing too many great products too fast, Google has diluted the perceived value of their excellent services. The power of any brand is inversely proportional to its scope.Google is trying to create a product for everybody. The problem, though, is that their products target an already over crowded market. The “everybody” products are already taken. Web portals are a thing of the past. The early adopters and word-of-mouth sneezers are too occupied to take time off and spread Google's gospel. The hard fact is that Google is not a leader in anything outside search; therefore, they should narrow down their focus on search alone.Marketing Guru, Seth Godin points out that a company must design a product that is not only remarkable enough to attract early adopters - but is also flexible and attractive enough that those adopters will have an easy time spreading the idea to the rest of the curve.
He lists four events that lead to a product failure:
1. No one noticed it.
2. People noticed it but decided they didn't want to try it.
3. People tried it but decided not to keep using it.
4. People liked it but didn't tell their friends.
Google is marginally successful with the third point, but almost always fail at the fourth. New product releases are something the early adopters have come to expect from Google. Consequently, when Google does release a product, after a burst of few thousand sign ups, the adoption rate declines dramatically. The "buzz" ends with the early adopters, who simply move onto other applications soon afterward. Not surprisingly, they also fail to pass on the sneeze to the late adopters.
Advertisements don't bite
I have repeatedly heard Google executives assert that great products do not require promotion; this probably stems from the fact that, unlike other dot-com companies, Google Search did not spend millions on advertising to gain the limelight it enjoys today. Google's CEO Eric Schmidt said "We believe that we should be launching more products than what will ultimately become phenomenally popular. The way you find really successful new innovation is to release five things and hope that one or two of them really take off. I think by that metric we've been doing really, really well. We should be able to put products out there and, without a lot of promotion, a good product will grow."The only problem is that Google's products haven't been doing really, really well. The company continues to pass on the opportunity to put more resources into their products. The strategy that made Google Search successful isn't likely to make their other services successful as well. Google needs to do justice to its top notch software developers by improvising its current strategy for marketing products. The products are great, but they fail to catch on. It is Google's executives at fault, not the developers."You can have the most wonderful product in the world, but if people don't know about it, it's not going to be worth much...from a pure business point of view, the benefits of being written about far outweigh the drawbacks" - The Art of Deal, Donald Trump.
Microsoft was born in a blaze of publicity. However, as the publicity dried out, the giant had to adopt massive advertising to defend its position. Google will lose their current momentum eventually, and they too will revert back to advertisements. First publicity, then advertising is the general rule...sooner or later a leader has to shift its branding strategy from publicity to advertising.
Googleplexity
"Go back in history. By far the most successful brands are those that kept a narrow focus and then expanded the category as opposed to those brands that tried to expand their names into other categories" - The 22 Immutable Laws of BrandingBy frequently releasing products, Google hopes to ensure rapid growth even if its search engine loses steam. Users would have more reasons to stay on Google's sites rather than move on to services offered by close rivals, Yahoo and Microsoft. This strategy is no different than Ford or Chevrolet releasing new models of cars to satisfy everyone.
In the short term this might lead to a few more sales, however, in the long run it makes it more difficult to maintain the company
[1]. Google became a global phenomenon not by trying to be all things to everyone; they became outrageously successful by doing one thing insanely great; search. Now, however, they are beginning to lose focus by expanding out instead of vertically integrating
[2].ConclusionIn conclusion, the company has many great products; however, most of these never reach beyond the tech savvy crowd. For a product to be successful, it must be transferred from the innovators to the rest of the crowd. Since Google has so many Purple Cows, and the company offers little marketing leverage to these products, the word of mouth simply doesn't reach beyond Digg or TechCrunch readers. Google's half hearted attempt at pushing their products out the door is detrimental to the product, and in the long run, also to the company. For the future, Google can do two things to insure growth; stop releasing products that have little relevance to its core business and aggressively market the products it already has out on the Internet. In short, Google needs products that complement its Search Business.
Notes:
[1] The emphasis in most companies is on the short term...while milking may bring in easy money in the short term, in the long term it wears down the brand until it no longer stands for anything. Fortunately, Google is beginning to realize the problem with creating too many irrelevant products. However, I feel that by entering print/radio advertisements, they continue to take steps away from Search.
[2] "Good things happen when you contract rather than expand your business." - The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding.
[3] My ideas are never my own. In fact, I don't think any idea can ever be independently developed. The thoughts presented here were inspired by the authors of these books: "Purple Cow ", "Crossing the Chasm ", "The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding ", "The Search ", and "The Google Story ".
A Formula One Aerodynamicist
When he joined Jaguar Racing as head of aerodynamics in 2002, 32-year-old Ben Agathangelou says he inherited "the worst Formula 1 car in the history of the universe". So he started again from scratch. Jenny Hogan talked to him about rising through the ranks of Formula One
When it comes to applying aerodynamics to Formula 1 cars, is it all about speed?
It's all about cornering speed. We use the car's aerodynamics to push it downwards and maximise the grip on the road round the twisty bits. This gives you a higher cornering speed- that's what brings your lap time down.
So how fast do the cars actually go?
It depends on the circuit. Part of the aerodynamicist's job is to adapt the car to the conditions. At Monza in Italy, for example, you can take all the wings- upside-down aerofoils that create a downward force- off because it is all straight, so you get up to speeds of 350 kilometres per hour. Monaco is the opposite, it's all curves, so your top speed is cut to 300 kilometres per hour.
Didn't you get your first job in F1 just as new speed restrictions came in?
I joined McLaren in August 1994 - the year that Ayrton Senna died in a big accident at San Marino. There were a lot of regulation changes aimed at improving safety, such as reducing cornering speeds. I remember McLaren being a very sombre environment at that time.
That was a top team to start your career with. How did you get the job?
I took a degree in aeronautics and astronautics at the University of Southampton- at the time, it was the most direct route in. I was very clear that I wanted to get into F1. I must have been interested in it since I was 13 or 14. My dad and I went down to Silverstone, and I remember that being a big event. But after I graduated, I struggled to get a job. I was applying endlessly and writing speculative letters. I had a couple of interviews before joining McLaren.
What's your advice for graduates trying to work in F1?
Be persistent. You need the basic maths, physics and engineering background but the rest you learn on the job. What differentiates people who get into this business from those that don't is energy, enthusiasm and commitment. In Formula 1 there are lots of "A class" personalities- people who have to win in everything they do.
Is it a glamorous world to work in?
At first you are star-struck, thinking "oh wow, these are racing car drivers". I go to maybe six races each year, but testing is a tiring job. There is a lot of hard work that isn't shown on TV.
What was your job when you started out at McLaren?
As an aerodynamics analyst, I was looking at data from wind tunnel tests and from the car itself. F1 cars are covered in instrumentation. A lot of it is for health-checking, for example monitoring fluid temperatures and tyre pressures. There are also more specific tools, such as lasers that measure the height off the road. I compared the predictions of our mathematical models with this data, which was telling us what the car was actually doing.
And now that you're head of aerodynamics at Jaguar?
When I want to, I still get my hands dirty. But now it's down to the people working for me to build computer models and test components. At Jaguar, I am responsible for a department of about 50 people.
How did you make the jump to being in charge?
After three years at McLaren I took a bit of a gamble and went to a back-of-the-grid team so I could have more responsibility. I was put in charge of aerodynamic design at Tyrrell Racing Organisation. It was a bit frightening because I wasn't quite ready for it. But the most pivotal part of my career came later, when I went to a new team at Honda Racing Development in 1998.
What happened at Honda?
There were three of us designing a car from scratch. The team were planning to enter F1 in 2000 - that never happened, but we were still chuffed with the car. We raised some eyebrows when we tested it against cars built by other F1 teams because ours was quite quick. This was personally satisfying because we had created something from nothing.
And this experience of starting from scratch has stood you in good stead at Jaguar?
When I started here, I inherited the R3, which was probably the worst F1 car in the history of the universe. It was rubbish. But I like to think that you have more of an impact in an environment where everything isn't right, and I enjoy the throes of struggling to improve a car. To design the R4 for the 2003 season, our approach was "throw it all away and start again".
This year the R5 is racing. What are your expectations?
Last year we finished 7th, so our target is simply to finish ahead of that. Of course where we want to be is at the front. That's not going to happen overnight but ultimately your enjoyment of this job is proportional to the performance of your car.
When it comes to applying aerodynamics to Formula 1 cars, is it all about speed?
It's all about cornering speed. We use the car's aerodynamics to push it downwards and maximise the grip on the road round the twisty bits. This gives you a higher cornering speed- that's what brings your lap time down.
So how fast do the cars actually go?
It depends on the circuit. Part of the aerodynamicist's job is to adapt the car to the conditions. At Monza in Italy, for example, you can take all the wings- upside-down aerofoils that create a downward force- off because it is all straight, so you get up to speeds of 350 kilometres per hour. Monaco is the opposite, it's all curves, so your top speed is cut to 300 kilometres per hour.
Didn't you get your first job in F1 just as new speed restrictions came in?
I joined McLaren in August 1994 - the year that Ayrton Senna died in a big accident at San Marino. There were a lot of regulation changes aimed at improving safety, such as reducing cornering speeds. I remember McLaren being a very sombre environment at that time.
That was a top team to start your career with. How did you get the job?
I took a degree in aeronautics and astronautics at the University of Southampton- at the time, it was the most direct route in. I was very clear that I wanted to get into F1. I must have been interested in it since I was 13 or 14. My dad and I went down to Silverstone, and I remember that being a big event. But after I graduated, I struggled to get a job. I was applying endlessly and writing speculative letters. I had a couple of interviews before joining McLaren.
What's your advice for graduates trying to work in F1?
Be persistent. You need the basic maths, physics and engineering background but the rest you learn on the job. What differentiates people who get into this business from those that don't is energy, enthusiasm and commitment. In Formula 1 there are lots of "A class" personalities- people who have to win in everything they do.
Is it a glamorous world to work in?
At first you are star-struck, thinking "oh wow, these are racing car drivers". I go to maybe six races each year, but testing is a tiring job. There is a lot of hard work that isn't shown on TV.
What was your job when you started out at McLaren?
As an aerodynamics analyst, I was looking at data from wind tunnel tests and from the car itself. F1 cars are covered in instrumentation. A lot of it is for health-checking, for example monitoring fluid temperatures and tyre pressures. There are also more specific tools, such as lasers that measure the height off the road. I compared the predictions of our mathematical models with this data, which was telling us what the car was actually doing.
And now that you're head of aerodynamics at Jaguar?
When I want to, I still get my hands dirty. But now it's down to the people working for me to build computer models and test components. At Jaguar, I am responsible for a department of about 50 people.
How did you make the jump to being in charge?
After three years at McLaren I took a bit of a gamble and went to a back-of-the-grid team so I could have more responsibility. I was put in charge of aerodynamic design at Tyrrell Racing Organisation. It was a bit frightening because I wasn't quite ready for it. But the most pivotal part of my career came later, when I went to a new team at Honda Racing Development in 1998.
What happened at Honda?
There were three of us designing a car from scratch. The team were planning to enter F1 in 2000 - that never happened, but we were still chuffed with the car. We raised some eyebrows when we tested it against cars built by other F1 teams because ours was quite quick. This was personally satisfying because we had created something from nothing.
And this experience of starting from scratch has stood you in good stead at Jaguar?
When I started here, I inherited the R3, which was probably the worst F1 car in the history of the universe. It was rubbish. But I like to think that you have more of an impact in an environment where everything isn't right, and I enjoy the throes of struggling to improve a car. To design the R4 for the 2003 season, our approach was "throw it all away and start again".
This year the R5 is racing. What are your expectations?
Last year we finished 7th, so our target is simply to finish ahead of that. Of course where we want to be is at the front. That's not going to happen overnight but ultimately your enjoyment of this job is proportional to the performance of your car.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)