F1 owners say UK paywall TV deal they have inherited is detr

[hairyben]

ClockworkCupcake said:

hairyben said:

Names escape me but theres a number of trolls who seem to exist in a state of needing to convey their perpetual disappointment in f1, week in and week out, cluttering up race threads like unwelcome bores with their tired cliched remarks. Seems a really odd way to choose to live your life.

Not to mention the Top Gear and Grand Tour threads.

I know right.

I mean, I consider chr*s ev*ns the definition of a worthless hack, and his emplacement on the show a carefully crafted insult or a massive fail to understand, but I made a few comments to that effect then shut the feck up, what needed to be said was said. Then on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on the thread rolled, week in week out with samey people making samey comments. It's probably still going isn't it?

sorry O/T

[Derek Smith]

768 said:

I'll have a go at playing diplomat.

I think both are happening. Whether it's expanded coverage of the Olympics on more channels than ever, getting to see the footage of Alonso getting to grips with IndyCar, more coverage of women's sport, sports on the fringe are often seeing more coverage than ever.

Meanwhile Sky, BT, etc are rinsing more and more from the top viewed sports; football, rugby, boxing, etc. With F1 joining the list in recent years. If I want to follow rugby union Sky have the England autumn internationals and BT have the premiership games. As ever, you have to buy the full package to get both.

Expensive paywalls can't be good long term for an individual sport with inherently reduced viewing figures and difficulty reaching new audiences. It will take some substantial movement to disrupt this end of the market. I'm hoping the streaming services will do exactly that and we'll see a very different marketplace by the time F1 looks to renew its TV rights deal.

Following the rugby analogy, the committee of my club were concerned about the removal of rugby premiership coverage from free to air. The number of new applicants, especially youngsters, went up following every 6N but on international events covered on Sky or BT there was normally no such increase.

It would seem that PPV TV coverage goes to those already fans of the particular sport. It is certainly the reason why I opted for BT Sport. So there's little in the way of capturing new people. After the RWC in 2003 we were fighting off new applicants. We even got an artificial pitch because of the numbers. This was down more to England winning than coverage I think as people were talking about it at work, at home and with kids. Who talks about a match on BT?

PPV will hurt F1 unless there can be other ways of accessing the races. The FIA charge for their live timing. How pathetically short sighted is that?

[anonymous-user]

You can watch F1 now with sky through now TV without paying for football or having a huge contract. They do a weekend package which will cover quali and the race.

SKY themselves will probably be the ones offering a dedicated F1 package as they know people are directly comparing the cost of SKY with better cheaper services on Netflix and Amazon or just streaming stuff illegally.

There used to be a pay per weekend F1chanel on sky years ago that gave all the practice and some extra in car cameras you could control through the red button etc. It wasn't popular so got canned.

[London424]

Derek Smith said:

768 said:

I'll have a go at playing diplomat.

I think both are happening. Whether it's expanded coverage of the Olympics on more channels than ever, getting to see the footage of Alonso getting to grips with IndyCar, more coverage of women's sport, sports on the fringe are often seeing more coverage than ever.

Meanwhile Sky, BT, etc are rinsing more and more from the top viewed sports; football, rugby, boxing, etc. With F1 joining the list in recent years. If I want to follow rugby union Sky have the England autumn internationals and BT have the premiership games. As ever, you have to buy the full package to get both.

Expensive paywalls can't be good long term for an individual sport with inherently reduced viewing figures and difficulty reaching new audiences. It will take some substantial movement to disrupt this end of the market. I'm hoping the streaming services will do exactly that and we'll see a very different marketplace by the time F1 looks to renew its TV rights deal.

Following the rugby analogy, the committee of my club were concerned about the removal of rugby premiership coverage from free to air. The number of new applicants, especially youngsters, went up following every 6N but on international events covered on Sky or BT there was normally no such increase.

It would seem that PPV TV coverage goes to those already fans of the particular sport. It is certainly the reason why I opted for BT Sport. So there's little in the way of capturing new people. After the RWC in 2003 we were fighting off new applicants. We even got an artificial pitch because of the numbers. This was down more to England winning than coverage I think as people were talking about it at work, at home and with kids. Who talks about a match on BT?

PPV will hurt F1 unless there can be other ways of accessing the races. The FIA charge for their live timing. How pathetically short sighted is that?

The whole PPV model is an interesting one.

In the last 10-15 years those sports that have gone down that road seem to have got richer and richer and being a player is much better than prior to that when you were likely to be an amateur.

I'm thinking of sports like Rugby, Cricket, Boxing, MMA, Darts, Snooker etc.

So when I see comments that it can't be good in the long run I'm not sure if I see it.

[Vaud]

London424 said:

The whole PPV model is an interesting one.

In the last 10-15 years those sports that have gone down that road seem to have got richer and richer and being a player is much better than prior to that when you were likely to be an amateur.

I'm thinking of sports like Rugby, Cricket, Boxing, MMA, Darts, Snooker etc.

So when I see comments that it can't be good in the long run I'm not sure if I see it.

In the case of cricket the money has also helped evolve the sport and encourage T20, etc, bringing it to a new audience. Plus the rise of womens cricket, which is a good thing.

[Eric Mc]

Vaud said:

London424 said:

The whole PPV model is an interesting one.

In the last 10-15 years those sports that have gone down that road seem to have got richer and richer and being a player is much better than prior to that when you were likely to be an amateur.

I'm thinking of sports like Rugby, Cricket, Boxing, MMA, Darts, Snooker etc.

So when I see comments that it can't be good in the long run I'm not sure if I see it.

In the case of cricket the money has also helped evolve the sport and encourage T20, etc, bringing it to a new audience. Plus the rise of womens cricket, which is a good thing.

It's interesting however that some aspects of live cricket are returning to terrestrial TV - so all is not rosy in the satellite only and PPV world for cricket.


http://www.thedrum.com/news/2016/12/20/channel-5-b...

[Vaud]

Eric Mc said:

It's interesting however that some aspects of live cricket are returning to terrestrial TV - so all is not rosy in the satellite only and PPV world for cricket.


http://www.thedrum.com/news/2016/12/20/channel-5-b...

I think a balance is the answer, personally. I don't think PPV is dead (or even dying) - it serves a purpose.

Either way we are moving towards on demand viewing. Teenagers and young adults have already moved past live tv... it is live TV as a whole that is at the greatest risk.

I'm in my 40s and aside from F1 (about half of the races I watched after the event), I have only watched 2 hours of live TV this year...

[London424]

Eric Mc said:

Vaud said:

London424 said:

The whole PPV model is an interesting one.

In the last 10-15 years those sports that have gone down that road seem to have got richer and richer and being a player is much better than prior to that when you were likely to be an amateur.

I'm thinking of sports like Rugby, Cricket, Boxing, MMA, Darts, Snooker etc.

So when I see comments that it can't be good in the long run I'm not sure if I see it.

In the case of cricket the money has also helped evolve the sport and encourage T20, etc, bringing it to a new audience. Plus the rise of womens cricket, which is a good thing.

It's interesting however that some aspects of live cricket are returning to terrestrial TV - so all is not rosy in the satellite only and PPV world for cricket.


http://www.thedrum.com/news/2016/12/20/channel-5-b...

Reading that just highlights it even more. Ch 5 have bought 5 games from the Australian T20 competition. Just a way for the leagues to make more money.

I don't think it suggests that the league is struggling and wants more eyeballs on it.

[The Moose]

Eric Mc said:

But it is NOT being covered to any great extent by "mainstream TV". So, to the average punter, if it's not on mainstream TV, it's not happening.

I think it's more fundamental than that. A lot of people I know actually don't watch TV in it's traditional sense - most people are watching on-demand of some sort.

I think the fact that it is not being covered by social media in 100 words with an exciting photograph means it's not happening.

What really gets on my tits ( easy given the size ) is when you have some jumped up little ste of 18-21 years old spouting off their opinion about something, anything and when you debate it and explain they are wrong, they have no comeback other than to insist you're wrong. The reason being they have only read the 50 words on Facebook and not investigated any further (my goodness, I sound old having just written that!!).

[ClockworkCupcake]

El stovey said:

There used to be a pay per weekend F1chanel on sky years ago that gave all the practice and some extra in car cameras you could control through the red button etc. It wasn't popular so got canned.

That wasn't a Sky initiative, although you could get it through Sky. It was a FOM initiative that was dubbed "BernieVision" by most, and it did indeed disappear again. I think most weren't ready for it.

I have a legacy Sky HD package so get the F1 channel without needing Sky Sports. Money aside, I think the Sky coverage is the best we have ever had in the UK.

I know some don't like it, and prefer C4. But vive la difference. Isn't it nice to have a choice? When have we ever had the luxury of choice in the UK prior to the Sky / BBC deal?

We'll look back on this as a golden age of TV coverage in years to come I reckon.

[anonymous-user]

ClockworkCupcake said:

El stovey said:

There used to be a pay per weekend F1chanel on sky years ago that gave all the practice and some extra in car cameras you could control through the red button etc. It wasn't popular so got canned.

That wasn't a Sky initiative, although you could get it through Sky. It was a FOM initiative that was dubbed "BernieVision" by most, and it did indeed disappear again. I think most weren't ready for it.

I have a legacy Sky HD package so get the F1 channel without needing Sky Sports. Money aside, I think the Sky coverage is the best we have ever had in the UK.

I know some don't like it, and prefer C4. But vive la difference. Isn't it nice to have a choice? When have we ever had the luxury of choice in the UK prior to the Sky / BBC deal?

We'll look back on this as a golden age of TV coverage in years to come I reckon.

The F1 extra channel was a Bernie thing, you still got the race on sky but the extra channel gave you the warmups and in car views etc.

I agree that F1 coverage is better than ever, but I think it will keep improving with higher def and more interaction like helmet cams and access to data and more pit wall chat has made it loads better, also the live broadcast of the warmup etc. What's next? Perhaps some VR type driver views? That would be pretty awesome.

Looking back it was rubbish before in comparison. Often qualification wasn't shown live on BBC even some races.

[ClockworkCupcake]

El stovey said:

Looking back it was rubbish before in comparison. Often qualification wasn't shown live on BBC even some races.

If you go back far enough, you didn't even get every race on the BBC, let alone every race live. And you never got qualifying*.

You know, back in the golden age when F1 was good.

(* - apart from perhaps the British GP, but that was exceptional)

[Derek Smith]

London424 said:

The whole PPV model is an interesting one.

In the last 10-15 years those sports that have gone down that road seem to have got richer and richer and being a player is much better than prior to that when you were likely to be an amateur.

I'm thinking of sports like Rugby, Cricket, Boxing, MMA, Darts, Snooker etc.

So when I see comments that it can't be good in the long run I'm not sure if I see it.

I take your point but I think there's more to it than toilets that don't stink. I know that premiership players are getting richer, although for most it is not through wages. I know that ticket prices seem to be going up each year as well. It is good to see the top clubs running at, if not a profit, then not into massive debt. Given the atrocious salary cap in football I was against it when it came in for rugby but in practice it seems to be working.

Where I think that PPV is hurting rugby is at club level. We need a steady influx of new players and whilst word of mouth is great, seeing it on TV is much, much better. Fewer schools are playing rugby.

We can't ignore grass roots rugby and, great as it is to watch premiership and international rugby, we need to get the general public more involved. It's fair to say that my club hasn't got a problem, apart from lack of sponsors, but some clubs struggle.

[London424]

Derek Smith said:

London424 said:

The whole PPV model is an interesting one.

In the last 10-15 years those sports that have gone down that road seem to have got richer and richer and being a player is much better than prior to that when you were likely to be an amateur.

I'm thinking of sports like Rugby, Cricket, Boxing, MMA, Darts, Snooker etc.

So when I see comments that it can't be good in the long run I'm not sure if I see it.

I take your point but I think there's more to it than toilets that don't stink. I know that premiership players are getting richer, although for most it is not through wages. I know that ticket prices seem to be going up each year as well. It is good to see the top clubs running at, if not a profit, then not into massive debt. Given the atrocious salary cap in football I was against it when it came in for rugby but in practice it seems to be working.

Where I think that PPV is hurting rugby is at club level. We need a steady influx of new players and whilst word of mouth is great, seeing it on TV is much, much better. Fewer schools are playing rugby.

We can't ignore grass roots rugby and, great as it is to watch premiership and international rugby, we need to get the general public more involved. It's fair to say that my club hasn't got a problem, apart from lack of sponsors, but some clubs struggle.

The grass roots one is also interesting. Are youngsters not taking it up because it's not on TV as much or because there are many other things that they can do with their time?

Do we currently have more sports organisations at the grass roots level than is needed/required for the world today?

Is the head injury issue causing parents to persuade kids into other sports instead?

[ClockworkCupcake]

Derek Smith said:

Fewer schools are playing rugby.

Fee-paying schools have always played rugby and continue to do so. It's a curious quirk of the education system that state schools have always tended to play football and fee-paying schools (including Rugby itself of course) have always tended to play rugby.

[Vaud]

London424 said:

The grass roots one is also interesting. Are youngsters not taking it up because it's not on TV as much or because there are many other things that they can do with their time?

Do we currently have more sports organisations at the grass roots level than is needed/required for the world today?

Is the head injury issue causing parents to persuade kids into other sports instead?

I suspect H&S is pushing schools away from it?

[Derek Smith]

London424 said:

The grass roots one is also interesting. Are youngsters not taking it up because it's not on TV as much or because there are many other things that they can do with their time?

Do we currently have more sports organisations at the grass roots level than is needed/required for the world today?

Is the head injury issue causing parents to persuade kids into other sports instead?

I have little doubt that the other sports and pastimes available do reduce the catchment. I think that's why we need to fight harder. Bringing it back to F1, that goes for them as well, perhaps more so.

As for the dangers of head injuries, a bit of self indulgence here; my son, who lived a breathed rugby from the age of 13, had three concussions in one season and he was told be his doctor to give it up. He'd captained an England under 19 side against Australia in Australia before a Lions match, toured NZ as captain and played against Jonah Lomu's college team. He knew what he was doing but was not immune, at the age of 28, from being deliberately stamped on twice during a level 5 match.

There was quite a crowd there that day, many of them parents. They saw my lad knocked out by the other team's #5 stamping on him, a centre kicked in the head by the same player who then went on to knee another player in the head, fracturing an eye socket and cheek bone. The #5 finished the match without penalty and our three injured players have not since played a match. The #5 got 12 weeks ban after a citing.

That sort of thuggish play, criminal in fact, and the lax enforcement which make Vettel's penalty seem harsh, made quite a few parents nervous of their kids' health. I was forever being asked how my lad was getting on.

Unless the RFU do something to stop such play I reckon many a parent might consider rugby too great a risk.

[C70R]

Roofless Toothless said:

We can only speculate as to why C70R decided at two in the morning to take a pot shot at Eric and myself (I live in a warped world, apparently) but my problem at the moment is finding exactly where Eric was proved wrong, and not just guilty of stating his own point of view.

Where do you want to start?
1. He said categorically that F1 was becoming less interesting. There's plenty of evidence to the contrary.
2. He said that relationships with cars and what people find exciting were causing F1 viewing figures to decline. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that F1 is one of MANY sports suffering TV viewing declines, so it's hugely unlikely that the sport itself is causing it.
3. He said that people's interests are becoming narrower and more defined. The premise is laughable, given that the absolute opposite effect has been observed countless times.

