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F1's marketing model - bad and outdated?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

#101 Xpat

Xpat
  • Member

  • 3,387 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 17 November 2012 - 21:20

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.



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?


It was implied that editing and maintaining videos was some sort of Manhattan Project level of undertaking. That is what I am talking about. The main difference is that the videos of cats and babies falling over is they get more hits than the F1 videos that are ruthlessly taken down.

I am simply arguing that for FOM or F1 to move forward with the rest of the world they would be wise to ease up a bit on stifling the creativity of fans who are supporting the product they're trying to sell. There is no reason for them to get all pissy about some fan made video showing 30 seconds of footage from a race 2 years ago. Desperate and futile efforts to limit their presence on the internet are counter productive.

What do the BBC and other broadcasters do with the content after the race weekend is over? Do they make money from old broadcasts? How would the BBC suffer if someone (or even the BBC) put the 2010 Belgian GP on YouTube? Would it kill off their 2010 Belgian GP video sales?

You couldn't possibly think FOM are utilising the internet to its full potential. To believe so would indicate a stultifying lack of imagination.

Advertisement

#102 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 17 November 2012 - 21:37

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.

Regards for dedicated fans and the online content. That's what we were talking about. It is there in the post of immediate reply.

#103 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,365 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 17 November 2012 - 21:38

What do the BBC and other broadcasters do with the content after the race weekend is over? Do they make money from old broadcasts? How would the BBC suffer if someone (or even the BBC) put the 2010 Belgian GP on YouTube? Would it kill off their 2010 Belgian GP video sales?


You are still missing the point that the BBC (or whoever) has licenced it. The question of whether they are making money from it is irrelevant with the current arrangements and laws.

You couldn't possibly think FOM are utilising the internet to its full potential. To believe so would indicate a stultifying lack of imagination.


You mean they aren't giving you free video. FOM still have no direct relationship with you.

#104 itsademo

itsademo
  • Member

  • 392 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 17 November 2012 - 21:43

It was implied that editing and maintaining videos was some sort of Manhattan Project level of undertaking. That is what I am talking about. The main difference is that the videos of cats and babies falling over is they get more hits than the F1 videos that are ruthlessly taken down.

I am simply arguing that for FOM or F1 to move forward with the rest of the world they would be wise to ease up a bit on stifling the creativity of fans who are supporting the product they're trying to sell. There is no reason for them to get all pissy about some fan made video showing 30 seconds of footage from a race 2 years ago. Desperate and futile efforts to limit their presence on the internet are counter productive.

What do the BBC and other broadcasters do with the content after the race weekend is over? Do they make money from old broadcasts? How would the BBC suffer if someone (or even the BBC) put the 2010 Belgian GP on YouTube? Would it kill off their 2010 Belgian GP video sales?

You couldn't possibly think FOM are utilising the internet to its full potential. To believe so would indicate a stultifying lack of imagination.

unfortunatly it seams you are unable to grasp FOM's business model and its customers which IS NOT YOU its the broadcasters (you are a customer of the broadcasters not FOM) and it will be those same broadcasters who will use your so called harmless videos to drive down what they pay for the rights.
You do understand what exclusive rights to broadcast in your area means dont you?
and that includes the internet too!!
Its why the BBC do put their live coverage online but you have a UK IP address to watch it.
FOM deliver and ensure their customers get what they pay for exclusive rights to broadcast.
Its up to those customers to decide how they broadcast within the limits of their contract and its up to FOM to protect their customers exclusivity.

If you cant understand why, its a lack of understanding on your part rather than anything wrong (about delivery) on FOM's part.
Contact the business you get your F1 from eg the broadcasters if you want more online, but i am certain they will tell you if you want to do what you want get FOM to reduce the price they pay for exclusiverty.

#105 Xpat

Xpat
  • Member

  • 3,387 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 17 November 2012 - 21:48

You are still missing the point that the BBC (or whoever) has licenced it. The question of whether they are making money from it is irrelevant with the current arrangements and laws.



You mean they aren't giving you free video. FOM still have no direct relationship with you.



Again, last time I'll say it. I don't have to pay to watch F1.

The main point is that they certainly don't take full advantage of the internet and new media.

