Did you recently see an ad for beehiiv in a newsletter? We’re running a short brand lift survey to understand what’s actually breaking through (and what’s not).

It takes about 20 seconds, the questions are super easy, and your feedback directly helps us improve how we show up in the newsletters you read and love.

If you’ve got a few moments, we’d really appreciate your insight.

Take the survey.

Here's my actual relationship with Formula E.

I know it exists. I've seen highlights on social media, caught bits and pieces of races when they pop up in my feed.

I understand the basic concept—it's electric racing with legitimate manufacturers like Porsche and Jaguar involved, they race on street circuits in city centres, and there's this whole sustainability angle to it.

If someone asked me about it at a bar, I could probably give them a decent explanation of what Formula E is and what makes it different from traditional motorsport.

And yet I don’t keep up with it.

And that's interesting because I'm exactly the demographic they should be winning over.

I'm an engaged motorsport fan who already has F1 and MotoGP on my calendar, I'm interested in racing as a sport, and I'm not one of those people who are ideologically opposed to electric vehicles or sustainability initiatives. On paper, I should be watching Formula E.

So the question worth examining here is: why not?

And more specifically, does the sustainability messaging actually help or hurt in that decision?

Because I think Formula E is wrestling with something that every property trying to build an audience deals with—there's this framework for building cult followings that explains why some properties become must-watch television and others just kind of remain in that perpetual "I should probably check that out sometime" category

It has almost nothing to do with whether the underlying product is actually good.

It's entirely about whether the messaging breaks through when attention is the scarcest resource any of us has.

Formula E isn't competing with F1 or MotoGP or IndyCar for my attention—it's competing with literally everything else I could be doing with my limited free time.

My Sunday mornings are Premier League. Sunday afternoons might be tennis if there's a tournament I care about. F1 races are scattered through the season, and I'll catch those when they're on. MotoGP fits into the calendar when it aligns with my schedule. And that's it.

My sports watching bandwidth is completely maxed out, and I think that's true for most people who are already engaged sports fans.

So if Formula E wants to get added to that list, something has to get cut. That's just the reality of attention scarcity. And this is where Formula E's messaging has to do some really heavy lifting—it has to answer the question of what's so compelling about this that it's worth displacing something I already love and have an established habit around.

This is where the sustainability positioning gets really interesting to examine. Is "it's electric racing that's better for the environment" actually a strong enough reason for me to cut something else from my viewing schedule?

I'm genuinely asking this question because I don't know the answer. It might be for some people. But I'm skeptical it's working for most fans who are in my position.

What I do know from working with properties trying to build commercial value is that there's a framework for how some of them manage to break through this attention scarcity problem, and others don't.

It’s not having the best product; it's about communicating with the kind of conviction that makes indifference basically impossible.

Over the years, working with properties trying to build commercial value, I've started to notice these patterns in what actually breaks through versus what just generates reach without retention. And the core insight that keeps showing up is this: conviction beats logic.

Let me show you what this means specifically for Formula E, because I think they're actively wrestling with exactly this question right now, and their pivot with Gen4 is evidence of that.

When I think of Formula E: electric racing, sustainability, and street circuits. Those are operational facts, not reasons to watch.

Compare that to the sports I actually watch:

F1: driver rivalries spanning seasons, technical regulations creating winner-takes-all eras, and underdog teams occasionally shocking the grid.

MotoGP: riders pushing physics limits, overtaking that looks impossible, any mistake means the gravel trap.

Premier League: relegation means stakes in every match, underdog stories like Leicester, and global talent concentration.

Those are reasons to prioritise those sports over alternatives. They answer "why should this be a must-watch" rather than just "what is this."

What are Formula E's 2-3 memorable things that answer that question? I'm not sure they've figured that out yet.

Formula E's sustainability messaging tends to be statistics-heavy: "40% of energy from regenerative braking," "100% recyclable battery materials," "first carbon-neutral racing series." These are credentials. They inform but don't compel.

Show me a driver explaining how they manage energy strategy completely differently from their teammate. Show me the split-second decision that won or lost a race based on battery management. Show me the engineer who bet their career on electric being faster than combustion, and what happened next.

Those are stories about humans making choices under pressure, which is what sport is actually about.

One death is a tragedy, a thousand is a statistic. Environmental impact as aggregate numbers—carbon tons reduced, efficiency percentages—that's a thousand. I need the one. The individual human stake that makes the mission feel personal rather than abstract.

Formula E's sustainability positioning is deeply logical. Electric vehicles are the future. Motorsport should lead that transition. Racing can advance technology while reducing environmental impact. All true and logical. None of them answer: why should I watch this weekend?

Gen4 is interesting, though. They're launched this season with 600kW of power, active all-wheel drive, and lap times significantly faster than current cars. The messaging shift is already happening—not leading with sustainability, leading with "this is going to be undeniably fast.”

That's Formula E finding conviction. The question: Does that break through when I'm deciding what to watch?

I couldn't tell you who runs Formula E's race operations. Who decides formats? Who makes strategy calls? I see press releases, not people.

The properties I watch? I know the faces. Christian Horner was making aggressive decisions. Toto Wolff is managing Mercedes’ politics. Pep Guardiola's tactics. Marc Márquez's riding choices. Those personalities give me people to root for or against.

Formula E operates like a corporate entity managing a racing series. That makes sense from governance, but doesn't give me humans to connect with.

My honest take: I don't think sustainability messaging breaks through the "what should I watch" decision for most fans.

It matters for manufacturers evaluating participation—they need ESG credentials. It matters for sponsors assessing brand alignment. Probably matters for a subset of fans who prioritise environmental impact in entertainment choices.

But for someone already watching four sports? I'm skeptical that sustainability credentials alone do that work.

What might work: sustainability as context for something already compelling. Formula E's Gen4 messaging feels like they're learning this. Lead with performance—815 horsepower, active AWD, lap times that question whether EVs are "there yet." Get me interested in the racing first. Then sustainability becomes the differentiator.

That sequence makes sense. Performance answers "why should I watch?" Sustainability answers "why this instead of F1 or MotoGP." But you need that first answer before the second matters.

If you're building a property and wondering whether your messaging breaks through attention scarcity, here's how to test:

The displacement question: Ask potential fans: "If you started watching this, what would you stop watching?" If they can't answer, your property hasn't proven its worth in displacing something they already love.

Formula E would need me to cut something. Drop MotoGP? Watch less Premier League? Skip F1 races? For that to happen, I need conviction that Formula E delivers something that those don't.

The 60-second stranger test: Explain your property to someone who's never heard of it. 60 seconds. Ask them to explain it back and whether they'd watch.

If they say "electric racing that's good for the environment"—not compelling enough. If they say "unpredictable racing where strategy beats pure speed and driver decisions matter lap-to-lap"—that might break through.

The memorable things audit: Ask ten people what they know about your property. If the 2-3 things are operational facts ("it's electric," "street circuits"), you're not breaking through. If there are reasons to prioritise you ("racing's unpredictable," "driver skill matters more"), you might be.

Every property that broke through my bandwidth does the same thing: conviction first, credentials second.

MotoGP doesn't lead with "fastest motorcycles." It leads with "riders pushing physics limits knowing one mistake means crashing."

Premier League doesn't lead with "global reach." It leads with "relegation means stakes in every match."

F1 doesn't lead with "pinnacle of motorsport." It leads with "driver rivalries spanning seasons and regulations creating dynasties or upsets."

Formula E has been leading with credentials. ISO certifications. Carbon-neutral operations. Technology development for road cars. None of that is a conviction that breaks through limited attention.

Gen4 represents them shifting toward conviction: "We're building the most technologically advanced race car in the world, and it's going to be undeniably fast." That might break through. Credentials were never going to.

I'm probably part of the marginal fan base Formula E needs to convert—someone who already watches motorsport, aware of Formula E, not opposed to it, but hasn't prioritised it.

Here's what would break through:

Show me the stakes. Not environmental stakes—personal stakes. Which driver's season depends on this race? Which team bet everything on a technical decision that might backfire?

Put faces to everything. Show me who's making decisions and why. The race director is explaining controversial calls. The CEO is explaining why they're absorbing €78M in losses for Gen4.

Lead with what makes it must-watch, then add sustainability as depth. F1 and MotoGP already give me technical depth and driver skill. What does Formula E offer that those don't? Answer that first.

Give me conviction I can't ignore. Tell me, Formula E is building something that will prove everyone wrong about electric racing. Make indifference feel impossible.

Or am I being too harsh?