I feel for Eric in some ways, as F1 is clearly no longer the sport he remembers/loves. However, his constant schtick of 'it used to be so much better in my day' begins to grate after a while - mainly because it's rose-tinted waffle. It's hard to ignore a broken record with almost 100,000 posts, so you'll forgive me for finally buckling and taking him to task.

(As for the 2am thing, would it be crazy to consider that we're not in the same timezone?)

Roofless Toothless said:

If anything, the internet seems to be closing down on serendipitous discoveries being made. Perhaps C70R is not aware of the present controversy over the changes to the BBC website, and the way it is now steering viewers to material based on their past selections. "If you liked this, then you may also like ... " seems to be the mantra now days.

News websites aren't the place where people make new discoveries about sport/interests. Look to the likes of social media, Reddit etc. for this.

Roofless Toothless said:

I can't think of a better way to 'spread the word' about motorsport than to have it free to air. Also, C70R, could you explain in what way the TV Licence fee is 'token'? The BBC funds itself through the fee and the sales of programmes abroad. It used to get a government grant for the World Service, but since 2014 has even had to find this money itself. I don't expect to have unlimited access to the sport of my choice, just my fair share. (Well, perhaps a bit less tennis and the test cricket back!)

The TV licence is token, because it's intended to subsidise the sale of content overseas to provide us with commercial-free TV. It's a tiny payment in the context of what we get (multiple TV channels, radio stations and iPlayer) - and said payment shouldn't necessarily guarantee free-to-air premium content.

Roofless Toothless said:

As I said above, I don't feel comfortable subscribing to a F1 PPV channel that carries adverts, has cars like advertising hoardings, built by commercial manufacturers that come and go according to wider business decisions. You might not think that amounts to being screwed, but I do. It makes me feel less like a fan, and more like a target audience.

This "subscribing" business is driving me bananas, because it keeps getting repeated as though it's gospel. NowTV would give you access to all the Sky races for ~£100/yr. You only pay for the races you watch, and you can watch on C4 when both are screening if you prefer.

As for the "cars like advertising hoardings" bit, this again is just a case of 'it was better in my day' rose-tinted talk. This is what a Williams looked like 27 years ago... (I count 8 brands on the side profile alone - how does this stack up against a 2017 car?)

Edited by C70R on Wednesday 28th June 22:09

[MissChief]

Sadly the PPV market and eventuality is a common one, and one that's used across the world. Show sometning on TV for little or no cost and once the fan base is there lock it behind a paywall in the hope that even ten percent of fans are willing to pay money to watch it. Then the EU got involved and decided that one company having all the rights to one sport was anti-competitive. So Setanta, then ESPN and now BT have some of the rights, yet for someone who wants to watch as much English football as they can they now have to spend more than before.

I cannot really decry Sky's coverage because I think the race coverage is excellent but the features, interviews and original content that they should be showing has really fallen away, no doubt due to money being drained from elsewhere in the business to pay for the Football rights. I'd love to see, for example, a series about every F1 season since it started and another looking at all the tracks and their history, especially the older ones that aren't used any more but that all costs money.

I also cannot complain about Sky's pricing because I don't pay for it, but can certainly see how paying for every sport when you only want one or two is frustrating. Hopefully the rumoured splitting of Sky Sports into genres will encourage more people to sign up and Sky can start making the features for the F1 channel again. The F1 show used to be in a studio with an audience and guests. Now it's three people in a studio or what looks like a low key meeting room or breakout area at Sky Central.

[.Adam.]

The problem with Now TV, is as far as I can tell, you have to watch the race live. I will quite often record a race to watch later in the afternoon, as I'm sure quite a few people would do. This makes paying for a day/weekend pass a bit pointless for a lot of people, as they still wouldn't be able to watch the race when it suited them, which is the way TV is going. It would make more sense if it had an on demand service as well as only being able to watch live.