BBC to pull out of F1 entirely.
Discussion
London424 said:
So if we ignore the mainstream sports, because they're still massively successful (or more successful), and look at small niche sports that faded away from normal TV because people didn't bother watching we will see the pay TV model doesn't work...gotcha.
You list Darts and Snooker as two examples that apparently have "faded away". I think you'll find Darts is massive still. Record attendences, mega prize money on offer. I'm not a big snooker watcher but I think that's also true there.
With things like the X-games you've still got massive amounts of participation, prizemoney, sponsorship etc in sports that before they were picked up on pay tv were little more than hobbies.
ETA: I'm not suggesting that pay TV is the best thing since sliced bread as I'd prefer lots more free stuff, but to pretend it's a failure is just wrong. If you do it correctly then it can be a massive success, for fans, competitors and organisers/sponsors.
It all depends on how you measure success.You list Darts and Snooker as two examples that apparently have "faded away". I think you'll find Darts is massive still. Record attendences, mega prize money on offer. I'm not a big snooker watcher but I think that's also true there.
With things like the X-games you've still got massive amounts of participation, prizemoney, sponsorship etc in sports that before they were picked up on pay tv were little more than hobbies.
ETA: I'm not suggesting that pay TV is the best thing since sliced bread as I'd prefer lots more free stuff, but to pretend it's a failure is just wrong. If you do it correctly then it can be a massive success, for fans, competitors and organisers/sponsors.
Edited by London424 on Monday 23 November 10:47
If it is purely down to mega prize money (often coming from the TV money), then that is no indication of "success" - it's just a measure of how much money the TV company has ploughed into its "investment". As for the record crowds - have you seen how many turn up to watch county cricket these days?
The proof is in the long term impacts - which may take decades to work out.
Will these "mega amounts" be around in 20 or 30 years time - when no one can see the sport and sponsors have walked away because no one was watching.
This is a long term game and the end results are not yet obvious.
We shall see.
Eric Mc said:
London424 said:
So if we ignore the mainstream sports, because they're still massively successful (or more successful), and look at small niche sports that faded away from normal TV because people didn't bother watching we will see the pay TV model doesn't work...gotcha.
You list Darts and Snooker as two examples that apparently have "faded away". I think you'll find Darts is massive still. Record attendences, mega prize money on offer. I'm not a big snooker watcher but I think that's also true there.
With things like the X-games you've still got massive amounts of participation, prizemoney, sponsorship etc in sports that before they were picked up on pay tv were little more than hobbies.
ETA: I'm not suggesting that pay TV is the best thing since sliced bread as I'd prefer lots more free stuff, but to pretend it's a failure is just wrong. If you do it correctly then it can be a massive success, for fans, competitors and organisers/sponsors.
It all depends on how you measure success.You list Darts and Snooker as two examples that apparently have "faded away". I think you'll find Darts is massive still. Record attendences, mega prize money on offer. I'm not a big snooker watcher but I think that's also true there.
With things like the X-games you've still got massive amounts of participation, prizemoney, sponsorship etc in sports that before they were picked up on pay tv were little more than hobbies.
ETA: I'm not suggesting that pay TV is the best thing since sliced bread as I'd prefer lots more free stuff, but to pretend it's a failure is just wrong. If you do it correctly then it can be a massive success, for fans, competitors and organisers/sponsors.
Edited by London424 on Monday 23 November 10:47
If it is purely down to mega prize money (often coming from the TV money), then that is no indication of "success" - it's just a measure of how much money the TV company has ploughed into its "investment". As for the record crowds - have you seen how many turn up to watch county cricket these days?
The proof is in the long term impacts - which may take decades to work out.
Will these "mega amounts" be around in 20 or 30 years time - when no one can see the sport and sponsors have walked away because no one was watching.
This is a long term game and the end results are not yet obvious.
We shall see.
http://www.skysports.com/cricket/news/12123/100760...
Do you think Sky would report any news of areas where it IS in decline?
The county game, which was the backbone of cricket in England, is dying.
What Sky and the other TV outlets are doing is transforming cricket into a different sport - so perhaps I'm correct in that they are effectively destroying one sport whilst they create a new one - which may or may not last.
The county game, which was the backbone of cricket in England, is dying.
What Sky and the other TV outlets are doing is transforming cricket into a different sport - so perhaps I'm correct in that they are effectively destroying one sport whilst they create a new one - which may or may not last.
