BBC to pull out of F1 entirely.
Discussion
wilfandrowlf said:
RustyVR6 said:
If BBC do drop F1 it'll free up a few sundays for more interesting activities, such as watching paint dry.
My sentiments entirely!I'd prefer to watch Moto GP or even Touring Cars, far more entertaining IMHO
If I was in charge of any sport I would think very carefully before I lost the coverage of a national broadcaster. Sky audiences are tiny by comparison.
You might make some useful wedge in the short term but there will be no one interested in your poxy sport in 10-15 years time.
If you get your sport seen by as many people as possible, enough of them will be inspired to get involved at the grass roots.
You might make some useful wedge in the short term but there will be no one interested in your poxy sport in 10-15 years time.
If you get your sport seen by as many people as possible, enough of them will be inspired to get involved at the grass roots.
There is a suggestion that the BBC will only do highlights from next year http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formulaone/articl...
Of course the question then comes how do they produce the highlights show, do they use their own commentators or those for Sky?
Of course the question then comes how do they produce the highlights show, do they use their own commentators or those for Sky?
Chrisgr31 said:
There is a suggestion that the BBC will only do highlights from next year http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formulaone/articl...
Of course the question then comes how do they produce the highlights show, do they use their own commentators or those for Sky?
From 1978 to 1991 they were able to cover every F1 season mainly through their highlights programme on a Sunday night. On average, up until 1995 they only covered between 4 and 6 races live. 1996 was the first season they covered the entire season live.Of course the question then comes how do they produce the highlights show, do they use their own commentators or those for Sky?
scrwright said:
Have to say i have been prefering the highlights this season. Watched the mexican race live and got bored. Would be happy for just an hour long highlights show at the mo.
Paradoxically it is sometimes the more processional races that really benefit from full unedited coverage. The final part of that race was all about Hamilton gradually edging up to the 1 second DRS window then dropping back and very slowly edging back up again. It's this kind of detail that's lost in highlights coverage.ukaskew said:
red_duke said:
Surely nobody watches live TV anymore?
I record everything of interest on Sky+. Haven't watched an advert in years and it's great for fast forwarding through boring races on Sunday evening.
Sports events where the effort to avoid the result is sometimes just a pain. Everything else is recorded.I record everything of interest on Sky+. Haven't watched an advert in years and it's great for fast forwarding through boring races on Sunday evening.
We could probably drop the TV licence if we put our minds to it, but it's not entirely practical to only have access to all the catch up services without also having access to live TV.
swisstoni said:
If I was in charge of any sport I would think very carefully before I lost the coverage of a national broadcaster. Sky audiences are tiny by comparison.
You might make some useful wedge in the short term but there will be no one interested in your poxy sport in 10-15 years time.
If you get your sport seen by as many people as possible, enough of them will be inspired to get involved at the grass roots.
Well that's obviously not the case is it. You might make some useful wedge in the short term but there will be no one interested in your poxy sport in 10-15 years time.
If you get your sport seen by as many people as possible, enough of them will be inspired to get involved at the grass roots.
There are loads of sports that have gone from strength to strength.
Eric Mc said:
Chrisgr31 said:
There is a suggestion that the BBC will only do highlights from next year http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formulaone/articl...
Of course the question then comes how do they produce the highlights show, do they use their own commentators or those for Sky?
From 1978 to 1991 they were able to cover every F1 season mainly through their highlights programme on a Sunday night. On average, up until 1995 they only covered between 4 and 6 races live. 1996 was the first season they covered the entire season live.Of course the question then comes how do they produce the highlights show, do they use their own commentators or those for Sky?
Happy days!
swisstoni said:
If I was in charge of any sport I would think very carefully before I lost the coverage of a national broadcaster. Sky audiences are tiny by comparison.
You might make some useful wedge in the short term but there will be no one interested in your poxy sport in 10-15 years time.
If you get your sport seen by as many people as possible, enough of them will be inspired to get involved at the grass roots.
I agree, I think NFL stayed on free to air for similar reasons. You might make some useful wedge in the short term but there will be no one interested in your poxy sport in 10-15 years time.
If you get your sport seen by as many people as possible, enough of them will be inspired to get involved at the grass roots.
Simes205 said:
Ah the Sunday night sound of Murray and James and commentary that sounded like they were doing it down a phone line.
Happy days!
