1310 replies to this topic

[PayasYouRace]

It’s not being hidden.  It’s readily available.  There are highlights of every session, pre and post race reviews.  What you are paying for is to watch the race entirely.  I bet you could find a pub that shows it live.  You can still follow the sport.  If you aren’t willing to pay why should it be given to you?

 

Actually, I'm going to change my previous point. What's sad is that people are willing to defend their shameless short term money grabbing rather than trying to build the sport.

 

Meanwhile, I can enjoy the entirety of the Daytona 24 hours for free, live and online. That's more than I'd ask for from Formula 1, but it's definitely a way to grow your sport and bring in fans.

[Viryfan]

Actually, I'm going to change my previous point. What's sad is that people are willing to defend their shameless short term money grabbing rather than trying to build the sport.

Meanwhile, I can enjoy the entirety of the Daytona 24 hours for free, live and online. That's more than I'd ask for from Formula 1, but it's definitely a way to grow your sport and bring in fans.

It is not short term.

It is basically assessing the economic elastisty of a product.

When tobacco money was there the balance turned towards free to air television, this money was not compensated so they had to seek the money from somewhere.

Reality is that f1 tv rights are a popcorn fart in terms of budget in the portfolio of Sky or Canal Plus in relative to premier league despite having similar or better ratings.

Between 1997 and 2002 F1 digital in France had a record number of 17000 viewers, un 2019 the average number of viewer in pay tv for France is 800k viewers.

Basically broadcasting f1 on pay tv was not mature enough in 90's but now it is.

So the ROI of F1 for these companies is rather pretty good.

Edited by Viryfan, 26 January 2020 - 11:16.

[pdac]

Actually, I'm going to change my previous point. What's sad is that people are willing to defend their shameless short term money grabbing rather than trying to build the sport.

 

Meanwhile, I can enjoy the entirety of the Daytona 24 hours for free, live and online. That's more than I'd ask for from Formula 1, but it's definitely a way to grow your sport and bring in fans.

 

No the sad thing is that a lot of sports thought they were becoming professional in order to benefit those taking part but, instead, they have now turned into lucrative businesses, owned and run by organisations with billion-dollar ambitions, who view the sport and its participants as mere entities required to keep the money rolling. That's the nature of modern professional sport. That's the nature of F1. But that's what business is about (modern professional sport = business).

[Ben1445]

I'm sure the pay wall move works financially with the current set of fans (or those of them who can pay for continued access anyway). But people don't last for ever and if being behind a pay wall limits growth in the sport's new and younger fans, then it is simply not a long term solution. 

 

A long term solution has to be better at bringing in new viewers and Liberty needs to deal with that in due course. 

[Viryfan]

I'm sure the pay wall move works financially with the current set of fans (or those of them who can pay for continued access anyway). But people don't last for ever and if being behind a pay wall limits growth in the sport's new and younger fans, then it is simply not a long term solution.

A long term solution has to be better at bringing in new viewers and Liberty needs to deal with that in due course.

F1 will do like NBA does, 80%/90% of the races in pay wall, 10%/20% in FTA plus an OTT plateform with several price range.

Even like Football world cup or Euro in France is mostly behind paywall.

Only Tour de France is full FTA in France nowdays on terms of big money event.

Edited by Viryfan, 26 January 2020 - 11:42.

[pdac]

I'm sure the pay wall move works financially with the current set of fans (or those of them who can pay for continued access anyway). But people don't last for ever and if being behind a pay wall limits growth in the sport's new and younger fans, then it is simply not a long term solution. 

 

A long term solution has to be better at bringing in new viewers and Liberty needs to deal with that in due course. 

 

That's the point. For businesses such as F1, the medium term approach of maintaining/increasing revenues, increasing the share price and then looking to sell onto someone else is the more lucrative option. If the sport declines, then you find another way (a different sport) to work on.

[absinthedude]

Businesses often forget that their mission is not to make a huge short term profit....but to survive long term. Sure, you can make lots of money by persuading or forcing current F1 viewers to pay to watch the races...but then who's going to be discovering the sport in the future? Where are the next generation of fans coming from?

 

If you take the view that it's OK for the CEO's to make their money and then retire on their gin palace motor-yachts then that's fine...but even the business they leave behind is now damaged. "Finding another sport to work on" isn't always an option and is certainly thinking short term and not even medium term. Such attitudes are what caused the big recessions of the early 90s and the worldwide crash in 2008. They are not, on the whole, helpful...because even the retired CEO on his mega-yacht needs to be able to buy his or her gin.

[Sterzo]

Businesses often forget that their mission is not to make a huge short term profit....but to survive long term. Sure, you can make lots of money by persuading or forcing current F1 viewers to pay to watch the races...but then who's going to be discovering the sport in the future? Where are the next generation of fans coming from?

You have hit the nail on the head, and the whole point about the change of ownership from CVC to Liberty is that the first exists to own companies short term, and the second exists for long term involvement. How do we know that? Well, venture capital companies (as in CVC) acquire businesses which have the potential to increase their value, then sell them. It's what they do. Liberty is a media company, and is in for the long term. Chase Carey said as much (in other words) when he took over.

 

That's the point. For businesses such as F1, the medium term approach of maintaining/increasing revenues, increasing the share price and then looking to sell onto someone else is the more lucrative option. If the sport declines, then you find another way (a different sport) to work on.

 

That would be a view taken by venture capitalists but is not characteristic of any of the businesses I've worked for, whether in financial services or other areas. It's a complete myth that directors are only in it for a quick penny. Generally they spend a lot of time agonising over the long term, and are also interested in balancing profit with ethics, reputation and social responsibility. Doesn't always look that way and there are plenty of fly-boys about, but it's still true the majority of business leaders are concerned principally about the long term future of their operations.
 

[pdac]

That would be a view taken by venture capitalists but is not characteristic of any of the businesses I've worked for, whether in financial services or other areas. It's a complete myth that directors are only in it for a quick penny. Generally they spend a lot of time agonising over the long term, and are also interested in balancing profit with ethics, reputation and social responsibility. Doesn't always look that way and there are plenty of fly-boys about, but it's still true the majority of business leaders are concerned principally about the long term future of their operations.

 

I still stand by what I said. I've only ever worked for one company that was publicly listed and this was exactly the approach they had (and I didn't get the impression this was out of the norm for a lot of businesses of a certain size). I don't believe that anyone who pays billions to buy a business is not focused in building it up enough to sell it at a good profit in the not to distant future (unless they are buying it to eliminate their competition and grab a bigger slice of a particular market - which doesn't apply here).

[absinthedude]

I'm not sure how many business owners or managers you know...but in all seriousness most have the view that the goal of a business is to survive....not to make a quick dollarpound. As Sterzo says, most CEOs and senior managers are trying to think long term. Short termism gives us "the great depression", and other stories. I am not saying that businessmen and CEOs are all wonderful people...clearly enough were thinking of the short term gain 12 years ago....but most don't think that way. 

 

CVC no doubt held onto F1 much longer than they intended. They paid over the odds to Bernie for F1 and understandably wanted a return on their "investment". It took Liberty coming along over a decade later to provide them with an appropriate way out. Say what you will about Bernie, he was involved from the 1950s and was always thinking long term...except perhaps the CVC deal - which was his "way out" in terms of full time ownership and financial ties. He took the big payout. 

 

Liberty aren't perfect and will make mistakes. They'll try things that work, they'll commit howler mistakes and they'll try some things that have mixed reactions. But they are probably in it for the long term and thinking long term. They're already looking forward to after the current TV deals expire. 

[Reddington]

Where are the next generation of fans coming from?

.

Ever thought about why they are ramping up social media?

Edited by Reddington, 28 January 2020 - 08:17.