F1 owners say UK paywall TV deal they have inherited is detr
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
I wonder if the top bods at F1 recognise that though. For decades they looked on other formulae as threats and acted accordingly i.e,. ensuring they struggled.
I'd like to think they will start taking a more enlightened view - but I'm not holding my breath.
The view of the top bods at the time was enlightened, if only enlightened self interest. There was no point in promoting other formulae if it meant taking money from F1. In the long term, of course, it could only hurt F1 but then long term was not a consideration.I'd like to think they will start taking a more enlightened view - but I'm not holding my breath.
Todt seems to be supporting WRC and WEC. The 'new' F2 promises to be something that might, just might, be a stepping stone for teams to progress to F1, but more work needs to be done.
The previous incumbent changed things so that the FIA got little income from F1 other than licencing. The logic of this was not explained. All it did was to allow more money to go to FOM. However, its effect could be positive as the FIA might well look to the other formulae for revenue.
Liberty has not been in charge long enough for anyone to make a judgement on whether they'll be good for the sport or not. The product, I think, is as good as it has ever been but sustainability needs addressing.
Roll on Spa and the British GPs. Not always classics but generally very enjoyable.
For the first time in some years, there is some hope for the future of F1. It is a long way from being dead.
I went to a LMES race at Silverstone one year where the event was not publicised to any extent. It was even not easy to find on their website. There were more people in the pits than in the stands. Despite torrential rain, the covered stands were not opened. I overheard an argument with the organisers. In essence a rep from the teams was arguing with the circuit rep that the then negotiations with FOM over the next contract for F1 were in progress and they didn't want to upset FOM's negotiator, whoever that was.
There was no denial. It was all very polite but the anger of the teams, who were being pressured to cut the race to 3 hours, was rather obvious.
If LM pull similar stunts then I can see no future for the sport, but then I can't see LM being that short-sighted.
Sky is scrapping its numbered sports channels and replacing them with themed offerings focused on specific sports – led by football, golf and cricket – as it combats falling viewer numbers with a branding revamp and a cheaper viewing package.
The retirement of Sky Sports 1,2,3,4 and 5 and the introduction of a new package two-thirds cheaper than current prices represents a major shakeup of the strategy that has made Rupert Murdoch’s Sky a pay-TV powerhouse.
The new offering will result in the launch of themed channels, like Sky’s existing dedicated Formula One channel, for its top-flight sports including football – which will get two channels – golf and cricket. A new channel, Sky Sports Arena, will host other content including rugby and tennis.
Business Today: sign up for a morning shot of financial news
Read more
A key part of the strategy is that it will let Sky entice new pay-TV subscribers reluctant to fork out up to £49.50 for its cheapest sports package. The new strategy will allow Sky to charge £18 for its cheapest package – although the whole Sky Sports bundle will remain a costly option.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/27/sky-...
The retirement of Sky Sports 1,2,3,4 and 5 and the introduction of a new package two-thirds cheaper than current prices represents a major shakeup of the strategy that has made Rupert Murdoch’s Sky a pay-TV powerhouse.
The new offering will result in the launch of themed channels, like Sky’s existing dedicated Formula One channel, for its top-flight sports including football – which will get two channels – golf and cricket. A new channel, Sky Sports Arena, will host other content including rugby and tennis.
Business Today: sign up for a morning shot of financial news
Read more
A key part of the strategy is that it will let Sky entice new pay-TV subscribers reluctant to fork out up to £49.50 for its cheapest sports package. The new strategy will allow Sky to charge £18 for its cheapest package – although the whole Sky Sports bundle will remain a costly option.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/27/sky-...
fat80b said:
The fact the racing was actually dull kind of misses the point though - because at the time it felt like it was exciting. You looked forward to the racing and the qualifying despite it not always delivering.
For me, the main reason for this was that everyone (the whole family / country) watched it as it was free on the BBC and there was a limited number of channels so they had to - The casual viewer makes for the morning after gossip which in turn leads to more people watching / caring about the outcome etc etc.
Bob
If action was what mattered, the only sport watched would be basketball but actually lots of action is also dull.
Also a good point. I hear zero mention of F1 at the office or anywhere else come to think of it. No-one talks about it at all.For me, the main reason for this was that everyone (the whole family / country) watched it as it was free on the BBC and there was a limited number of channels so they had to - The casual viewer makes for the morning after gossip which in turn leads to more people watching / caring about the outcome etc etc.
Bob
If action was what mattered, the only sport watched would be basketball but actually lots of action is also dull.
Roofless Toothless said:
That's a well researched and very informative piece. No wonder you were up until past midnight. 
I actually said much the same after the Russian GP, but without all your leg work. I quote:
"Face it, they go out to qualify and then get lined up on the grid in order of speed. All other things being equal that means that when the race starts, they simply all drive away from each other.
I suppose we all remember the special moments in F1 over the years, and you can find plenty of videos on YouTube to remind you of them. The trouble is that human nature tends to make us forget the boring ones that filled out most of the season, even in the years of Clark, Senna, Mansell, etc."
My point mainly was that mistakes usually lead to things happening, and the standards of skill and engineering in F1 are so high that it can so easily get processional. When the occasional daft thing happens, like a head support getting unattached, then a race turns on it.
I have no illusions about last Sunday's race, there was plenty to dislike about it. As an 'event' it was fascinating, but as pure sport (and sportsmanship) not very near the top of the tree.
I won't be paying out to get past the paywall next year. And the reason for that is possibly more that I am a tight fisted old git, than that I don't want to see live races. I can live without. Some of us like to get out and see family, go places on Sundays, and I often come back to watch a recording of a GP in the evening. So why should I pay to see what would be for me essentially a catch up/highlights show anyway? I hardly saw a GP live from about 1978 to 2000 - I was out every weekend either at the kart track with my kids or marshalling at Brands Hatch or Snetterton.
There's just not sufficient value in it for what they are charging. There's not a shortage of money in motor racing at F1 level, and I would feel like a bit of a chump paying out my cash to subscribe to a PPV channel that carries adverts, to watch racing cars covered with advertising going round, many of which are there in the first place to sell road cars. I make that four times I am getting screwed over!
Besides, the more people that stay away from it, the sooner they will learn they are killing the goose that lays the golden egg, and we will get back to free to air viewing.
In what warped world does £100/yr on NowTV equate to being "screwed over"? I actually said much the same after the Russian GP, but without all your leg work. I quote:
"Face it, they go out to qualify and then get lined up on the grid in order of speed. All other things being equal that means that when the race starts, they simply all drive away from each other.
I suppose we all remember the special moments in F1 over the years, and you can find plenty of videos on YouTube to remind you of them. The trouble is that human nature tends to make us forget the boring ones that filled out most of the season, even in the years of Clark, Senna, Mansell, etc."
My point mainly was that mistakes usually lead to things happening, and the standards of skill and engineering in F1 are so high that it can so easily get processional. When the occasional daft thing happens, like a head support getting unattached, then a race turns on it.
I have no illusions about last Sunday's race, there was plenty to dislike about it. As an 'event' it was fascinating, but as pure sport (and sportsmanship) not very near the top of the tree.
I won't be paying out to get past the paywall next year. And the reason for that is possibly more that I am a tight fisted old git, than that I don't want to see live races. I can live without. Some of us like to get out and see family, go places on Sundays, and I often come back to watch a recording of a GP in the evening. So why should I pay to see what would be for me essentially a catch up/highlights show anyway? I hardly saw a GP live from about 1978 to 2000 - I was out every weekend either at the kart track with my kids or marshalling at Brands Hatch or Snetterton.
There's just not sufficient value in it for what they are charging. There's not a shortage of money in motor racing at F1 level, and I would feel like a bit of a chump paying out my cash to subscribe to a PPV channel that carries adverts, to watch racing cars covered with advertising going round, many of which are there in the first place to sell road cars. I make that four times I am getting screwed over!
Besides, the more people that stay away from it, the sooner they will learn they are killing the goose that lays the golden egg, and we will get back to free to air viewing.
Do you really think that paying your (token) TV licence fee should allow you unlimited access to the sport of your choice?
Eric Mc said:
In a way it's the way of the modern world. People are burrowing down into their narrow interests - which means the serendipitous discovery of things you didn't know you might like are far less likely to happen.
The truth, as usual with your negative, self-indulgent posts, is quite the opposite.The internet and social media are broadening everyone's horizons, and giving them access to media, sports and interests that they may have never otherwise been aware of. This will be the mechanism these helps F1 to continue reaching new markets and audiences (even if the coverage itself isn't available online).
Ructions said:
A key part of the strategy is that it will let Sky entice new pay-TV subscribers reluctant to fork out up to £49.50 for its cheapest sports package. The new strategy will allow Sky to charge £18 for its cheapest package – although the whole Sky Sports bundle will remain a costly option.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/27/sky-...
That's a start but I'm not paying 18 quid on top of existing subscription for one channel. I bet f1 HD wouldn't be in the list of that 18 quid package either.https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/27/sky-...
C70R said:
Eric Mc said:
In a way it's the way of the modern world. People are burrowing down into their narrow interests - which means the serendipitous discovery of things you didn't know you might like are far less likely to happen.
The truth, as usual with your negative, self-indulgent posts, is quite the opposite.The internet and social media are broadening everyone's horizons, and giving them access to media, sports and interests that they may have never otherwise been aware of. This will be the mechanism these helps F1 to continue reaching new markets and audiences (even if the coverage itself isn't available online).
It's a real shame because I like debating. Some people just don't seem to be able to do it with any grace or intelligence.
Oh well - that's another attribute of the internet. It allows people to behave in a way they wouldn't normally behave in real life..
Eric Mc said:
C70R said:
Eric Mc said:
In a way it's the way of the modern world. People are burrowing down into their narrow interests - which means the serendipitous discovery of things you didn't know you might like are far less likely to happen.
The truth, as usual with your negative, self-indulgent posts, is quite the opposite.The internet and social media are broadening everyone's horizons, and giving them access to media, sports and interests that they may have never otherwise been aware of. This will be the mechanism these helps F1 to continue reaching new markets and audiences (even if the coverage itself isn't available online).
It's a real shame because I like debating. Some people just don't seem to be able to do it with any grace or intelligence.
Oh well - that's another attribute of the internet. It allows people to behave in a way they wouldn't normally behave in real life..
Or do you just carry on with the same old nonsense regardless?
C70R said:
Eric Mc said:
C70R said:
Eric Mc said:
In a way it's the way of the modern world. People are burrowing down into their narrow interests - which means the serendipitous discovery of things you didn't know you might like are far less likely to happen.
The truth, as usual with your negative, self-indulgent posts, is quite the opposite.The internet and social media are broadening everyone's horizons, and giving them access to media, sports and interests that they may have never otherwise been aware of. This will be the mechanism these helps F1 to continue reaching new markets and audiences (even if the coverage itself isn't available online).
It's a real shame because I like debating. Some people just don't seem to be able to do it with any grace or intelligence.
Oh well - that's another attribute of the internet. It allows people to behave in a way they wouldn't normally behave in real life..
Or do you just carry on with the same old nonsense regardless?
It's a sport. It is not important.
Funk said:
fat80b said:
The fact the racing was actually dull kind of misses the point though - because at the time it felt like it was exciting. You looked forward to the racing and the qualifying despite it not always delivering.
For me, the main reason for this was that everyone (the whole family / country) watched it as it was free on the BBC and there was a limited number of channels so they had to - The casual viewer makes for the morning after gossip which in turn leads to more people watching / caring about the outcome etc etc.
Bob
If action was what mattered, the only sport watched would be basketball but actually lots of action is also dull.
Also a good point. I hear zero mention of F1 at the office or anywhere else come to think of it. No-one talks about it at all.For me, the main reason for this was that everyone (the whole family / country) watched it as it was free on the BBC and there was a limited number of channels so they had to - The casual viewer makes for the morning after gossip which in turn leads to more people watching / caring about the outcome etc etc.
Bob
If action was what mattered, the only sport watched would be basketball but actually lots of action is also dull.
If you're a die hard fan as some people claim to be paying a few quid to watch shouldn't be an issue at all.
Derek Smith said:
Cone on, guys, this is the F1 forum, not News. Let's not argue and certainly avoid indulging in attacks on one another. Discussion is best. Bring evidence to support a point of view and the same to contradict it.
It's a sport. It is not important.
Quite right.It's a sport. It is not important.
I have my views. Other's have theirs. We may not agree but we don't need to be rude.
Crafty_ said:
I was going to write a reply to Eric's continuing infantile rants, but i really can't be bothered.
He has decided to give up the sport, yet is still here posting his usual drivel and bile. I can only assume to try and spread negativity and his own misery.
Its little more than trolling to be honest, he's deliberately posting to ensure he gets a reaction so he can continue his little tirade.