At least if it sounded like they were at the end of a phone, it meant they were more than likely at the GP venue - and not squeezed into a small studio at the BBC Television Centre.Happy days!
Alex Langheck said:
London424 said:
Well that's obviously not the case is it.
There are loads of sports that have gone from strength to strength.
Like what? Darts...... There are loads of sports that have gone from strength to strength.
I think football/soccer is and always will be a special case. Even Rugby Union and Cricket have always had reasonable followings in the UK. I'm not sure that the move of cricket yo Sky has been a roaraway success in Britain - even if it is massive in India (where it always has been massive). It's dead in the Carribean.
F1 should not be compared to those "mainstream" sports. It's much more of a niche sport and is closer in marketing and viewership figures to sports that "took off" PURELY because they were covered by mainstream TV - such as darts, snooker, motor bike scrambling, showjumping, rallying etc - and which have nearly all faded away because they fell off mainstream TV.
F1 is in grave danger of disappearing off people's radar is it becomes a "pay to view" type sport only.
Even "soccer" is not so dumb as to limit itself completely to pay channels only.
F1 should not be compared to those "mainstream" sports. It's much more of a niche sport and is closer in marketing and viewership figures to sports that "took off" PURELY because they were covered by mainstream TV - such as darts, snooker, motor bike scrambling, showjumping, rallying etc - and which have nearly all faded away because they fell off mainstream TV.
F1 is in grave danger of disappearing off people's radar is it becomes a "pay to view" type sport only.
Even "soccer" is not so dumb as to limit itself completely to pay channels only.
Does anyone really think F1 is worth watching enough for any broadcaster to want to pay Bernie sized money for it?
Sure it gets/got big viewer numbers when free, but I'd love to know what the viewer figures are for Sky F1 races.
I watch the odd live F1 race on the BBC, but equally, rarely pass up the chance to go out when they're on. I'll then check the result before even bothering to watch the highlights...
I'll clearly be in the 'free to air' viewer numbers, but there's absolutely no way I'd pay a penny to watch F1 live (or even in highlight form if I'm honest).
If it goes the same way as UFC and WFF wrestling, it'll get exactly the same response from me, I'll just forget it exists!
M
Sure it gets/got big viewer numbers when free, but I'd love to know what the viewer figures are for Sky F1 races.
I watch the odd live F1 race on the BBC, but equally, rarely pass up the chance to go out when they're on. I'll then check the result before even bothering to watch the highlights...
I'll clearly be in the 'free to air' viewer numbers, but there's absolutely no way I'd pay a penny to watch F1 live (or even in highlight form if I'm honest).
If it goes the same way as UFC and WFF wrestling, it'll get exactly the same response from me, I'll just forget it exists!
M
Eric Mc said:
I think football/soccer is and always will be a special case. Even Rugby Union and Cricket have always had reasonable followings in the UK. I'm not sure that the move of cricket yo Sky has been a roaraway success in Britain - even if it is massive in India (where it always has been massive). It's dead in the Carribean.
F1 should not be compared to those "mainstream" sports. It's much more of a niche sport and is closer in marketing and viewership figures to sports that "took off" PURELY because they were covered by mainstream TV - such as darts, snooker, motor bike scrambling, showjumping, rallying etc - and which have nearly all faded away because they fell off mainstream TV.
F1 is in grave danger of disappearing off people's radar is it becomes a "pay to view" type sport only.
Even "soccer" is not so dumb as to limit itself completely to pay channels only.
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.F1 should not be compared to those "mainstream" sports. It's much more of a niche sport and is closer in marketing and viewership figures to sports that "took off" PURELY because they were covered by mainstream TV - such as darts, snooker, motor bike scrambling, showjumping, rallying etc - and which have nearly all faded away because they fell off mainstream TV.
F1 is in grave danger of disappearing off people's radar is it becomes a "pay to view" type sport only.
Even "soccer" is not so dumb as to limit itself completely to pay channels only.
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
I'd have thought the closest comparator would be MotoGP.
Anyone know what the viewing figures have been like since it moved to BT with highlights on ITV4? I know I haven't watched it since it went to pay tv, having watched it prior to that for years, as well as attending a few races around Europe.
Anyone know what the viewing figures have been like since it moved to BT with highlights on ITV4? I know I haven't watched it since it went to pay tv, having watched it prior to that for years, as well as attending a few races around Europe.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff