It's been talked about and talked about. We hear about it in all sorts of places these days. Politicians, TV people, sportspeople, radio commentators ... the personality cult is everywhere. We make "stars" out of the most extraordinary people.
Look at the recent film "Waterworld". Huge budget, amazing effects and Kevin Costner. I wonder how big a movie we would have been told it was if Costner had not been in it? (The fact that, basically, the film was supposedly made by Costner for Costner is not a relevant argument here.) Personality cult?
For many people of the world, when they go to vote in a general election, they are really voting for someone to represent them and their local area in the nation's capital. But, they don't see it that way, because the leader of the political party that gains the most seats in the nation's legislature, then becomes the head of government. So, the voters tend to vote for the leader of the party, rather than the party's local aspirant. Personality cult?
[The system is different in the USA, where the head of government and the head of state are one and the same person - the President - and where it is quite possible for the electorate to give one party a majority in the legislature (Congress), but to elect as President the representative of another party. However, that said, from my observations of USA Presidential elections, they do tend to be popularity contests rather than rational forethought based on the candidates' policies. Personality cult?]
In all these events, it helps us if the people have some form of "difference" - some way that helps us to see them stand out, something that makes them discernibly different. And it seems to be a fact of human nature that we like our "heroes" to be different ... but not too different.
Political contests are a good example of this. Put two drab, dreary candidates up against each other and you can be pretty sure, whatever their policies are, that the campaign will be deemed to be boring. However, if one of those candidates introduces something even that little bit different, we start to pay attention and become interested. And then end up voting for the "interesting" candidate, mainly because we "like them" - not, you will note, because their policies are that much superior.
F1 is a bit like that. While the drivers can do their thing out on the circuit, we spectators do like it if there is a bit of verbal controversy floating around in the paddock as well.
In a recent article in The Australian newspaper, Alex Millmow, lecturer in economics at Australia's Charles Sturt University, said:
While we do have some exciting drivers - as drivers - in F1 at present, since the departure of Mansell F1 there don't really seem to have been any "personalities" among the ranks of the drivers. Let's face it, they are a pretty drab, dreary lot.
The nearest we really come to a personality is Flavio Briatore or Ken Tyrrell, but that's not a total surprise when you look at their competition in the team boss personality stakes (ie. Ron Dennis, Frank Williams, Tom Walkinshaw et al.).
Among the drivers, Eddie Irvine tries hard, but like all the other drivers, he does have to be aware of the sensibilities of his sponsors, his team and his team's sponsors.
And, whatever else he may do, Irvine just doesn't seem to have the same ability to manipulate the media the way that Mansell had. Whatever he did and wherever he went, Mansell had the marvellous ability to come over as a "hail fellow, well met" type of guy. In terms of sheer publicity, Mansell was brilliant at dragging in coverage ... not only for himself, but also for F1. Remember that coverage, ANY coverage, is better than no coverage.
The decline in the number of teams contesting F1 is generally said to be due to a lack of money from willing sponsors. And we all know that sponsors want coverage for their dollars - they want exposure. And did Mansell get that exposure for his sponsors? He certainly did.
And was that exposure limited just to Mansell, his sponsors and his team? No way. The whole of F1 benefited, because F1 got exposure, although somewhat limited.
Today, no driver can drum up the exposure that Mansell got. And no driver can drum up the exposure for F1 that Mansell got.
Michael Schumacher can command a huge salary and large amounts of money for endorsements. But, to be honest, does he generate much publicity? Does he generate much, if any, publicity for F1? He's a brilliant driver, but he doesn't come anywhere near Mansell in the personality stakes.
So, maybe, it's not only the lack of money that is slowly strangling F1. Perhaps, strange as it may seem, it's the lack of exposure, the lack of a personality, the lack of a personality cult.
Perhaps, if we had a controversial, publicity-seeking driver in F1, that would attract more media coverage (of the wrong sort, so far as I'm concerned, but if it helps get sponsors back into F1 maybe it's not such a bad idea), which would then attract more sponsors and their money, and us fans would see full grids again.
But wait, there's more! Perhaps, just perhaps, we would not only see full grids, but we might even see the Fortis, the Minardis, the Arrows and so on seriously challenging for podiums, along with a whole batch of new teams.
But that's just me.