#106 Xpat

Xpat
  • Member

  • 3,387 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 17 November 2012 - 21:54

unfortunatly it seams you are unable to grasp FOM's business model and its customers which IS NOT YOU its the broadcasters (you are a customer of the broadcasters not FOM) and it will be those same broadcasters who will use your so called harmless videos to drive down what they pay for the rights.
You do understand what exclusive rights to broadcast in your area means dont you?
and that includes the internet too!!
Its why the BBC do put their live coverage online but you have a UK IP address to watch it.
FOM deliver and ensure their customers get what they pay for exclusive rights to broadcast.
Its up to those customers to decide how they broadcast within the limits of their contract and its up to FOM to protect their customers exclusivity.

If you cant understand why, its a lack of understanding on your part rather than anything wrong (about delivery) on FOM's part.
Contact the business you get your F1 from eg the broadcasters if you want more online, but i am certain they will tell you if you want to do what you want get FOM to reduce the price they pay for exclusiverty.


I understand their business model as well as anyone on these boards. I am saying it isn't the most effective business model because they are leaving too many chips on the table by not utilising the internet more effectively.



#107 itsademo

itsademo
  • Member

  • 392 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 17 November 2012 - 22:11

I understand their business model as well as anyone on these boards. I am saying it isn't the most effective business model because they are leaving too many chips on the table by not utilising the internet more effectively.

I am sorry but it seams clear from what you say you dont
you are not a customer of FOM you never have been and never will unless you can afford the hundreds of millions to get the world stream.
You are a customer of the broadcasters it is they who decide what they will do with the exclusive content in their geographical location not FOM
They dont care beyound the fact they have brought exclusive rights to broadcast and FOM must protect that right.
Its the broadcasters could be argued are under utlising the content FOM are not they are not intrested in you as you are not their customer ok?

Edited by itsademo, 17 November 2012 - 22:19.


#108 chrcol

chrcol
  • Member

  • 737 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 17 November 2012 - 22:16

F1 marketing is so screwed up its unreal.

I feel youtube videos etc. should stay up, its free publicity.

FIA/FOM should have its own webstream service independent of overpriced local TV deals. IF the TV company feels they cant get viewers without exclusivity then it says a lot about the lack of quality and price competitiveness.

Previous races should be available on the internet to download, as far as back as technically possible.

In races any onboard should be available to watch. Same with quali and FP.

But thy got their heads stuck in the sand with these silly exclusivity deals.

Edited by chrcol, 17 November 2012 - 22:17.


#109 ayali

ayali
  • Member

  • 729 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 17 November 2012 - 22:32

F1 marketing is so screwed up its unreal.

I feel youtube videos etc. should stay up, its free publicity.

FIA/FOM should have its own webstream service independent of overpriced local TV deals. IF the TV company feels they cant get viewers without exclusivity then it says a lot about the lack of quality and price competitiveness.

Previous races should be available on the internet to download, as far as back as technically possible.

In races any onboard should be available to watch. Same with quali and FP.

But thy got their heads stuck in the sand with these silly exclusivity deals.

Sigh, it's all well and nice that you tell us how you "feel" things should be but wouldn't it be better to explain why FOM should be doing that? What would be the up potential for them? The business model?

Oh and "cause I want them to" doesn't count :lol:

It seems there are indeed many heads stuck in the sand when it comes to making money from the F1 rights, but they ain't FOM heads ;)

#110 itsademo

itsademo
  • Member

  • 392 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 17 November 2012 - 22:42

Sigh, it's all well and nice that you tell us how you "feel" things should be but wouldn't it be better to explain why FOM should be doing that? What would be the up potential for them? The business model?

Oh and "cause I want them to" doesn't count :lol:

It seems there are indeed many heads stuck in the sand when it comes to making money from the F1 rights, but they ain't FOM heads ;)

seams some want what in effect would be the film studios/ singers/ whatever, putting all their raw footage online just so fans can make some vids
and they dont see what harm it causes the business.
Mind you i dare say if someone was willing to come up with say £500M a year FOM may be intrested as long as it covered what they would lose from broadcast rights plus costs and gave them a little extra on top of course.
I wonder which of these i wants are willing to put up the funds :rotfl:

#111 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 1,857 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 17 November 2012 - 23:01

It was implied that editing and maintaining videos was some sort of Manhattan Project level of undertaking. That is what I am talking about. The main difference is that the videos of cats and babies falling over is they get more hits than the F1 videos that are ruthlessly taken down.

I am simply arguing that for FOM or F1 to move forward with the rest of the world they would be wise to ease up a bit on stifling the creativity of fans who are supporting the product they're trying to sell. There is no reason for them to get all pissy about some fan made video showing 30 seconds of footage from a race 2 years ago. Desperate and futile efforts to limit their presence on the internet are counter productive.

What do the BBC and other broadcasters do with the content after the race weekend is over? Do they make money from old broadcasts? How would the BBC suffer if someone (or even the BBC) put the 2010 Belgian GP on YouTube? Would it kill off their 2010 Belgian GP video sales?

You couldn't possibly think FOM are utilising the internet to its full potential. To believe so would indicate a stultifying lack of imagination.


What kind of bizarro world do you live in? You can't just steal things just because you think they aren't being used to their full potential.

And no matter how huge a fan someone is they don't have the right to appoint themselves as F1s free online marketers by stealing content to make their own YouTube videos.

#112 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 17 November 2012 - 23:09

Some of their own replies convince me that their model is bad and outdated. :lol:

Edited by SpaMaster, 17 November 2012 - 23:09.


#113 Xpat

Xpat
  • Member

  • 3,387 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 17 November 2012 - 23:23

What kind of bizarro world do you live in? You can't just steal things just because you think they aren't being used to their full potential.

And no matter how huge a fan someone is they don't have the right to appoint themselves as F1s free online marketers by stealing content to make their own YouTube videos.


Don't answer the question then. I didn't think you knew anyway.

It's fine if you don't see the potential being wasted. A lot of people don't see it.

#114 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 1,857 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 17 November 2012 - 23:38

Don't answer the question then. I didn't think you knew anyway.

It's fine if you don't see the potential being wasted. A lot of people don't see it.


What potential, stealing content and sticking the videos on YouTube wont make any money for anyone. YouTube can't sell ads on stolen content, it's a net loss for everyone involved in that kind of arrangement.

Even as "free marketing" it's a very dubious proposition.
After all why would any TV broadcaster pay as much as they do now to stream exclusive F1 content if there is stolen content all over YouTube taking away their viewers.

This so called free marketing is completely useless if it hurts F1s core business model of selling video of the races to broadcasters.

#115 Xpat

Xpat
  • Member

  • 3,387 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 17 November 2012 - 23:46

What potential, stealing content and sticking the videos on YouTube wont make any money for anyone. YouTube can't sell ads on stolen content, it's a net loss for everyone involved in that kind of arrangement.

Even as "free marketing" it's a very dubious proposition.
After all why would any TV broadcaster pay as much as they do now to stream exclusive F1 content if there is stolen content all over YouTube taking away their viewers.

This so called free marketing is completely useless if it hurts F1s core business model of selling video of the races to broadcasters.


You really think a video using footage from a race 2 years ago or even a week ago would make people not watch the BBC broadcast of the current weeks race?

I think it would create excitement if there were a vibrant online community. What potential indeed.

#116 itsademo

itsademo
  • Member

  • 392 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 17 November 2012 - 23:52

Don't answer the question then. I didn't think you knew anyway.

It's fine if you don't see the potential being wasted. A lot of people don't see it.

just like some people dont see its not FOM wasting it, as they have sold the right to use that exclusively to others in clearly defined locations (one of many facts you want to ignore).
Once they have done that they have maximised their value with regards to live broadcasting and they stop people from using it on places like you tube at a later date because there is still a value in old work which they do sell on for others to use in historic programs videos and lots of other ways.
FOM are producers not broadcasters shame you dont understand the difference.

so perhaps you will answer my question

do you also think the film studios should also put all their raw films online for you too?

#117 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,365 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 17 November 2012 - 23:56

I think it would create excitement if there were a vibrant online community. What potential indeed.


I think the effect would be the square-root of f*ck-all. Most of the F1 audience is casual.


#118 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,458 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 17 November 2012 - 23:57

well the old footage isn't avalible to buy if you want it, apart from second hand which isn't generating any income for fom, and last time I looked you can't view 2008 brief hightlights on the fom site anymore which is odd

#119 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 1,857 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 18 November 2012 - 00:01

You really think a video using footage from a race 2 years ago or even a week ago would make people not watch the BBC broadcast of the current weeks race?

I think it would create excitement if there were a vibrant online community. What potential indeed.


