Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 4 votes

How much would you pay for F1 online (VOD)


  • Please log in to reply
212 replies to this topic

Poll: How much would you pay for F1 online channel? (197 member(s) have cast votes)

Price per month

  1. £0 (65 votes [32.99%])

    Percentage of vote: 32.99%

  2. £1 - £5 (45 votes [22.84%])

    Percentage of vote: 22.84%

  3. £6 - £10 (60 votes [30.46%])

    Percentage of vote: 30.46%

  4. £11 - £15 (15 votes [7.61%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.61%

  5. > £15 (12 votes [6.09%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.09%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#201 trogggy

trogggy
  • Member

  • 9,216 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 03 February 2015 - 14:39

This is exactly the mindset I'm talking about - 'They're privileged I'm even agreeing to watch, and lucky I don't charge them for my time'.

 

It's because of this attitude that there would never be any point at all taking F1 off TV and putting it online. 'Bernie' would have no money to dole out, and the teams would all shut down.

If you substitute 'free tv' for 'TV' and  'pay tv' for 'online' isn't the logic exactly the same?

And yet...



Advertisement

#202 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 6,829 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 03 February 2015 - 14:44

I did suggest a bit further back in this thread that Netflix have shown interest in sports and F1 could have a future on that medium. However there would be little profit in it for the sport unless Netflix paid silly amounts and more than existing broadcasters. 

 

 

I just don't see any real crossover between Netflix and sport, and if they want to become a proper internet TV thing rather than films/drama/entertainment focused they'll need a complete overhaul and rebrand.

 

Something like Amazon just makes more sense - they've got more users signed up to their payment system than anyone else and they sell everything, they're just a blank shopfront. F1 could retain it's control over the product and everyone would know how to buy it. I wouldn't bother signing up to Netflix for F1 - I'd just go to the pub and watch it there. I'm not unique in this. On the other hand, I'd just use madame's account and make her pay for it if it was on Amazon :)

 


It has absolutely nothing to do with being 'tight'. No offence but that sounds a little too much like an arrogant generalisation to me. You sound like you are in a comfortable position where you have weekends free and can afford to pay whatever they ask for you to view the sport you also love. Not every fan is in that position sadly and 'how much' of a fan you are has no relation whatsoever to how much you are willing to spend on watching the sport. We are tight and blaming Bernie you say?! A man who skims a huge profit from the commercial rights before the teams are even paid a penny! A multi Billionaire businessman! Oh yes the average Joe has a lot to answer for lol!    :lol:

Assuming they are able to pay, anyone who wants anything done well for free is tight - unwilling to pay for the service they want.

 

And if you're unwilling or unable to pay for anything you should be grateful that it's available free at all, rather than complain that they're doing it wrong.

 

It's increasingly rare that I get to watch a race live these days - if I'm not working then I'm often otherwise engaged. Luckily, Sky give me a magic box that traps the televisions until I have time to watch it :)

 

As for 'Bernie', the teams certainly seem keen for him to keep doing his job. They'd have been long gone if they thought he was fleecing them. They couldn't organise the proverbial in a brewery without him, they'd be too busy trying to rob each other blind.

 

I'm not saying people who can't pay should have to (and there will always be corners of the interwebs to find free things in) but if you can pay but refuse to because 'my eyeballs are so valuable' or 'I'm not giving money to BERNIE/MURDOCH/THATCHER/GOLDMAN/!' then you're just tight and trying not to look it.

 

Turning a grid of soapbox specials with a Cosworth bolted on the back into the freakish things they are now isn't what caused costs to be high - it was largely Bernie's success at making the teams rich that enabled them to build the insanely overcomplicated flightless birds they race today.

 

We might not like Bernie being involved, but the teams do, so it doesn't really matter if we do or not. It's their sport, after all, and they'll do what they want with it. Trying to separate 'Bernie' from the teams is like trying to breathe pure oxygen from air. And trying to use that impossibility as a reason not to pay is just tight.

 

*look at the Bernie situation another way. Say you had a company that did something you loved but never made you a penny. Then someone (very small) came along and said they would market it for free in return for half the additional revenue they generated. Then they made you hundreds of millions over the course of a couple of decades. Would you be pleased, or dismiss them as parasites? Whichever, I bet you wouldn't take the risk of dispensing with their services.

 

Edit to say - may have rambled a wee bit OT there...


Edited by oetzi, 03 February 2015 - 15:04.


#203 Option1

Option1
  • Member

  • 14,892 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 03 February 2015 - 14:57

I'd pay the same as I pay for MotoGP, about 100 Euros a season.

 

I would also want it to do the same as MotoGP - EVERY practice and race + I can watch it whenever I want (timeshift to my heart's content) - on any device I want.

 

If F1 can't provide that kind of service, then I'll continue to watch it illegally with no qualms whatsoever.

 

And  :rotfl:  at those who think this concept is a bad idea and won't move out of the 1980s where everything is FTA.

 

Neil



#204 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 03 February 2015 - 15:08

Being able to watch F1 is probably worth paying for. When half the races went to subscription television here in the UK, I paid about £60-odd for a man to come and fit a satellite dish capable of receiving RTL , so it's not that I don't want to watch the races or don't think it's worth paying money to be able to watch them.

 

However when a sport has a perfectly successful and very lucrative business model based on free-to-air, sponsorship and other forms of advertising, it is perhaps an unfortunate side of my character that I become rather stubborn when the sport tries to get its viewers to start paying, especially if the paid-for coverage is not radically better than the previous free-to-air coverage. I don't want to encourage the sport to make that move.

 

To my mind, regardless of how much the product is worth to me as an individual, the sport's fans, as a group, don't need to pay to watch it in order for F1 to be successful. It's not in fans' interests for the coverage model to switch from free-to-air to any form of payment, and if fans choose to stop watching when asked to pay (or, in my case, go to the trouble of buying equipment from a third party in order to continue to watch on free-to-air), this is the best way of discouraging the sport from making that switch. If enough people took that view, F1 would go back to showing every race free-to-air - it can't afford to lose most of its audience. Conversely, the phenomenon of people paying to watch exclusive coverage on subscription television doesn't leave those that pay in a better position than they were in when the coverage was freely available, but it does prevent those who choose not to pay from watching, which is bad for everyone, including the teams and sponsors, who lose exposure.

 

So to answer the OP's question, I would only pay for the service you describe if I was also provided with the option, in my country, to watch the races for free, either on traditional free-to-air television, or via a basic free stream. In that case, the paid-for coverage would have to be better than the free coverage, of course, otherwise I would just watch for free. But if it was better, I would happily pay for it - they could have a basic free stream which was quite ad-heavy, and a paid service providing multiple ad-free streams, live timing & scoring, GPS tracking, weather info, enhanced, in-depth pre-and post-race coverage, the ability to access footage from every camera retrospectively on-demand in order to enhance post-race discussion of incidents, etc.

 

A system of charging whereby if I want to watch F1, I only have to pay for F1, rather than expecting me to subscribe to a channel or package of channels with lots of content that doesn't interest me, seems to me to be the better way to do it. And I think using F1.com to provide streaming coverage is a better option for FOM because it's cheap to operate, if they charge, they get to keep all of the revenue rather than have most of it going to the subscription television people, and they're likely to get more takers for their product if it's not bundled with Premier League football and priced accordingly, as it currently is in the UK.

 

But if there was no way of legally watching the races for free and the paid-for online coverage was the only option, I'm afraid I would be too stubborn to pay for it, even if that meant not being able to watch. It wouldn't matter how cheap or expensive it was. I think it's bad for the profile of the sport to hide behind paywalls, and I don't want to encourage it.



#205 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 03 February 2015 - 15:25

Assuming they are able to pay, anyone who wants anything done well for free is tight - unwilling to pay for the service they want.

 

And if you're unwilling or unable to pay for anything you should be grateful that it's available free at all, rather than complain that they're doing it wrong.

 

It's increasingly rare that I get to watch a race live these days - if I'm not working then I'm often otherwise engaged. Luckily, Sky give me a magic box that traps the televisions until I have time to watch it :)

 

As for 'Bernie', the teams certainly seem keen for him to keep doing his job. They'd have been long gone if they thought he was fleecing them. They couldn't organise the proverbial in a brewery without him, they'd be too busy trying to rob each other blind.

 

I'm not saying people who can't pay should have to (and there will always be corners of the interwebs to find free things in) but if you can pay but refuse to because 'my eyeballs are so valuable' or 'I'm not giving money to BERNIE/MURDOCH/THATCHER/GOLDMAN/!' then you're just tight and trying not to look it.

 

 

I think we've hitherto had a system where the fans got to watch for free and were grateful for it, and the sport got a big audience that it could sell to broadcasters and advertisers and was grateful for that (and became very rich as a result). I think it was the sport that had more to be grateful for than the fans.

 

I think you're misunderstanding the business model. The model is - attract the audience, sell the audience to the public relations industry. Getting the audience to pay for the privilege of being advertised at is an added bonus if you can get away with it, but I see no sensible reason why the audience should agree to such a proposal when it's entirely unnecessary for the prosperity of the sport we love, and motivated entirely by the greed of the sport's current custodians.

 

P.S. Sky don't "give" you the box, it's not magic, and anybody can watch a race afterwards if it's not convenient to watch it live. There are lots of different ways to do that.


Edited by redreni, 03 February 2015 - 15:30.


#206 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 6,829 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 03 February 2015 - 15:46

I think we've hitherto had a system where the fans got to watch for free and were grateful for it, and the sport got a big audience that it could sell to broadcasters and advertisers and was grateful for that (and became very rich as a result). I think it was the sport that had more to be grateful for than the fans.

 

I think you're misunderstanding the business model. The model is - attract the audience, sell the audience to the public relations industry. Getting the audience to pay for the privilege of being advertised at is an added bonus if you can get away with it, but I see no sensible reason why the audience should agree to such a proposal when it's entirely unnecessary for the prosperity of the sport we love, and motivated entirely by the greed of the sport's current custodians.

 

P.S. Sky don't "give" you the box, it's not magic, and anybody can watch a race afterwards if it's not convenient to watch it live. There are lots of different ways to do that.

Sky did so give me the box. After I gave them some money.

 

I think that business model is a relic - it worked well early on when painting the car was relatively cheap for the sponsor, and then for as long as the tobacco companies couldn't get on your telly any other way, but not many companies are in such a tight corner and most prefer to spend their marketing pennies in more targeted and measurable ways.

 

The main things driving sponsorship now seem to be technical partnerships and content generation for other media campaigns, not painting your name on the car. Oh, and getting into the paddock can still be useful.

 

So F1 does need coverage - but not eyeballs on liveries, just enough to make sure it is viewed as exciting and glamorous, and so that the teams and drivers remain recognisable to the public.

 

Highlights on terrestrial and pay TV will be enough to do that.

 

Sticking it on a standalone web subscription would make the sport invisible to the public within two years, and all the sponsors would run away.



#207 Elba

Elba
  • Member

  • 318 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 03 February 2015 - 16:14

At the moment broadcasters are willing to pay £40m to show a season of F1, but with the popularity in decline, who is going to give when the product is not offering the return the companies have paid for? Its also no secret sponsors are turning away from major sports because of global financial difficulties. Combine that with a sport that is attempting to reduce the amount of viewers tuning in. It becomes a less desirable prospect so even if they are not directly related, they are both contributing to a problem that will have a dramatic effect on the sport in the long term.

Sorry but I stopped at "The rising cost of Formula 1 UK television rights" .

Although I know there's a tendency here to make everything about the UK surely you also know that it's only a very small part of F1's (financial) puzzle. So there's little point discussing the small picture, a merely isolated situation in the UK where 1 party wanted to break it's contractual commitments and another party was hugely interested to acquire the rights. It opened a window of opportunity for Bernie to maximize revenues as that's his job and boy did he do a good job  ;)  

 

The last part is just tea leaf reading, we'll see what unique situation will arise in a few years time but one thing is sure Bernie (or Bernie 2.0) will play the market and pit interested parties against each other (as that's what he does best) in order to achieve the optimal financial result.

 

It's all a bit OT by the way as the thread is about F1 online VOD. The UK TV situation has been discussed to death already and still is by those basically unable to accept a done deal concluded some 4 years ago  :well:



#208 Elba

Elba
  • Member

  • 318 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 03 February 2015 - 16:23

I'd pay the same as I pay for MotoGP, about 100 Euros a season.

 

I would also want it to do the same as MotoGP - EVERY practice and race + I can watch it whenever I want (timeshift to my heart's content) - on any device I want.

 

If F1 can't provide that kind of service, then I'll continue to watch it illegally with no qualms whatsoever.

 

And  :rotfl:  at those who think this concept is a bad idea and won't move out of the 1980s where everything is FTA.

 

Neil

:up:  that sounds realistic and constructive.

I would be willing to pay for such a service too, great to watch everything at your convenience or whilst traveling.

I understand FOM finds it more convenient to leave it up to the local broadcasters to handle online services but maybe if enough people display a willingness to shell out some bucks for very good online VOD services FOM would be willing to take the exclusive online component out of their new broadcasters contracts in order to start something up themselves in future. More money will of course be the incentive. We can only hope  :well:



#209 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 6,829 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 03 February 2015 - 17:05

Taking that model, let's make some assumptions and pul some numbers out of the air:

 

1. The TV companies would only agree if it is an exclusive service that doesn't take too many viewers away from broadcast, so the service would have to sit at a high price point.

2. That means that the only sensible way to do it would be to create an involved, high quality, ad free subscription product for committed viewers

3. Let's assume you could get the global web rights for £50million p.a. (I think this is on the low side,but let's say you could)

4. You could definitely put the product and infrastructure together for £10million, and add £5million p.a. for staff/maintenance/upgrades/bandwidth/backups/whatever

5. Let's budget £5million for content creation (interviews, insight pieces, etc), production and whatever else you feel like making (again, might be on the low side, but you could do it)

6. Looking at a 5 year contract, that means you would need a budget of 50*5+10+5*5+5*5+10% contingency = £352million

7. Let's assume a potential global audience of 1 million committed fans who can afford to pay a subscription (I think this is probably on the high side, but maybe)

8. Let's assume we can sell a new product on annual subscription rather than messing about with race by race or freemium

9. Let's assume we have a sh!t hot marketing team who get 25% penetration in y1, rising by 25% (net) p.a. = Y1 250,000, Y2 312,500 ,Y3 390,625 , Y4 488,281, Y5 610352

 

That gives total subscriptions over 5 years of 2,007,758. Let's call it 2 million for ease.

Total costs are £352million. Let's call it £350million for ease.

350/2=175

 

So, if you could get it all done at that price and get 2 million subscription sales, then you could sell it at £175 p.a. and break even over 5 years.

 

We've got a good cross section of the target audience here, so let's ask the question:

 

Who'd be willing to pay £175 p.a. to access the FOM coverage of all sessions (inc tests) and decent interviews and insight pieces?



#210 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 7,360 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 03 February 2015 - 17:16

Sorry but I stopped at "The rising cost of Formula 1 UK television rights" .
Although I know there's a tendency here to make everything about the UK surely you also know that it's only a very small part of F1's (financial) puzzle. So there's little point discussing the small picture, a merely isolated situation in the UK where 1 party wanted to break it's contractual commitments and another party was hugely interested to acquire the rights. It opened a window of opportunity for Bernie to maximize revenues as that's his job and boy did he do a good job  ;)  
 
The last part is just tea leaf reading, we'll see what unique situation will arise in a few years time but one thing is sure Bernie (or Bernie 2.0) will play the market and pit interested parties against each other (as that's what he does best) in order to achieve the optimal financial result.
 
It's all a bit OT by the way as the thread is about F1 online VOD. The UK TV situation has been discussed to death already and still is by those basically unable to accept a done deal concluded some 4 years ago  :well:

If you feel the need to tell me you are not reading my posts past a certain point then fair enough, I can do the same. Good bye.


Back on topic:
If the interest in paying for coverage is weak on television right now, what exactly can a streaming subscription offer? It would need to be cheaper. Look at the poll on this thread for instance. Out of 188 people who took part in this poll, only 12 people would be willing to pay £15+ a month for an online service. Right now it's £46 a month in the UK for F1 and the sport feels that is acceptable. I paid £100 for my box and that is it for the year. it might not be strictly legit but then again I won't be ripped off for 10 races a year. If there was an Internet subscription service like Amazon that offered sports as well, I'd be happy to pay a small fee. I don't feel any obligation to pay over half the amount I pay in council tax each month to support a midget billionaire and a series of teams who spend more putting cars on grids than many countries spend on aid. F1 is a luxury even for us fans, and at the end of the day it needs us to be interested more than we owe them a slice of revenue. Just by tuning in they satisfy sponsors and it's a model that has worked for decades. Perhaps I am tight, but that is my choice and F1's loss. :)

#211 andysaint

andysaint
  • Member

  • 518 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 03 February 2015 - 20:14

I watch F1 for £10 a month on sky as it came with the HD channels if I didn't have that I'd stick to BBC. At the moment until F1 becomes more accessible to the common person, until we have more cars and a more sustainable formulae I wont pay anymore for it. The whole thing is far too elitist. I dont think there is one sponsor on those cars which I use daily bar Intel.

#212 superden

superden
  • Member

  • 4,185 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 03 February 2015 - 22:21

I don't feel any obligation to pay over half the amount I pay in council tax each month to support a midget billionaire and a series of teams who spend more putting cars on grids than many countries spend on aid. F1 is a luxury even for us fans, and at the end of the day it needs us to be interested more than we owe them a slice of revenue. Just by tuning in they satisfy sponsors and it's a model that has worked for decades. Perhaps I am tight, but that is my choice and F1's loss. :)


Hear bloody hear.

#213 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 17,498 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 04 February 2015 - 09:28

Taking that model, let's make some assumptions and pul some numbers out of the air:

 

1. The TV companies would only agree if it is an exclusive service that doesn't take too many viewers away from broadcast, so the service would have to sit at a high price point.

2. That means that the only sensible way to do it would be to create an involved, high quality, ad free subscription product for committed viewers

3. Let's assume you could get the global web rights for £50million p.a. (I think this is on the low side,but let's say you could)

4. You could definitely put the product and infrastructure together for £10million, and add £5million p.a. for staff/maintenance/upgrades/bandwidth/backups/whatever

5. Let's budget £5million for content creation (interviews, insight pieces, etc), production and whatever else you feel like making (again, might be on the low side, but you could do it)

6. Looking at a 5 year contract, that means you would need a budget of 50*5+10+5*5+5*5+10% contingency = £352million

7. Let's assume a potential global audience of 1 million committed fans who can afford to pay a subscription (I think this is probably on the high side, but maybe)

8. Let's assume we can sell a new product on annual subscription rather than messing about with race by race or freemium

9. Let's assume we have a sh!t hot marketing team who get 25% penetration in y1, rising by 25% (net) p.a. = Y1 250,000, Y2 312,500 ,Y3 390,625 , Y4 488,281, Y5 610352

 

That gives total subscriptions over 5 years of 2,007,758. Let's call it 2 million for ease.

Total costs are £352million. Let's call it £350million for ease.

350/2=175

 

So, if you could get it all done at that price and get 2 million subscription sales, then you could sell it at £175 p.a. and break even over 5 years.

 

We've got a good cross section of the target audience here, so let's ask the question:

 

Who'd be willing to pay £175 p.a. to access the FOM coverage of all sessions (inc tests) and decent interviews and insight pieces?

 

That is 175/12=14,60/month or about € 20,- a month just for F1... how about no? That is about 12 euro/race.