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F1's marketing model - bad and outdated?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

#51 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,442 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 19:42

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.


Apples and Oranges.

If you wish to compare F1 with the music industry then don't look at recorded but live music. And even then the analogy isn't very strong; most of F1 revenue is B2B, not from consumers.


Advertisement

#52 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,824 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 19:46

Apples and Oranges.

If you wish to compare F1 with the music industry then don't look at recorded but live music. And even then the analogy isn't very strong; most of F1 revenue is B2B, not from consumers.


It was a reply to your accusation of wanting something for nothing just because someone wants to have stuff online. The music study shows that that's not even true for frequent illegal downloaders, actually it's the opposite.

Most of direct F1 revenue is B2B, but if consumers stop watching the businesses will stop to pay.

And BTW I made this edit to my post after you replied:
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.


#53 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,442 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 19:47

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?


CVC don't care about your appreciation and passion, they care about your wallet; and even then they only care about it indirectly. In all honesty, how much money have you put directly into CVC's coffers because of you increased passion and appreciation?

#54 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,824 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 19:52

CVC don't care about your appreciation and passion, they care about your wallet; and even then they only care about it indirectly. In all honesty, how much money have you put directly into CVC's coffers because of you increased passion and appreciation?


Without appreciation and passion on the part of the consumers, CVS will lose access to their wallets as well. Dunno why this is so hard to understand. And since young peoples' use of TV is declining, CVC will have to react some time: http://www.msnbc.msn...tv-log-instead/

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 16 November 2012 - 19:55.


#55 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 16 November 2012 - 19:54

CVC don't care about your appreciation and passion, they care about your wallet; and even then they only care about it indirectly. In all honesty, how much money have you put directly into CVC's coffers because of you increased passion and appreciation?

You are the one who does not seem to be understanding the business model. How exactly is CVC getting money into its coffers?

#56 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,206 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 16 November 2012 - 19:59

Simple question: Where are the official Facebook and Twitter F1 pages for fans to interact with each other?

Answer: There is not an official F1 Facebook page, and the Twitter pages (F1/Formula1) are automated. Not very welcoming for new fans...

#57 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,442 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 19:59

You are the one who does not seem to be understanding the business model. How exactly is CVC getting money into its coffers?


By selling rights to other businesses. The chances of you paying anything directly to CVC are nil.


#58 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 16 November 2012 - 20:04

By selling rights to other businesses. The chances of you paying anything directly to CVC are nil.

Okay, that's a start. Now, why are other businesses interested? Who fills their coffers?

#59 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,588 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 20:06

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




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




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


I don't want to watch US 2005 (I didn't bother the first time round!)... but I wouldn't mind paying a few pounds for a 'Nigel Mansell Collection' of his best races, or an 'Ayrton Senna Pole Laps' set.

Sat on a train up to my parents, or bored lying in bed at night... I could pop onto formula1.com, go to their video store, browse through and quickly download something to watch. It's totally legal, and gives FOM money that they wouldn't get from me 'getting my fix' by other means...

Advertisement

#60 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,442 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 20:51

Okay, that's a start. Now, why are other businesses interested? Who fills their coffers?


I am well aware that the answer is usually the consumer but that still doesn't make CVC care about you. Watching old GPs may encourage you to buy a packet of JPS, but Imperial Tobacco don't give any more money to CVC.

CVC has no relationship with the end consumer. For them to do something no other sport (that I know of) does and sell old footage to a new market for them (the end consumer) with all that entails is probably not cost-effective. The number of people who would actually pay for this is probably extremely limited.


#61 Xpat

Xpat
  • Member

  • 3,990 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 21:01

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....


I am not sure you understand young people, maybe you were born old.

If a young person can't devour the content online and on their own terms they won't pay attention to it.

And, as I've said, anyone with a computer can get it free already.

#62 Xpat

Xpat
  • Member

  • 3,990 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 21:08

I am well aware that the answer is usually the consumer but that still doesn't make CVC care about you. Watching old GPs may encourage you to buy a packet of JPS, but Imperial Tobacco don't give any more money to CVC.

