86 replies to this topic

[purplehaireddolphin]

I know this won't apply to everyone, but......

 

If you have Sky HD and get F1 through that rather than through their sports package, if they move F1 to behind their Sports paywall would you upgrade your service so that you can still watch all the races live? Or would switch to watching BBC and there half live half highlights selection

[NexusIcon]

I wouldn't pay for Sky Sports to keep the F1 coverage. It'd annoy me, not being able to watch every race live, but I'd get over that quicker than I'd get over paying for something I once had at no extra cost. Besides, after 2 seasons, I now know the Sky coverage isn't worth paying for.

[IPBushy]

What really aggravates me is that I have to pay extra to watch it on HD, then they still interrupt the programmes with adverts.  I wonder what their profit margin is?

 

[HuddersfieldTerrier1986]

Well what do you expect? Just because you pay extra to watch it in HD doesn't mean you're not going to get adverts. If you're being even remotely serious about that, then my word, you really haven't got a clue.

[Burtros]

Past experience tells me with Sky that if I ring up and cancel my entire Sky package because they want to charge me more for a specific channel, they'll normally cave in and do a deal with you instead of loose your business altogether.

[IPBushy]

Well what do you expect? Just because you pay extra to watch it in HD doesn't mean you're not going to get adverts. If you're being even remotely serious about that, then my word, you really haven't got a clue.

What I expect is for Sky not to interrupt any sessions even if they are "just" practise. I know they will have adverts even if I pay for HD, thank you. And I expect to be able to express my opinion, just like anyone else, without others being personal and rude. If that's naive then maybe I'm in the wrong place.

Edited by IPBushy, 25 November 2013 - 18:15.

[tmzxaar]

You guys are lucky that you have a choice, here in Croatia there is no F1 coverage on TV (it was for half a season, but then the company declared bankruptcy and it was not HD) and even then the commentators were pretty bad, not seeing obvious things(ex. we get a replay and the commentator yells 'And AGAIN they touch...' etc.).

So I have to watch everything on low quality streams. I would love to have the opportunity to buy Sky!

Edited by tmzxaar, 25 November 2013 - 17:07.

[jimjimjeroo]

One of the worlds biggest cons. Charge you for access and sell advertisments! If you pay a subscription it should be ad free

[Jon83]

The channel itself has its good points (I like watching some of the old races, the legend series and I also watch GP2 and GP3, though not avidly)

 

The race weekend coverage is comprehensive sure, but hasn't improved much in the two years they have broadcasted. I do like the skypad stuff and the notebook can be interesting (hit or miss often) but I haven't seen much else. I watched the BBC forum for the first time in a long time yesterday and haven't seen anything from Sky which really measures up to that.

 

It also still has a presenter who cannot begin a sentence without waffling.

[Clatter]

What really aggravates me is that I have to pay extra to watch it on HD, then they still interrupt the programmes with adverts.  I wonder what their profit margin is?

 

The ads are only ever on when bugger all is happening. The race has never been interrupted. 

[Clatter]

One of the worlds biggest cons. Charge you for access and sell advertisments! If you pay a subscription it should be ad free

And if they did that the subscription fee would be higher. As long as it's not interrupting anything important then I can live with that.

[Clatter]

Past experience tells me with Sky that if I ring up and cancel my entire Sky package because they want to charge me more for a specific channel, they'll normally cave in and do a deal with you instead of loose your business altogether.

That's my attitude as well.

[TheF1BOB]

Yes because you won't see or hear Eddie Jordan on your TV screen.

[Tsarwash]

I would never give sky my money, not for F1. It's incredibly easy to find a half decent quality stream anyhow.

[pacificquay]

I have Sky Sports anyway, but the answer to the question is yes, because it would be the only legal way to watch F1 live

[SpartanChas]

I don't know... There really isn't any other sport I'd watch on it.

Realized lately that I really like the SSF1 team though. Herbert and Hill are great, Brundle is great and Lazenby has grown on me and I like him more than I ever missed Jake. Coulthard is the only guy I miss.

[jimjimjeroo]

And if they did that the subscription fee would be higher. As long as it's not interrupting anything important then I can live with that.

Well timed tea breaks but still.grips my ****

[Fastcake]

If I had to pay more than I currently do, then no I won't upgrade. I cannot really justify paying even more just to follow one sport.

[swerved]

No, if they move it from HD to Sports i'll be cancelling, regardless of any deals they might offer, the price i pay now is the maximum i would pay and none of the other Sports channels interest me in the slightest.

[chunder27]

Let's be honest

 

F1 isn't doing itself any favours right now, the racing is poor, and the majority of people I know who used to take a passing interest. don't anymore, so no surprise it is maybe being offered as a pay channel separate from the rest.

 

I have actually enjoyed watching a bit of footie on Skygo recently from a mates subscription, and have ever tuned in to F1 channel once in 4 months

 

Tells you all you need to know really

[purplehaireddolphin]

wow, skys viewing figures will  plummet if they do it, according to this poll!

[spacekid]

I tried paying for a couple of races with the NowTV pass - £10. As the pass only lasts 24 hours it was for the race only.

 

I won't be doing it again in the near future. The service was ok, but £10 is far too much for a package that is unable to include quali and practise. The races I did watch were no way worth £10 as frankly the F1 was rubbish for both of them.

 

I would probably subscribe at a cost of say £100 a year for the full coverage. F1 just isn't a good enough product for me to consider paying any more, and after this season I am actually quite content to do without. Shame as I have been an avid fan for over 2 decades.

 

Right now I am far, far more gutted about losing MotoGP coverage, thats going to hurt. DRSF1 can get on with its own business without me now, tbh.

[Owen]

wow, skys viewing figures will  plummet if they do it, according to this poll!

Some of us were not convinced to get Sky in the first place.

[tifosiMac]

Its far too much money a year to even contemplate. I couldn't justify stretching my finances when it was only £30 a month on the HD pack so the increase has just made it an easy decision for me. I just don't watch enough TV in general and don't have a big enough interest in other sports for it to be viable. It seems like a huge waste of money.

[king_crud]

the highlights packages on BBC run for more than long enough for current F1 races

[Collombin]

the highlights packages on BBC run for more than long enough for current F1 races

 

I agree, I often don't realise which events are live and which aren't. The BBC's loss of live coverage annoyed me when first announced, but in reality I've barely noticed it. And as you say, it's not as if there are so many exciting things happening in the races that the highlights package has to cut any of them out.

[tomisumi]

Tell me pls, how much do you need to pay when you want  watch F1 on Sky Sports?

 

Here in Slovakia we have quite decent options to watch it (free), although I often watch F1 through Sky Sports stream

[jonpollak]

Plays right into Nigerian Streaming Club's business model dunnit?
Jp

[Exb]

Some of us had to upgrade to the sky sports package if we wanted to get the F1 channel at the start of last year as that's the only way to do it if you have cable (and not in HD)

Its a bit annoying as I hardly ever watch anything on the other sports channels but have been able to watch some other series of motor sports like WEC (or the odd bit of show jumping and dressage when its on). I enjoy the other programs on the F1 channel as well such as the classic grand prix, legends of F1, the junior racing catagories and even winter testing coverage which is not shown on BBC so I can't complain too much.

[Doughnut King]

I doubt it, but if I did I'd probably stop buying Autosport to offset the cost. Perhaps there is irony in there somewhere considering that Autosport seems to have fallen in bed with Sky.

Edited by Doughnut King, 26 November 2013 - 18:44.

[KingTiger]

For the awful quality of F1 lately and likely in the future, I wouldn't want to be spending even 1 cent per race. 

[alframsey]

I have Sky Sports anyway but if I didn't and to upgrade was the only way to watch then yes I'd definitely do it, I couldn't miss the F1 races live....

[chrcol]

far too expensive, not many people have sky hd just for the basic channels, a lot got it just to get f1.

[Spillage]

I think it's far too expensive, but I'm lucky enough to be at university living with a guy who has Sky Go, so we watch that on his laptop. I really don't think Sky's coverage is that good - I like Brundle and I like Ted, but that's about it. I think the BBC have better pre and post-show coverage and a superior lead commentator, so I tend to watch the Beeb highlights as well, in case they pick up on anything that's been missed on Sky.

 

I am extremely lucky to be able to watch Sky - I simply could not afford to pay for it myself. I think I probably would if I had enough cash going spare though, because I love watching every lap and I love watching races live to see how the story of the race unfolds in real time. 

 

Hopefully viewing figures will drop to the point that F1 returns to FTA TV before I am faced with that dilemma, however.

[tifosiMac]

Hopefully viewing figures will drop to the point that F1 returns to FTA TV before I am faced with that dilemma, however.

F1 is starting to remind me of cricket post 2005. England had the high of that amazing ashes win and the sports popularity increased. Schools were pushing it and cricket clubs around the country were reporting a large influx of keen youngsters wanting to play the sport and emulate their hero's. Sky snapped up the rights due to this popularity and look at what we have today. You would hardly know we are in the middle of the Ashes right now and with 200K viewers, its getting attention than some of the late night music docs on BBC4.

 

F1 nose dived between 2001 and 2005 and started picking up dramtically once it returned to the BBC from ITV. From 2009 to 2011 we had viewing figures hitting a peak and two British World Champions in 2 years meant interest was at its best for 20 years. It is already being reported we've lost on average 3 million viewers in the UK due to the BBC/Sky shared deal and I can't see it ever improving until full coverage returns to FTA. The BBC may have wanted a reduced fee, but the powers that be in the sport allowed Sky to buy exclusive rights and I really hope it continues to fail for the good of the sport in this Country. We should be very proud of what Britain contributes to F1 and it should be pushed as a prime sport to the masses. It would never reach the height of football, but 4 to 8 million tuning in on average during the season was a healthy amount. Now the BBC are lucky to get 3m and Sky consider it a good day if they get 700k! Not great fo the sports long term popularity IMO.

Edited by tifosiMac, 27 November 2013 - 08:19.

[redreni]

I have Sky Sports anyway, but the answer to the question is yes, because it would be the only legal way to watch F1 live

 

It is not illegal to watch foreign free-to-air television in the UK as long as you're receiving the original signal from the broadcaster as opposed to an illicit re-broadcast over sopcast or whatever. We're supposed to have a common market in the UK. It's only really the subscription TV providers and those who sell broadcast rights to sport that like to pretend each national market is separate.

 

The economics of this is fairly simple, from the right's holder's point of view, putting F1 behind a paywall raises additional money but can have a negative side in terms of reduction of audience size leading to lower sponsorship and on-track advertising revenue etc. Fear of that negative side is what motivates FOM to retain a significant presence on free-to-air television in the UK. The more people are willing to pay for what was previously free, the more likely it will make economic sense to go the pay TV route. If few people are willing to pay it will make economic sense to provide coverage on a free-to-air basis.

 

From the viewer's point of view it is in all our interests to show little if any willingness to pay to watch F1 because it's not a choice between paying for it or not getting it at all, it's a choice between paying for it or getting it for nothing, and we'd be mugs in my view collectively to opt for the former. So personally, if a race is not live on FTA British television, my first choice is to watch for free on RTL, and my second choice is not to watch. It's up to FOM. If enough of us take that view, all of us will be able to watch for free as they can't afford to not have people watching. If people insist on paying, they ought to understand that they're paying not for the right to watch F1, but to prevent, or make it more difficult, others from watching F1.

Edited by redreni, 27 November 2013 - 11:30.

[tifosiMac]

I must admit whether the stream is legal or illegal it doesn't bother me so long as I watch the race. I can't justify Sky Sports so I will watch it for free. I don't see a problem with that. If people are willing to pay for it, fair enough but I'd rather watch it for no additional cost.

Edited by tifosiMac, 27 November 2013 - 10:48.

[fosters35]

F1 is starting to remind me of cricket post 2005. England had the high of that amazing ashes win and the sports popularity increased. Schools were pushing it and cricket clubs around the country were reporting a large influx of keen youngsters wanting to play the sport and emulate their hero's. Sky snapped up the rights due to this popularity and look at what we have today. You would hardly know we are in the middle of the Ashes right now and with 200K viewers, its getting attention than some of the late night music docs on BBC4.

 

F1 nose dived between 2001 and 2005 and started picking up dramtically once it returned to the BBC from ITV. From 2009 to 2011 we had viewing figures hitting a peak and two British World Champions in 2 years meant interest was at its best for 20 years. It is already being reported we've lost on average 3 million viewers in the UK due to the BBC/Sky shared deal and I can't see it ever improving until full coverage returns to FTA. The BBC may have wanted a reduced fee, but the powers that be in the sport allowed Sky to buy exclusive rights and I really hope it continues to fail for the good of the sport in this Country. We should be very proud of what Britain contributes to F1 and it should be pushed as a prime sport to the masses. It would never reach the height of football, but 4 to 8 million tuning in on average during the season was a healthy amount. Now the BBC are lucky to get 3m and Sky consider it a good day if they get 700k! Not great fo the sports long term popularity IMO.

Great post 

 

Boxing also went the same way. We had household names like Chris Eubank, Nigel Benn and Prince Naseem Hamed all shown live on ITV before Sky took it all away.

Nowadays you may have heard of some British fighters but few have actually seem them fighting and will never have that status of a great like they used too.

[tifosiMac]

Yes boxing is another prime example. I think football is the only success story, but the fact it is a sport that is our national sport, its played everywhere, the merchandise is huge, and there are matches most weekends, I feel it has weathered the storm well. Still a live match on SS1 still only attracts a couple of million viewers on average. When you compare that to MOTD there is a vast difference.

[billm99uk]

I don't mind paying for Sky Sports as I watch quite a bit of it (the boxing, MotorsTV, Eurosport, heck even some of the football!) so get some value for money out of it. I resent having to buy a single channel for a single sport though - I lost Indycar coverage half way through the season when CNN sold out (just after I very relectantly sunscribed in the first place!). Most of the boxing seems to have gone to BoxNation (another additional subscription channel) now though (especially if it doesn't involve a British fighter), so I tend to look for a stream for those events. I haven't bought HD yet as £10 a month just for slightly smaller pixels seemed like taking the piss.

 

I do think some people here are living in a bit of a dream world though. Promotors have to monetarise their sport some way to keep it going and those shiny cars costs a heck of a lot of money (as Lotus and Sauber have shown of late). It has to come from somewhere (i.e. us!) and I doubt if we're going to see complete free-to-air coverage ever again, even if the BBC can survive in its current format. And I really don't want adverts back thanks. I just worry that most of the cash seems to be going to the rights owners rather than the teams at the moment.

[redreni]

Yes boxing is another prime example. I think football is the only success story, but the fact it is a sport that is our national sport, its played everywhere, the merchandise is huge, and there are matches most weekends, I feel it has weathered the storm well. Still a live match on SS1 still only attracts a couple of million viewers on average. When you compare that to MOTD there is a vast difference.

 

In the UK, most of the football that is shown on subscription of pay-per-view television is stuff that, prior to the existence of BSkyB, wasn't televised at all e.g. league matches. So that's not even a straight-up example of something moving from free-to-air to pay TV and beingn successful. They've pinched their audiences not from free-to-air television but from football grounds up and down the country.

 

Examples of sports being taken from free-to-air television to pay TV and thriving are pretty thin on the ground.

[chipmcdonald]

So I've had to pay $100+ plus for lousy Comcast coverage for the past years, just to *hopefully* see practice 2, qualifying and the race.  Which is often rescheduled, or as it was this season on NBC sports, not broadcast when advertised so the DVR never recorded it. 

 

.. and that is for commercials (lots), AND on screen graphics that cover things up, AND "recaps" that are replays from the last race... that they feel you must watch WHILE THE PRESENT RACE IS GOING ON, and...  ARRHHRHRHHGHGHGHH... I'll stop.  Sorry.

 

I just cancelled my cable because F1 was the only reason I had it.  Not being a sheeple means I don't watch tv. 

 

You can buy NBA season coverage here in the States, football packages, NASCAR packages... no F1.  I would love to have that option - the Sky coverage is phenomenal, commercials or not.  You guys also get F1 "shows" outside of the races?   Almost like NASCAR fans have it here...?  I can't imagine what that would be like.

[Tsarwash]

If I could buy a feed directly from FOM, I would have no problem in doing so. Under no circumstances am I paying Sky any money.

[tifosiMac]

I do think some people here are living in a bit of a dream world though. Promotors have to monetarise their sport some way to keep it going and those shiny cars costs a heck of a lot of money (as Lotus and Sauber have shown of late). It has to come from somewhere (i.e. us!) and I doubt if we're going to see complete free-to-air coverage ever again, even if the BBC can survive in its current format. And I really don't want adverts back thanks. I just worry that most of the cash seems to be going to the rights owners rather than the teams at the moment.

I understand this but did the price hike have to be so extreme for fans? One season we were watching for the price of our TV license and the next it was £50-60 a month. If they had put the channel as a stand alone and charged fans £10 a month, I think they would have at least retained a proportionate chunk of the 3 million who are no longer watching. Its cut out many of the casual fans too and although diehards like ourselves don't see the value in these types of fans, the sponsors most certainly do. Not everybody has to be oozing with knowledge to follow the sport to some degree and even the channel hoppers or Sunday afternoon 15 minuters have been largely lost. Sports don't attract new fans or interest if they are not shown on TV. I also share your view that perhaps the revenue isn't being shared equally to the teams either. I think this deal was about maximising the profit of Bernie and his company, rather than opening the sport out to the wider audience.

 

Remember Whitmarsh trying to suggest that now the sport is shown on both BBC and Sky, more fans have access to it and it pushes it out to the wider media? I wonder what he would say now 2 years on when its clear it has reduced the number of fans tuning in, quite dramatically too. Sky continuing to put their prices up isn't doing them any favours too. With the rumours they are taking the channel off subscribers who only have the HD pack gathering momentum, I think we could see as much as a third of present SSF1 viewers dropping off the stats. I think its got potential to draw cricket figures if its not careful.

[Peat]

Originally got Sky+HD to make sure i could access all sessions live as i felt i 'couldn't live without it' at the time.

This year has taught me that i really really can. I usually catch the BBC highlights and watch on fast-forward. Sad state.

So, no, if it goes from my pay scheme - So long!

[tifosiMac]

In the UK, most of the football that is shown on subscription of pay-per-view television is stuff that, prior to the existence of BSkyB, wasn't televised at all e.g. league matches. So that's not even a straight-up example of something moving from free-to-air to pay TV and beingn successful. They've pinched their audiences not from free-to-air television but from football grounds up and down the country.

 

Examples of sports being taken from free-to-air television to pay TV and thriving are pretty thin on the ground.

Fair enough. I retract my football comment and suggest there isn't yet a success story concerning Sky buying a widely watched sport and increasing its popularity in that case.

[billm99uk]

You can buy NBA season coverage here in the States, football packages, NASCAR packages... no F1. 

 

Think yourself lucky. If you want a motorsports / auto racing package now, you need basic Sky (satellite), Sky Sports (added sub) for F1/GP2/GP3 and MotorsTV (Aussie V8's and sports cars, F3 and a lot of others) and Europort (WTCC) plus BT (an entirely different system) for Indycar, plus Premier Sports (another sub) for NASCAR. Plus another £10 for Sky HD if you want your F1 with added pixels. It's getting more and more expensive and fragmenting all the time. Even football (which was either FTA or on Sky Sports) split this year with BT getting half the matches.

[alpinesmuggler]

This might be off-topic, but it's as good of a thread as any.

 

What's been happening to broadcast rights for F1 over the past couple of years? Aren't we supposed to get FOM footage on "regular" channels?

 

In 2012, where I live, F1 was available every race weekend on the BBC, TF1 (French), TSR/DRS/TSI (Swiss). This year, we've had the 1/2 BBC coverage, C+ (non-free) instead of TF1, and the Swiss channels.

 

More to the point, I'd happily pay for the kind of online coverage the NFL has (~200USD/year at most). What annoys me is the lack of transparency on FOM's part, as well as the unwillingness to spend money on modern TV/online technology.

[ExFlagMan]

Remember Whitmarsh trying to suggest that now the sport is shown on both BBC and Sky, more fans have access to it and it pushes it out to the wider media?

Just shows how out-of-touch some of the F1 community are with real life. Not sure where he was expecting these extra viewers where going to come from, seeing as existing Sky viewers had access to the BBC coverage as part of their package anyway. If they where interested in f1 they would already be viewing and would presumably already be counted in the BBC viewing figures. Just shows what a good salesman (or should it be conman?) Bernie is to be able to persuade the F1 community to swallow that line.

[redreni]

 

I do think some people here are living in a bit of a dream world though. Promotors have to monetarise their sport some way to keep it going and those shiny cars costs a heck of a lot of money (as Lotus and Sauber have shown of late). It has to come from somewhere (i.e. us!) and I doubt if we're going to see complete free-to-air coverage ever again, even if the BBC can survive in its current format. And I really don't want adverts back thanks. I just worry that most of the cash seems to be going to the rights owners rather than the teams at the moment.

 

I don't disagree with your assessment of the way it's going but I strongly disagree with any notion that it is inevitable. F1 has always been an expensive business. free-to-air broadcasters have in the past, and will in the future, be willing to pay very healthy fees for the broadcast rights. Saying it needs to be "monetised" gives the rather misleading impression that the broadcast rights weren't monetised before, which they certainly were.

 

I should say that I don't disaprove of people subscribing to Sky per se, I just think it is daft and counterproductive to do so in reaction to sports coverage moving from free-to-air to subscription-only channels, because it's just asking to be fleeced.

 

It's not living in a dream world to say that the free-to-air model can make more financial sense for the commercial rights holder than subscription or pay-per-view television in certain markets, depending on consumer behaviour. It's not a coincidence that there are no exclusively live races on pay-television in Germany; most Germans are disinclined to pay a subscription to watch sport, particularly not sport that was previously available free-to-air. If they gave the exclusive rights to Sky Deutschland the decline in audiences in Germany would be of a level that Mercedes-Benz, for one, simply wouldn't wear.