Random F1 video on YouTube:



Latest comments on it.

it`s an accident and doesn`t have to keep on saying "****ing idiot", even montoya wasnt looking in front of him when he was hit by the camera. YOU ****ing IDIOT.
Jean Pierre Fava 9 hours ago

ja you ****ing idiot!
LetsFly321 10 hours ago

great video
Yukhail Govender 1 day ago

LOL. no wonder why Montoya keeps going in circles :D
amarendra bandla 1 day ago

I will say this for Montoya, he sure brought some entertainment if not much else.
seanys 1 day ago

It really improved the video having music over the drivers talking :p
Lifeofriley18 3 days ago 4

kimi: ""i was having a shit" jajajaja
Gaston Busto 3 days ago

think montoya has got to be one of the biggest pricks in motorracing
michelekingtiger 3 days ago

montoya is lovely, isn't he xD
SkylineDriver2008 3 days ago

I won't stop laughing for quite a while now, thank you xD
Dilly Weeds 3 days ago


What an amazingly vibrant community YouTube comments are... :stoned:

Advertisement

#120 itsademo

itsademo
  • Member

  • 392 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 18 November 2012 - 00:04

well the old footage isn't avalible to buy if you want it, apart from second hand which isn't generating any income for fom, and last time I looked you can't view 2008 brief hightlights on the fom site anymore which is odd

maybe not in its raw form to the public but doo tell us where you think broadcasters and video producers go to get their old F1 footage from.
Where do you think the footage for the Senna film came from and do you think they were given it for free.


Edited by itsademo, 18 November 2012 - 00:06.


#121 chrcol

chrcol
  • Member

  • 737 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 18 November 2012 - 00:57

Sigh, it's all well and nice that you tell us how you "feel" things should be but wouldn't it be better to explain why FOM should be doing that? What would be the up potential for them? The business model?

Oh and "cause I want them to" doesn't count :lol:

It seems there are indeed many heads stuck in the sand when it comes to making money from the F1 rights, but they ain't FOM heads ;)


of course they would make money from selling net stream direct and previous races online?

you think they wouldnt?

The business model was already spelled out to you.

maximum exposure and higher revenue from previous races and higher revenue from internet customers.

eg. how muich money do they make from uk customers now for people who will pay £10 a month? none because sky charge more then that and is no product available at that pricepoint. what about places where the tv product sucks such as america or where there is no tv product at all.

Edited by chrcol, 18 November 2012 - 01:01.


#122 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,029 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 18 November 2012 - 01:07

of course they would make money from selling net stream direct and previous races online?

you think they wouldnt?

The business model was already spelled out to you.

maximum exposure and higher revenue from previous races and higher revenue from internet customers.

eg. how muich money do they make from uk customers now for people who will pay £10 a month? none because sky charge more then that and is no product available at that pricepoint. what about places where the tv product sucks such as america or where there is no tv product at all.


how much of the half a billion a year broadcasters pay F1 will you lose though?

#123 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 18 November 2012 - 05:32

just like some people dont see its not FOM wasting it, as they have sold the right to use that exclusively to others in clearly defined locations (one of many facts you want to ignore).
Once they have done that they have maximised their value with regards to live broadcasting and they stop people from using it on places like you tube at a later date because there is still a value in old work which they do sell on for others to use in historic programs videos

Some very very few videos, if at all.

and lots of other ways.

Not really.

Ergo, the wasted potential.

#124 teejay

teejay
  • Member

  • 3,333 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 18 November 2012 - 05:45

They need to look at the NBA model

league pass is the best thing ever. 220 Australian dollars a year, so good.

#125 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 18 November 2012 - 06:02

^ Not only the league pass. But they have so many current online videos (highlights, analysis, interviews, animations) and you could get a lot of those for previous seasons as well. Not to mention dedicated TV channel, fan promos (both on and off the arenas), fan involvement, etc. The content online is endless. Today's generation engage so much in it, and as often reported by them it plays a big role in their marketing and present status.

Edited by SpaMaster, 18 November 2012 - 06:02.


#126 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 18 November 2012 - 11:16

Just providing extra content, which may not be available in certain markets (ahem... the U.S.), would be worth paying for if you could download it.

I envy the NASCAR fan. Effectively in the U.S., not only do you have 24/7 NASCAR tv content, you have more than one outlet for it. Same with college and NFL football - in season it's *always* on, baseball season is almost the same way.

That is what F1 has to achieve, more or less a 24/7 availability. Half the people I know work shift schedules, anyhow - that's probably half the appeal for NASCAR in the States right there, whether someone comes home at 7 a.m., 7 p.m., there's always some sort of NASCAR coverage/news on to see.

F1 - thanks to Speed's lousy scheduling and web page (easier to look up broadcast times on their forum than their web page? Really???), and limited coverage - F1 can only expect to stagnate. There is no reason why there can't be a dedicated F1 channel available in the U.S., when we have channels for fishing, golf, selling crappy jewelry and exercise machines, endless religious channels and hunting channels. There should be an "FIA Channel" marketed in American.

Come to think of it - yeah, that's really the most effective thing. 5 years of a channel that is a *true* 24/7 alternative to NASCAR is what it will take. Nothing else, America is too large/striated to penetrate any other way.

You can't say "F1 is a better alternative to NASCAR" when you can't even choose to see it when you want!

Bernie needs to form a commercial rights coalition for "all other content" than the races, F1 interview shows, GP2 races/qualifying, WRC, Aussie rules, DTM, open wheel series, and make it a U.S. tv channel. Surely the advertising would pay for it many times over.








#127 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,365 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 18 November 2012 - 11:57

F1 - thanks to Speed's lousy scheduling and web page (easier to look up broadcast times on their forum than their web page? Really???), and limited coverage - F1 can only expect to stagnate.


Speed's coverage reflects the parochial nature of US sport.


#128 itsademo

itsademo
  • Member

  • 392 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 18 November 2012 - 12:19

Why is it so hard for some people to understand FOM are not broadcasters and dont want to be they are producers.
Its their job to provide the streams to broadcasters who then provide content to us their customers.
From a business perspective if FOM were to suddenly become broadcasters (suppliers to end users of content) then they are not only broadcasters suppliers but also their competitors and that is something it is unadvisable to do if you want to maximise your income streams.
If all the ideas above were so great and such money spinners dont you think someone would have already taken up the option?
The fact remains as far as FOM as producers are concerned i cannot see any way to make more money without risking losing far more.
And all so some kids can put up silly videos on you tube :stoned:

#129 Xpat

Xpat
  • Member

  • 3,387 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 18 November 2012 - 12:49

Just providing extra content, which may not be available in certain markets (ahem... the U.S.), would be worth paying for if you could download it.

I envy the NASCAR fan. Effectively in the U.S., not only do you have 24/7 NASCAR tv content, you have more than one outlet for it. Same with college and NFL football - in season it's *always* on, baseball season is almost the same way.

That is what F1 has to achieve, more or less a 24/7 availability. Half the people I know work shift schedules, anyhow - that's probably half the appeal for NASCAR in the States right there, whether someone comes home at 7 a.m., 7 p.m., there's always some sort of NASCAR coverage/news on to see.

F1 - thanks to Speed's lousy scheduling and web page (easier to look up broadcast times on their forum than their web page? Really???), and limited coverage - F1 can only expect to stagnate. There is no reason why there can't be a dedicated F1 channel available in the U.S., when we have channels for fishing, golf, selling crappy jewelry and exercise machines, endless religious channels and hunting channels. There should be an "FIA Channel" marketed in American.

Come to think of it - yeah, that's really the most effective thing. 5 years of a channel that is a *true* 24/7 alternative to NASCAR is what it will take. Nothing else, America is too large/striated to penetrate any other way.

You can't say "F1 is a better alternative to NASCAR" when you can't even choose to see it when you want!

Bernie needs to form a commercial rights coalition for "all other content" than the races, F1 interview shows, GP2 races/qualifying, WRC, Aussie rules, DTM, open wheel series, and make it a U.S. tv channel. Surely the advertising would pay for it many times over.


Look buddy, haven't you read the posts where we are told there isn't anything the posters see that could be done to improve the delivery of the Formula 1 product?

#130 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 18 November 2012 - 12:55

Why is it so hard for some people to understand FOM are not broadcasters and dont want to be they are producers.
Its their job to provide the streams to broadcasters who then provide content to us their customers.
From a business perspective if FOM were to suddenly become broadcasters (suppliers to end users of content) then they are not only broadcasters suppliers but also their competitors and that is something it is unadvisable to do if you want to maximise your income streams.

FYI, NBA TV is not actually owned by NBA. It is owned by Turner Sports.

If all the ideas above were so great and such money spinners dont you think someone would have already taken up the option?

Because their heads have been stuck well inside the ground for years, and have been spoiled by too much greed.

The fact remains as far as FOM as producers are concerned i cannot see any way to make more money without risking losing far more.
And all so some kids can put up silly videos on you tube :stoned:

As it has already been said many times, other sport entities similar to FOM, have done it. FOM just has to look at them.

You don't have to be fixated on this notion that whatever FOM does is the way it can be. One can be open minded and embrace the changing times and the opportunities it presents.

#131 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,365 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 18 November 2012 - 14:08

Look buddy, haven't you read the posts where we are told there isn't anything the posters see that could be done to improve the delivery of the Formula 1 product?


Nobody is saying that. What we are saying is that you are apparently deliberately ignoring the commercial contracts already in place and the problems they may cause in giving you the free video you so desire.


#132 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 18 November 2012 - 14:35

Nobody is saying that. What we are saying is that you are apparently deliberately ignoring the commercial contracts already in place and the problems they may cause in giving you the free video you so desire.

Some of you are constantly twisting the arguments to 'you want free video'. People have constantly pointed out that that is not the case, they are willing to pay for it, and they just want online content. Online media is so powerful in the present day. How difficult is it to understand that?

#133 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 3,031 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 18 November 2012 - 15:06

I find it hard to believe that Youtube vids are taken down due to pressure from broadcasters. If that's so, it's the broadcasters who are being short-sighted.

BBC/Sky etc are mainly interested in viewing figures for their live or delayed broadcasts. If viewing figures went up, they should be prepared to pay more.

Youtube videos are free publicity for F1, and I see no reason why they wouldn't increase the audience for TV broadcasts.

A compilation of great overtakes (or even spectacular crashes) is never going to do any harm.



#134 itsademo

itsademo
  • Member

  • 392 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 18 November 2012 - 15:20

Some of you are constantly twisting the arguments to 'you want free video'. People have constantly pointed out that that is not the case, they are willing to pay for it, and they just want online content. Online media is so powerful in the present day. How difficult is it to understand that?


You keep on ignoring the fact FOM do not have the rights to show it online that is the right and responcability of the broadcaster in each area if they dont want to show it moan at them,they are the ones who can show it online not FOM
Now unless you are claiming FOM should discount all its contracts to recover internet broadcasting rights and do you really think a few or even tens of thousands are going to be willing to pay the millions to make up the lost revenue.

How difficult is it to understand CVC are about making money and they via FOM are maximising the amount they make and hence the teams get by selling exclusive area rights including internet delivery. Its why sky and the BBC both are able to show it online as well as over the air.

The fact others are behind the times in packaging their productions and dont include internet is their lack of forethought not FOMs and your lack of understanding that the right to show online is already sold. Just because NBA a local sport can sell internet rights seperatly does not mean its the most profitable way for all sports to go. Infact if you check most international sports also package the internet with regional broadcasting rights.

#135 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,365 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 18 November 2012 - 15:29

Some of you are constantly twisting the arguments to 'you want free video'. People have constantly pointed out that that is not the case, they are willing to pay for it, and they just want online content. Online media is so powerful in the present day. How difficult is it to understand that?


Online media is about selling you something. FOM do not sell you anything. You've been told this many times by many posters; the issue is with whoever owns the rights to your TV market, not F1 or CVC or Bernie or FOM or the Catholic Church.

And FYI, there is a fair bit of "online content" readily available to you from central sources; live timing, press releases, stewards documents etc. The fact you keep chuntering on about youtube and fan-videos is what makes people suspect you want free video.

Edited by smitten, 18 November 2012 - 15:32.


#136 itsademo

itsademo
  • Member

  • 392 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 18 November 2012 - 15:31

I find it hard to believe that Youtube vids are taken down due to pressure from broadcasters. If that's so, it's the broadcasters who are being short-sighted.

BBC/Sky etc are mainly interested in viewing figures for their live or delayed broadcasts. If viewing figures went up, they should be prepared to pay more.

Youtube videos are free publicity for F1, and I see no reason why they wouldn't increase the audience for TV broadcasts.

A compilation of great overtakes (or even spectacular crashes) is never going to do any harm.


I dont think any broadcaster would be knocking on FOM's dooor saying we want this taken down now unless it shows any of their own production work in which case they get it removed themselves.
But you are being shortsighted if you dont think when it came time to renegotiate contracts that the broadcasters would not want reductions due to not being truely exclusive in their area due to such things as tons of vids on youtube.
As such FOM have to protect their rights otherwise if we use your shortsighted pr analogy why dont all films studios and musicans put their raw footage up online for anyone to use as according to you it will drive publicity rather than as all businesses know reduce profitability.

#137 Xpat

Xpat
  • Member

  • 3,387 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 18 November 2012 - 16:30

God why the focus just on the FOM. We have been saying all along that the entities involved in the distribution of F1 are not taking full advantage of the internet. Stop prattling on about FOM not selling us anything directly, not relevant at all, they are party to the contracts. The broadcasters and FOM do a poor job. Don't give a shit if it is written in the contract, if it is then the contracts agreed to by FOM and the broadcasters are poor because they don't allow for full use of the internet. They are as the title of the thread says, "bad and outdated? Limiting rather than using the internet etc."



#138 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,365 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 18 November 2012 - 16:40

The broadcasters and FOM do a poor job. Don't give a shit if it is written in the contract, if it is then the contracts agreed to by FOM and the broadcasters are poor because they don't allow for full use of the internet.


WTF are you on about? The BBC provides all this. FOM give you this. The internet is not devoid of F1. What do you actually want them to do?


#139 itsademo

itsademo
  • Member

  • 392 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 18 November 2012 - 16:43

God why the focus just on the FOM. We have been saying all along that the entities involved in the distribution of F1 are not taking full advantage of the internet. Stop prattling on about FOM not selling us anything directly, not relevant at all, they are party to the contracts. The broadcasters and FOM do a poor job. Don't give a shit if it is written in the contract, if it is then the contracts agreed to by FOM and the broadcasters are poor because they don't allow for full use of the internet. They are as the title of the thread says, "bad and outdated? Limiting rather than using the internet etc."


really?
could be to do with posts like this

snip
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.
snip


what is so difficult in realising FOM dont have the right to do such things
They sold those rights to the broadcasters.
So you need to stop prattling on about FOM they dont have the riight to do that.
The bad and outdated is the fault of some broadcasters while we in the UK have broadcasters who do embrace the internet a little more.
ITV was rather more switched on than the BBC are with regards to internet delivery but its not FOms job to dictate to the broadcasters what they must do with the stream only what they may and maynot do.

I notice you keep on ignoring my question about so do you think film producers and musicans should also put all their raw footage online for you too.

Advertisement

#140 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 18 November 2012 - 16:51

You keep on ignoring the fact FOM do not have the rights to show it online that is the right and responcability of the broadcaster in each area if they dont want to show it moan at them,they are the ones who can show it online not FOM

I understand the contracts are renewed periodically and this is not another case of 100 year contract, right? :stoned: They can always bring up the discussion in the future when the new deals would be discussed. That future has been here for a long while!

Now unless you are claiming FOM should discount all its contracts to recover internet broadcasting rights and do you really think a few or even tens of thousands are going to be willing to pay the millions to make up the lost revenue.

How difficult is it to understand CVC are about making money and they via FOM are maximising the amount they make

Not difficult at all. It is quite evident. That's one of the main points raised here.

The fact others are behind the times in packaging their productions and dont include internet is their lack of forethought not FOMs and your lack of understanding that the right to show online is already sold.


Are you kidding me? Comedy gold! :rotfl:

Just because NBA a local sport can sell internet rights seperatly does not mean its the most profitable way for all sports to go. Infact if you check most international sports also package the internet with regional broadcasting rights.

NBA is not a local sport. It had wide viewership around the world.

Anyway whatever be the case on who should do what, FOM is the promoter of the sport. The ultimate responsibility lies with them. They are the one who should sort this out. You can't wash off your hands saying "We don't care about the fans, they are not our customers, our customers are broadcasters, the whole F1 is for them, blah blah.."

Online media is about selling you something. FOM do not sell you anything. You've been told this many times by many posters; the issue is with whoever owns the rights to your TV market, not F1 or CVC or Bernie or FOM or the Catholic Church.

And FYI, there is a fair bit of "online content" readily available to you from central sources; live timing, press releases, stewards documents etc. The fact you keep chuntering on about youtube and fan-videos is what makes people suspect you want free video.

Certainly not. It was mentioned along with many other points. Nobody expect a handful of people has such suspicion. More like twisting and condescending from the other side.

Edited by SpaMaster, 18 November 2012 - 16:56.


#141 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,762 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 18 November 2012 - 16:54

Regards for dedicated fans and the online content. That's what we were talking about. It is there in the post of immediate reply.

Post of immediate reply to what? A link would be nice :)

#142 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,365 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 18 November 2012 - 16:59

Certainly not. It was mentioned along with many other points. Nobody expect a handful of people has such suspicion. More like twisting and condescending from the other side.


It has been pointed out why "fan videos" are removed from YouTube. It has been pointed out that there is much "online content" and certain broadcasters make older video part of that content. What is it you think you should have access to, how much would you pay, and how many people do you think would pay it?


#143 Henrik B

Henrik B
  • Member

  • 2,679 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 18 November 2012 - 17:05

The fact you keep chuntering on about youtube and fan-videos is what makes people suspect you want free video.


I haven't read all pages in this thread, but surely the thing about youtube and fan videos is about generating interest and buzz and getting new fans into the sport. FOM is by FAR the most youtube-hunting content producer, and this is hurting them more than they gain.

Example: this week the Swedish footballer Zlatan did something extraordinary against England. If you go on youtube, you'll find HUNDREDS of videos of that goal, with English commentary and Swedish commentary and I'm pretty sure there are dozens upon dozens of fan videos either about Zlatan, top goals or whatever available right now. No one is taking that down, no one at any TV company is out hunting youtube and making copyright claims.

And that's because there is little value in live sports the day after the event. What the content producer can charge goes down exponentially. It's simply not worth the bother, AND it serves as advertising and buzz for the sport. Because of that goal and the videos readily available, the price for the next England-Sweden friendly goes up a little bit and THAT'S where the value is.

If a similar event to that Zlatan goal happens in F1, FOM is revving up their browsers even as the pass/crash/brilliant thing happens. With more and more F1 going to subscription broadcasters, the fan base will shrink. Less money for all, unless FOM starts to spend money marketing. No one is suddenly going to start pay for a motorsport channel if they haven't got hooked from somewhere, and that "somewhere" is very often youtube nowadays.

No one expects whole current races on youtube. There's value there, although a case can be made for putting decade old classic races on youtube aswell. But they expect to be able to link to a video of a event in a forum thread and not having it disappear within minutes.

#144 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,365 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 18 November 2012 - 17:17

I haven't read all pages in this thread, but surely the thing about youtube and fan videos is about generating interest and buzz and getting new fans into the sport. FOM is by FAR the most youtube-hunting content producer, and this is hurting them more than they gain.


Although these statistics are somewhat out of date, they suggest that FOM are not even the most youtube-hunting sporting content provider issuing less than a 3rd of WWE requests.

#145 Henrik B

Henrik B
  • Member

  • 2,679 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 18 November 2012 - 18:39

Although these statistics are somewhat out of date, they suggest that FOM are not even the most youtube-hunting sporting content provider issuing less than a 3rd of WWE requests.


I was indeed talking about sport. And I obviously had no real data. But to modify the statement:

They are the most youtube-hunting content provider I care about. I'd also point out that considering the amount of content WWE produces visa vi FOM, FOM is pretty high up the list. And finally, I THINK FOM is the only one caring about stuff that's decades old.

#146 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,762 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 20 November 2012 - 21:16

So can we conclude that FOM couldn't do what the NBA does while still making the amount of money they do, even if they wanted to. And that they don't want to. And that annoys people because they don't get to make fan videos.

If anyone can show me an example of another motor racing series that's made more from its media rights, I'd love to see it.

If anyone thinks they know how to make more of what F1 has, why not go and see Mr Ecclestone? I'm sure he'll listen if it makes sense.

#147 F1ultimate

F1ultimate
  • Member

  • 2,815 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 20 November 2012 - 21:48

F1 is pathetic outside broadcast. The website has galleries of incredibly small photography and omit large ones of the driver parade and other aspects of a race weekend that fans would love to see.

#148 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,762 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 20 November 2012 - 21:50

Surely everyone who wants to see them is too busy complaining here that they can't?

#149 chrcol

chrcol
  • Member

  • 737 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 20 November 2012 - 22:57

Some of you are constantly twisting the arguments to 'you want free video'. People have constantly pointed out that that is not the case, they are willing to pay for it, and they just want online content. Online media is so powerful in the present day. How difficult is it to understand that?


yep.

FOM are basically working on the principle that exclusivety is great. eg. they think its better to make content not available at all then selling it so the content itself is so rare that companies pay a premium for it.

Its my view that principle is outdated, its how tv worked in the 80s before the internet took off.

Its the same principle that hates things like VOD and try to force people to watch on a schedule etc.

#150 chrcol

chrcol
  • Member

  • 737 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 20 November 2012 - 23:00

It has been pointed out why "fan videos" are removed from YouTube. It has been pointed out that there is much "online content" and certain broadcasters make older video part of that content. What is it you think you should have access to, how much would you pay, and how many people do you think would pay it?


you dont get it.

I want to be able to decide hang on I want to watch the spa race right now from 1995, I just click on something and boom I am watching it.

I dont want someone like sky or the bbc decide to show some random 5 minute footage once every month. Its my choice not their choice?

understand now?

Its about on demand viewing.