London424 said:
Umm Premier League football the most obvious one (I'm not sure why we should ignore that one, is it because it's been a massive success?). You also have Rugby (Union and League) and Cricket.
From what I remember, premier league football seemed to be quite popular before in went onto Sky.Rugby Union is partially free to air. 6N, RWC, all the big ones are free to air. In my rugby club there is a substantial increase in applicants after each 6N and the RWC, despite England not turning up, meant parking problems. I've got BT sport solely for rugby.
I think the worst thing the RFU did was to sell out. Well perhaps not the worst as they done many inexplicable things.
Cricket I know nothing about.
thegreenhell said:
That's like when somebody asks why people still buy new cars. Without live TV there is nothing to catch up on, and without the TV licence fee then the BBC would be reduced to being a commercial or PPV on-demand service like Netflix.
The cuts being talked about are in part due to far more people than expected moving to catch-up only, and not paying the TV license. It was almost a secret not so long ago (along with lots of mis-information about how legal it was) but many, many people have caught onto it, helped I'm sure by the likes of iPlayer being available in pretty much any electronic device these days.The landscape is changing rapidly, I wouldn't be surprised if live TV was exclusively the domain of news and sports in the future.
^^^ I noticed that just last week Amazon released a new series Man in the High Castle (Ridley Scott produced, Philip K Dick novel about Nazis) - all the episodes at the same time. For binge-watching.
Wondering if they'll do the same with the new Clarkson & May show, Prime Gear (or whatever it's called).
Wondering if they'll do the same with the new Clarkson & May show, Prime Gear (or whatever it's called).
suffolk009 said:
^^^ I noticed that just last week Amazon released a new series Man in the High Castle (Ridley Scott produced, Philip K Dick novel about Nazis) - all the episodes at the same time. For binge-watching.
Wondering if they'll do the same with the new Clarkson & May show, Prime Gear (or whatever it's called).
No different to what Netflix have been doing for the last couple of years. The annoying thing about those two services is you'll never get to see them unless you payout a fair wedge of money. Netflix at least has a monthly payment plan but I think Amazon is £80 a year (or is that just prime)Wondering if they'll do the same with the new Clarkson & May show, Prime Gear (or whatever it's called).
klunkT5 said:
Yes please, I thought Jake Humphries was a great F1 presenter, I like DC aswell, He's Equally as good as Brundle despite not being as experienced IMO.
His commentary is not as good as Brundle IMO. Lots of hanging on to words and unnecessary pauses.Edited by klunkT5 on Friday 20th November 18:04
I never though that the BBC were going to make it to the end of the 5 year joint coverage deal with Sky. What annoys me more, is that we have seen all this happen before.
I prefer the Sky coverage and can't stand Perry as a presenter. I'm not thrilled by the prospect of her being a TG presenter either. She was embarrassingly bad when she did MotoGP several years ago.
bakerstreet said:
klunkT5 said:
Yes please, I thought Jake Humphries was a great F1 presenter, I like DC aswell, He's Equally as good as Brundle despite not being as experienced IMO.
His commentary is not as good as Brundle IMO. Lots of hanging on to words and unnecessary pauses.Edited by klunkT5 on Friday 20th November 18:04
I never though that the BBC were going to make it to the end of the 5 year joint coverage deal with Sky. What annoys me more, is that we have seen all this happen before.
I prefer the Sky coverage and can't stand Perry as a presenter. I'm not thrilled by the prospect of her being a TG presenter either. She was embarrassingly bad when she did MotoGP several years ago.
Europa1 said:
bakerstreet said:
klunkT5 said:
Yes please, I thought Jake Humphries was a great F1 presenter, I like DC aswell, He's Equally as good as Brundle despite not being as experienced IMO.
His commentary is not as good as Brundle IMO. Lots of hanging on to words and unnecessary pauses.Edited by klunkT5 on Friday 20th November 18:04
I never though that the BBC were going to make it to the end of the 5 year joint coverage deal with Sky. What annoys me more, is that we have seen all this happen before.
I prefer the Sky coverage and can't stand Perry as a presenter. I'm not thrilled by the prospect of her being a TG presenter either. She was embarrassingly bad when she did MotoGP several years ago.
For those asking about viewing figures on Sky, and for Moto GP the figures can be found on https://f1broadcasting.wordpress.com/ however you need to delve around to find them and effectively read the blog.
Seems that for the last race (Brazil live on BBC and Sky) Sky Sports F1 audience was around 548k, with the BBC averaging 4.02m for the previous race (Austin Title Decider BBC highlights only) it was shown live on Sky Sports F1 and Sky Sport 1 and averaged 1.13m in total. The BBC highlights averaged 2.15m.
This would suggest that if you were a sponsor you would want coverage on the BBC however viewing figures do vary dramatically during the year and are dependent on time of day etc.
Moto GP figures for the race in Sepang appear to be average of 443k viewers on BT and ITV combined against 1.1m for the BBC in 2013.
Seems that for the last race (Brazil live on BBC and Sky) Sky Sports F1 audience was around 548k, with the BBC averaging 4.02m for the previous race (Austin Title Decider BBC highlights only) it was shown live on Sky Sports F1 and Sky Sport 1 and averaged 1.13m in total. The BBC highlights averaged 2.15m.
This would suggest that if you were a sponsor you would want coverage on the BBC however viewing figures do vary dramatically during the year and are dependent on time of day etc.
Moto GP figures for the race in Sepang appear to be average of 443k viewers on BT and ITV combined against 1.1m for the BBC in 2013.
That would certainly seem to suggest that keeping F1 FTA might be worth cutting a deal for on Bernie's part. That's a huge difference in the viewing figures between Sky and BBC.
Same for MotoGP - with a smaller audience a halving in viewing figures for a key race can't sit well with sponsors.
Same for MotoGP - with a smaller audience a halving in viewing figures for a key race can't sit well with sponsors.
London424 said:
You list Darts and Snooker as two examples that apparently have "faded away". I think you'll find Darts is massive still. Record attendences, mega prize money on offer. I'm not a big snooker watcher but I think that's also true there.
Snooker seems to be dying a slow death. Prize money is poor, players constantly moaning they don't earn enough; TV figures are low compared to its peak in the 80s; biggest market is China; 20/20 cricket style gimmicks to make snooker more attractive.Barry Hearn runs snooker and darts yet the latter has become a success.
entropy said:
London424 said:
You list Darts and Snooker as two examples that apparently have "faded away". I think you'll find Darts is massive still. Record attendences, mega prize money on offer. I'm not a big snooker watcher but I think that's also true there.
Snooker seems to be dying a slow death. Prize money is poor, players constantly moaning they don't earn enough; TV figures are low compared to its peak in the 80s; biggest market is China; 20/20 cricket style gimmicks to make snooker more attractive.Barry Hearn runs snooker and darts yet the latter has become a success.
You can also look at Golf or Tennis too. Pretty much not shown on free to air, gone from strength to strength. Massive prizes, sponsors fans attending
entropy said:
London424 said:
You list Darts and Snooker as two examples that apparently have "faded away". I think you'll find Darts is massive still. Record attendences, mega prize money on offer. I'm not a big snooker watcher but I think that's also true there.
Snooker seems to be dying a slow death. Prize money is poor, players constantly moaning they don't earn enough; TV figures are low compared to its peak in the 80s; biggest market is China; 20/20 cricket style gimmicks to make snooker more attractive.Barry Hearn runs snooker and darts yet the latter has become a success.
Any sports/TV personality around in the 80's was lucky, very very lucky. Steve Davis, Eric bristow, etc were never off the screen they were superstars to everybody not just followers of a particular sport. So were dj's, just for presenting top of the pops, nice work if you can get it . All thanks to the bbc really.
jbudgie said:
entropy said:
London424 said:
You list Darts and Snooker as two examples that apparently have "faded away". I think you'll find Darts is massive still. Record attendences, mega prize money on offer. I'm not a big snooker watcher but I think that's also true there.
Snooker seems to be dying a slow death. Prize money is poor, players constantly moaning they don't earn enough; TV figures are low compared to its peak in the 80s; biggest market is China; 20/20 cricket style gimmicks to make snooker more attractive.Barry Hearn runs snooker and darts yet the latter has become a success.
jbudgie said:
entropy said:
London424 said:
You list Darts and Snooker as two examples that apparently have "faded away". I think you'll find Darts is massive still. Record attendences, mega prize money on offer. I'm not a big snooker watcher but I think that's also true there.
Snooker seems to be dying a slow death. Prize money is poor, players constantly moaning they don't earn enough; TV figures are low compared to its peak in the 80s; biggest market is China; 20/20 cricket style gimmicks to make snooker more attractive.Barry Hearn runs snooker and darts yet the latter has become a success.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff