Apple's F1 deal: no integration strategy yet

The Global Head of Sports at Apple, James DeLorenzo, spoke about their broadcast deal with F1. When asked for details about what they are planning, he didn't say much. Which tells you something right there. Either they're being secretive, or they genuinely don't have a clear integration strategy yet.

The one thing he did say: "We will enjoy the first broadcast, but after that, the team will instantly look at the feedback we are getting."

That's unusually reactive for Apple. This is a company that typically ships with conviction. They know exactly what they're building and why. But in F1? They're iterating based on feedback because they don't yet fully understand what they're getting into.

Same story with most brands and sponsors entering motorsport. They don't really know what they're walking into. They have budgets and hypotheses, but the integration strategy comes later, sometimes much later.

What I inferred about Apple's approach right now: assess how the first broadcast goes, gather feedback, figure it out from there. I had too many questions left unanswered.

Hard to say. It's an iteration on something Apple don't fully understand yet.

Formula E's Alejandro Agag and Ellie Norman were in attendance as well. Alejandro mentioned that he felt the sustainability message didn't have the same appeal as before.

They're pivoting hard to performance with Gen 4 coming in Season 13.

Alejandro also mentioned they want to target Chinese manufacturers to join Formula E and similarly boost the fanbase's growth to how F1 broke into the US market.

It's a move that could work, but it can't be remotely easy. Breaking into China requires fully integrating yourself into that market and understanding a 360-degree view of their behaviours.

What they're really trying to solve: the classic problem of growing your audience and fan base when attention is scarce. How do you get sustained engagement and buy-in from fans in 2026 and beyond?

Maybe they need a completely different format approach—something like the one-point slam at the Australian Open. Pros vs amateurs. The classic versus format with a twist that creates a different entry point.

They're not too late, but they're definitely trying to find their way. The question is whether performance alone is enough to differentiate when F1 owns that lane so completely.

One thing I kept thinking about all week: showing up in person matters more than ever, specifically because everything else is digital noise.

There's a natural trust that happens face-to-face that's completely unquantifiable. No time zone issues, interrupted internet or wondering if someone's actually paying attention and if they're multitasking on another screen.

As cliché and "LinkedIn guruesque" as this sounds, there is value in the network effect. One interaction with a friend or colleague leads to three different people they introduce you to in the moment. You can't engineer that over Zoom, and you certainly can't manufacture that in an inbox. Also, it helps to be somewhat recognisable because of LinkedIn.

Media companies are leaning harder into events for precisely this reason. As part of proving I'm not a bot, it was incredibly fruitful to show up. More meetings happened in a few hours than would've taken weeks over email.

The trust acceleration alone made the trip worth it.

The pitch problem: everyone's leading with data when they should lead with a story.

This is the pattern I kept seeing across multiple conversations and pitch decks all week.

Properties lead with: here are our audience numbers, here are our demographics, here are some ideas, here's what you could get out of it. Frankly, I think it's backwards.

The data is important; it absolutely matters. But data tells you the facts; it doesn't sell the emotion. How you wrap that up in a narrative is what actually closes deals.

I learned this while working in brand marketing at Mercedes dealerships and at a tech company. When you pitch a brand, you don't lead with performance metrics. You lead with understanding their brand better than they do.

The sentiment they should leave with: "Damn, they know our brand better than us."

I call it the gateway drug to your message. Get the brand hooked with something already on their mind. Find their cultural erogenous zones—what they're actually trying to solve, what their brand stands for, where they're trying to go.

Then the gateway slowly leads them to how your motorsport platform helps in that context.

Right now, most properties are doing the opposite. They're pitching themselves, not the brand's transformation. They're selling what they have, not what the brand needs. Sounds so simple, right? In practice, it's harder.

And as much as the data supports the story, it should never BE the story.

The commercial process is fragmented.

Here's what I kept hearing about how partnerships actually work at most properties:

But shouldn't activation be involved in the entire process? From day one. Because if they don't…

Partnerships get sold that can't be delivered as promised. Activation teams receive decks that say "we promised this," and they have to reverse-engineer how to make it work. There's a disconnect between what sales pitched and what the property can actually execute.

We all understand that partnerships require selling the dream to a certain extent. That's fine. We also know it takes time to deliver on that partnership—making it successful takes more than one year.

The way I see it:

The rights - holder is one product. The brand/sponsor is one product. When the partnership comes together, that's an entirely separate product. It requires its own marketing, its own effort, its own build, its own comms, its own operations.

Most teams aren't structured for that reality. They're structured to close, not deliver. And the gap between what's sold and what's delivered keeps widening.

What does this all mean?

The execution gap in motorsport commercial is getting wider. It might be the case in other sports as well.

Teams are over-indexed on closing deals versus delivering on partnerships. Properties haven't figured out how to sell transformation instead of transactions. And everyone's running the same playbook because "that's how it's always been done" without asking if it's actually the best way to get results anymore.

If you're reading this and nodding along, thinking "yeah, this is exactly what I'm seeing", here's what I'd challenge you to rethink:

What does your outreach and pipeline-building actually look like?

Are you doing things a certain way because that's how it's always been done? Or are you picking the best option to get the best results?

Three things worth reconsidering:

The properties that figure this out, the ones that close the execution gap instead of widening it. Those are the ones that'll be worth partnering with in 2026 and beyond.