53 replies to this topic

[AlexS]

Now most countries haven't a free channel to air an F1 race. It is all pay per view, sometimes even in a sport channels that request a premium pay over normal bundles like for example in Portugal.

In France the arrival of pay per view dropped the viewers 60% from 16 millions to 10 millions, this means the probable profit from sponsorship is much reduced. And since the race is where small teams can be seen - Newspapers, TV news etc put only the winner cars and not much more - it doesn't surprise me that small teams are increasingly with big areas without sponsors. 

 

[ollebompa]

In China the F1 veiwership dropped by 30 millions this year on account of moving to a pay channel.

[Seano]

Given enough time, even the biggest teams will be negatively impacted by Bernie's greed shrewd business acumen.

 

Not rocket science dwindling viewers = dwindling product exposure = dwindling sponsorship.

 

Notice how barren McLaren looks these days?

 

Seano

[SenorSjon]

You are wrong... according to Bernie that is. F1 is milked bone dry, I predict more drops in the ratings with the stupid rules and stewarding.

[Peter Perfect]

Yep, sad but true. All it takes is for the increasingly small number of fans paying larger and larger subscriptions to become disinterested and the arse will fall out the sport.   Short term gain leading to long term pain.

[nosecone]

I agree that the pay-tv 'problem'  hurts the small teams more than the big teams. Especially the priveliged teams benefit from the pay-tv. They also suffer from less sponsorship but they get **** loads of money from the tv-broadcasters. The small teams don't get that much money from Bernie and thus they depend more on the sponsorship (which will get fewer because of the rising pay-tv).

 

I assume Bernies stake in the tv-money is very high. It would be a good place to start with

Edited by nosecone, 03 February 2014 - 20:41.

[Ross Stonefeld]

You'd have to offset that with whether moving to pay TV meant larger TV $$$. Which then gets spread out to the teams. 

[Burtros]

I saw the story on here blaming Vettel for F1's rating drop. It rather struck me that he was being treated as a scapegoat.

 

In fact it seems to me that the move to pay per view and/or shared coverage in a lot of countries is equally as negative to ratings as Vettel has been, if not more so. If thats the case, a bad season from Vettel wont result in the jump in ratings you'd expect the sponsors to be looking for.

Edited by Burtros, 03 February 2014 - 20:40.

[Peter Perfect]

You'd have to offset that with whether moving to pay TV meant larger TV $$$. Which then gets spread out to the teams. 

 

Hasn't that been a major issue in the past whenever the Concorde agreement has been discussed?

[zanquis]

Well maybe not whole of Vettel, just that annoying finger he puts up if he wins..

I say we cut off that finger and see if viewers will come back again.

If they do it proves the theory and I was right

If not ahh we can then always call him Vettel of the nine fingers ;)

[zanquis]

Personally I think pay per view means less sponsership and more direct cash for F1. But it is a problem more on TV level then anything. The TV channel buying the rights has to make up the baance how much am I willing to pay for the rights and how am I going to get it, if he thinks he can get more money public then he would go public and find sponsors, otherwise he would go private.I think it also shows how the market is of the drivers from a given country, Germany is strongly represented so the free but advertized TV can more likely outbid a pay per view channel then a country with little sponsors 

 

[Tombstone]

Now most countries haven't a free channel to air an F1 race. It is all pay per view, sometimes even in a sport channels that request a premium pay over normal bundles like for example in Portugal.

In France the arrival of pay per view dropped the viewers 60% from 16 millions to 10 millions, this means the probable profit from sponsorship is much reduced. And since the race is where small teams can be seen - Newspapers, TV news etc put only the winner cars and not much more - it doesn't surprise me that small teams are increasingly with big areas without sponsors. 

 

I know you've just quoted the % drop from somewhere else, but a drop from 16m to 10m is a 37.5% drop. Still fairly massive though.

[MustangSally]

It isn't only TV audiences that are in decline.

 

At the circuits, the absurd hosting fees, plus their yearly Bernie increments, have put ticket prices well beyond the reach of young people.

 

This means that F1 isn't reaching any new audiences at all.

 

Countries with a huge F1 heritage, like France, have been wiped off the map. To an advertiser, that's a huge audience loss. The numbers of people who want to watch Kylie Minogue on a grid walk with a Sheik in the desert don't begin to compare.

 

They have just published the (further) decline in audience stats, but of greater concern to advertisers and sponsors is the ageing profile of the F1 fan. Younger people have been progressively priced out for a while now. Pay per view was a big nail in the coffin.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Hasn't that been a major issue in the past whenever the Concorde agreement has been discussed?

 

The distribution yeah. But if pay-TV deals earn more money, then the prize fund is bigger.

[Tombstone]

I have the solution.

 

No World Championship, just winners of individual races. By all means have a 'rolling ranking', perhaps taken over 40 or 50 consecutive races - not just a single season in other words, that way the current world #1 can still change and carry #1 on the car until deposed.

 

 

 

So, if the RB is a complete P.O.S. Vettle will remain 'World Champion' until sometime half way through this year.

 

 

Can always have a world championship race at the end of the season if you like, maybe two races over a single weekend.

 

Could always hold a separate world championship race over the final weekend, maybe two races, the second with a reverse grid based on results from the first race. Forget points, but maybe double prize money.

Edited by Tombstone, 03 February 2014 - 21:16.

[SenorSjon]

This isn't tennis... in the long run, payTV is the end, not the beginning.

[Fastcake]

I'm not sure there would be much more sponsorship available even if F1 was available on more free-to-air TV stations. There's just not that much money interested in large sports sponsorships currently.

[ollebompa]

Very unfair to point out Vettel. Total viewership was down 50 million, 36 of those in China/France alone due to moving to pay TV. That leaves 14 million. 20 races in 2012 with a total veiwership of 500 million, thats 25 million per race. As 2013 had 19 races with a total veiwership of 450 million, thats 23.6 million per race.23,6 million that was "lost" due to having one less race.

 

Seems as if things had stayed the same veiwership would have stayed the same or probably increased.

[P123]

I saw the story on here blaming Vettel for F1's rating drop. It rather struck me that he was being treated as a scapegoat.
 
In fact it seems to me that the move to pay per view and/or shared coverage in a lot of countries is equally as negative to ratings as Vettel has been, if not more so. If thats the case, a bad season from Vettel wont result in the jump in ratings you'd expect the sponsors to be looking for.

Did anybody specifically blame Vetel? Looked more like a standard Autosport headline to get people to click on the story.

Obviously the moves to pay channels have a greater detrimental effect on viewership than the odd dominated championship. It's only a sound strategy if the money brought in by that change results in the same or greater income for the teams. It is however short term thinking. The lower the viewership the less chance teams have of finding sponsors. The lower the viewership the less appealing F1 is to pay TV. A quick buck to satisfy CVC.

[Seano]

I guess that's why Benie is so rattled with the current Renault problem. What if he can't achieve a full grid - I'm sure Digger will have a claw back clause if there were only 14 cars in the show.

[Ross Stonefeld]

These reports are notoriously confusing. The 500million is often individual viewers, rather than impressions. So it's 500million different people watched some F1 last year. Not 25million viewers x 20 races. The numbers per race are a lot lot higher, though it's mostly repeat viewers since we watch more than one race.

[Clatter]

I have the solution.

 

No World Championship, just winners of individual races. By all means have a 'rolling ranking', perhaps taken over 40 or 50 consecutive races - not just a single season in other words, that way the current world #1 can still change and carry #1 on the car until deposed.

 

 

 

So, if the RB is a complete P.O.S. Vettle will remain 'World Champion' until sometime half way through this year.

 

 

Can always have a world championship race at the end of the season if you like, maybe two races over a single weekend.

 

Could always hold a separate world championship race over the final weekend, maybe two races, the second with a reverse grid based on results from the first race. Forget points, but maybe double prize money.

What problem does that actually solve? 

[Burtros]

Did anybody specifically blame Vetel? Looked more like a standard Autosport headline to get people to click on the story.

Obviously the moves to pay channels have a greater detrimental effect on viewership than the odd dominated championship. It's only a sound strategy if the money brought in by that change results in the same or greater income for the teams. It is however short term thinking. The lower the viewership the less chance teams have of finding sponsors. The lower the viewership the less appealing F1 is to pay TV. A quick buck to satisfy CVC.

 

Just re - read it. You are being harsh there. They are reading between the lines of a written introduction by Bernie Ecclestone in a report on the very subject. It seems pretty clear what is being gotten at.

Edited by Burtros, 03 February 2014 - 21:47.

[Clatter]

I guess that's why Benie is so rattled with the current Renault problem. What if he can't achieve a full grid - I'm sure Digger will have a claw back clause if there were only 14 cars in the show.

I doubt he will care. The previous Concorde agreement didn't even guarantee 10 cars, so 14 will be more than enough.

[tifosiMac]

Pay per view is killing a lot of things about F1, not just the sponsorship of smaller teams. The drop in viewing figures may have been slightly down to Vettel, but we also have to remember in some if F1's biggest markets, pay per view is present. The people in charge of F1 knew this would happen because there was enough opposition put forward in 2011. If viewers don't matter, we can't really be surprised by reports a huge number of people have stopped watching worldwide. I think F1 is heading for the big reality check it's needed for a long time.

[P123]

Just re - read it. You are being harsh there. They are reading between the lines of a written introduction by Bernie Ecclestone in a report on the very subject. It seems pretty clear what is being gotten at.

Erm yeah, that the lack of a championship fight leads to lower viewing figures, which simply glosses over the more serious problem of putting F1 behind a pay wall. And without having to read between the lines I seriously doubt Ecclestone said any of what he is quoted for in that article (none of which blames Vettel). It's far too coherent.

[Tombstone]

What problem does that actually solve? 

 

Not working up to an annual anti-climax.

 

Each race on its own merit, not a mutant gestalt.

[Ali_G]

Are there any main countries left where F1 is still Free to Air ? Germany I presume ?

[Clatter]

Not working up to an annual anti-climax.

 

Each race on its own merit, not a mutant gestalt.

That wouldn't increase the viewing figures at all. If one team is winning all the individual races then there is still no more incentive to watch.

[Burtros]

Erm yeah, that the lack of a championship fight leads to lower viewing figures, which simply glosses over the more serious problem of putting F1 behind a pay wall. And without having to read between the lines I seriously doubt Ecclestone said any of what he is quoted for in that article (none of which blames Vettel). It's far too coherent.

 

From the aritcle;

In his introduction to the document, F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone has no doubts as to why television stations struggled to keep viewers.

"Last season our global audience was 450 million viewers, a decrease compared to 2012, although not an unexpected one," he wrote.

"The less-than-competitive nature of the final few rounds, culminating in the championship being decided ahead of the races in the USA and Brazil, events which often bring substantial audiences, had a predictable impact on reach.

 

Its not a source you can reasonably cast any doubt on. Written by Bernie as an introduction to the report. All you have to work with if you are desperate enough is that someone made the quote up, and printed it in his name. I dont fancy the liklihood.

 

And how is the last quote not blaming Vettels dominance? To my mind thats exactly what its doing, just in a diplomatic and respectful way.

 

and just to be clear here, I blame the Pay TV thing every bit as much, if not more than I do Vettel. Vettels a side note to the issue, which is confused audiences only being offered parts of seasons whilst the best coverage is hidden behind a pay wall. This is just the early stages but already we are seeing a team like McLaren not having a title sponsor.

 

I dont see the teams being honest about the situation either. It'd be an admission they were greedy and wrong.

Edited by Burtros, 03 February 2014 - 22:30.

[Tombstone]

That wouldn't increase the viewing figures at all. If one team is winning all the individual races then there is still no more incentive to watch.

Yes there is.

[Clatter]

Yes there is.

Really? I think your wrong, but as there's no way to prove it I'll leave it at that.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I think there'd be *less* interest in individual races.

[Clatter]

Me too.

[Burtros]

I think there'd be *less* interest in individual races.

 

Yeah. How many people would remember who the current Champion of Korea is?

[swerved]

Yeah. How many people would remember who the current Champion of Korea is?

 

Wun Won Yeer.

[turssi]

@Ali_G: Germany and Brazil that I know of have free to air F1. In Brazil we don't even have to suffer commercial breaks, just some small picture in picture inserts.

[Morbus]

Of course it does. And they are stupid not to complain about this... It's no wonder Caterham is already considering leaving the sport if they don't move up the order. And to think that if they do, whoever drops behind them will probably leave the sport instead, it's frightening.

 

Long are the days when teams like Minardi could exist for decades and turn a profit just by being there. F1 needs some serious cost-cutting because this crap is killing the sport, slowly but surely.

[rhukkas]

Those figures, what do they actually mean. 29,000,000 UK viewers ? That's not individual viewers... what does it ACTUALLY mean.

[JHSingo]

So...how much longer is it going to take before F1 starts using the internet properly? Pretty clear already that internet coverage will be the way forward for most sports in the near future, and it is really quite laughable how many light years F1 is behind rivals in that regard.

[turssi]

@rhukkas: They just make an educated on how many viewers tune in on Friday, Saturday and Sunday and sum it up. And then do the same thing for the whole year.

Anyway, why should we give more money to the teams, they just spend it all.

[Clatter]

So...how much longer is it going to take before F1 starts using the internet properly? Pretty clear already that internet coverage will be the way forward for most sports in the near future, and it is really quite laughable how many light years F1 is behind rivals in that regard.

Anything they put on the internet will be chargeable so that will just be replacing one pay wall with another. Don't think it will help the basic issue.

[turssi]

@JHSingo: Often the tv-deals include all broadcasting rights, including on-line rights, so the answer to your question is "when cvc and the tv companies start to move from tv to internet broadcasting".

And when that happens is I guess when tv and the internet become one (something a la netflix maybe).

[chunder27]

F1 is laughably behind in most areas of television really.

 

And mainly because Bernie tried to do pay tv years ago and got badly burned coz typically he picked the wrong moment to do it and charged too much for it, as he is doing now.

 

In many ways it is not his fault, he is just selling to the highest bidder, who happened to be Sky, just as they are for cricket and football, until BT started using our telephone bills income to start trying to usurp SKY, at least you have the choice to buy the Sun or any of their products, BT are forcing it on people.

 

I would imagine the people have done their sums and they are quite happy to lose x (viewers) if y(people dumb enough to pay) means they cover their costs and make a profit.

 

It is called business, and it now runs every single thing we are involved in, from the NHS, education, councils, flood defences. Backhanders, favours, run the world, not fans, promoters, tv companies.

 

It is all about money, nothing more.  Even when it really shouldnt be.

 

Just as an aside, when you hear that quite a few senior managers of Save the Children earn more than a quarter of a mill for being failed business leaders and rolling back into a charity coz they failed in normal business... it makes me less concerned about F1's problems.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Those figures, what do they actually mean. 29,000,000 UK viewers ? That's not individual viewers... what does it ACTUALLY mean.

 

29million different people watched some F1 in the UK last year. Spread out over the season. If I watch 1 race I'm one viewer. If you watch 10 races, you're one viewer(but 10 impressions). Together we are two viewers and 11 impressions. 

 

You have to be careful when talking about combined audience figures, since single programs are given in viewers(ie x-million people watched the British Grand Prix on Sky and the BBC) but seasons are technically impressions, not viewers. 

[Prost1997T]

29million different people watched some F1 in the UK last year. Spread out over the season. If I watch 1 race I'm one viewer. If you watch 10 races, you're one viewer(but 10 impressions). Together we are two viewers and 11 impressions. 

 

You have to be careful when talking about combined audience figures, since single programs are given in viewers(ie x-million people watched the British Grand Prix on Sky and the BBC) but seasons are technically impressions, not viewers. 

 

AFAIK an F1 viewer is someone who watched at least 15 minutes of F1 racing during the season (unless they've changed the statistical method since 2012). When you take that into account, the actual regular number of viewers is probably lower than 450 million.

[zanquis]

I still think we should cut of Vettel's finger and see how much that would improve the viewers rating, I have no problem seeing Vettel win, it is just that annoying finger. If we can stop that people would probably like him a bit more.

it is a bit as annoying as Ronaldo posing before he takes a free kick, it is not like Vettel "You are who you are".. No it is "you are who you are marketing to be..." he did not do it at his first pole he did not do it at his first win. Kinda almost makes you want to wish his accident before F1 would have meant he lost his finger..

[boldhakka]

Actually, it may _help_ with sponsorship, since the sponsors will know that they're only paying for and reaching people willing to spend some $$$. Earlier it would have been diluted by broke college students watching it on free-to-air TV. Now the F1 teams can approach sponsors with a guarantee of reaching people with a monthly budget bigger than pizza and beer money. 

[pdac]

So...how much longer is it going to take before F1 starts using the internet properly? Pretty clear already that internet coverage will be the way forward for most sports in the near future, and it is really quite laughable how many light years F1 is behind rivals in that regard.

 

That'll probably happen once Bernie is dead. Until then, he's doing quite nicely as it is. Sure, the teams and circuits are cash-strapped, but Bernie and his lot are raking it in. Maybe not as much as they used to or would like, but still doing fine.

[ollebompa]

I still think we should cut of Vettel's finger and see how much that would improve the viewers rating, I have no problem seeing Vettel win, it is just that annoying finger. If we can stop that people would probably like him a bit more.

it is a bit as annoying as Ronaldo posing before he takes a free kick, it is not like Vettel "You are who you are".. No it is "you are who you are marketing to be..." he did not do it at his first pole he did not do it at his first win. Kinda almost makes you want to wish his accident before F1 would have meant he lost his finger..

Here he is after his pole at Monza

 

Here he is after the win

 

Here he is back in 2004 driving Fornula BMW

 

The issue clearly lies within yourself.

Edited by ollebompa, 05 February 2014 - 11:01.