Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 5 votes

F1's marketing model - bad and outdated? Limiting rather than using the internet etc.


  • Please log in to reply
215 replies to this topic

#1 Alx09

Alx09
  • Member

  • 1,278 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 15 November 2012 - 20:31

Reading the comments section of this article: http://www.jamesalle...tin-grand-prix/ - which basically says the only buzz there is, is on the internet regarding this COTA race.

It made me think:

1. Why do they remove fan-made videos on youtube and hunt down any type of footage? Let fans watch, create, and be creative. Involve them, get new people interested. Let people share, spread and watch.
2. Why are they not using the internet more? There are so many possibilities ignored.
Non-internet related:
3. Why is the price to attend an event so high that tracks usually have empty seats? Where is the logic there? It should always be filled to the max with cheering crowds. It does incredibly much for the overall feel.
4. Why are they leaving classic tracks and countries full of fans in favour of empty seats in some random desert?

They need to stop with this "unique/rare/premium" approach. F1 could be so much bigger, fans could be so much more involved.

Bernie & co seem to be very stuck in "old media", which is on the decline.

I understand that it's about money in the end, but I think much more money could be made if they adapted to new ways and stopped their content-policing of the internet.


As an example, I remember back in time around 2006-2008 when YouTube etc was pretty new, it was full of brilliant videos and material made by fans, with millions of views and discussions that must've brought a ton of fans to the sport. Now all videos are removed within a few days, and if you want to watch anything F1-related, you need to see the bad official race edits or wait for the next race. What's the point of limiting and removing rather than expanding?

Edited by Alx09, 18 November 2012 - 09:44.


Advertisement

#2 Nahnever

Nahnever
  • Member

  • 257 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 15 November 2012 - 20:40

Reading the comments section of this article: http://www.jamesalle...tin-grand-prix/

- which basically says the only buzz there is, is on the internet regarding this COTA race. It made me think:

1. Why do they remove fan-made videos on youtube and hunt down any type of footage? Let fans watch, create, and be creative. Involve them, get new people interested. Let people share, spread and watch.
2. Why is the price to attend an event so high that tracks usually have empty seats? Where is the logic there? It should always be filled to the max with cheering crowds. It does incredibly much for the overall feel.
3. Why are they not using the internet more? There are so many possibilities ignored.
4. Why are they leaving classic tracks and countries full of fans in favour of empty seats in some random desert?

They need to stop with this "unique/rare/premium" approach. F1 could be so much bigger, fans could be so much more involved.

Bernie & co seem to be very stuck in "old media", which is on the decline.

I understand that it's about money in the end, but I think much more money could be made if they adapted to new ways and stopped their content-policing of the internet.


As an example, I remember back in time around 2006-2008 when YouTube etc was pretty new, it was full of brilliant videos and material made by fans, with millions of views and discussions that must've brought a ton of fans to the sport. Now all videos are removed within a few days, and if you want to watch anything F1-related, you need to see the bad official race edits or wait for the next race. What's the point of limiting and removing rather than expanding?

Money, Money, Money. Nothing corrupts more than money and power. They can't see what's in their best interest like outsiders can because they're completely under its spell.

Edit: Oh yeah, the sport is ran by old guys :lol:

Edited by Nahnever, 15 November 2012 - 20:43.


#3 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 10,446 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 15 November 2012 - 20:44

The fans are the lowest common denominator. What money goes directly from fans to F1? Tickets? Merchandise? Television subscription?

Why should they cater for you? The fans make money for the circuits, teams and broadcasters.

Look at Turkey: no fans? Simply move the circuits to other countries and stick it on pay TV. Classic slash and burn.

Edited by Disgrace, 15 November 2012 - 20:48.


#4 ayali

ayali
  • Member

  • 729 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 15 November 2012 - 21:40

1. Why do they remove fan-made videos on youtube and hunt down any type of footage? Let fans watch, create, and be creative. Involve them, get new people interested. Let people share, spread and watch.
2. Why is the price to attend an event so high that tracks usually have empty seats? Where is the logic there? It should always be filled to the max with cheering crowds. It does incredibly much for the overall feel.
3. Why are they not using the internet more? There are so many possibilities ignored.
4. Why are they leaving classic tracks and countries full of fans in favour of empty seats in some random desert?

1. It's copyrighted material that others pay a lot for to air, broadcast or use online. Companies pay a lot of money for exclusive use of FOM material they expect FOM to prevent every numpty to put this on YouTube.
2. Tracks pay a high fee to get F1 to race there hence the high price. To see a top show (as F1 markets itself) you need to pay top dollar. Personally I don't care about empty grandstands when watching a race on TV, I watch for the racing not the crowds.
3. Yes they could do more but Joe the average F1 fan, who is most important to F1, doesn't really care for all that. It will come but slowly.
4. Because those countries can afford an F1 race. And again the fans, who cares how many fans are at the track?? At best I notice them after the race when they are allowed on track for the podium ceremony like in Monza but other than that I don't really care for them being there.

The money F1 makes comes from tracks and TV rights not directly from the fans, as long as people keep watching and there are governments/companies that pay for races to be held there's no incentive for FOM to change it's way of doing business.

#5 alfa1

alfa1
  • Member

  • 1,850 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 15 November 2012 - 22:14

1. Why do they remove fan-made videos on youtube and hunt down any type of footage? Let fans watch, create, and be creative..

1. Because FOM's income is mostly derived from selling the TV rights to TV stations worldwide.
Any method of watching F1 from any other method than a TV set reduces the value of those TV broadcast rights sales.

2. Why is the price to attend an event so high that tracks usually have empty seats?

2. Because the track has no other source of income (other than a few t-shirt sales).
FOM has signed up the rights to anything that might make money (such as trackside advertising), leaving the circuit with no other method of getting their money back.

3. Why are they not using the internet more? There are so many possibilities ignored.

3. Back to point 1. It undercuts the value of sitting in front of a TV.
Any minute you spend sitting in front of the computer is a minute not watching TV and seeing the ads on that TV.

4. Why are they leaving classic tracks and countries full of fans in favour of empty seats in some random desert?

4. Back to point 2. The tracks simply cant afford to run the races with such limited ways of returning any money.
Tracks cant afford to hold races anymore. Just governments with spare cash.


#6 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 5,144 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 15 November 2012 - 22:47

1. Because FOM's income is mostly derived from selling the TV rights to TV stations worldwide.
Any method of watching F1 from any other method than a TV set reduces the value of those TV broadcast rights sales.


[Edit]Maybe the contracts are written that way, but I don't think the assertion as such is necessarily correct [/edit], and it's the same fallacy as the music industry committed. Study after study has come to the conclusion that people who illegally download stuff also spend more on music than the average person. Which is only to be expected because people who download are obviously interested in music, and if they can download stuff in addition to what they can purchase, it keeps them interested. And as the success of iTunes and other online shops has shown, people are willing to buy if the offer is somewhat reasonable.

In the same way, if I am able to watch F1 footage on Youtube (historic stuff, recent controversial events, comparisons between cars/drivers), why would that make me not watch a race on TV? On the contrary, it makes me more knowledgeable and more interested. I can then discuss this stuff on BBs, again involving myself more, and therefore more likely to watch.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 15 November 2012 - 22:49.


#7 AlexS

AlexS
  • Member

  • 2,568 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 15 November 2012 - 23:33

KnucklesAgain says it all.

Current behavior destroys the ecosystem. Time is the most important commodity.

#8 Tonka

Tonka
  • Member

  • 834 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 15 November 2012 - 23:34

1. It's copyrighted material that others pay a lot for to air, broadcast or use online. Companies pay a lot of money for exclusive use of FOM material they expect FOM to prevent every numpty to put this on YouTube.



Like to give an example of this usage?



#9 ayali

ayali
  • Member

  • 729 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 15 November 2012 - 23:56

Like to give an example of this usage?

Sigh really, you don't know????
Let's keep it UK centric to fit with this forum, BBC iPlayer or Sky's coverage.
You really think they pay millions to have some numpty on YouTube fiddle around with content they paid for?

#10 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 5,144 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 00:05

Sigh really, you don't know????
Let's keep it UK centric to fit with this forum, BBC iPlayer or Sky's coverage.
You really think they pay millions to have some numpty on YouTube fiddle around with content they paid for?


In the 20 years (since RTL in Germany carried F1) combined, they probably used 5 minutes of historic footage. Scenes from current races are already old news and probably deleted from the servers by the next race. No, by the evening of the race.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 16 November 2012 - 00:05.


#11 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,443 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 16 November 2012 - 00:10

I don't see how them limiting what is mostly leering crash replay YouTube clips with bad rock music played over the top is losing us anything.

#12 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 3,864 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 16 November 2012 - 00:11

TV companies have always finished using the material within 2 or 3 days after the event, except for a recap at the end of the year. It's hard to imagine that they are complaining about YouTube videos.

The Formula One website shows videos, but the quality is so poor that it's hard to imagine they attract a very big audience.

It's really baffling how F1 management behaves.










#13 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,882 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 16 November 2012 - 01:59

i think there would be a market for classic races from say 10 years ago or more stuck on youtube with ads in them

#14 swiniodzik

swiniodzik
  • Member

  • 606 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:35

The claim that much more money could be made out of the sport if only the internet was utilized more looks rather deceptive, and for that reason neither Bernie nor the broadcasters seem to care. The analogy with music is interesting but in absolute numbers, how does it look in terms of people frequently listening to music and willing to reasonably pay for an internet product vs. F1 fans willing to do the same? Not the same order of magnitude, I'm afraid.

Bernie could sell historical footage but it'd probably give him peanuts compared to what he gets from all those wanting to host/advertise/transmit grand prix's, so he doesn't bother. The broadcasters could provide current footage on the internet because that's how Bernie sells the rights to them - he doesn't sell the tv rights per se, he just sells the rights to transmit his product and the method through which it's transmitted to the receivers is the broadcasters' matter - they just think the internet isn't a profitable enough platform even as a supplementary element to the television stuff they give us.

All the limiting and removing of internet footage results from this unspecified - as far as the method of transmission is concerned - nature of the contracts between Bernie and the broadcasters. He guarantees them exclusive rights to the F1 footage on all media platforms to the point that it's even written on the tickets that you automatically assign copyright in any photographs or recordings you make during the event to FOA.

#15 Tonka

Tonka
  • Member

  • 834 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 16 November 2012 - 10:43

Sigh really, you don't know????
Let's keep it UK centric to fit with this forum, BBC iPlayer or Sky's coverage.
You really think they pay millions to have some numpty on YouTube fiddle around with content they paid for?



For the most part BBC shows old, pre Bernie races or stuff they've paid for. As the BBC is currently paying Bernie to screen races, I very much doubt if he makes much out of their replays.

Got any real examples? You know - race/season DVD's - tv programmes, where Bernie does charge for usage.





#16 Xpat

Xpat
  • Member

  • 4,268 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 10:54

If you want to find the video, hell whole race broadcasts, online you can easily do so.

Bernie and F1 are like the music industry desperately fighting a losing battle instead of trying to get with the program.

They could do so much more. Put the races on demand, through Hulu or some similar service, and control what is out there more. But as it is, if you want to watch some past race you can utterly and completely bypass them and watch it on your own.

#17 Xpat

Xpat
  • Member

  • 4,268 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 10:55

TV companies have always finished using the material within 2 or 3 days after the event, except for a recap at the end of the year. It's hard to imagine that they are complaining about YouTube videos.

The Formula One website shows videos, but the quality is so poor that it's hard to imagine they attract a very big audience.

It's really baffling how F1 management behaves.


Be honest, they behave as if your 83 year old grandfather runs it. Oh wait......

#18 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,452 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 10:58

Bernie and F1 are like the music industry desperately fighting a losing battle instead of trying to get with the program.


Actually, Bernie and F1 are like the music industry; they are absolutely raking in the cash from the live product. They don't appear to be losing any battles to me...

#19 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 9,869 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 16 November 2012 - 11:11

There's BIG short-term gains to their strategy, the product is very exclusive hence very high value so they can sell it for very high prices to the TV stations. The internet can't really make much direct money for them so they'd rather shut it to emphasize how exclusive the TV product is.

However in the long-term it all becomes questionable, particularly demonstrated by the radical move to put F1 on pay TV. It killed the fanbase over here in Portugal and certainly will reduce the fanbase in the other nations they're doing the same. The internet ostracization doesn't do any favours to the younger generations neither - how high value will F1 be if the next generations don't watch F1? Which is why I generally agree with the OP's rant.

Advertisement

#20 ayali

ayali
  • Member

  • 729 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 16 November 2012 - 11:42

The claim that much more money could be made out of the sport if only the internet was utilized more looks rather deceptive, and for that reason neither Bernie nor the broadcasters seem to care.

Well if "much more" money could be made then surely FOM would be all over it, anyone who has an idea on that should by all means present a business plan for that to Bernie. If there's "much more" money in it he'll surely listen.

But reality is that there's not, 95% of the fans are casual fans who don't want online access to whatever (old) F1 footage, let alone want to pay for that.

That leaves the small group of hard-core F1 fans, such as those on BBs like this one and even then many of that already small group won't be interested or unwilling to pay for extra content.
Look at what happened when F1 went to Sky for half the races, self professed hard-core fans here and elsewhere who were unwilling (or unable) to pay for access to all the races live. How on earth would FOM be able to make any substantial profit from this small group?

For now it's easier just to remove illegal content online until there's an opportunity to make a profit or the necessity for example to reach a younger generation of fans.


#21 lustigson

lustigson
  • Member

  • 4,789 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 16 November 2012 - 12:26

Posted Image

#22 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,443 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 16 November 2012 - 13:00

They could do so much more. Put the races on demand, through Hulu or some similar service, and control what is out there more. But as it is, if you want to watch some past race you can utterly and completely bypass them and watch it on your own.


Does any other sport do this though?
You're asking for a service that nobody would ever have time or the inclination to use, and all the video they have on record has mind bending rights issues they'd have to deal with.

It wouldn't make enough to cover the costs of the streaming servers let alone the legal costs so that's why nobody bothers.

#23 Xpat

Xpat
  • Member

  • 4,268 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 13:11

Does any other sport do this though?
You're asking for a service that nobody would ever have time or the inclination to use, and all the video they have on record has mind bending rights issues they'd have to deal with.

It wouldn't make enough to cover the costs of the streaming servers let alone the legal costs so that's why nobody bothers.


I don't make a differentiation because it is a sport. It is entertainment. If I want to watch Boardwalk Empire I can DVR it, watch it when it is broadcast, or I can go on any number of online services and watch it.

What is the downside to putting the race on a service like Hulu the day after the race? What is the downside of having clips and races on YouTube?

Bernie controls the broadcast rights but once he sends it out over the airwaves he ceded a lot of the control. Like I said before I can find any race I want to watch if I have the inclination and Bernie can't do anything about it.

#24 Xpat

Xpat
  • Member

  • 4,268 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 13:16

Actually, Bernie and F1 are like the music industry; they are absolutely raking in the cash from the live product. They don't appear to be losing any battles to me...


This ignores the fact that the music industry doesn't look anything like it did 20 years ago. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming.





#25 turssi

turssi
  • Member

  • 1,561 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 13:22

Surely F1.com could be used better as a marketing tool. Today we just have a few interviews there, very little exclusive content.

Just close a deal with google to put all the content available on-line. Race footage could come up after the next race has aired, so the tv-companies would not need to complain.

#26 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,443 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 16 November 2012 - 13:35

I don't make a differentiation because it is a sport. It is entertainment. If I want to watch Boardwalk Empire I can DVR it, watch it when it is broadcast, or I can go on any number of online services and watch it.

What is the downside to putting the race on a service like Hulu the day after the race? What is the downside of having clips and races on YouTube?

Bernie controls the broadcast rights but once he sends it out over the airwaves he ceded a lot of the control. Like I said before I can find any race I want to watch if I have the inclination and Bernie can't do anything about it.


I'm assuming you're living in America because you're talking about Hulu?

In the UK both Sky and the BBC put out the race live online and/or offer race highlights on demand online right after the race finishes which can be watched up until the next race weekend.

If the American broadcasters aren't hosting on demand race replays or doing online broadcasts then it must be because they can't/wont pay for it, because i'm sure FOM offers the rights to broadcast races online to all broadcasters.

It isn't really up to FOM to make up for your broadcasters lack of effort.

Edited by johnmhinds, 16 November 2012 - 13:36.


#27 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,452 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 13:37

This ignores the fact that the music industry doesn't look anything like it did 20 years ago. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming.


Whereas the F1 model is still pretty much the same as it was 20 years ago.

#28 Victor_RO

Victor_RO
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,863 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 16 November 2012 - 13:38

If the American broadcasters aren't hosting on demand race replays or doing online broadcasts then it must be because they can't/wont pay for it, because i'm sure FOM offers the rights to broadcast races online to all broadcasters.

It isn't really up to FOM to make up for your broadcasters lack of effort.


Some other racing series (Indycar, ALMS, WEC to name a few) are providing live streaming and/or have started uploading races and/or highlights to Youtube or other video websites. And it is being done on behalf of the rightsholder/series organizer.

#29 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,452 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 13:44

Some other racing series (Indycar, ALMS, WEC to name a few) are providing live streaming and/or have started uploading races and/or highlights to Youtube or other video websites. And it is being done on behalf of the rightsholder/series organizer.


I may be wrong, but I don't think these series have the same worldwide rights values (I am aware they may be very popular in certain markets, but not worldwide). I think the only place I can even see Indycar in the UK is on Sky, and they seem to be getting 20-30k viewers per race - not many of them have bought a Sky sub just for Indy....

Edited by smitten, 16 November 2012 - 13:45.


#30 Tuxy

Tuxy
  • Member

  • 964 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 16 November 2012 - 13:45

A lot of old greedy white people need to die before Formula 1 catches up with rest of the world.

It's downright pathetic in 2012 the "pinnacle of motorsport" is not broadcast online.

#31 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,452 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 13:47

It's downright pathetic in 2012 the "pinnacle of motorsport" is not broadcast online.


Why?


#32 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,443 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 16 November 2012 - 13:48

A lot of old greedy white people need to die before Formula 1 catches up with rest of the world.

It's downright pathetic in 2012 the "pinnacle of motorsport" is not broadcast online.


It is in most countries though???

#33 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 16 November 2012 - 13:54

A lot of old greedy white people need to die before Formula 1 catches up with rest of the world.

It's downright pathetic in 2012 the "pinnacle of motorsport" is not broadcast online.


it is broadcast online, or to put it better the regional networks that own the rights have the option of broadcasting it online for their own viewers. But no, centralized online broadcast would devalue all the individual regional deals so it won't happen. Keep in mind that you are comparing F1 which is a global sport with very region specific sports. For example, can you watch the superbowl online (legally) from I don't know Switzerland? No. Can you watch Spanish or British league soccer online (legally) from Germany? No.

Edited by engel, 16 November 2012 - 13:55.


#34 ayali

ayali
  • Member

  • 729 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 16 November 2012 - 13:54

It's downright pathetic in 2012 the "pinnacle of motorsport" is not broadcast online.

Go and complain to your local broadcaster, they are the ones who are not making it available to you.

#35 Xpat

Xpat
  • Member

  • 4,268 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 13:57

Whereas the F1 model is still pretty much the same as it was 20 years ago.


You're right. F1 has embraced the new media. :rolleyes:

Close the thread.

#36 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,443 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 16 November 2012 - 14:02

You're right. F1 has embraced the new media. :rolleyes:

Close the thread.


You've never said what service you even want.
FIFA doesn't broadcast the World Cup matches on fifa.com, why are you expecting live races on formula1.com

Like others have said, if you want to watch F1 online complain to your local broadcaster.

All the F1 races and practice sessions have been broadcast live online in the UK since at least 2008.

Edited by johnmhinds, 16 November 2012 - 14:05.


#37 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 16 November 2012 - 14:09

What is the downside to putting the race on a service like Hulu the day after the race?


That's not Bernie's problem. The BBC streams whatever races it covers live. And whatever highlights it provides too. And both are available on its own version of Hulu (iplayer). If speed or NBC or whoever else gets the F1 rights wants to put the race on Hulu, stream it live from their websites as it airs, whatever, they can do so. If they don't it's not F1's failure, it's the broadcasters' failure for not promoting their product as much as they can.

#38 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,452 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 14:15

You're right. F1 has embraced the new media. :rolleyes:

Close the thread.


You still can't tell me why they ought to.


#39 Xpat

Xpat
  • Member

  • 4,268 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 15:44

I don't think they have to because, like I said, I can watch any race I want any time I want. It just doesn't seem to me they are taking full advantage of the medium.

I still can't see what advantage is to be gained by stomping out every video on YouTube.

And I couldn't care less if the stream it on the internet. I have a nice 27in monitor but I can't imagine why I would watch a race on that instead of my 55in TV.

I imagine when someone who isn't an octogenarian is running things it might change. Actuarial tables indicate we might only have to wait 6 years.



Advertisement

#40 Jackmancer

Jackmancer
  • Member

  • 2,894 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 16 November 2012 - 15:50

Yeh, F1 is becoming a business-to-business product almost, or business-to-government. It's a shame, and all points above are super-valid. I'd actually pay for a proper livestream, since the Dutch broadcaster is moving to pay television, but actually, I don't want pay television, cause then I have to up my television fee and buy a pricy box.