Pretty pathetic that he's got nothing better to do with his time to be honest.
No-one ever said F1 was perfect but its far better than he tries to make out.
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.He has decided to give up the sport, yet is still here posting his usual drivel and bile. I can only assume to try and spread negativity and his own misery.
Its little more than trolling to be honest, he's deliberately posting to ensure he gets a reaction so he can continue his little tirade.
Pretty pathetic that he's got nothing better to do with his time to be honest.
No-one ever said F1 was perfect but its far better than he tries to make out.
I hope you are not referring to me. You will note that I rarely post on actual race threads as they do seem to devolve into arguments for or against particular drivers.
This is a thread about future TV coverage and its potential impact on viewing figures - so my comments were related to that area (or so I thought).
This is a thread about future TV coverage and its potential impact on viewing figures - so my comments were related to that area (or so I thought).
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 agree, Derek, this isn't NP&E, but I don't like the personal tone of many of the arguments over there, either. In fact, I followed Pistonheads for quite a few years before I decided to start posting. I re-read every post I make to check that it can't be interpreted as rude to anyone, and try to behave like I would if I was chatting to someone I hadn't met before at the pub.
This site attracts a pretty wide range of people. Before the Baku race even started someone posted on that thread "I hope there is a few crashes makes it abit more entertaining" [sic] I mean, where do you go with that?
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.
I'll agree that the internet is broadening everyone's horizons. I found that out many years ago when I offered to try and help my nephew sell his Laser yacht and Googled 'watersports'. Access to stuff that I wouldn't otherwise have been aware of is great, but I get a bit lost in C70R's post when he says that the internet will be the mechanism that helps F1 reach new markets, even if the coverage itself isn't available online.
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.
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!)
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.
It's a matter of opinion, you see, not me living in a warped world.
This site attracts a pretty wide range of people. Before the Baku race even started someone posted on that thread "I hope there is a few crashes makes it abit more entertaining" [sic] I mean, where do you go with that?
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.
I'll agree that the internet is broadening everyone's horizons. I found that out many years ago when I offered to try and help my nephew sell his Laser yacht and Googled 'watersports'. Access to stuff that I wouldn't otherwise have been aware of is great, but I get a bit lost in C70R's post when he says that the internet will be the mechanism that helps F1 reach new markets, even if the coverage itself isn't available online.
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.
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!)
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.
It's a matter of opinion, you see, not me living in a warped world.
C70R said:
Eric Mc said:
In a way it's the way of the modern world. People are burrowing down into their narrow interests - which means the serendipitous discovery of things you didn't know you might like are far less likely to happen.
The internet and social media are broadening everyone's horizons, and giving them access to media, sports and interests that they may have never otherwise been aware of. This will be the mechanism these helps F1 to continue reaching new markets and audiences (even if the coverage itself isn't available online).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.
Good points.
Perhaps the "Pay per View TV" model is reaching the end of its natural life. It's had an almost 40 year run which is not too bad in the modern world.
I know from my experience in talking about spaceflight matters is that the general response I get from non space fans is that NASA has done nothing of note since Apollo. And that there isn't much happening of significance in regards to space activity anyway.
Of course, the reality is that it has never been a more active or exciting sphere of activity. And it is covered in a great way by the internet - so it is all there if you -
a) are interested and
b) know where to find it.
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.
Maybe as mainstream TV loses its influence and the internet takes over, perhaps we will see a reversal of this but I'm not so sure. If you are interested in something, it's never been a better time to follow that interest. If you are ignorant of something or only possess a passing interest in something, the chances are the internet will not give you information you aren't specifically looking for in the first place.
Perhaps the "Pay per View TV" model is reaching the end of its natural life. It's had an almost 40 year run which is not too bad in the modern world.
I know from my experience in talking about spaceflight matters is that the general response I get from non space fans is that NASA has done nothing of note since Apollo. And that there isn't much happening of significance in regards to space activity anyway.
Of course, the reality is that it has never been a more active or exciting sphere of activity. And it is covered in a great way by the internet - so it is all there if you -
a) are interested and
b) know where to find it.
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.
Maybe as mainstream TV loses its influence and the internet takes over, perhaps we will see a reversal of this but I'm not so sure. If you are interested in something, it's never been a better time to follow that interest. If you are ignorant of something or only possess a passing interest in something, the chances are the internet will not give you information you aren't specifically looking for in the first place.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff