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F1's marketing model - bad and outdated?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

#151 techspeed

techspeed
  • Member

  • 370 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 20 November 2012 - 23:09

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.

Just curious here, based on the claims made in this thread that showing clips on Youtube will bring in more fans. How many of us after watching a clip of Zlatan scoring a goal will then decide to watch a football match? I know I've seen the occasional football clips like this, but I have never then been tempted to watch a football match. If everyone else is the same then no one can suggest that F1 clips on Youtube would bring in more fans to F1.

Advertisement

#152 techspeed

techspeed
  • Member

  • 370 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 20 November 2012 - 23:26

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.

If you want to see great photographs from the race then visit any of the sites owned by the photographers who have rights to take photographs at the circuit. Just like the broadcasters I'm sure they won't be too happy if FOM decided to put high quality versions of their photographs on their website when selling photographs is how they make a living and pay for the high cost of travelling to all the races.

Rather than moan about the f1 website, try any of the links on here http://www.fopa.net/FOPA_Members.html or search for f1 photographer to find plenty of examples - they will even sell you a print of them if you really want something special to put on a wall.

#153 SophieB

SophieB
  • RC Forum Host

  • 1,574 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 06 July 2013 - 11:56

Okay, clean up done. Move on, please everyone.

#154 Talisman

Talisman
  • Member

  • 768 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 06 July 2013 - 18:31

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.."


What issue should FOM sort out exactly? The fact that it is one of the most profitable sports promoters in the world with little need for infrastructure other than the broadcasting equipment? That is makes money off both the sporting venues AND the TV rights? That every year despite doom and gloom they keep signing new race contracts that pay more than the last ones did? That despite the global economic collapse they still make money hand over fist from selling those broadcasting rights?

FOM does not allow internet broadcasting distribution because it sells a monopoly for F1 coverage to TV broadcasters in any given state. Those TV broadcasters are free to make F1 available online within their borders like BBC iPlayer, that is one of the perks that 'justifies' the huge fees they charge.

Obviously the fan does not get access to old races unless they pay for it (you can BUY dvds of old seasons I believe) but since the business model works for both FOM and the TV broadcasters that sign those contracts that is of little importance is it?

As for promoting the sport, once the TV broadcaster pays those exorbitant fees it is expected that they will then spend a little extra money to publicise the sport to get bums on seats and generate advertising revenue. That and team sponsors and car makers using F1 in their advertising too.

Its a model that works despite its flaws for the average fan.

#155 Ghostrider

Ghostrider
  • Member

  • 15,758 posts
  • Joined: July 99

Posted 06 July 2013 - 18:39

F1 is still living on fans created when it was aired on free for all television.

Slowly but surely those generations of fans will die out and I am not sure current way of dealing with F1 is creating any new young fans.

#156 Vermont

Vermont
  • Member

  • 119 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 17 July 2013 - 01:18

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

It made me think:

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

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

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

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


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



Finally a very interesting topic (not sure it belongs to RC, yet great topic).

I have been a massive F1 since the first GP I witnessed. I was literally a baby and happened to be in Argentina for the GP there when Carlos Reutemann was dominating the race until a few miles from the end. It was almost 40 years ago. I was hooked even if I wasn't sure what was going on. I witnessed F1 emerge from an afecionado alternative sport and become a mass phenomenon of mega proportions. The main reason: a little British annoying, almost repulsive business genius called Bernie. Hate him or love him, he turned F1 into a s super professional, well oiled, safer for consumption, spectacle. Made a fortune but also allowed others to do so (Dennis, Williams/Head, Jordan, Briatore, Sauber, Schumacher, etc, etc, long, long list).

He understood marketing and sales, media and televion specifically. He reached everywhere in the world. F1 became a big, big business.

But he is 82 years old and he has missed the boat over and over and over in the past 4-5 years. He just hasn't realized or accepted that the world according to Bernie has changed. In that respect, Dorna Sports, the rights holders of MotoGP, with Carmelo Ezpeleta as CEO, are light years ahead of the Methuselah of F1.

They embraced the internet and I embraced their model. And while I have always been sort of 65-35 in favor of F1, in the past 5 years I am more like 75 MotoGP, 25 F1. For many reasons.

Thanks to MotoGP.com, I can save a lot of money: I don't watch TV. I find it the most boring waste of time but also recognize its addictive power. So, I wanted to cancel my cable for years. But I am an F1 and MotoGP addict...what to do??? Well, Dorna offers me a off and in season pass for around 100 euro a year. I used to pay $120 a month in Premium Cable just to have the stupid channels that carried my sports (Speed Channel mostly). Net savings pretty hefty. In addition, I don't get interrupted by the cancer of all cancers: advertising!!! And the 2-3 times a year when there is a mega conflict between real life and MotoGP......I click on the saved "No Spoiler" link and watch the races once I get home. Also, 3 races each time (Moto 3, Moto 2, and MotoGP.....you see the future Rossi in the making........I have won more money on Mark Marquez in the past 3 years than on anybody ever before.....). All 4 practices for all 3 categories, qual, everything live or on demand: YOUR choice, not little Bernie choice.

Now that sounds pretty cool already, right? Not even half the story. They have a Video Library.....every MotoGP/500cc race since 1992, most 250/Moto2 races, most 125/Moto3 races, some are just in highlights format. So, you can watch epic battles between Schwantz and Reiney or Rossi and Biaggi or Doohan and Creville or Rossi and Stoner/Lorenzo. Whenever you want. As many times as you want. You can see Valentino at 16 in 125cc or Keeny Roberts Jr win a MotoGP title on a Suzuki, you can watch Simonclli looking absurd at 6'1" on an 125cc, but quite a debonair on a MotoGP.......it totally connects you with the sport, with the riders, with the circuits, the technicians (who doesn't know Jeremy Burgess of VR or that long blonde haired technicians in Cal's box who has been with satellite Yamahas for decades? or Lucio Cecchinello, Bradl's team manager, who you can watch race in 125cc races of the past.