Things like that.

#41 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,915 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 16:00

I don't think they have to because, like I said, I can watch any race I want any time I want. It just doesn't seem to me they are taking full advantage of the medium.

I still can't see what advantage is to be gained by stomping out every video on YouTube.

And I couldn't care less if the stream it on the internet. I have a nice 27in monitor but I can't imagine why I would watch a race on that instead of my 55in TV.

I imagine when someone who isn't an octogenarian is running things it might change. Actuarial tables indicate we might only have to wait 6 years.


I agree... but with so much footage in their vaults sitting doing nothing, surely FOM could introduce an 'on-demand' service that allowed users/subscribers access to races in their vault, to collections of certain drivers best moments, great overtakes etc. etc. ALL legally, and not just on youtube where you don't know if it'll be on the site in a weeks time.

#42 Xpat

Xpat
  • Member

  • 4,268 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 16:00

This is what they should be doing more of!!!


http://www.youtube.c...;feature=g-vrec

#43 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,452 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 16:18

It just doesn't seem to me they are taking full advantage of the medium.


You still can't say what they are not taking full advantage of. The Youtube thing is just copyright protection.


I imagine when someone who isn't an octogenarian is running things it might change.


I'm not sure that has much to do with it.


but with so much footage in their vaults sitting doing nothing, surely FOM could introduce an 'on-demand' service that allowed users/subscribers access to races in their vault, to collections of certain drivers best moments, great overtakes etc. etc. ALL legally, and not just on youtube where you don't know if it'll be on the site in a weeks time.


Because all that costs A LOT of money and where is the market? How much would you actually pay to rewatch US 2005?


#44 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 16 November 2012 - 16:48

They are lost so deep on money and haven't bothered checking the latest of the modern world. Removing fan videos is just silly. I think those sort of videos do a lot for F1. As long as the videos acknowledge those are properties of F1 and posted for the sport's general cause and not for commercial purposes, I can't see how it would be bad for F1. What the F1 community should be doing, the fans are doing it for them. It is a help.

They haven't embraced internet at all.

#45 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,452 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 17:15

Removing fan videos is just silly. I think those sort of videos do a lot for F1.


Any evidence for that assertion, or do we just like watching something for nothing?

#46 Xpat

Xpat
  • Member

  • 4,268 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 18:37

Any evidence for that assertion, or do we just like watching something for nothing?


We can do that today.

#47 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,452 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 19:06

We can do that today.


So no evidence then. You think F1 doesn't embrace new media, but you have no idea what they should do with it other than give it to you for free. I don't think you understand the F1 business model very well....


#48 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 5,144 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 19:24

it is broadcast online, or to put it better the regional networks that own the rights have the option of broadcasting it online for their own viewers. But no, centralized online broadcast would devalue all the individual regional deals so it won't happen. Keep in mind that you are comparing F1 which is a global sport with very region specific sports. For example, can you watch the superbowl online (legally) from I don't know Switzerland? No. Can you watch Spanish or British league soccer online (legally) from Germany? No.


Dunno about the Superbowl, but Premier League? Absolutely I can (Edit: sorry at first I overlooked that you had written "online", which is why I gave you Sky German, but I guess Sky has an online version anyway? Dunno). Primera DivisiĆ³n is not on TV because Sky did not sign the contract, but it is perfectly legal to watch on www.laola.tv

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 16 November 2012 - 19:30.


#49 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 5,144 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 19:33

Any evidence for that assertion, or do we just like watching something for nothing?


http://piracy.americ...ions-come-from/
And every other study (if not commissioned by the content industry) on the subject of music downloads in recent years came to the same conclusion.

Edit: Regarding what to do with it: would it not be great to be readily able to compare Webber's allegedly flexing nose & wing assembly to super-slomo shots of cars through the chicane at the old Hockenheimring, which were a standard feature of German broadcast 20 years ago? The way it is today, it is terrible difficult to get a historic perspective, which IMHO hurts the sport.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 16 November 2012 - 19:47.


#50 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 16 November 2012 - 19:41

Any evidence for that assertion, or do we just like watching something for nothing?

Why? Just because it is watched for nothing, it has to be stopped no matter what? I learned a lot about F1 watching old videos on youtube. Improvements in safety, old circuits, old winners, etc. Is it me watching something for nothing or me gaining more and more appreciation and passion for the sport to a level where it is now?