There remains an enduring snobbery that packaged goods constitute the high ground of branding. Food, drink and detergent markets understand branding better, do more of it and address more complex and interesting issues. Not so. As a consultancy we specialise in developing brands, and operate across a very broad spectrum. At one end we have branded the Freeplay wind-up (no batteries) radio: more conventionally, we create new brands in fast-moving consumer goods, across a variety of service sectors, and at the other extreme we are involved with national branding, recently Scotland and currently Wales. In our experience, the strategic will (as well as the budgets) to develop serious brands is declining in packaged goods, a trend reinforced by inexorable margin pressure from the retailers, and escalating media costs. In fact it is the fresher marketing pastures such as leisure, geographies and sport where the need and will for brands is growing. It is also the case that the issues are complex, the process equally challenging and the subject matter usually more interesting. Creating a brand for a Grand Prix team is a case in point. Consider the following: A frequent topic in blue chip marketing companies is the difficulty of developing long-term brands in the face of the annual or even biannual pressure to deliver stock market results. A Grand Prix team faces massive public scrutiny of its ability to deliver, every two to three weeks during the season. Every head or pound devoted to brand building is one not directed towards an improvement in lap time. That really is pressure. Next, there is the attitude of the sponsors, and indeed the team owners, towards the brand's prime communication medium: the cars. The sponsors have always assumed total rights to cover every square inch of the car's surface with their identity, effectively regarding it as a mobile billboard. This in turn suppresses the team brand, and the attendant values with which they wish to associate. How then to persuade sponsors differently or sacrifice revenue potential to gain exposure of the team's brand? A secondary problem here is the total change of visual identity that can come with a change of sponsor. For years McLaren could be recognised by their red and white colour scheme ... until the owners of that colour scheme, Marlboro, switched teams and McLaren became silver, black and red: the colour of their new sponsors. We all know consistency of presentation is critical to brand creation: transcending total livery changes is a touch tricky. This is obviously not a problem faced by your average packaged goods brand. Also, when Marketing meets Motor Racing there are some major cultural issues. Successful sporting enterprises tend to be run by enthusiasts with a tight and passionate focus on what it takes to win. In such environments marketing is but grudgingly accepted--essentially as the conduit for providing the necessary funding, not God forbid, as a strategic contributor to the growth and success of the business. A corollary of this is that while internal marketing functions are objects of suspicion, external marketing consultants are perceived with the initial trust and welcome that would be accorded to Jack the Ripper or Charles Manson. Heaven help you if you can't justify succinctly and persuasively why any marketing initiative might be desirable or necessary. Having said all that, why do Grand Prix teams need to develop brands anyway? There are four very good reasons. First, Formula 1 is becoming big business as evidenced by the recent plans for its flotation. To ensure effective participation in that business, a top team must have presence and prominence. Second, digital TV will soon mean viewers can choose which camera feed they follow, and which car (and sponsor) they watch: consequently, there's a need for a visible and attractive brand out there, so that we have real share of mind, and get a good share of viewing. …