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

[London424]

C70R said:

London424 said:

CraigyMc said:

C70R said:

So it's actually £24 per race (3x practice sessions, qually, pre-race build-up, race, post-race analysis), and you get a load of free content the rest of the year.

The alternative is to pay >£10 per race weekend (qually, pre-race build-up, race, post-race analysis), or >£200/yr, via NowTV weekend passes.

I'm intrigued as to how much people think watching F1 should cost.
Or should it just come free with the licence fee?

It should be on free-to-air, as it has been for most of its existence in most of its markets. That's why the fans exist in the first place.

The model of "squeeze revenue out of the hardcore fans by making it ppv only" means the fanbase only ever shrinks, and ultimately becomes too small to be attractive. It's not viable long-term.

F1 needs to be broadly available, and funded by advertising revenue because of the large crowd.

This isn't UK-centric. This is a worldwide sport.

By your logic everything should be free-to-air as that's the way it's always been.

Should we only have 3 TV stations again?

I just can't see this "it should be free to air" argument. There's absolutely no logic to it whatsoever, other than "because that's how it used to be" (before subscription TV was a big thing).
Do you think everything should be covered by your 12 quid a month licence? Or just things that you like?
Should the rest of the country support your ability to view a relatively niche sport for free?
Should the BBC abandon awesome things like iPlayer and all of their radio stations, just to support one premium sport?

If I want a sport that I love to succeed, I'll gladly pay a relatively token amount (10 quid a race, FFS) to support it. I'd question the motivation of any 'fan' who takes umbrage with such a token gesture.

Some people are never going to put their hand in their pocket to support F1 (that's not what your TV licence fee was doing), and I question exactly what value they add to the sport in general...

What's funnier is that you'll often hear the phrase 'diehard fan', when it comes to F1. Yet demonstrate the least amount of willingness to show it at many an opportunity.

[C70R]

London424 said:

C70R said:

London424 said:

CraigyMc said:

C70R said:

So it's actually £24 per race (3x practice sessions, qually, pre-race build-up, race, post-race analysis), and you get a load of free content the rest of the year.

The alternative is to pay >£10 per race weekend (qually, pre-race build-up, race, post-race analysis), or >£200/yr, via NowTV weekend passes.

I'm intrigued as to how much people think watching F1 should cost.
Or should it just come free with the licence fee?

It should be on free-to-air, as it has been for most of its existence in most of its markets. That's why the fans exist in the first place.

The model of "squeeze revenue out of the hardcore fans by making it ppv only" means the fanbase only ever shrinks, and ultimately becomes too small to be attractive. It's not viable long-term.

F1 needs to be broadly available, and funded by advertising revenue because of the large crowd.

This isn't UK-centric. This is a worldwide sport.

By your logic everything should be free-to-air as that's the way it's always been.

Should we only have 3 TV stations again?

I just can't see this "it should be free to air" argument. There's absolutely no logic to it whatsoever, other than "because that's how it used to be" (before subscription TV was a big thing).
Do you think everything should be covered by your 12 quid a month licence? Or just things that you like?
Should the rest of the country support your ability to view a relatively niche sport for free?
Should the BBC abandon awesome things like iPlayer and all of their radio stations, just to support one premium sport?

If I want a sport that I love to succeed, I'll gladly pay a relatively token amount (10 quid a race, FFS) to support it. I'd question the motivation of any 'fan' who takes umbrage with such a token gesture.

Some people are never going to put their hand in their pocket to support F1 (that's not what your TV licence fee was doing), and I question exactly what value they add to the sport in general...

What's funnier is that you'll often hear the phrase 'diehard fan', when it comes to F1. Yet demonstrate the least amount of willingness to show it at many an opportunity.

The perverse thing is that I don't necessarily even consider myself a "diehard" fan. I will probably watch 12-15 live races a year (usually I don't get up for the early ones, and may watch replays/highlights), but F1 has been a periodic Sunday fixture since I was old enough to realise (the late 80s).
I'm not obsessive about F1, but can remember moments like Schumacher/Hill in Adelaide vividly. I've only been to a handful of races, but I've always enjoyed them when I have.

Even with that relatively modest level of interest (compared to many self-confessed "diehards"), I don't take umbrage with a Sky Sports subscription which enables me to follow a sport that I love.

[Mr Pointy]

CraigyMc said:

The model of "squeeze revenue out of the hardcore fans by making it ppv only" means the fanbase only ever shrinks, and ultimately becomes too small to be attractive. It's not viable long-term.

It's working nicely for Premier League football

CraigyMc said:

F1 needs to be broadly available, and funded by advertising revenue because of the large crowd.

And then the audience bhes & moans about the ad breaks, saying it's not as good as when it was on the BBC. Two hours of transmission with no ad breaks is not commercially viable for a UK broadcaster. Or are you saying you are happy with ad breaks during the races, as there were when it was on ITV?

[CraigyMc]

C70R said:

I just can't see this "it should be free to air" argument. There's absolutely no logic to it whatsoever, other than "because that's how it used to be" (before subscription TV was a big thing).
Do you think everything should be covered by your 12 quid a month licence? Or just things that you like?
Should the rest of the country support your ability to view a relatively niche sport for free?
Should the BBC abandon awesome things like iPlayer and all of their radio stations, just to support one premium sport?

If I want a sport that I love to succeed, I'll gladly pay a relatively token amount (10 quid a race, FFS) to support it. I'd question the motivation of any 'fan' who takes umbrage with such a token gesture.

Some people are never going to put their hand in their pocket to support F1 (that's not what your TV licence fee was doing), and I question exactly what value they add to the sport in general...

F1 has been on The BBC, but also ITV and Channel4. All of those are free to air. In Germany, it's always been on free to air (RTL) and continues to be so. Why should the UK be different?

I don't really know why you're battering on about the TV license. I wasn't trying to mount a campaign to bring it back to the BBC.

[CraigyMc]

Mr Pointy said:

And then the audience bhes & moans about the ad breaks, saying it's not as good as when it was on the BBC. Two hours of transmission with no ad breaks is not commercially viable for a UK broadcaster. Or are you saying you are happy with ad breaks during the races, as there were when it was on ITV?

Yeah, I think that (with ad breaks) better than no free-to-air at all. A highlights package would be OK too.
People would have the option of watching it without signing up for some sort of TV package.
It's not like having free to air is somehow mutually exclusive with Sky doing in-depth coverage.

From 2019 onward, there is no free to air coverage at all, due to Sky having negotiated exclusive rights (one exception: the British GP).

[Mr Pointy]

CraigyMc said:

F1 has been on The BBC, but also ITV and Channel4. All of those are free to air. In Germany, it's always been on free to air (RTL) and continues to be so. Why should the UK be different?

When it was on ITV the howls of anguish about ad breaks during the race & C4 can only afford it because Sky cover F1 jointly & pay a substantial sum for the right to do so. C4 couldn't afford to be the sole broadcaster. RTL are struggling & were looking at dropping the coverage.

[CraigyMc]

Mr Pointy said:

CraigyMc said:

F1 has been on The BBC, but also ITV and Channel4. All of those are free to air. In Germany, it's always been on free to air (RTL) and continues to be so. Why should the UK be different?

When it was on ITV the howls of anguish about ad breaks during the race & C4 can only afford it because Sky cover F1 jointly & pay a substantial sum for the right to do so. C4 couldn't afford to be the sole broadcaster. RTL are struggling & were looking at dropping the coverage.

When it was on ITV, there wasn't *also* Sky coverage available for the monied hardcore fans.
The reply if they were to do similar now would be "buy sky's coverage then".

When F1 ends up entirely behind paywalls, it makes it that much harder to grow the fanbase, marketing revenue drops off, and the main revenue streams become TV payments and circuit fees.

It's only a matter of time before the fanbase shrinks to "there's no point in this any more" proportions.

[thegreenhell]

Mr Pointy said:

CraigyMc said:

F1 needs to be broadly available, and funded by advertising revenue because of the large crowd.

And then the audience bhes & moans about the ad breaks, saying it's not as good as when it was on the BBC. Two hours of transmission with no ad breaks is not commercially viable for a UK broadcaster. Or are you saying you are happy with ad breaks during the races, as there were when it was on ITV?

There are no ad breaks during the race in C4's live race coverage.

[C70R]

Mr Pointy said:

CraigyMc said:

The model of "squeeze revenue out of the hardcore fans by making it ppv only" means the fanbase only ever shrinks, and ultimately becomes too small to be attractive. It's not viable long-term.

It's working nicely for Premier League football

CraigyMc said:

F1 needs to be broadly available, and funded by advertising revenue because of the large crowd.

And then the audience bhes & moans about the ad breaks, saying it's not as good as when it was on the BBC. Two hours of transmission with no ad breaks is not commercially viable for a UK broadcaster. Or are you saying you are happy with ad breaks during the races, as there were when it was on ITV?

It's absolutely viable long-term. It's how all of the biggest and most successful sports in the world work. Can you show your evidence for "PPV" (it's not PPV, it's subscription) being unviable for any big sports?

[C70R]

CraigyMc said:

C70R said:

I just can't see this "it should be free to air" argument. There's absolutely no logic to it whatsoever, other than "because that's how it used to be" (before subscription TV was a big thing).
Do you think everything should be covered by your 12 quid a month licence? Or just things that you like?
Should the rest of the country support your ability to view a relatively niche sport for free?
Should the BBC abandon awesome things like iPlayer and all of their radio stations, just to support one premium sport?

If I want a sport that I love to succeed, I'll gladly pay a relatively token amount (10 quid a race, FFS) to support it. I'd question the motivation of any 'fan' who takes umbrage with such a token gesture.

Some people are never going to put their hand in their pocket to support F1 (that's not what your TV licence fee was doing), and I question exactly what value they add to the sport in general...

F1 has been on The BBC, but also ITV and Channel4. All of those are free to air. In Germany, it's always been on free to air (RTL) and continues to be so. Why should the UK be different?

I don't really know why you're battering on about the TV license. I wasn't trying to mount a campaign to bring it back to the BBC.

There's no such thing as 'free' TV in Germany. You pay a licence fee (similar cost to the UK) to own a TV, no matter which channel you watch.

In addition, the German market is an inherent oddity (compared with the rest of the developed world) in its TV network infrastructure. Subscription services are tiny over there because of the prevalence of 'free' (see above) cable services which were established long before the likes of Sky launched in the market. Thus, the potential audience for any subscription-based sport service is tiny (<10% of population have Sky), meaning that there's no commercial prospect of F1 leaving RTL completely.
Not really a sensible comparison with the UK scenario.

[C70R]

CraigyMc said:

Mr Pointy said:

CraigyMc said:

F1 has been on The BBC, but also ITV and Channel4. All of those are free to air. In Germany, it's always been on free to air (RTL) and continues to be so. Why should the UK be different?

When it was on ITV the howls of anguish about ad breaks during the race & C4 can only afford it because Sky cover F1 jointly & pay a substantial sum for the right to do so. C4 couldn't afford to be the sole broadcaster. RTL are struggling & were looking at dropping the coverage.

When it was on ITV, there wasn't *also* Sky coverage available for the monied hardcore fans.
The reply if they were to do similar now would be "buy sky's coverage then".

When F1 ends up entirely behind paywalls, it makes it that much harder to grow the fanbase, marketing revenue drops off, and the main revenue streams become TV payments and circuit fees.

It's only a matter of time before the fanbase shrinks to "there's no point in this any more" proportions.

Spending £200 a year to support one of my favourite sports would apparently make me "monied". Who would have thunk it...?
(That was sarcasm - don't be so daft)

Regarding your "paywalls will kill the sport" wibbling, almost every big sport on the planet would disagree with you. F1 can promote itself outside of the race coverage, which will grow the sport organically.

Edited by C70R on Thursday 13th July 11:51

[Derek Smith]

CraigyMc said:

When it was on ITV, there wasn't *also* Sky coverage available for the monied hardcore fans.
The reply if they were to do similar now would be "buy sky's coverage then".

When F1 ends up entirely behind paywalls, it makes it that much harder to grow the fanbase, marketing revenue drops off, and the main revenue streams become TV payments and circuit fees.

It's only a matter of time before the fanbase shrinks to "there's no point in this any more" proportions.

I am, or at least was when ITV and Sky had joint coverage, a monied hardcore fan. I watched then with a group of about a dozen other fans, although due to work commitments only half a dozen, maybe eight, sat down together for most races.

I had Sky and so we had both channels available to us. In little time we all but dropped Sky.

I might be hardcore, but not monied.

[CraigyMc]

C70R said:

Regarding your "paywalls will kill the sport" wibbling, almost every big sport on the planet would disagree with you. F1 can promote itself outside of the race coverage, which will grow the sport organically.

*looks at thread title*

Mhmm.

[Ahonen]

C70R said:

There's no such thing as 'free' TV in Germany. You pay a licence fee (similar cost to the UK) to own a TV, no matter which channel you watch.

In addition, the German market is an inherent oddity (compared with the rest of the developed world) in its TV network infrastructure. Subscription services are tiny over there because of the prevalence of 'free' (see above) cable services which were established long before the likes of Sky launched in the market. Thus, the potential audience for any subscription-based sport service is tiny (<10% of population have Sky), meaning that there's no commercial prospect of F1 leaving RTL completely.
Not really a sensible comparison with the UK scenario.

A sort of TV licence, you say? Like the UK then, where we pay a TV licence but still refer to stuff as free TV.

[K50 DEL]

London424 said:

What's funnier is that you'll often hear the phrase 'diehard fan', when it comes to F1. Yet demonstrate the least amount of willingness to show it at many an opportunity.

I may well qualify as one of those, I watch all 3 practise sessions, quali and the race (and usually all the buildup to both) for every round of the season, I also often watch the extra shows based around F1 (legends of F1 etc) yet I refuse to pay a Sky subscription and choose to watch using other methods.

My reasoning for this is a question of value for money, it's quite common for the TV in my house not to be turned on inbetween race weekends, I already feel that the nearly £150 I pay each year in license fees is more than enough to cover the races and I refuse to pay hundreds of pounds a year for channels I'll never watch purely so that I can get the F1 channel.

I think it was said earlier in this thread, the charging structure for television is broken in this country and unless it's sorted fairly soon then I suspect TV services as we currently know them will cease to exist.

[ClockworkCupcake]

Ahonen said:

A sort of TV licence, you say? Like the UK then, where we pay a TV licence but still refer to stuff as free TV.

In the context of something that you have to pay for by law, anything included at no additional cost within that can be considered "free" within that context.

Also, "free TV" is easier to say that "no additional cost TV"

[C70R]

K50 DEL said:

London424 said:

What's funnier is that you'll often hear the phrase 'diehard fan', when it comes to F1. Yet demonstrate the least amount of willingness to show it at many an opportunity.

I may well qualify as one of those, I watch all 3 practise sessions, quali and the race (and usually all the buildup to both) for every round of the season, I also often watch the extra shows based around F1 (legends of F1 etc) yet I refuse to pay a Sky subscription and choose to watch using other methods.

My reasoning for this is a question of value for money, it's quite common for the TV in my house not to be turned on inbetween race weekends, I already feel that the nearly £150 I pay each year in license fees is more than enough to cover the races and I refuse to pay hundreds of pounds a year for channels I'll never watch purely so that I can get the F1 channel.

I think it was said earlier in this thread, the charging structure for television is broken in this country and unless it's sorted fairly soon then I suspect TV services as we currently know them will cease to exist.

You (and many others) still haven't answered the question: WHY SHOULD THE BBC LICENCE FEE PAY FOR FREE-TO-AIR PREMIUM SPORT?
Jesus Christ. This thread feels like swimming in custard...

As for the other comments, the "charging structure" for TV definitely isn't "broken".
Are you really so miserly that you begrudge spending TWELVE POUNDS A MONTH to have access to 3 channels of ad-free TV, many many ad-free radio stations (digital and analogue) and the iPlayer (on TV, mobile and desktop)?


Your licence fee pays for all of the above. If you don't get any benefit from that, then I'm sorry - but the vast majority of people do, and that's how democracy works.
If you can't find anything that interests you in all of that, then I feel very sorry for you. I love starting my day with a spot of R4, but definitely don't spend my Saturday evenings "glued to the box". I don't begrudge my licence fee being spent on 'talent' shows, because millions of people are routinely watching them.

If you're really a "diehard" fan, the option to pay £10 per race (via NowTV) on top of this licence fee should surely be relatively small outlay to support the sport you profess love?

Edited by C70R on Thursday 13th July 15:57

[C70R]

Ahonen said:

C70R said:

There's no such thing as 'free' TV in Germany. You pay a licence fee (similar cost to the UK) to own a TV, no matter which channel you watch.

In addition, the German market is an inherent oddity (compared with the rest of the developed world) in its TV network infrastructure. Subscription services are tiny over there because of the prevalence of 'free' (see above) cable services which were established long before the likes of Sky launched in the market. Thus, the potential audience for any subscription-based sport service is tiny (<10% of population have Sky), meaning that there's no commercial prospect of F1 leaving RTL completely.
Not really a sensible comparison with the UK scenario.

A sort of TV licence, you say? Like the UK then, where we pay a TV licence but still refer to stuff as free TV.

Try reading beyond the first paragraph. I find it helps to trace your finger along the screen and mouth the words, if you're struggling.

Said licence fee has always provided German consumers with a huge range of channels, all of which carry advertising. I was pointing out that there's no such thing as 'free' TV in Germany, and that the market is completely different to the UK.

[C70R]

CraigyMc said:

C70R said:

Regarding your "paywalls will kill the sport" wibbling, almost every big sport on the planet would disagree with you. F1 can promote itself outside of the race coverage, which will grow the sport organically.

*looks at thread title*

Mhmm.

That's the best you've got?
A sport migrated from FTA to subscription/PPV and the audience went down - the sport's new owner commented on this, with the likely aim of renegotiating revenues.

Subscription services help big sports to thrive, and it's been proven time after time. I'm keen to see your examples of where it's killed any big sport in the past.

[London424]

K50 DEL said:

London424 said:

What's funnier is that you'll often hear the phrase 'diehard fan', when it comes to F1. Yet demonstrate the least amount of willingness to show it at many an opportunity.

I may well qualify as one of those, I watch all 3 practise sessions, quali and the race (and usually all the buildup to both) for every round of the season, I also often watch the extra shows based around F1 (legends of F1 etc) yet I refuse to pay a Sky subscription and choose to watch using other methods.

My reasoning for this is a question of value for money, it's quite common for the TV in my house not to be turned on inbetween race weekends, I already feel that the nearly £150 I pay each year in license fees is more than enough to cover the races and I refuse to pay hundreds of pounds a year for channels I'll never watch purely so that I can get the F1 channel.

I think it was said earlier in this thread, the charging structure for television is broken in this country and unless it's sorted fairly soon then I suspect TV services as we currently know them will cease to exist.

Not to pick on you but you prove my point entirely. You say you're a die hard fan and you'll watch as much content as you can get your hands on. But you're actually unwilling to put any money into it. The fact you'd spend whatever it takes is what really sets out die hards vs the casual.