CVC has no relationship with the end consumer. For them to do something no other sport (that I know of) does and sell old footage to a new market for them (the end consumer) with all that entails is probably not cost-effective. The number of people who would actually pay for this is probably extremely limited.


The thing you don't see with other sports (in the US anyway) is the leagues trying to stamp out every video that show up on the internet.

You haven't given any compelling reason for F1 to have F1 videos taken off YouTube. It seems it would cost them more to monitor something like that.

#63 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 16 November 2012 - 21:19

I am well aware that the answer is usually the consumer but that still doesn't make CVC care about you. Watching old GPs may encourage you to buy a packet of JPS, but Imperial Tobacco don't give any more money to CVC.

Watching old GPs encourages one to watch more present GP. So, one is likely to buy the presently advertised products. Money to CVC comes from the fans no matter how many hands it changes.

CVC has no relationship with the end consumer. For them to do something no other sport (that I know of) does and sell old footage to a new market for them (the end consumer) with all that entails is probably not cost-effective. The number of people who would actually pay for this is probably extremely limited.

NBA does a lot of things online. Have you seen the online coverages French Open and Wimbledon provide during the tournaments? F1 is too short-sighted because it is so full of itself. As someone said, where is the F1 Facebook page?

#64 ayali

ayali
  • Member

  • 729 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 16 November 2012 - 21:45

Watching old GPs encourages one to watch more present GP.

There are not millions of fans who want to see old GPs, it is only a select few hardcore fans or geeks who want that kind of stuff. There is nothing in it for FOM that's why they won't do it.

NBA does a lot of things online. Have you seen the online coverages French Open and Wimbledon provide during the tournaments? F1 is too short-sighted because it is so full of itself. As someone said, where is the F1 Facebook page?

FOM doesn't have a relationship with the fans the teams do, they -probably- have Facebook pages for the fans to interact.
Stop looking at things from your hardcore F1 fan position and try looking at it from FOM's perspective.


#65 Talisker

Talisker
  • Member

  • 282 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 16 November 2012 - 21:54

I agree that their model is very old fashioned, restrictive and unimaginative. But it doesn't matter. FOM is effectively a monopoly so they can be completely rubbish and still rake in the cash. They're the only company who can provide coverage of F1 races. And due to the extremely high barriers to entry there are no serious competitors to F1 itself as a race series. FOM just has to be good enough that people don't lose interest altogether, but that's not a very high bar. They would get ripped apart with this approach in a competitive industry.

#66 Richard T

Richard T
  • Member

  • 1,185 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 16 November 2012 - 21:56

1 answer to all questions: Formula 1 is fuc*ing expensive.

#67 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,234 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 16 November 2012 - 22:02

Sat on a train up to my parents, or bored lying in bed at night... I could pop onto formula1.com, go to their video store, browse through and quickly download something to watch. It's totally legal, and gives FOM money that they wouldn't get from me 'getting my fix' by other means...


While that would be nice I don't think the market for "bored lying in bed bored F1 fans who want to watch old Nigel Mansell clips" is very big.

You're all wildly underestimating the amount of money and man hours it would take to create a searchable database of all the video FOM has ever created.

They film hundreds if not thousands of hours of video each weekend, it is never going to be profitable to host it all and create searchable databases for the very tiny percentage of users who would use such a service.

Edited by johnmhinds, 16 November 2012 - 22:03.


#68 Lights

Lights
  • Member

  • 9,463 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 22:12

F1 itself doesn't have to because it has contracted broadcasters who in turn can create 'exclusive' features. Yes, besides this they could embrace the internet better but that task is probably underestimated. They don't have the people right now to really know what the fans 'want'.

#69 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,588 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 22:24

While that would be nice I don't think the market for "bored lying in bed bored F1 fans who want to watch old Nigel Mansell clips" is very big.

You're all wildly underestimating the amount of money and man hours it would take to create a searchable database of all the video FOM has ever created.

They film hundreds if not thousands of hours of video each weekend, it is never going to be profitable to host it all and create searchable databases for the very tiny percentage of users who would use such a service.


You're probably right, but I would like to say that however niche a market this idea is... I'm in that bracket.

I would gladly pay (not through the nose, but a fair valuable price) for a legal central service from FOM for past F1 races and content. Consider it a Netflix for F1 (NetF1ix if you will).

As Xpat has mentioned all this stuff is available already on the internet, but some people (not necessarily me) have a problem with torrenting and the more 'shady' methods of downloading online content. There are problems with ISP's throttling users who have torrent programs open (this has happened to me on my work network), potential criminal sentences for 'getting caught' and any other number of potential issues.

FOM/CVC have an opportunity to bring this stuff into the legal download market, and with some marketing (because F1 is a lot bigger on the internet now than even a few years ago thanks to social media, forums etc.) could tap into the internet savvy youth who gobble all this kind of stuff up, and do pay for services like Netflix, LoveFilm, Spotify etc.

#70 Xpat

Xpat
  • Member

  • 3,990 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 22:24

While that would be nice I don't think the market for "bored lying in bed bored F1 fans who want to watch old Nigel Mansell clips" is very big.

You're all wildly underestimating the amount of money and man hours it would take to create a searchable database of all the video FOM has ever created.

They film hundreds if not thousands of hours of video each weekend, it is never going to be profitable to host it all and create searchable databases for the very tiny percentage of users who would use such a service.


It costs a lot of money to do that, you are correct.

A vibrant online community could do it better and for free. If only F1 wouldn't threaten thumb-screws every time someone posts a 30 second video.

#71 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,588 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 22:49

It costs a lot of money to do that, you are correct.

A vibrant online community could do it better and for free. If only F1 wouldn't threaten thumb-screws every time someone posts a 30 second video.


Exactly. I'm not asking for Free Practice 2 from the 1986 Austrian Grand Prix. I'm talking about specially produced programming that is sellable for those who consume videos on their phone or tablet or computer.

#72 ayali

ayali
  • Member

  • 729 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 16 November 2012 - 22:59

I'm talking about specially produced programming that is sellable for those who consume videos on their phone or tablet or computer.

Can't imagine what that would be but it will cost a lot to produce that and there will be hardly anybody buying.

#73 swiniodzik

swiniodzik
  • Member

  • 606 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 16 November 2012 - 23:30

There will always be a conflict of interest between the commercial rights holders and the fans. The former are being profit-driven and the latter demanding as wide and cheap possible access to stuff as possible. What seems to be an old-fashioned or unimaginative model for us is just a goal-oriented and money-effective approach for the other side. I'd be great to find a somehow better balance between these two conflicting interests than what we've today and many of the postulates people are putting in here sound right.

Basketball or tennis fans may have it a little bit better with the coverage of their sports and some niche disciplines have it yet even better - biathlon events for example, the world championships included, are being streamed freely live on the federation's site. However, in F1 what we've got is very much a David vs. Goliath battle as the commercial revenues are the highest here and so is the owner's greed we've to fight with. We don't even have a kind of a formal or quasi formal body that would lobby for our interests behind the scenes like football fans have their associations. I naively hoped FOTA would act as one in a sense after their loud slogans about caring about us but those turned out to be very much empty words, sadly.

#74 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 6,588 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 November 2012 - 23:35

Can't imagine what that would be but it will cost a lot to produce that and there will be hardly anybody buying.


Like I've mentioned earlier on, 'box-sets' of driver's best races etc. Not that hard considering you just need someone (could even be fans) to decide what the best races of that driver/team/circuit are and then dig them out of the vaults...

#75 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,442 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 17 November 2012 - 00:11

Exactly. I'm not asking for Free Practice 2 from the 1986 Austrian Grand Prix. I'm talking about specially produced programming that is sellable for those who consume videos on their phone or tablet or computer.


So you are asking for FOM to "specially produce" programming, make it available in 3 different formats, set up the infrastructure to distribute it on demand, set up customer support and billing for consumers (which they don't currently have), police it across the internet to protect this investment, devalue their exclusive contract with national tv networks, devalue their licencing deals with DVD manuf. for a limited audience of you and Nigel's mother and all for a "reasonable" price? I don't think that is quite as trivial as you think it is.

#76 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,234 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 17 November 2012 - 00:24

It costs a lot of money to do that, you are correct.

A vibrant online community could do it better and for free. If only F1 wouldn't threaten thumb-screws every time someone posts a 30 second video.


I wouldn't argue that anyone on YouTube is doing a better job than the TV broadcasters or even trying to produce quality content around F1.

There is no money in 30 second crash replay videos posted next to home videos of cats and babies.
YouTube is losing money each time you watch those kind of videos so its even in their interest for FOM to clear it up for them.

#77 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,987 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 17 November 2012 - 01:44

[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.

iTunes just about breaks even, and that's a big fail given the lock Apple has on users and the marketing budget they spunk.

People who regularly download illegally spend more on music, yes. People who might decide to become involved in a paid service may not if their irregular need for content is met by a free provider. I don't actually think that music and F1 have much crossover in this regard anyway, but even for music you can't make a cast iron case for open content driving sales. The balance of free to paid has to be managed very carefully for it to work, and nobody is really on top of it. And that's not for want of trying.

Wel, apart from me, obviously :cat:

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.

That's pretty much why F1 and music don't stack up from a free content perspective. Talking about illegal downloads rather than streaming, if I can obtain all of an act's recorded music for free, where's the incentive to buy it?

Beyond a desire to own a collection, which you can't actually do with digital stuff anyway, you only have usage rights.

Unless you transfer them to a trust, which may offer up some comedic court cases soon.

#78 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,987 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 17 November 2012 - 01:45

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

Yep, you're so right. F1 really lags behind other motorsports in terms of audience.


#79 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,987 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 17 November 2012 - 01:55

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.

This is all pretty reasonable, and probably doesn't go far enough.

The people here who want to see more of F1 are precisely the ones who will pay more to see it. F1 is like all sport, ephemeral. Once it's done, it's done. For 99% of the audience, that's it, unless there's a decent (short) highlights package. They won't go and find it on the internet once they know the result. They ecrtainly won't wait until 12:57 to see Vettel's nose wobble a millimetre or two. They won't spend the time to see (or care!) whether Hamilton or Alonso took the better lines into a corner, or whether Raikkonen (WHO!?!) deserved his win after coming out of retirement (never realised he'd started, let alone retired. Where's he from?)

The basic point is, providing F1 highlights free benefits the people here, not the mass audience. And the people here (well, the more honourable amongst us) are the ones who will pay for content. So if nobody else cares, and we'll pay, why make it available for free?

Unless they could download it before it happened, which everyone would watch. But I reckon that's a way off yet.

Advertisement

#80 Xpat

Xpat
  • Member

  • 3,990 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 17 November 2012 - 02:18

I wouldn't argue that anyone on YouTube is doing a better job than the TV broadcasters or even trying to produce quality content around F1.

There is no money in 30 second crash replay videos posted next to home videos of cats and babies.
YouTube is losing money each time you watch those kind of videos so its even in their interest for FOM to clear it up for them.


You've missed the point entirely.

Are they losing money when someone puts together a Best Passes of Fernando Alonso video and posts it on YouTube? Is it bad for CVC or F1 when someone puts together a Tumblr page dedicated to F1 photos or race clips? Or does all of that add to the excitement of the fan base and have the very real potential to expand it? Do the rights holders of the Twilight Films stamp out every video that pops up anywhere? No, because they understand that dedicated fans with a passion for the subject are their best (totally friggin free) advertisement.

There is a series of videos on YouTube put together by a guy with a passion for the US Space agency NASA. It is a good example of what someone with a passion can do. While the video he uses comes under fair use and there is no prohibition against using the NASA logo none of that is the real point. The point is that someone with a passion for the organization spent his time and his money (if any) to make a video that has 2 million views and it didn't cost NASA a dime.



Do they sell any video other than the year end review DVD's? Do they make a lot of money off of old race video? For the price of your email address they will let you look at 3 minute highlight videos of each race.

#81 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,987 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 17 November 2012 - 02:27

You've missed the point entirely.

Are they losing money when someone puts together a Best Passes of Fernando Alonso video and posts it on YouTube? Is it bad for CVC or F1 when someone puts together a Tumblr page dedicated to F1 photos or race clips? Or does all of that add to the excitement of the fan base and have the very real potential to expand it? Do the rights holders of the Twilight Films stamp out every video that pops up anywhere? No, because they understand that dedicated fans with a passion for the subject are their best (totally friggin free) advertisement.

There is a series of videos on YouTube put together by a guy with a passion for the US Space agency NASA. It is a good example of what someone with a passion can do. While the video he uses comes under fair use and there is no prohibition against using the NASA logo none of that is the real point. The point is that someone with a passion for the organization spent his time and his money (if any) to make a video that has 2 million views and it didn't cost NASA a dime.



Do they sell any video other than the year end review DVD's? Do they make a lot of money off of old race video? For the price of your email address they will let you look at 3 minute highlight videos of each race.

F1 is already the (make up a number between 3 and 5)th largest sport by audience in the world. Probably. It doesn't need that kind of free publicity.

Actually, thinking about it, I wonder how much of this is driven by the teams and sponsors. Very few sports have such a visible association with their paymasters.

For instance, Vodafone may not be too happy with the whole world realising Marlboro McLaren was much better than Vodafone McLaren, So better not to talk about the past. Because the variable is Vodafone. Which means Vodafone is worse than the world's most notorious deathstick company.

Just as a for instance.

#82 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,747 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 17 November 2012 - 03:03

its worth pointing out theres people making a decent living off making there own youtube video's, quite often niche area's.

so to take old races races barely any broadcaster does anything with and shove it up on youtube you wouldnt actually be a big deal really, and they would get a ok income from adverts, is anyone buying the 1985 series review now for example ?

Edited by pingu666, 17 November 2012 - 03:06.


#83 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,747 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 17 November 2012 - 03:12

quick look on amazon, amazon itself looks to only to have current to - 2006 in stock, and thats down to 1 copy

and 1985 is vhs xD

#84 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,234 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 17 November 2012 - 06:00

its worth pointing out theres people making a decent living off making there own youtube video's, quite often niche area's.

so to take old races races barely any broadcaster does anything with and shove it up on youtube you wouldnt actually be a big deal really, and they would get a ok income from adverts, is anyone buying the 1985 series review now for example ?


The money YouTube users make from adverts is nothing though compared to FOMs TV deals.

As huge as YouTube seems these days, as you said even the biggest people on there like Ray William Johnson, Philip DeFranco or Shane Dawson don't make more than a slightly above average living wage.

As nice of an idea as it sounds even using free hosting via YouTube wouldn't make it economically viable to upload old F1 races.
No video of an old race from the 70s or 80s is going to get millions of advertising views to cover the still rather high costs of paying an editor to process and upload all of that old content.

It's going to cost you at the very least a couple of million to get an editing team together and process all of the old races for online streaming.

#85 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 17 November 2012 - 06:25

There are not millions of fans who want to see old GPs, it is only a select few hardcore fans or geeks who want that kind of stuff. There is nothing in it for FOM that's why they won't do it.


FOM doesn't have a relationship with the fans the teams do, they -probably- have Facebook pages for the fans to interact.
Stop looking at things from your hardcore F1 fan position and try looking at it from FOM's perspective.

No, hardcore fans are not just themselves. Every hardcore fans brings along 10 casual fans. I have seen that in my house, my friends' house, my hostel. They are the one who spread the word and sustain the buzz. It is such a miconceived notion that hardcore fans are less and make no difference. Any sport would be nowhere without hardcore fans.

Sorry I don't want to look from FOM's perspective because I know how it is and it sucks. Teams have facebook page to promote their team not the whole sport. The sport's facebook page should come from the sport's promoter. Who is F1's promoter? :stoned:

I agree that their model is very old fashioned, restrictive and unimaginative. But it doesn't matter. FOM is effectively a monopoly so they can be completely rubbish and still rake in the cash. They're the only company who can provide coverage of F1 races. And due to the extremely high barriers to entry there are no serious competitors to F1 itself as a race series. FOM just has to be good enough that people don't lose interest altogether, but that's not a very high bar. They would get ripped apart with this approach in a competitive industry.

Exactly!

You've missed the point entirely.

Are they losing money when someone puts together a Best Passes of Fernando Alonso video and posts it on YouTube? Is it bad for CVC or F1 when someone puts together a Tumblr page dedicated to F1 photos or race clips? Or does all of that add to the excitement of the fan base and have the very real potential to expand it? Do the rights holders of the Twilight Films stamp out every video that pops up anywhere? No, because they understand that dedicated fans with a passion for the subject are their best (totally friggin free) advertisement.

Truer word have never been spoken!

Edited by SpaMaster, 17 November 2012 - 06:29.


#86 Xpat

Xpat
  • Member

  • 3,990 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 17 November 2012 - 11:53

The money YouTube users make from adverts is nothing though compared to FOMs TV deals.

As huge as YouTube seems these days, as you said even the biggest people on there like Ray William Johnson, Philip DeFranco or Shane Dawson don't make more than a slightly above average living wage.

As nice of an idea as it sounds even using free hosting via YouTube wouldn't make it economically viable to upload old F1 races.
No video of an old race from the 70s or 80s is going to get millions of advertising views to cover the still rather high costs of paying an editor to process and upload all of that old content.

It's going to cost you at the very least a couple of million to get an editing team together and process all of the old races for online streaming.


Now I think you are missing the point deliberately.

We aren't talking about FOM putting the videos on YouTube. We aren't talking about someone trying to make a living making videos. We are talking about fans putting videos together and posting them. All FOM have to do is put the video they took during the race weekend online. And they might not have to do that. This would cost them next to nothing.

#87 itsademo

itsademo
  • Member

  • 404 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 17 November 2012 - 12:22

Now I think you are missing the point deliberately.

We aren't talking about FOM putting the videos on YouTube. We aren't talking about someone trying to make a living making videos. We are talking about fans putting videos together and posting them. All FOM have to do is put the video they took during the race weekend online. And they might not have to do that. This would cost them next to nothing.

unfortunatly that one line shows how little you understand the economics of 'just' puting some video online.
Yes terrabytes of storage are not too expensive however you still have the servers the sysadmins the other backroom staff needed to ensure the videos are put on line and kept available.
Then you have the bandwidth costs not to mention the legal implications that esnure many of the videos will need to be heavily edited to comply with current laws.
And YOU still ignore the fact FOM supply to broadcasters not to the public that is their business model just like broadcasters supply to end users.
What you want goes directly against their business model which ensures only their customers get to broadcast their events which will also be why they HAVE to take down you tube videos as they will break the contract with the broadcasters if they ignored them.

And for all this cost FOM will gain nothing but will risk revenues from their customers the broadcasters who clearly dont want others putting online for free what they pay for.

#88 spacekid

spacekid
  • Member

  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 17 November 2012 - 13:34

I feel like I'm reading two separate threads.

Surely the point is not - FOM should host videos of old races.

Its - why are FOM so aggressive removing video clips of old races dating back to the 80s/90s that fans take the time to post to the internet? I have seen plenty of races put up by fans that are around 20 years old that get taken down, and I can't see any possible harm done from them. There is a difference between allowing outright piracy of current content, and turning a blind eye to fans enjoying footage from over a decade ago.

#89 Alx09

Alx09
  • Member

  • 1,278 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 17 November 2012 - 14:03

You've missed the point entirely.

Are they losing money when someone puts together a Best Passes of Fernando Alonso video and posts it on YouTube? Is it bad for CVC or F1 when someone puts together a Tumblr page dedicated to F1 photos or race clips? Or does all of that add to the excitement of the fan base and have the very real potential to expand it? Do the rights holders of the Twilight Films stamp out every video that pops up anywhere? No, because they understand that dedicated fans with a passion for the subject are their best (totally friggin free) advertisement.

There is a series of videos on YouTube put together by a guy with a passion for the US Space agency NASA. It is a good example of what someone with a passion can do. While the video he uses comes under fair use and there is no prohibition against using the NASA logo none of that is the real point. The point is that someone with a passion for the organization spent his time and his money (if any) to make a video that has 2 million views and it didn't cost NASA a dime.

Right on. :up: - this is the point. Why say no to more fans and free advertising?

#90 Xpat

Xpat
  • Member

  • 3,990 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 17 November 2012 - 14:04

unfortunatly that one line shows how little you understand the economics of 'just' puting some video online.
Yes terrabytes of storage are not too expensive however you still have the servers the sysadmins the other backroom staff needed to ensure the videos are put on line and kept available.
Then you have the bandwidth costs not to mention the legal implications that esnure many of the videos will need to be heavily edited to comply with current laws.
And YOU still ignore the fact FOM supply to broadcasters not to the public that is their business model just like broadcasters supply to end users.
What you want goes directly against their business model which ensures only their customers get to broadcast their events which will also be why they HAVE to take down you tube videos as they will break the contract with the broadcasters if they ignored them.

And for all this cost FOM will gain nothing but will risk revenues from their customers the broadcasters who clearly dont want others putting online for free what they pay for.


They already maintain the video in digital format or do they just delete them after a while? You make it sound like they need a huge additional staff and rooms full of servers to maintain the video they already maintain.

And none of that would explain why they feel the need to stomp out fan generated video that costs them nothing. Other than ill will, it does cost them that.

#91 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,987 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 17 November 2012 - 14:13

No, hardcore fans are not just themselves. Every hardcore fans brings along 10 casual fans. I have seen that in my house, my friends' house, my hostel.

I'm not sure the homeless are Bernie's target audience :cat:

Seriously, that's a slightly outdated model, it doesn't really work like that any more. Advocates irritate people at least as much as encourage them now that most people are more than capable of finding things online for themselves.

#92 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,234 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 17 November 2012 - 14:19

You make it sound like they need a huge additional staff and rooms full of servers to maintain the video they already maintain.


Yes, this is what we are saying, this is what you need to edit and host online video professionally. This isn't the same as editing together your home movies.

You've shown you don't have the first clue about copyright laws or the economics of video editing and online streaming, come back to the discussion when you do.

#93 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 17 November 2012 - 15:15

I'm not sure the homeless are Bernie's target audience :cat:

Seriously, that's a slightly outdated model, it doesn't really work like that any more. ..

Says who?

#94 Xpat

Xpat
  • Member

  • 3,990 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 17 November 2012 - 15:17

Yes, this is what we are saying, this is what you need to edit and host online video professionally. This isn't the same as editing together your home movies.

You've shown you don't have the first clue about copyright laws or the economics of video editing and online streaming, come back to the discussion when you do.


I am not talking about FOM editing their video, or streaming their video, this is the very obvious point you are missing. The video already exists in a digital format. The Formula 1 website already edits videos and makes the available for no charge. That costs more than it would to simply put the entire race broadcast online (or let the broadcasters do it), no editing involved. And if I record the broadcast on my PC and want to make a video it is exactly like editing my home movies.

I watch it on the BBC or Speed. I can record it on my DVR or on my PC. I can make videos of McLaren pit stops to compare Button vs Hamilton pit stops. Why would FOM want to prevent that? Because it would take money from them? How?

As for the economics and copyright law. I suspect you throw the terms around but know little or nothing of either.



#95 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,987 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 17 November 2012 - 15:31

Says who?

The falling rate for buying a nice word from Stephen Fry on Twitter.

And pretty much everyone I know in digital agencies.

And me.

#96 itsademo

itsademo
  • Member

  • 404 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 17 November 2012 - 16:26

I am not talking about FOM editing their video, or streaming their video, this is the very obvious point you are missing. The video already exists in a digital format. The Formula 1 website already edits videos and makes the available for no charge. That costs more than it would to simply put the entire race broadcast online (or let the broadcasters do it), no editing involved. And if I record the broadcast on my PC and want to make a video it is exactly like editing my home movies.

I watch it on the BBC or Speed. I can record it on my DVR or on my PC. I can make videos of McLaren pit stops to compare Button vs Hamilton pit stops. Why would FOM want to prevent that? Because it would take money from them? How?

As for the economics and copyright law. I suspect you throw the terms around but know little or nothing of either.


once again you missed the legal point that they MUST edit to comply with current laws if they want to host.
Its not something they can ignore they would have too.
Hint think tobbaco advertising they are not allowed by law to show that in europe so all videos would have to be edited
And as i already said but i think you must have missed there are customers of FOM who are paying to use it if its available for free for fans it reduces the worth to FOM customers.
Just because the TV companies are not constantly showing all the old races does not mean they are not paying FOM to use it in such things as pre-race build ups or historic videos.
The videos have far more worth than you seam to realise.


#97 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 17 November 2012 - 16:27

The falling rate for buying a nice word from Stephen Fry on Twitter.

And pretty much everyone I know in digital agencies.

And me.

NBA disproves any such myth. And Dallas Mavericks owner, Mark Cuban, is not happy even with that and says much more could be done. And his track record speaks. Does not say much about the opinion of you or those who you know. I don't know if F1 would ever wake up to these things. But if it does, they can first look at NBA.

#98 techspeed

techspeed
  • Member

  • 372 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 17 November 2012 - 16:43

I watch it on the BBC or Speed. I can record it on my DVR or on my PC. I can make videos of McLaren pit stops to compare Button vs Hamilton pit stops. Why would FOM want to prevent that? Because it would take money from them? How?

They can't prevent that and it doesn't bother FOM if you do, as long as you don't try and broadcast it by putting it up on the internet. Now I can't say anything about other countries, but in the UK you can watch a replay online afterwards from the official broadcasters. Why would those broadcasters be happy if the footage they have broadcast is then put up elsewhere on the internet, so they no longer have any control over the footage they have paid a huge sum of money for?

If FOM allowed everyone to put clips on Youtube, there is no argument against anyone putting full races on Youtube. Considering BBC/Sky/Speed/RTL etc have all paid for exclusive rights to broadcast F1 in their respective countries, allowing videos to be accessible worldwide on Youtube seriously devalues these rights which then costs FOM a lot of money. If you were a broadcaster with exclusive rights to F1, would you be happy to let others happily upload F1 videos. Do you think the BBC would be happy if someone uploaded the SkyF1 feed to Youtube before the BBC had broadcast their highlights package? You would also have the problem of dealing with SkyF1 for illegal use of their footage.

You can't argue that they should allow short clips but then not allow whole races, nothing to prevent someone uploading a whole race as small 10 minute clips that are strung together in a playlist. You can't argue that they should be allowed to upload old races and not the new ones, does FOM then go to the broadcasters and tell them the exclusive rights they paid for now doesn't include exclusivity on races earlier than a particular date.

The only way you are going to get FOM to allow F1 online is to persuade all the broadcasters that there will be no reduction in their rights fees, but they no longer have exclusive rights to broadcast F1 online and are restricted to exclusive TV broadcasts only.

#99 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,987 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 17 November 2012 - 18:03

NBA disproves any such myth. And Dallas Mavericks owner, Mark Cuban, is not happy even with that and says much more could be done. And his track record speaks. Does not say much about the opinion of you or those who you know. I don't know if F1 would ever wake up to these things. But if it does, they can first look at NBA.

I don't have a clue what you're talking about, what the NBA did/does, why that chappie thinks what he thinks, or what any of it's meant to prove.

Cheers.

Advertisement

#100 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,234 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 17 November 2012 - 19:42

And if I record the broadcast on my PC and want to make a video it is exactly like editing my home movies.


Only if your home movies are of a sporting event that other people are paying millions to broadcast,...
You're an idiot if you think video of a huge sporting event is anywhere near the same level as videos of home videos of cats and babies falling over.

The amount of contempt you're showing towards the huge effort of everyone involved in the broadcast of a race is staggering.

I watch it on the BBC or Speed. I can record it on my DVR or on my PC. I can make videos of McLaren pit stops to compare Button vs Hamilton pit stops. Why would FOM want to prevent that? Because it would take money from them? How?


You still don't seem to understand that if you don't own that content you aren't allowed to edit that DVR'd video and stick it online without the permission of the creator.

FOM has paid a considerable sum to create the content and the broadcasters have paid a lot to show that content, why do you think copyright laws should be changed so you can free ride on the backs of all those hard working people to make your own videos.

Would you be able to do the same with any other TV show or Movie? No of course not, you've not paid anything towards the creation of the content so you can't use it. I really don't see how anyone could ever justify stealing the content in this way.

Why is F1 content any different to anything else in the world in your opinion?