Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 6 votes

F1 Coverage Thread - 2013 Season (BBC and Sky)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
2194 replies to this topic

#2151 chunder27

chunder27
  • Member

  • 1,059 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 03 January 2014 - 00:22

It has nothing to do with the sports themselves.

 

It has everything to do with tv companies and series directors thinking people will be happy to pay to watch their product, and then hopiong the majoity will just roll over and pay anyway. Same as car insurance, house insurance, just tax on living we dont need.

 

It is a very recent thing in car racing, and it seems to be working in some industries but not in others.

 

Look at gaming, games like Iracing, World of Warcraft and Star Wars Republic are pay to play, in that you buy a small install software, then pay a monthly sub to play. I would never do this, but plenty do and it has made Blizzard unfeasibly rich. Why? Because their product is good, playable and is always reliable and offers new updates regularly. Iracing, you pay that monthly fee, yet STILL have to buy most of the cars and tracks at EXTRA COST!  Yet for some reason this model works!  Star Wars is now free to play yet you can do naff all without using credits in game, even Playstation software is now largely inclusive of buy content, most gmaes have additional content on top of the usual 50 quid price, it is pure greed nothing more, NOTHING MORE.

 

It works in gaming, maybe coz you get to try it yourself, get immersed.  IN sport you are ONLY watching, you are not participating. So, why on earth should you pay more to watch something that only offers you a seat?

 

THAT is why people are walking away, greed is a very dirty thing. It is that that is ruining sport, not people refusing to pay to watch it, if we didnt before why on earth should we know, because some fat cat realised he could start charing us for it thats why!

 

And that fat cat is Murdoch, the man who started it all and everyone has copied him.



Advertisement

#2152 Morbus

Morbus
  • Member

  • 458 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 03 January 2014 - 00:31

It only works in gaming cause people are dumb as bricks. The only time I've paid full price for a game was when my wits decided to leave me for a few days... There are many many sales all around the place, and online AAA games are usually a load of horse crap that not only can you do without, you are BETTER off without them. And plenty of people realize this in gaming, but since the market is so huge, there's room for everyone, and Blizzard earns their pay.

 

Formula 1 is a completely different market, and aiming for the hardcore fans and hoping their wits aren't with them isn't really a good strategy, I don't think.



#2153 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,695 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 03 January 2014 - 00:48

It has nothing to do with the sports themselves.

 

It has everything to do with tv companies and series directors thinking people will be happy to pay to watch their product, and then hopiong the majoity will just roll over and pay anyway. Same as car insurance, house insurance, just tax on living we dont need.

 

It is a very recent thing in car racing, and it seems to be working in some industries but not in others.

 

Look at gaming, games like Iracing, World of Warcraft and Star Wars Republic are pay to play, in that you buy a small install software, then pay a monthly sub to play. I would never do this, but plenty do and it has made Blizzard unfeasibly rich. Why? Because their product is good, playable and is always reliable and offers new updates regularly. Iracing, you pay that monthly fee, yet STILL have to buy most of the cars and tracks at EXTRA COST!  Yet for some reason this model works!  Star Wars is now free to play yet you can do naff all without using credits in game, even Playstation software is now largely inclusive of buy content, most gmaes have additional content on top of the usual 50 quid price, it is pure greed nothing more, NOTHING MORE.

 

It works in gaming, maybe coz you get to try it yourself, get immersed.  IN sport you are ONLY watching, you are not participating. So, why on earth should you pay more to watch something that only offers you a seat?

 

THAT is why people are walking away, greed is a very dirty thing. It is that that is ruining sport, not people refusing to pay to watch it, if we didnt before why on earth should we know, because some fat cat realised he could start charing us for it thats why!

 

And that fat cat is Murdoch, the man who started it all and everyone has copied him.

It has everything to do with the Sports. They are the ones who are looking for the highest bidder to sell out to. If they really cared about the viewing numbers they would accept lower bids from FTA companies. All they care about is the money and the problems start there.



#2154 chunder27

chunder27
  • Member

  • 1,059 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 03 January 2014 - 00:59

OK then, two things

 

People are dumb as bricks eh!  Well try telling that to Blizzard!  They charge you 12 quid a month, they MUST be offering something worthwhile? Are 10 million people a month really THAT dumb?

 

Not sure it is entirely down to stupidity, as I said before, as a player you are involved, you control your own destiny, it might only be a game, but you CAN participate.  That to me offers something different, hence why people, usually kids are more inclined to pay. Iracing is different, I love sims, but I can't justify paying the retainer for this, yet thousands do, and a lot of them are racers, I should know, I have raced against a few in the few months I did try it. But again you can have a virtual career and even win real cash if you are very good. That is very different to signing a contract that allows Bernie to send F1 to your telly! Sim gaming is a tiny market, yet Iracing managed to do very well thanks, so I dont think market share has much to do with it. A lot of games are free to play now, so hook you in and then you might spend a few quid?  Nice idea.

 

Regarding sports and who is the greediest. It isnt the sport, the sport is an all encompassing things that includes everyone, it is the tv rights holder who is selling his soul to God. They don't give a stuff about who watches (as you say)  as long as they get paid, hence the Dorna BT sport GP deal, the Sky F1 deal, Cricket on sky after 05 Ashes, Prem League in 96 was it?  Darts, speedway etc etc.

 

The people involved in the sport, ie teams, players, fans, promoters, sponsors, have little say in this (and when they do Bernie rolls them over), other than refusing to watch or pulling deals.

 

It is simple, just press the red button to turn it off



#2155 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,452 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 03 January 2014 - 08:20

If Sky are happy to charge an extortionate amount a month for their sports coverage and not worry about how many people are tuning in, it doesn't matter if some of us rip it off by watching it for free does it?


Er, you think Sky are happy that some people take for free what it 'values' at an extortionate amount? And you misunderstand the Sky MO.

There will always be a certain amount of people willing to pay and this will give them the revenue to continue buying sports rights. It might seem unfair to those who do receive it legitimately, but with a deal like this you are always going to have viewers getting the rough end of the stick IMO.


I'm no fan of Sky but I not pretending that they are running a public service for the common good. The rough end of the stick is what drives their subscriptions; many people can tolerate not watching rugby or football or F1 or cricket but fewer can tolerate not watching rugby AND football AND F1 AND cricket.

#2156 Haribo

Haribo
  • Member

  • 719 posts
  • Joined: August 03

Posted 03 January 2014 - 09:26

Basically what we need is FOM streaming. Something like £3 a race or £35 for a season ticket. HD streaming that would work on pretty much any Phone/tablet/PC/XBone/PS4 - I would pay for that



#2157 billm99uk

billm99uk
  • Member

  • 2,983 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 03 January 2014 - 09:34

Basically what we need is FOM streaming. Something like £3 a race or £35 for a season ticket. HD streaming that would work on pretty much any Phone/tablet/PC/XBone/PS4 - I would pay for that

 

Sure you would, who wouldn't. But it costs more than that to buy and provide. Anyone remember what Bernie TV wanted? £10+ a race from memory and that was years ago.



#2158 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 3,763 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 03 January 2014 - 10:38

If Bernie had BBC level and quality presenters than 15 quid a weekend would be just about feasible. That's the highest sum that I would consider. As I've said in the past, I will not give Murdoch money out of principle. I stopped pirating computer games 25 years ago, as i realised that I wanted the industry to prosper. 



#2159 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,452 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 03 January 2014 - 10:48

If Bernie had BBC level and quality presenters than 15 quid a weekend would be just about feasible. That's the highest sum that I would consider. As I've said in the past, I will not give Murdoch money out of principle. I stopped pirating computer games 25 years ago, as i realised that I wanted the industry to prosper.


Assuming you refer to the UK market, how many people are likely to pay £15 to watch one of the Tilkodrone borefests or the 3am races compared to something like Spa (for the purists) or Monaco (for the casual audience)? The "benefit" of a Sky sub is that you don't directly connect the monthly ransom with the hour of TV you fell asleep during, with PPV you do.

Edited by smitten, 03 January 2014 - 10:52.


Advertisement

#2160 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,859 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 03 January 2014 - 10:54

Er, you think Sky are happy that some people take for free what it 'values' at an extortionate amount? And you misunderstand the Sky MO.I'm no fan of Sky but I not pretending that they are running a public service for the common good. The rough end of the stick is what drives their subscriptions; many people can tolerate not watching rugby or football or F1 or cricket but fewer can tolerate not watching rugby AND football AND F1 AND cricket.


No I didn't say I thought Sky are happy people are watching their product for free. I would imagine they are furious about it, but not everybody mad on F1 is happy to pay 45 quid a month for half an F1 season. Fans like me will find cheaper alternatives and until these TV companies realise they are extorting fans, they will have to accept their product will be pirated.

#2161 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,695 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 03 January 2014 - 11:06

Assuming you refer to the UK market, how many people are likely to pay £15 to watch one of the Tilkodrone borefests or the 3am races compared to something like Spa (for the purists) or Monaco (for the casual audience)? The "benefit" of a Sky sub is that you don't directly connect the monthly ransom with the hour of TV you fell asleep during, with PPV you do.

What's this ransom nonsense? Is it just a childish way of saying paying for a service? 



#2162 TrollHunter

TrollHunter
  • New Member

  • 26 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 03 January 2014 - 11:11

:wave:  Hello good board folk and folkesses, I've been a long time lurker and now I have something of use to post.  :wave: 

This is regarding those of us who originally took out the £10.25 HD pack to view SSF1 and the uncertainty of whether or not Sky will remove this option for us. Well I've spoken with Sky numerous times about this and the channel relating to my account and I was told by a proper higher upper in Sky  - ''For as long as Sky are covering Formula 1 then your £10.25 viewing package will NOT change''. This was confirmed on a good few occasions during the call.  :clap: 

Obviously if Sky decide to ditch the channel and incorporate F1 into one of the Sky Sports channels then this will change but on talking to this guy I came away pretty confident that there are no plans to ditch the Sky Sports F1 channel. 



#2163 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,859 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 03 January 2014 - 11:22

Basically what we need is FOM streaming. Something like £3 a race or £35 for a season ticket. HD streaming that would work on pretty much any Phone/tablet/PC/XBone/PS4 - I would pay for that


That does sound appealing, but they might as well continue selling the coverage to the BBC if they did that because the costs would be similar. It's all about money with Bernie and he'll most likely not be around by the time the damage is done. At present they don't care about viewing figures because the rights money is sweetening the blow for the teams. Sky are losing viewers hand over fist and the BBC has gained a certain percentage, but F1 in general is in decline popularity-wise in the UK. I personally hope it declines further in the hope it makes the sport take notice. They struggled to sell British GP tickets this year and were virtually giving them away in the week running up to the event and I've not seen desperation like that for many years. People just aren't willing to pay for a full range of services they don't need just to watch half an F1 season on Sky. Bernie needs to either lower his expectations for how much he thinks the sport is worth or put pressure on Sky to offer the product to a wider audience at a reasonable cost IMO. It's unlikely to happen of course, so I hope we continue down this slippery slope until someone takes notice.

#2164 Haribo

Haribo
  • Member

  • 719 posts
  • Joined: August 03

Posted 03 January 2014 - 13:10

That does sound appealing, but they might as well continue selling the coverage to the BBC if they did that because the costs would be similar. It's all about money with Bernie and he'll most likely not be around by the time the damage is done. At present they don't care about viewing figures because the rights money is sweetening the blow for the teams. Sky are losing viewers hand over fist and the BBC has gained a certain percentage, but F1 in general is in decline popularity-wise in the UK. I personally hope it declines further in the hope it makes the sport take notice. They struggled to sell British GP tickets this year and were virtually giving them away in the week running up to the event and I've not seen desperation like that for many years. People just aren't willing to pay for a full range of services they don't need just to watch half an F1 season on Sky. Bernie needs to either lower his expectations for how much he thinks the sport is worth or put pressure on Sky to offer the product to a wider audience at a reasonable cost IMO. It's unlikely to happen of course, so I hope we continue down this slippery slope until someone takes notice.

 

It's all fickle though. If Hamilton / Button / Di Resta or Chilton were winning races on a regular basis and one of them was leading the championship, the viewing figures would spike and the Silverstone tickets would be as rare as rocking horse poo.

 

I also wonder how many people stayed away in 2013 due to the mud-bath fiasco that happened in 2012?



#2165 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,859 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 03 January 2014 - 13:37

It's all fickle though. If Hamilton / Button / Di Resta or Chilton were winning races on a regular basis and one of them was leading the championship, the viewing figures would spike and the Silverstone tickets would be as rare as rocking horse poo.
 
I also wonder how many people stayed away in 2013 due to the mud-bath fiasco that happened in 2012?

That is true to a degree but is not always based on a British driver winning. I had no difficulty buying tickets for a non sell out 2009 British GP or the previous year. Ticket pricing puts many off and the lack of facilities compared to other circuits and is yet another example of the greed that is displayed in this country where F1 is concerned. Hamilton is winning every season and it's not helping the viewing figures or the home GP.

#2166 billm99uk

billm99uk
  • Member

  • 2,983 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 03 January 2014 - 13:49

Maybe they should try the model of mobile phone games like Candy Crush - free to play at first but you have to pay if you want to get further into the game. Maybe the first 10 minutes of a race could be FTA and then you pay your money if you want to see the rest. Of course if SV heads off into the distance as he did in the last half of this season, I don't expect there will be many buys ;)



#2167 billm99uk

billm99uk
  • Member

  • 2,983 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 03 January 2014 - 13:56

That does sound appealing, but they might as well continue selling the coverage to the BBC if they did that because the costs would be similar. It's all about money with Bernie and he'll most likely not be around by the time the damage is done. At present they don't care about viewing figures because the rights money is sweetening the blow for the teams. Sky are losing viewers hand over fist and the BBC has gained a certain percentage, but F1 in general is in decline popularity-wise in the UK. I personally hope it declines further in the hope it makes the sport take notice. They struggled to sell British GP tickets this year and were virtually giving them away in the week running up to the event and I've not seen desperation like that for many years. People just aren't willing to pay for a full range of services they don't need just to watch half an F1 season on Sky. Bernie needs to either lower his expectations for how much he thinks the sport is worth or put pressure on Sky to offer the product to a wider audience at a reasonable cost IMO. It's unlikely to happen of course, so I hope we continue down this slippery slope until someone takes notice.

 

The problem is sponsorship is becoming harder to get - sponsors have a choice of so many platforms these days it's spread rather thin. Newspapers are heading down the tubes for that reason - their advertising revenues have been decimated, to the point where they can't really pay for reporters. So many people get their news off the internet for free. Fan numbers at the GP will mostly just hit the circuits income, not Bernie and CVC. As he's shown he doesn't mind running GP's in front of empty stands as long as the relevant governments pay up, it still makes financial sense. The industry is becoming more and more reliant on TV money as its main source of income. They're just not going to stick it on FTA unless there are absolutely no alternatives, which I can't see happening, as someone will always come along to take a punt.



#2168 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,859 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 03 January 2014 - 14:15

The problem is sponsorship is becoming harder to get - sponsors have a choice of so many platforms these days it's spread rather thin. Newspapers are heading down the tubes for that reason - their advertising revenues have been decimated, to the point where they can't really pay for reporters. So many people get their news off the internet for free. Fan numbers at the GP will mostly just hit the circuits income, not Bernie and CVC. As he's shown he doesn't mind running GP's in front of empty stands as long as the relevant governments pay up, it still makes financial sense. The industry is becoming more and more reliant on TV money as its main source of income. They're just not going to stick it on FTA unless there are absolutely no alternatives, which I can't see happening, as someone will always come along to take a punt.


Sponsors are going to be even less interested in sponsoring a sport that has a diminishing following in future too. If the sport is surviving solely on the revenue from TV rights then it really is in big trouble. What is to stop Sky saying 'we don't want to pay £80m for F1 rights seeing as less people are watching and we are struggling to break 500k viewers' ? They've already admitted they feel the viewership is lower than expected. If the TV companies start squeezing Bernie to lower the price, what alternative does he have? He will most likely pull it off our screens completely or have no choice but to offer it to a channel that gives it maximum exposure to make the best of a bad situation. I think the teams should be very worried if this is the case because this is happening all over the world, not just the UK. This type of deal makes sense right now as a short term measure, but long term I think this will devastate the appeal of the sport. F1 can't claim to be the pinnacle of Motorsport in years to come if nobody is bothered about witnessing it.

#2169 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 1,226 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 03 January 2014 - 15:21

We all know what we'd like, but the facts are:

 

1. Bernie wants as much money as he can get

2. FOM want as much money as they can get

3. CVC want as much money as they can get

 

So, they've chosen to go down the business-to-business route and sell exclusive contracts to distributors (TV companies). In turn, this means:

 

a. Because the contracts are exclusive, the TV companies who want it bid silly money to avoid it going to their competitors

b. Because the TV companies pay so much, they need to get a return on their investment

 

And, in turn, this means that you and I, as consumers, will not be getting any cheap deals for anyone.

 

The BBC is unique in that they are a FTA provider that only needs to justify the amount of money they pay to license holders. Other FTA providers need to be sure that they can attract enough advertising revenue which, as we all know, is becoming more and more difficult as TV becomes more fragmented,

 

Pay-per-view providers, on the other hand, have to recoup their investment purely on an event by event basis, so they need to consider how many views will pay for the least attractive races and adjust the price accordingly. That leaves the subscription providers. For them it's about selling more subscriptions. An individual attraction like F1 could be seen as part of a bundle that makes the bundle slightly more attractive or it could be seen as a stand-alone product. Either way, the price of the subscription must reflect the cost.

 

I don't see that any of these parties have any interest in the end consumer other than in connection with what's the maximum that can be extracted based on their business model.

 

In short, I don't think that we'll be seeing any cheap deals on watching F1 in the near future.It's just not something that Bernie is interested in.



#2170 Shambolic

Shambolic
  • Member

  • 663 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 03 January 2014 - 15:49

Bernie has been bleeding the sport for his own wealth and feeling of power for years, if not decades. The current court case which questions his manipulations to remain in control of the sport whilst profiteering doesn't show a man who has the sport's best interests at heart. He needs to keep F1 in a certain level of minimum health in order to maximise his profits from it, and that's as far as his benevolence goes (witness his bailing out financially ailing teams, in exchange for having their votes in his pocket).

 

The problem is, the teams have also lost touch with the reality of a sport, and sports fans. When the UK Sky deal was announced, Whitmarsh did his grinning smugman routine as to how he had been assured F1 would still be fully available FTA, how the numbers of viewers were vital, how it was important not to lose viewers, or disenchant them. He appeared quite oblivious to the situation as a whole, and his "I'll object most strongly if" 's evaporated when the Bernie bonus millions flittered into the team accounts.

 

I think it was Parr who showed absoltely nothing but contempt for the fans, and seemed to want even more easy money from TV rights and Bernie deals, regardless of (or even to spite) the fans of the sport.

 

Most, if not all the high ups in the teams seem to look at F1 as a business only. If they show concern for the fans, it's not out of a passion for the sport (what sport remains in F1), it's because they worry their business value will drop if their customers stop "buying". The rules they keep either creating or signing to are not rules of those wanting a sporting competition, they are the rules of those protecting their market share. They are also short termists, they're chasing the next few months of unfathomable wealth, ignoring longer term implications of the decisions bringing that wealth in here and now.

 

The UK Sky deal made all of this obvious - As soon as the teams were assured they'd get more money, even if they might lose some fans, they stopped looking mildly perturbed, and carried on as normal. There's been no more than lipservice to the fans own concerns, and seemingly no thought given to the impact less viewers will have on the number, and value, of sponsors. Maybe if F1 was more globally accessible on TV outside of subscription services, McLaren would already have a new title sponsor, Sauber would have more logos on their cars, and Lotus wouldn't be relying on bent pizzarias. And maybe not of course, but it can't be helping attract new sponsors, or do much to keep existing ones.



#2171 billm99uk

billm99uk
  • Member

  • 2,983 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 03 January 2014 - 16:35

Sponsors are going to be even less interested in sponsoring a sport that has a diminishing following in future too.

 

Yes, but there's already a shortage of sponsors with the kind of funds F1 teams would like now. When the likes of a top team like McLaren are struggling to get a title sponsor, what change have Caterham got? And that situation is only going to get worse as there are so many alternatives now. Too many of the existing F1 deals are 'vanity' type arrangements like Aon/Chilton/Marussia where basically it's a case of a father putting his kid in the car and getting his company to sponsor them. There's no expectation of any real commercial return as such.


Edited by billm99uk, 03 January 2014 - 16:36.


#2172 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,859 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 03 January 2014 - 17:49

Yes, but there's already a shortage of sponsors with the kind of funds F1 teams would like now. When the likes of a top team like McLaren are struggling to get a title sponsor, what change have Caterham got? And that situation is only going to get worse as there are so many alternatives now. Too many of the existing F1 deals are 'vanity' type arrangements like Aon/Chilton/Marussia where basically it's a case of a father putting his kid in the car and getting his company to sponsor them. There's no expectation of any real commercial return as such.


Exactly. So F1 is in real trouble in the long term. The Sky deal proved that the vast majority of British F1 fans did not follow the sport onto the channel and pay, so the product isn't big enough to maintain support. I've been a massive F1 fan for a quarter of a century but if it disappeared completely, I'm sure I and many others would get over it. Right now it's worth fighting for before it's lost and although Sky viewers don't need to worry too much because they are in a privileged position, I think the long term will see us all lose out. The sponsors are losing interest, the viewers are losing interest and it's now the TV companies holding it together. F1 is living off its past success and popularity but that can't last forever as it slips. If viewers haven't seen something for years it's difficult to market it to them without some form of familiarity.

#2173 chunder27

chunder27
  • Member

  • 1,059 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 03 January 2014 - 18:28

It is a difficult situation modern F1.

 

there are no real personalities to pull people in like Rossi did in bike racing, but that is waning, maybe Marquez can pull people in.

 

There is no battle, and that is half the selling point.

 

I do feel if the battle for championships and the lead was better we would all be happy.

 

Sponsors I don't think are a huge issue, a lot of teams midgrid tot he back are funded by the super rich in one form or another, and the front teams are businesses, not in the football sense where they can make huge losses and still run, but they must get something back from their investment from sponsors, or they go the pay driver route as a lot are doing.

 

Footage wise, sadly us Brits are too savvy for Bernie, we don't trust him and don't want to pay extra for watching something that has been free for decades.  Maybe this might change, but while the racing is as predictable and poor as it is right now, I fear for Skys continued involvement.

 

But that might bring F1 back to free screens

 

Which is what will happen with MotoGP too when people realise BT Sport isn't going to be free forever! lol



#2174 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,930 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 03 January 2014 - 18:39

F1 will be free in the UK again when a free to air broadcaster bids more than Sky. 



#2175 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,859 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 03 January 2014 - 18:49

F1 will be free in the UK again when a free to air broadcaster bids more than Sky.


That is unlikely to happen as Sky exists because of filling its channels with advertising unlike the BBC. Plus they have paid way over the odds for the privilege. F1 needs FTA television in the long term more than they need to show the sport. If Sky continue to bid and further push F1 into obscurity, it'll be the sport that loses out not the fans or television companies.

#2176 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,930 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 03 January 2014 - 18:54

Not really, because F1 is banking the money from Sky. Money that comes from increased viewers on BBC is 'maybe' money.



#2177 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,859 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 03 January 2014 - 19:04

Not really, because F1 is banking the money from Sky. Money that comes from increased viewers on BBC is 'maybe' money.


That only works as long as Sky are willing to invest £80m in a sport that isn't bringing their brand more than half a million viewers a race. If Sky decide in 2018 they won't be bidding again, F1 has to find another broadcaster. BT could pick it up but it would be much the same conclusion as proven presently. F1 doesn't have the luxury football has where it has a massive following worldwide and is played in every school yard in the land. Kids don't walk around in team shirts having never seen their chosen team ever race/play live on television like in many cases concerning football. It's a niche sport that needs interest and is far less appealing to broadcasters if people are less willing to pay to watch it. It's a pass time after all and life goes on without it.

#2178 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,930 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 03 January 2014 - 19:14

What's a year of Sky Sports F1 cost?



#2179 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,859 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 03 January 2014 - 19:20

What's a year of Sky Sports F1 cost?

Are you asking how much Sky pay to receive the rights? I don't know the true figure.
At present it costs the viewer £534 a year to subscribe. That doesn't include broadband or telephone calls.

Advertisement

#2180 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 1,226 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 03 January 2014 - 19:24

What's a year of Sky Sports F1 cost?

 

I would say it's more than people in sufficient numbers would pay. That's the problem. Bernie tried many years ago and found (which I seem to remember at the time, surprised a lot of people in F1) that F1 followers did not want to pay, what was seen as a small amount, for what he felt was a far superior product.



#2181 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,930 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 03 January 2014 - 19:32

Are you asking how much Sky pay to receive the rights? I don't know the true figure.
At present it costs the viewer £534 a year to subscribe. That doesn't include broadband or telephone calls.

 

At £534, if you get at last 149,812 viewers you will clear 80million. 



#2182 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 1,226 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 03 January 2014 - 19:38

At £534, if you get at last 149,812 viewers you will clear 80million. 

Are you quoting the cost of 1 year of Sky Sports? If so, that's 149,812 new subscriptions you'd need



#2183 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,930 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 03 January 2014 - 19:47

What's the price for year 2 and beyond? 



#2184 Callisto

Callisto
  • Member

  • 2,710 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 03 January 2014 - 19:52

Are you asking how much Sky pay to receive the rights? I don't know the true figure.
At present it costs the viewer £534 a year to subscribe. That doesn't include broadband or telephone calls.

£534?

where did you pluck that from,basic TV package £20 + £10.25 for HD so its £363

Edited by Callisto, 03 January 2014 - 19:57.


#2185 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,859 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 03 January 2014 - 20:00

£534?

where did you pluck that from,I pay £444

I didn't pluck it from anywhere. Visited their website and to receive Sky Sports F1 you need to subscribe to both the Entertainment and sports packs. That means £21.50 + £22.00 = £522 a year. I miss calculated before although it's irrelevant. How do you pay £444 a year? Are you an existing customer who has negotiated their monthly cost down or something?

#2186 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,859 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 03 January 2014 - 20:04

£534?
where did you pluck that from,basic TV package £20 + £10.25 for HD so its £363

I see you edited your post. You can no longer get that package as a new customer. The HD offer ended in April 2013 so it is no longer a valid product.

#2187 Callisto

Callisto
  • Member

  • 2,710 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 03 January 2014 - 20:47

my mistake,I should of checked

#2188 chunder27

chunder27
  • Member

  • 1,059 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 03 January 2014 - 21:29

Well obviously you dog et a lot of other sport for that too.

 

But it is a lot of money, aswell as a tv licence which is what 150 quid?

 

700 quid basically.



#2189 midgrid

midgrid
  • Member

  • 4,873 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 03 January 2014 - 22:57

Since the end of the season, I've moved into a shared house which has a Sky Sports subscription, so it'll be interesting to watch some of the channel's race footage for the first time in 2014.  I've watched a couple of features and bits of classic races, but overall I haven't really felt the need, as I honestly prefer to discuss and read discussions about F1 and other forms of motorsport here and elsewhere on the internet.  :kiss:



#2190 chunder27

chunder27
  • Member

  • 1,059 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 03 January 2014 - 23:20

I think that is a reasonable assumption for a lot of fans.

 

They would watch it if it was free but are not prepared to pay 500 odd quid a year.

 

BBC have found a nice little niche that saves them a bit of money with less cameras and editing and obviously less races, and the modern lifestyle means people wouild maybe rather be doing things in the summer, so are more than happy to watch highlights, which in all honesty are invariably the best way to watch F1 races!

 

I have always preferred watching qualifying!  In fact these days get just as much enjoyment watching sessions from the 80's and 90's on youtube as I ever do from watching F1 now.

 

A good race is still a good race, but the cars look the same, sound the same and bore me!  Hopefullt the modern ones might stir that side of things a little, though I would have preferred an allowance of 4 or 5 cylinder units aswell, to really mix things up as most modern turbo small engines are 4 cylinder not V6! 



#2191 billm99uk

billm99uk
  • Member

  • 2,983 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 03 January 2014 - 23:48

Not really, because F1 is banking the money from Sky. Money that comes from increased viewers on BBC is 'maybe' money.

 

Yes, TV money is 'real' money up front. Money from adverting as a result of increased viewership is 'uncertain' money in the future. They're always going to prefer the former unfortunately.


Edited by billm99uk, 03 January 2014 - 23:48.


#2192 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,859 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 04 January 2014 - 07:47

Yes, TV money is 'real' money up front. Money from adverting as a result of increased viewership is 'uncertain' money in the future. They're always going to prefer the former unfortunately.


The sport is very lucky people are tuning in on the BBC in that case. It's a good deal for the sport and Sky is even better because they've paid over the odds for what is commercially a dud. I can't see Sky renewing their contract post 2018 unless they get an influx of new subscriptions off the back of more exciting racing. The chances are slim at the moment. The sport may enjoy the revenue from TV companies at the expense of us mugs, but if Sky are not getting a return on their investment, they will be ruthless too. I'm looking forward to then day this is realised and Formula 1 attempts to scrape back it's credibility as a top class motor sport.

#2193 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,452 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 04 January 2014 - 10:43

but if Sky are not getting a return on their investment, they will be ruthless too. I'm looking forward to then day this is realised and Formula 1 attempts to scrape back it's credibility as a top class motor sport.


It wouldn't matter to Sky if they made not a penny from F1, as long as they keep it away from any other channel then that is sufficient for them. In the context of what they pay the wendyballers, F1 comes pretty cheap.

#2194 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,457 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 January 2014 - 10:46

The BBC's decline as the dominant UK broadcaster is on the slide.The licence fee is not really going to be a serious thing in 10 or so years as the internet finally put thats to bed. Also, i suspect the BBC would happily say goodbye to F1. It's not a relevant sport. it's completely elitist reserved for only the very very wealthiest in society and costs a bucket load to get broadcasst rights. It's not really a'public service' to broadcast. Not any more anyway it's quite clear with Sky the actual REAL demand fo F1 is quite low (which shouldn't be a shock for anyone who is a fan of motorsport as we all know how little our friends are interested in it) .The days of F1 and FTA are gone. 


Edited by rhukkas, 04 January 2014 - 10:47.


#2195 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,257 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 04 January 2014 - 10:58

2013 is over, done and dusted, so please continue discussion here: http://forums.autosp...on-bbc-and-sky/

 

:)