I am philosophical about this. There is nothing in the nature of rally that lends it to doing the same thing as F1 (except in one crucial way they should absolutely imitate -- getting a very skillful documentary filmmaking team to document seasons behind the scenes a la Drive to Survive, which multiple non-motorsport-fan American friends and family of mine have repeatedly recommended to me, unprompted). Suggestions to build the sport by not doing the sport, or doing a different sport/event alongside it, seem like desperation. Desperation to achieve what? Parity with F1?

Why can't WRC be second fiddle to F1? Why does it always seem to urgently need so many more viewers, so much more visibility? The money, right. But then, is it a good idea in the first place to cost X millions to run a single car at the top level, so as to require a very high level of world market visibility to bring value the manu's that compete?

I don't know, if there was a lot less money in the sport I think I would still find it entertaining to see the best drivers in the world compete. If they were all driving slower cars, I'd be a little disappointed, sure, but driving skill does still show and HP by themselves are not so expensive. Others have said before, less tire and suspension and grip technologies and more HP also makes for a more spectacular driving style, if slower stage times. But oh no! That sounds like a regional backwater event.

What makes a WRC event special compared to a regional event? High level cars and high level drivers. In a regional event a rich gent can run a used WRC car competitively while the most talented driver in the event might be running a FWD. So WRC does need special visibility in media, from organizers, and from manu's and teams to try and find these good drivers and put them in the best cars to avoid that fate. Currently, this does happen in WRC to some extent - they do look for actually good drivers because it will win them rallies. Most of us would agree that current and past champions have not gotten there through luck of being the best funded guy (or on the best funded team, though you could argue that unequal teams do affect the championship a lot). If WRC maintains enough prestige so this system of talent scouting continued to exist, ensuring actual competition between actually skilled drivers, then I'd accept it never being F1.

If you are WRC and you "be yourself" - that is, don't chase money that requires you to try to change your sport into F1/rallycross/motogp etc., and if that means less money, regulate less money in the ways you can to still bring value to participants, it opens up opportunities in other ways. Format experimentation that keeps things still rally. Old timey nostalgics can suggest 5000 mile rallies that take 8 days or whatever. Corsica 8x 50km stages. All that stuff that feels more "pure" rally because it takes what makes rally special and increases it, rather than diminishing it.

And get people who know how to film this kind of thing not as sports coverage but as Film with a capital F. That's the biggest lesson to take from F1. Cinematic drama draws people to your live events/coverage.

Just some thoughts. The discussion always seems to be this desperate focus on being like the more successful motorsport when it can never be. Working with the differences as selling points seems like a better idea than pretending they don't exist.