In other words, Dorna allows you, thanks to the internet, to build a personal and ongoing relationship with MotoGP and their riders. Now, can you imagine being able to watch not only every F1 FP, Qual and race of 2013, but also every race and qual in F1 since 1992???? for 100 euros year? Senna, Prost, Mansell, Piquet...or Schmacher, Hill, Villeneuve, Hakkinen....or....you got the point.......

Bernie needs to go, he lives in the 90s and the world has changed millenium. Of course I enjoy MotoGP more because the racing is ten times better and because the riders are real tough crazy people who race with nails and metal parts in their bodies and so forth. But being able to control the experience on my own terms rather than on Bernie's terms makes a lot of difference. I already missed 3 GPs this season and felt no desire to watch them after reading the reviews. I have watched every single Moto3, Moto2, and MotoGP qual session and race and I just can't get enough. So, now if you don't mind, I am going back to watching that famous Mugello where Rossi, Biaggi, and Capirossi just set tuscany on fire. Sayonara


#157 Vermont

Vermont
  • Member

  • 119 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 17 July 2013 - 01:23

Finally a very interesting topic (not sure it belongs to RC, yet great topic).

I have been a massive F1 since the first GP I witnessed. I was literally a baby and happened to be in Argentina for the GP there when Carlos Reutemann was dominating the race until a few miles from the end. It was almost 40 years ago. I was hooked even if I wasn't sure what was going on. I witnessed F1 emerge from an afecionado alternative sport and become a mass phenomenon of mega proportions. The main reason: a little British annoying, almost repulsive business genius called Bernie. Hate him or love him, he turned F1 into a s super professional, well oiled, safer for consumption, spectacle. Made a fortune but also allowed others to do so (Dennis, Williams/Head, Jordan, Briatore, Sauber, Schumacher, etc, etc, long, long list).

He understood marketing and sales, media and televion specifically. He reached everywhere in the world. F1 became a big, big business.

But he is 82 years old and he has missed the boat over and over and over in the past 4-5 years. He just hasn't realized or accepted that the world according to Bernie has changed. In that respect, Dorna Sports, the rights holders of MotoGP, with Carmelo Ezpeleta as CEO, are light years ahead of the Methuselah of F1.

They embraced the internet and I embraced their model. And while I have always been sort of 65-35 in favor of F1, in the past 5 years I am more like 75 MotoGP, 25 F1. For many reasons.

Thanks to MotoGP.com, I can save a lot of money: I don't watch TV. I find it the most boring waste of time but also recognize its addictive power. So, I wanted to cancel my cable for years. But I am an F1 and MotoGP addict...what to do??? Well, Dorna offers me a off and in season pass for around 100 euro a year. I used to pay $120 a month in Premium Cable just to have the stupid channels that carried my sports (Speed Channel mostly). Net savings pretty hefty. In addition, I don't get interrupted by the cancer of all cancers: advertising!!! And the 2-3 times a year when there is a mega conflict between real life and MotoGP......I click on the saved "No Spoiler" link and watch the races once I get home. Also, 3 races each time (Moto 3, Moto 2, and MotoGP.....you see the future Rossi in the making........I have won more money on Mark Marquez in the past 3 years than on anybody ever before.....). All 4 practices for all 3 categories, qual, everything live or on demand: YOUR choice, not little Bernie choice.

Now that sounds pretty cool already, right? Not even half the story. They have a Video Library.....every MotoGP/500cc race since 1992, most 250/Moto2 races, most 125/Moto3 races, some are just in highlights format. So, you can watch epic battles between Schwantz and Reiney or Rossi and Biaggi or Doohan and Creville or Rossi and Stoner/Lorenzo. Whenever you want. As many times as you want. You can see Valentino at 16 in 125cc or Keeny Roberts Jr win a MotoGP title on a Suzuki, you can watch Simonclli looking absurd at 6'1" on an 125cc, but quite a debonair on a MotoGP.......it totally connects you with the sport, with the riders, with the circuits, the technicians (who doesn't know Jeremy Burgess of VR or that long blonde haired technicians in Cal's box who has been with satellite Yamahas for decades? or Lucio Cecchinello, Bradl's team manager, who you can watch race in 125cc races of the past.

In other words, Dorna allows you, thanks to the internet, to build a personal and ongoing relationship with MotoGP and their riders. Now, can you imagine being able to watch not only every F1 FP, Qual and race of 2013, but also every race and qual in F1 since 1992???? for 100 euros year? Senna, Prost, Mansell, Piquet...or Schmacher, Hill, Villeneuve, Hakkinen....or....you got the point.......

Bernie needs to go, he lives in the 90s and the world has changed millenium. Of course I enjoy MotoGP more because the racing is ten times better and because the riders are real tough crazy people who race with nails and metal parts in their bodies and so forth. But being able to control the experience on my own terms rather than on Bernie's terms makes a lot of difference. I already missed 3 GPs this season and felt no desire to watch them after reading the reviews. I have watched every single Moto3, Moto2, and MotoGP qual session and race and I just can't get enough. So, now if you don't mind, I am going back to watching that famous Mugello where Rossi, Biaggi, and Capirossi just set tuscany on fire. Sayonara


Oh, plus you get all the news, pics, videos, like on Autosport for F1. So, you get all the racing action + all the news for one price. Sorry Bernie, but I will keep watching F1 on Russian pirate F1 sites and not give you a penny, not paying for premium cable anymore just because of you, and they show the british broadcast live for free, so your model obviously is obsolete. I am willing to pay for a great service on my own terms like Dorna's but for your old fashioned monopoly.....not even a cent

#158 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,762 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 17 July 2013 - 08:41

Oh, plus you get all the news, pics, videos, like on Autosport for F1. So, you get all the racing action + all the news for one price. Sorry Bernie, but I will keep watching F1 on Russian pirate F1 sites and not give you a penny, not paying for premium cable anymore just because of you, and they show the british broadcast live for free, so your model obviously is obsolete. I am willing to pay for a great service on my own terms like Dorna's but for your old fashioned monopoly.....not even a cent

Do you get all your music from torrent sites too? And steal your food from fields?


#159 EvanRainer

EvanRainer
  • Member

  • 1,364 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 17 July 2013 - 09:24

Do you get all your music from torrent sites too? And steal your food from fields?


Seriously? :rolleyes:

Advertisement

#160 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,762 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 17 July 2013 - 09:45

Seriously? :rolleyes:

Yeah, seriously.

People who make good stuff need to get paid for doing it or they'll stop doing it and do something that pays.

#161 Lights

Lights
  • Member

  • 8,872 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 17 July 2013 - 10:07

Yeah, seriously.

People who make good stuff need to get paid for doing it or they'll stop doing it and do something that pays.

Then you didn't understand his post at all. The complaint was that there is no good stuff to pay for with F1. For MotoGP there is, and he pays for that.

#162 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,762 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 17 July 2013 - 10:14

Then you didn't understand his post at all. The complaint was that there is no good stuff to pay for with F1. For MotoGP there is, and he pays for that.

If it's so bad why would he bother stealing it? If it's good enough to steal, why not pay for it?

It's not just the TV companies that will be hurt by this behaviour, it's the teams as well. If everyone's stealing the content, who's going to pay big money for the broadcasting rights?

#163 Lennat

Lennat
  • Member

  • 473 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 17 July 2013 - 12:46

I don't mind paying for a good service. The Swedish broadcaster who sends Moto GP, F1 and Nascar charges about 28 euros a month (or in my case 23 euros, as I signed up for the subscription earlier when it was cheaper), and to be honest I wouldn't mind paying that for just F1 if I HAD to. I prefer this to when it was free (which it was until five years ago) since there are no commercial breaks and they show all practice sessions as well. I HATE commercial breaks and understand that it can't be free if you don't have them.

Of course I would LOVE to watch it for free with no ads like you could in the UK when BBC had the sole rights, but to pay for that with tax money? It doesn't make sense to me to be honest.

Of course the prices need to be reasonable though. I stopped watching Indycar (ok, I watch it for free on streaming sites from time to time, but it's an annoying and unreliable way to do it) when the broadcaster for that jacked up the prices like crazy. I used to pay something like eight euros for a race, which was fair in my book. Now it costs about 20 euros for a race or 46 for a subscription to their package deal (where nothing except Indycar interests me), and there is no way in hell I'm paying that much. I don't feel bad about watching it for free on some weird streaming site when there is no good alternative. But I wouldn't even consider watching it for free on some weird pirate site no matter how well it worked as long as I was offered a FAIR alternative. I always go the legal route when there is a good way to do it, no matter if it is for movies, music or motorsports. :)

#164 Slackbladder

Slackbladder
  • Member

  • 1,110 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 17 July 2013 - 12:48

There's several different issues here:

Firstly, the youtube videos etc of old clips: They're pretty small fry in the great scheme of things, FOM could probably be more relaxed about them, but in the grand scheme of things they're neither here nor there. The vast majority of people which watch them are going to be F1 fans anyway, so the marketing issue is rather a misnomer, and there are legitimate legal issues surrounding old clips.

Secondly, FOM is simply not going to provide a official old 'paid for' service for races, highlights etc. It's simple economics that the demand for this is so low it's not feasible, and the costs, which are real would never make it worthwhile.

Thirdly: Whilst FOM 'could' stream races live on the internet, this would have a knock on impact on their current business structure. What they could make from the harder-core fans willing to pay directly to FOM for access has to be weighted against what they would lose from existing broadcasters which would have their product devalued.

I personally don't think there are enough 'proper' F1 fans which the sport can make money out without needing casual fans. That's shown by the fall in viewing from the races moving from BBC to Sky. I was lucky enough to already have SkyHD, so it cost me nothing, but would I have gone there anyway? Questionable....

#165 Lights

Lights
  • Member

  • 8,872 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 17 July 2013 - 12:55

If it's so bad why would he bother stealing it? If it's good enough to steal, why not pay for it?

It's not just the TV companies that will be hurt by this behaviour, it's the teams as well. If everyone's stealing the content, who's going to pay big money for the broadcasting rights?

Yeah with stuff I wasn't referring to the content, but the format of it.

Comparisons with other products are futile. It's not like music and food was free 2 years ago.

#166 Slackbladder

Slackbladder
  • Member

  • 1,110 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 17 July 2013 - 12:58

Yeah with stuff I wasn't referring to the content, but the format of it.

Comparisons with other products are futile. It's not like music and food was free 2 years ago.


You can't compare live sport with music. Music can be 'consumed' time and time again 100s of times.

Sport has an immediate live impact, then the value of it quickly, instantly falls to nearly nothing. Only the hardest of the hardcore are going to watch races more than once, and clips more than a few times.

#167 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 1,856 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 17 July 2013 - 13:04

In other words, Dorna allows you, thanks to the internet, to build a personal and ongoing relationship with MotoGP and their riders. Now, can you imagine being able to watch not only every F1 FP, Qual and race of 2013, but also every race and qual in F1 since 1992???? for 100 euros year? Senna, Prost, Mansell, Piquet...or Schmacher, Hill, Villeneuve, Hakkinen....or....you got the point.......


Do you have any figures for how much MotoGP makes from that internet content though?
It is probably a rounding error in their accounting compared to the TV deals they have.

The value of this kind of archived internet content is non existent compared to the well established TV broadcasting deals F1 already has.

Edited by johnmhinds, 17 July 2013 - 13:07.


#168 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,762 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 17 July 2013 - 13:25

Yeah with stuff I wasn't referring to the content, but the format of it.

Comparisons with other products are futile. It's not like music and food was free 2 years ago.

Music is 'free' on the radio (if you choose to call things paid for by the licence fee (which you pay for) and advertising (which you pay for) free.

Having on-demand access to things (F1, music, whatever) is usually paid for directly by the person who wants it.

And food used to be free too (hunting and gathering). If you disregard the sweat equity, of course.

Of course, if you don't want to pay for F1 it's your choice not to watch it. Or steal it, if you're comfortable just stealing things you don't want to pay for.

#169 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,762 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 17 July 2013 - 13:29

You can't compare live sport with music. Music can be 'consumed' time and time again 100s of times.

Sport has an immediate live impact, then the value of it quickly, instantly falls to nearly nothing. Only the hardest of the hardcore are going to watch races more than once, and clips more than a few times.

You could say the same for music, movies, sport, whatever. Quiet a lot of people buy football season reviews for instance, just as quite a few buy box sets of DVDs. I don't, but the market is there, and the people clamouring for it all to be free are basically demanding the creators of the content don't get paid for their work. There is a promotional value to permitting limited amounts of free video, but if everything's available free all the time, then it's minimal, because not many people will buy something they can get legally for free.

#170 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 17 July 2013 - 13:46

Thanks to MotoGP.com, I can save a lot of money: I don't watch TV.

Now that sounds pretty cool already, right? Not even half the story. They have a Video Library.....every MotoGP/500cc race since 1992, most 250/Moto2 races, most 125/Moto3 races, some are just in highlights format. So, you can watch epic battles



WOW. I just looked at the site, I had no idea. No wonder MotoGP in the states is so much bigger than F1. THAT is how you do it! You can actually watch archived races. You can change the views on modern races, you can even alter where the audio is coming from??? Plus live timing, multiple screens?

I haven't watched MotoGp since Simoncelli had his accident, it's just too scary... but a few years ago I would have subscribed to this, even as a casual fan.

THAT IS WHAT F1 IS MISSING THE POINT ABOUT. Gaining new fans. I suppose the tv contracts are just that juicy, apparently.

Oh well.


But seriously - MotoGP's website is 21st century. F1's is about 2002. Kudos to them.

Edited by Rubens Hakkamacher, 17 July 2013 - 13:46.


#171 Gyno

Gyno
  • Member

  • 61 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 17 July 2013 - 14:03

F1 doesn't care about their fans.

Plain and simple.

#172 Lights

Lights
  • Member

  • 8,872 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 17 July 2013 - 17:36

Music is 'free' on the radio (if you choose to call things paid for by the licence fee (which you pay for) and advertising (which you pay for) free.

Having on-demand access to things (F1, music, whatever) is usually paid for directly by the person who wants it.

And food used to be free too (hunting and gathering). If you disregard the sweat equity, of course.

Of course, if you don't want to pay for F1 it's your choice not to watch it. Or steal it, if you're comfortable just stealing things you don't want to pay for.

Hunting and gathering, I didn't do much of that in 2011. But back then I did watch F1 for free. Now I buy food and music that's worth its price. But where I live, an F1 subscription in the current format isn't worth the price. The quality is the same or worse than it was 10 years ago. If I would pay for it, they'd be stealing from me, and I bet they would be comfortable with that.

#173 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,762 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 21 July 2013 - 10:58

So I can nick things that I used to think were great so long as I think the quality of manufacture isn't what it was?

This just comes back to what I said before. If you don't think it's good enough to pay for, why are you bothering stealing it? If you want enough to steal it, why not pay for it?

At least the people involved in music sharing/pirating/whatever have gone to the trouble of putting forward a moral position and business argument on that, rather than just saying 'Well, they're not quite Beethoven, are they? So why should I pay?'

#174 JHSingo

JHSingo
  • Member

  • 717 posts
  • Joined: June 13

Posted 21 July 2013 - 11:10

F1 doesn't care about their fans.

Plain and simple.


:up:

Then they wonder why they can't attract big sponsors these days. :rolleyes:

Found it ridiculous that the paying public weren't even allowed access to the paddock during the testing at Silverstone! It seems FOM etc is scared of the unwashed masses entering their beautiful paddock...

It is a joke how un-fan friendly and behind the times this supposed pinnacle of motorsport is. If the egomaniacs within F1 could take their blinkers off, they could improve things a lot if they looked at how other forms of racing do things.

#175 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,148 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 21 July 2013 - 11:32

I never understood the backlash by FOM against people posting full race videos on YouTube.

The NBA embraced YouTube by allowing the fans to post old videos/games of basketball because they realized it helps grow the league.

On the flipside you have MLB and the NFL who take the FOM line on YouTube.

It's the 21st century, you will gain more fans by using a site like YouTube to let fans post their favorite videos, and the like.

In MLB's defense though, they've done an incredible job with live streaming, which is something FOM has yet to figure out...well to be fair, they've yet to figure out how to put together a coherent TV package.

#176 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 1,856 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 21 July 2013 - 11:35

:up:

Then they wonder why they can't attract big sponsors these days. :rolleyes:

Found it ridiculous that the paying public weren't even allowed access to the paddock during the testing at Silverstone! It seems FOM etc is scared of the unwashed masses entering their beautiful paddock...

It is a joke how un-fan friendly and behind the times this supposed pinnacle of motorsport is. If the egomaniacs within F1 could take their blinkers off, they could improve things a lot if they looked at how other forms of racing do things.


For crying out loud not everything is a conspiracy against fans.

It's probably something as simple as a lack of staff to organise any paddock access, there are far less people working at the track than at a GP race weekend.

If you want to go in the paddock during testing then tell people to pay more for their entrance tickets so they can hire more staff, I wonder how well that will go down with fans though...

#177 JHSingo

JHSingo
  • Member

  • 717 posts
  • Joined: June 13

Posted 21 July 2013 - 11:43

For crying out loud not everything is a conspiracy against fans.

It's probably something as simple as a lack of staff to organise any paddock access, there are far less people working at the track than at a GP race weekend.

If you want to go in the paddock during testing then tell people to pay more for their entrance tickets so they can hire more staff, I wonder how well that will go down with fans though...


Yeah right.

Plenty of other championships are able to do it no problem, so F1 which we are often told is the pinnacle of motorsport or whatever, should have no problems doing it either. We often see celebrity plonkers swanning around the paddock during a race weekend, and they probably know sod all about Formula One. That's the sort of access us real fans would love.

But no, there's far too much greed in the sport. That's why the cost of TV rights means the sport now appears on pay-to-view channels across Europe (which has seen a drop in viewing figures actually, how funny is that?) and that's why ticket prices are so ludicrously expensive at most races too.

If you want to see proper racing at a reasonable price, and enjoy decent access, you are far better attending many of the alternatives to F1. I went to the British Grand Prix in 2009 and 2010, and while it is a great event, it is such poor value for money compared to other forms of racing, that I, and many of my friends, don't bother attending Grands Prix any more. You probably get better access by just staying at home and watching it on TV. How sad is that?

#178 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 1,856 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 21 July 2013 - 11:54

Plenty of other championships are able to do it no problem, so F1 which we are often told is the pinnacle of motorsport or whatever, should have no problems doing it either. We often see celebrity plonkers swanning around the paddock during a race weekend, and they probably know sod all about Formula One. That's the sort of access us real fans would love.


Name me a single championship that has let fans poke around in the paddock during a testing session. It doesn't happen.

The tickets to watch last weeks Silverstone test were only something like £15 - £20 right?
How are you expecting them to hire enough staff to let you swan about at your leisure for that kind of price.


And how in the world are you going to give EVERYONE the same access to the paddock as the "celebrity plonkers".
You can't replace a hand full of minor celebrities on the grid or in the garages with 100,000+ fans, it's clearly not going to be practical.

Take off the tin foil hat for a second, not everyone is against you just because you couldn't get access to everything you wanted.

#179 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 12,216 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 21 July 2013 - 13:08

Name me a single championship that has let fans poke around in the paddock during a testing session. It doesn't happen.


WSBK and Indycar. For starters. Maybe NASCAR too?

Advertisement

#180 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,357 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 21 July 2013 - 13:11

The NBA embraced YouTube by allowing the fans to post old videos/games of basketball because they realized it helps grow the league.


Has there actually been any independent study to support that supposition, or is it just a guess?


#181 Vermont

Vermont
  • Member

  • 119 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 22 July 2013 - 00:25

Do you get all your music from torrent sites too? And steal your food from fields?

No, "less than average IQ", I don't. I am old enough t have a nice collection of vynils and CDs and really hardly need to buy anything these days, music is almost as boring as Vettel......I even paid $50 on Radiohead download of In Rainbows because I knew the album was going to be brilliant and for their gutsy move. I reward merit. I paid MotoGP for off and on season for 4 years now, I could get mst of it, at least the races, for free too, "Less than average IQ". But I don't because their service is top notch. But bernie is providing no alternatives and I don;t want to subscribe to 100+ channels to watch F1. If Bernie charges me for F1, I buy, but I don't need to pay fpr TV, I simply don't watch the tellie. And I do pay for my food, "less than average IQ", at my local co-op, at the CSA (local farms I pay in advance for their crops) and from my backyard, which I attend personally (I also make my own ale beer and wine, hope it's OK with your sorry excuse for a cranky dude)

#182 Vermont

Vermont
  • Member

  • 119 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 22 July 2013 - 00:28

Yeah, seriously.

People who make good stuff need to get paid for doing it or they'll stop doing it and do something that pays.


What has Bernie done that qualifies as good stuff so I can watch F1 but not Ophra? You have no idea of what you are talking about. There is a difference bertween excellent product (Motogp.com) and a monopoly that runs on TV. You obviously cannot understand the difference. Send me a private message if you need an explanation

#183 Vermont

Vermont
  • Member

  • 119 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 22 July 2013 - 00:31

Then you didn't understand his post at all. The complaint was that there is no good stuff to pay for with F1. For MotoGP there is, and he pays for that.

You saw the "Lights", mate!!!!

#184 Sin

Sin
  • Member

  • 1,915 posts
  • Joined: December 12

Posted 22 July 2013 - 00:34

DTM uploads the whole races after they have been broadcasted

#185 Vermont

Vermont
  • Member

  • 119 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 22 July 2013 - 00:34

If it's so bad why would he bother stealing it? If it's good enough to steal, why not pay for it?

It's not just the TV companies that will be hurt by this behaviour, it's the teams as well. If everyone's stealing the content, who's going to pay big money for the broadcasting rights?

oetzi, obviously you have been living in Siberia for the past 20 years. I pay MotoGP because I want MotoGP and pay for it. I want F1 and I would pay for it (I would get better HD quality) but Bernine forces me to watch it on Speed TV, which means I need to get Premium Cable at $140 a month. I donlt watch TV. You really think I should pay $140 a month to watch F1? You must be insane. When Bernie provodes an F1 streaming in HQ quality on F1, I will be the first one to pay. As long as he forces me to subscribe to 140 channells I don;t need to watch his races, I chose the free Russians site. Get the difference, mate?

#186 Vermont

Vermont
  • Member

  • 119 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 22 July 2013 - 00:37

I don't mind paying for a good service. The Swedish broadcaster who sends Moto GP, F1 and Nascar charges about 28 euros a month (or in my case 23 euros, as I signed up for the subscription earlier when it was cheaper), and to be honest I wouldn't mind paying that for just F1 if I HAD to. I prefer this to when it was free (which it was until five years ago) since there are no commercial breaks and they show all practice sessions as well. I HATE commercial breaks and understand that it can't be free if you don't have them.

Of course I would LOVE to watch it for free with no ads like you could in the UK when BBC had the sole rights, but to pay for that with tax money? It doesn't make sense to me to be honest.

Of course the prices need to be reasonable though. I stopped watching Indycar (ok, I watch it for free on streaming sites from time to time, but it's an annoying and unreliable way to do it) when the broadcaster for that jacked up the prices like crazy. I used to pay something like eight euros for a race, which was fair in my book. Now it costs about 20 euros for a race or 46 for a subscription to their package deal (where nothing except Indycar interests me), and there is no way in hell I'm paying that much. I don't feel bad about watching it for free on some weird streaming site when there is no good alternative. But I wouldn't even consider watching it for free on some weird pirate site no matter how well it worked as long as I was offered a FAIR alternative. I always go the legal route when there is a good way to do it, no matter if it is for movies, music or motorsports. :)

Right on. my friend. I feel it's crazy for me to pay 140 dollars a month to watch 1 or 2 GPs. When it becomes like MotoGP.com, I will subscribe. I want to pay ONLY for what I watch. I don;t need Big Brother or England has Talent

#187 Vermont

Vermont
  • Member

  • 119 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 22 July 2013 - 00:39

Do you have any figures for how much MotoGP makes from that internet content though?
It is probably a rounding error in their accounting compared to the TV deals they have.

The value of this kind of archived internet content is non existent compared to the well established TV broadcasting deals F1 already has.

Oh, I am sure Dorna can't figure it out and needs your Autosport post to get a wake up call on how much money they make. The reality is that MotoGP has been growing much faster than F1 over the past decade and that is because Bernie is fossilized in the 20th century. In 10 yeats, less than 20% of viewers will be on a TV. WQelcome to the 21st century!!!!

#188 Vermont

Vermont
  • Member

  • 119 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 22 July 2013 - 00:46

WOW. I just looked at the site, I had no idea. No wonder MotoGP in the states is so much bigger than F1. THAT is how you do it! You can actually watch archived races. You can change the views on modern races, you can even alter where the audio is coming from??? Plus live timing, multiple screens?

I haven't watched MotoGp since Simoncelli had his accident, it's just too scary... but a few years ago I would have subscribed to this, even as a casual fan.

THAT IS WHAT F1 IS MISSING THE POINT ABOUT. Gaining new fans. I suppose the tv contracts are just that juicy, apparently.

Oh well.


But seriously - MotoGP's website is 21st century. F1's is about 2002. Kudos to them.

Thank you, Rubens Hakkamacher, to take the time to verify what I was saying and comfirm what a difference on demand , HD, variables in your hands, live everything, makes to a real fan. Again, Dirna=21st Century; Bernie=20th century. Me pays only for real modern service I want when I want. Bernie's model of pushing whatever he wants when he wants, died a decade ago. Me no pay for that

#189 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 22 July 2013 - 00:46

oetzi, obviously you have been living in Siberia for the past 20 years. I pay MotoGP because I want MotoGP and pay for it. I want F1 and I would pay for it (I would get better HD quality) but Bernine forces me to watch it on Speed TV, which means I need to get Premium Cable at $140 a month. I donlt watch TV. You really think I should pay $140 a month to watch F1? You must be insane. When Bernie provodes an F1 streaming in HQ quality on F1, I will be the first one to pay. As long as he forces me to subscribe to 140 channells I don;t need to watch his races, I chose the free Russians site. Get the difference, mate?


Unfortunately it's not a moral choice, it's a legal one - just because you don't want to pay the price someone's charging for content doesn't mean you get to decide to get it for free. Not how it works. "I don't feel like paying £500 for this flatscreen, I think it's worth less, so I'll steal it"

#190 Vermont

Vermont
  • Member

  • 119 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 22 July 2013 - 00:54

For crying out loud not everything is a conspiracy against fans.

It's probably something as simple as a lack of staff to organise any paddock access, there are far less people working at the track than at a GP race weekend.

If you want to go in the paddock during testing then tell people to pay more for their entrance tickets so they can hire more staff, I wonder how well that will go down with fans though...

Lack of staff? Hilarious!!!!! Check what MotoGP does for their guests in the paddock. I felt like a King for a few hundred bucks. Spotless service, perfect views, great food and wine, perfect lounges, and met Aspargaro and Iannone. Fat chance of that happening in F1 (used too, I met every driver there was in the 80s, but now they are unreachable, unless you yourself are a star of sort......). Bernie created an unreachable fable and I just don't buy into it. Motogp set the standard for what the internet wants: on demand content on OUR terms. Anything on THEIR terms, I don't buy. Sorry

#191 Vermont

Vermont
  • Member

  • 119 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 22 July 2013 - 00:57

Yeah right.

Plenty of other championships are able to do it no problem, so F1 which we are often told is the pinnacle of motorsport or whatever, should have no problems doing it either. We often see celebrity plonkers swanning around the paddock during a race weekend, and they probably know sod all about Formula One. That's the sort of access us real fans would love.

But no, there's far too much greed in the sport. That's why the cost of TV rights means the sport now appears on pay-to-view channels across Europe (which has seen a drop in viewing figures actually, how funny is that?) and that's why ticket prices are so ludicrously expensive at most races too.

If you want to see proper racing at a reasonable price, and enjoy decent access, you are far better attending many of the alternatives to F1. I went to the British Grand Prix in 2009 and 2010, and while it is a great event, it is such poor value for money compared to other forms of racing, that I, and many of my friends, don't bother attending Grands Prix any more. You probably get better access by just staying at home and watching it on TV. How sad is that?

Exactly. In Motogp you see the lady with Down Syndrome who gets to design Lorenzo's helmet. He wears it and he wins and gets her on the podium roster with him. That is Stardom that stoll connects with Real People. F1 lost that the day Ayrton Senna died. Bernie never had it, he is just a salesman, not a marketing person. He understands his bottomline, zero abut customer service

#192 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 1,856 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 22 July 2013 - 02:45

Oh, I am sure Dorna can't figure it out and needs your Autosport post to get a wake up call on how much money they make. The reality is that MotoGP has been growing much faster than F1 over the past decade and that is because Bernie is fossilized in the 20th century. In 10 yeats, less than 20% of viewers will be on a TV. WQelcome to the 21st century!!!!


Nothing you said has anything to do with my post.

I asked if anyone had any figures for how much MotoGP makes from its own website vs how much it makes from TV deals.
My gut instinct tells me they still make way more from from TV deals than selling directly to fans via their own website at the moment.

If the contention for most of this thread is that FOM would make more money by doing similar things right now then people have to prove that it would make FOM more money to kill all their current Tv deals and do it that way.

Having some figures for how MotoGPs broadcasting income is split would be helping your case if what you say is true and Dorna make a lot of their broadcasting money from their own website content.

But all I seemed to get from you was pointless whining that it costs you too much to watch F1 so you steal it and say other people have low IQs for not doing the same thing...

Edited by johnmhinds, 22 July 2013 - 02:46.


#193 EarnardBeccelstone

EarnardBeccelstone
  • Member

  • 30 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 22 July 2013 - 04:51

There's several different issues here:

Firstly, the youtube videos etc of old clips: They're pretty small fry in the great scheme of things, FOM could probably be more relaxed about them, but in the grand scheme of things they're neither here nor there. The vast majority of people which watch them are going to be F1 fans anyway, so the marketing issue is rather a misnomer, and there are legitimate legal issues surrounding old clips.


Actually, they can't relax about these things, at least not legally. If your going to go to court over copyright or trademarks, you need to be able to prove that you have defended your intellectual property. Otherwise you risk forfeting it.



#194 JHSingo

JHSingo
  • Member

  • 717 posts
  • Joined: June 13

Posted 22 July 2013 - 11:13

Exactly. In Motogp you see the lady with Down Syndrome who gets to design Lorenzo's helmet. He wears it and he wins and gets her on the podium roster with him. That is Stardom that stoll connects with Real People. F1 lost that the day Ayrton Senna died. Bernie never had it, he is just a salesman, not a marketing person. He understands his bottomline, zero abut customer service


Agreed. Another thing that MotoGP has in its favour is that it still has characters. Riders are allowed to have a personality, and look like they are enjoying themselves. They are not all corporate robots like they are in F1 these days. You see the banter between Marquez, Rossi and Crutchlow, and sadly, you can't imagine that happening in Formula One. Perhaps that is why MotoGP is bigger than F1 in America...

Meanwhile, in F1, most the drivers look like they'd rather be at a funeral than at a race weekend, and have the personality of a limp lettuce. It amazes me how many of them can act so miserable when they get paid so much money and do a job that millions of people would love to do.

#195 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 22 July 2013 - 16:13

but Bernine forces me to watch it on Speed TV, which means I need to get Premium Cable at $140 a month. I donlt watch TV. You really think I should pay $140 a month to watch F1? You must be insane.


I'm insane. What's worse is that I pay that to Comcast and half the time I have to scramble to watch the replay because the stupid DVR doesn't work. Outside of F1 I never watch tv.

Man, that's crept up on me.




#196 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,762 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 22 July 2013 - 23:26

I even paid $50 on Radiohead download

This starts to explain your confusion.

#197 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,762 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 22 July 2013 - 23:27

What has Bernie done that qualifies as good stuff so I can watch F1 but not Ophra? You have no idea of what you are talking about. There is a difference bertween excellent product (Motogp.com) and a monopoly that runs on TV. You obviously cannot understand the difference. Send me a private message if you need an explanation

Bernie Gives you F1.

Your cable provider gives you the other 139 channels and sends you the bill.

#198 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 2,762 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 22 July 2013 - 23:28

I want to pay ONLY for what I watch.

Yet you agree with people who think F1 should be on the BBC.

#199 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,148 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 23 July 2013 - 00:23

Exactly. In Motogp you see the lady with Down Syndrome who gets to design Lorenzo's helmet. He wears it and he wins and gets her on the podium roster with him. That is Stardom that stoll connects with Real People. F1 lost that the day Ayrton Senna died. Bernie never had it, he is just a salesman, not a marketing person. He understands his bottomline, zero abut customer service


:up:

F1 has no real connection with the fans any longer.

Didn't the series have to run a survey recently because they were so out-of-touch with the fanbase, that they had no idea what they wanted?

The entire race series exists in some insulated bubble that prevents it from making any real connection with the every day world. They instead opt to try to glorify their elitist level and treat the entire thing like some sort of party first, and a sport a distant second. I remember when the drivers used to sit in their cars on the grid before the parade lap. I almost get the feeling sometimes they don't even take this thing that seriously anymore. Then again, I suppose, how could they when no one even drives on the limit any longer....?

Advertisement

#200 intelligentsia

intelligentsia
  • Member

  • 2,357 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 23 July 2013 - 06:47

I think some people might miss some of the complexities of F1's global status. The simplest way for F1 to increase their fanbase would be to broadcast F1 in as many countries as possible, on every country's biggest or most watched TV station.

Every country has their own issues with regards to access to F1. In the US I see people referring to a F1 channel with 24 hour content, and comparisons to other American sports. These comparisons doesn't really work that well. The American sports will always be first, it is extremely unlikely that a foreign sport would succeed using that same model. The responsibility for coverage also lies with the broadcasters. I ve read that F1 has about a similar to larger viewership then Indycar in the US. If for example it is easier to view Indycar in the US then F1, then the fault obviously lies with broadcasters, as they could gain the same amount of viewership from showing F1. It could mean that they are shortsighted about the potential of showing F1. Or perhaps the times that F1 is live at doesn't interested them, and the fact that F1 isn't an American sport. ext. ext.
The US is a big potential market, but realistically they are more interested in promoting and broadcasting their own sports.

South America on the otherhand has a big F1 audience, Brazil has some of the biggest F1 audiences. South America has a lot of 3rd world counties, it is uncertain how feasible something like live streaming might be in these countries and if people would be able to pay for the service. A lot of people properly dont even have access to internet services, or the internet services might not be good enough. I myself live in a 3rd world country and it would cost a lot of money to stream free practice, qualifying and the races, on top of that I am doubtful I would be able to watch a live stream without any interruptions. There must be some other countries with similar problems. In places like South America and India, who have big potential markets the best way to reach a lot of people would be through TV or even radio.
China is another big market and there you dont always have access to youtube.

F1 could certainly offer better services, and they will properly do so in the near future. But any live streaming and youtube clips would only be of interest to a limited number of fans, and most of the interest would properly only be from exciting markets in Europe.
Offering different services on the website then what is available on TV might be a good start. Like team radio, or following a certain driver's onboard during the race, and so on.
In the early 2000's there used to be a primitive F1 digital channel, with more camera views, but there wasn't enough interest and it didn't last long. Right now the FOM properly has a good idea about the real interest in something like live streaming, with the F1 app. The same people who have the F1 app are properly also the ones, who would pay for live streaming of races as well. And out of F1's global audience the total interest is properly not as big as many people would think.

Putting old races or clips on youtube, and doing live streaming isn't marketing. It could be part of a marketing or advertising strategy but those actions by themselves does not constitute marketing. F1 would not gain a lot of fans from doing these things alone. You need to create a constant steam of interest in the product itself, which of course is the racing. The simplest way of doing mass marketing is to market a product to the biggest possible audience. Right now that market for F1 is still TV, because they have such a diverse global audience.

If you want to do marketing you need to create buzz and interest to a big audience in a consistent manner. The music industry can actually be used as an example, people have a lot of access to music these days there is much easier access then in the past, but music sales are still decreasing every year. And yet with all of the easy and diverse access to music these days the best way to market music is still by far, radio. If anything the music industry proves that if you want to generate interest in your product, you need to expose your product to a mass audience in a consistent manner. In the US a song on top of the radio playlists will be heard by around 150-200 million listeners a week, and they will only sell around 250 000 copies a week on itunes, at its highest peak. This isn't much considering the audience, but without radio it is almost impossible to sell anything.

Giving audiences live streaming and old races on youtube is a way of generating access, but it will not generate interest. It will not attract thousand of new fans. Broadcasting F1 on the most watched channel, or adding a GP to a country like the US for example, or a US driver with good results or a US F1 team will generate interest. These are more sure ways to generate a constant stream of interest. There are more Mexican fans these days with Perez driving for a bigger team, for example.
Creating buzz and publicity is another way of generating interest. F1 for all its faults are generally good at creating this type of PR whether it is negative or positive. Teammate rivalries and close racing are more positive buzz. But negative buzz sometimes work just as well, I ve seen countless people confess that they started watching F1 because of the Spygate scandal, for example. Anything that gets reported can generate a lot of interest.
In general it is difficult for F1 management and even F1 teams, to just listen to what people on the internet want. F1 fans are fickle and they often dont know what they want, we have seen many regulation changes, and often these changes are reverted after a while. Even with the recent discussion on tyres, a lot of people objected to the fast degrading tyres but if you look around on many polls, the races where the tyres played a big role was often also voted as the best races of the season.
There is always room for improvement, but these improvements might not have such a dramatic effect on general F1 fans. Improving the core product, should always be the first priority.