Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

While it's in the same consumer market as GoPro, remember that GoPro is more than a camera company in the same way that Red Bull is more than just an energy drink.

GoPro is headed in the direction of lifestyle branding. Original content, sponsored professional sports, brand collaboration, etc.

So while Polaroid and Sony are welcoming competition in the space, GoPro's market IMO seems more focused elsewhere.




>GoPro is headed in the direction of lifestyle branding. Original content, sponsored professional sports, brand collaboration, etc.

That's still just a camera company. All those are marketing/promotionals moves, no money makers or markets.

Same for Red Bull I'd say. How much Red Bull makes for selling the drink vs any other endeavour (if it not actually loses money on them).


they make a nice sum on their formula one team, that alone is a difficult feat so i reckon they are pretty business savvy.


Red Bull F1 may be "profitable" but only if you separate it from the 100's of millions invested by the Red Bull parent company. It is simply a marketing venture whose real profit is measured in brand awareness and sales of little cans of caffeinated soda.


I do a fir bit of "extreme sports". Mountain Biking and Kayaking mainly. Ironically no one I know (who participates in these sports) drinks Red Bull on a regular basis.


The irony goes so much deeper.

While "extreme sports" types may not themselves drink Red Bull, the "non-extreme" people who do drink Red Bull are very sensitive to the notion that Red Bull is authentically associated with such sports/attitudes.

That is, they demand their products properly represent feelings, experiences and capabilities that they themselves do not pursue. And you see this in all sorts of markets.

People who will never serious hike demand "authentic" (or authentic-appearing) hiking boots. People who will never push their computers' limits demand high-end parts. People who will only listen to over-compressed audio will demand high-quality stereo components. Etc.


"All the gear, no idea" as we used to say.

I used to work as a rafting guide, got paid next to nothing, but got to kayak whenever I wanted. My gear was shit, but I was way better than most people who could afford the nice kit.


I also notice this a lot with vehicles, especially in the Bay Area (I blame the abundance of disposable income).

Just because you bought a $12k carbon fiber Colnago with deep section carbon aero wheels (which are heavier and meant for time trials, not commuting) doesn't mean you'll be Lance Armstrong, nor does it mean you'll beat the guy riding a steel fixie who regularly goes on group rides.

Owning an AMG Mercedes doesn't mean you can keep it in a lane in turns (I usually fined quite the opposite) or keep up with a Miata on mountain roads.

The newest Ducati >liter bike won't make you faster through twisties than the guy on the gsxr 750 who goes to track days and can drag a knee.

In the end though, people are free to spend their money however they want, even if that means looking ridiculous to people who are more passionate about their thing than they are. In middle school, we'd call these people "posers", but now we just call them "rich".


My home town is home of the urban 4x4, where the most challenging terrain they will encounter are the speed bumps in the supermarket car park.


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1955397-formula-1-prize-m... is worth reading.

Of course, it clearly costs tens of millions to run a team - but those figures won't include sponsorship/advertising deals either. If you're not in that top ten though...


Some f1 teams are profitable?



Are you joking?


It was not a joke, lots of teams have come and gone. I had to assume it was not profitable to run a team, much like any other form of auto racing.

Most teams that have endured are backed by large companies that can absorb losses, but I have never seen any books from any teams.


Sincerely curious, what kinds of profits do F1 teams make?


So a large team like Ferrari or McLaren will spend about $400 million on running the whole team for the year - that includes all salaries, R&D, simulation, transport, part costs, marketing etc.

They'll get about $80 million back on that from prize money (it's more like $100 million if you win).

Then there's the sponsorship - for a large team about $300 million a year is reasonable.

The rest can often be found from elsewhere. McLaren had large funding from Daimler until recently (when they received a $40 million fine Daimler paid) - Ferrari have a lot of their own money. F1 drives car sales, and the technology from F1 can be pulled back into the road cars - just look at McLaren's new models..


It's also worth pointing out that Red Bull is a privately held company... Essentially they can do whatever they want in a way that public companies can not, should they choose to.


They are moving in that direction because they are going to be swamped by cheaper Chinese clones. Some will inevitably have competitive or better image quality, features, battery life, etc. and GoPro must pivot to leverage of their first mover advantage in action cams.


I don't see this being the same market at all. Gopro is marketed at adventure and sports. Polaroid is pushing this toward the average Joe. With a $99 price point it's well positioned to displace gopro.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: