F1 owners say UK paywall TV deal they have inherited is detr
Discussion
El stovey said:
F1 desperately needs some short forms of the sport mixed in with the longer races.
The current length of F1 races are short forms of the sport. 90 mins is seen as the norm for attention spans. If they make the races shorter then the TV companies will not want to pay so much. If they run two races of 45 mins, then half the viewers will find something else to do for the second race.
I can see some races being shortened. The 2hr max might go, but beyond that I think it's about as short as it can be.
C70R said:
I'm still intrigued as how much you think it should cost for an entire race weekend worth of coverage. Give me a rough 'per race' or annual figure that you would be willing to pay to support a sport that you are passionate about. £1 per race for streaming is cloud-cuckoo unrealistic, btw.
(For example, if I support a mid-tier Premier League football team, I might pay the same £480 subscription a year to watch my team 10-15 times)
I'm prepared to pay ~ 5 GBP per race weekend if there are no hoops to jump through. Less if not watching live. Also would like just pressing a button on a platform that already has my credit card details (Amazon, Netflix, Google) and being able to watch live where ever I might happen to be on this globe at the time. Not interested in the football comparison, that sport does nothing for me and I don't see F1 nearly in the same league (pun intended) regarding global reach. (For example, if I support a mid-tier Premier League football team, I might pay the same £480 subscription a year to watch my team 10-15 times)
C70R said:
Being 'premium' sporting content (like Premier League football and rugby), we need to accept that the days of getting it as a freebie with the TV licence fee are long gone.
Fully agree regarding the TV license fee. It's not the job of public funded TV to broadcast expensive (niche) sports. That's a deal for a private broadcaster to make with the rights holder. Some of those get their money back via advertising. Others do so with a subscription fee. Personally, I'm not prepared to pay for something as antiquated as linear TV that also locks me into a contract, does not even allow me to watch a recording on my iPad or let me keep a copy on my PC.C70R said:
As for the "cumbersome" bit, I'm confused. I have Sky Sports and a Direct Debit, and thus don't need to do anything to make F1 appear on my TV 20 times a year. As for NowTV, you type in a code in to activate a Sports weekend subscription. No more complex than making a post on PH, and certainly not going to be too taxing to do 20 times a year.
Hm. I receive German FTA TV via IPTV, and UK TV via Freesat. Both are made visible on the living room screen by a Linux based 'roll-your own' PVR. If I wanted Sky Sports, I would have to sign some contract, pay, install another DVB-S receiver and run some extra cabling to the dish. Huge pain in the posterior for not much value. Nobody I know under 35 really watches much TV any more. And even the blokes in that age bracket aren't terribly interested in cars. So we have is a subject (motor racing) that is getting less and less public interest, on a dying medium (linear TV). And you think it is a good idea to put that behind a pay wall?
If sensible, Liberty will manage to get F1 onto as many FTA broadcasters menu as possible -- while they sort out their streaming strategy.
Kolbenkopp said:
Nobody I know under 35 really watches much TV any more. And even the blokes in that age bracket aren't terribly interested in cars. So we have is a subject (motor racing) that is getting less and less public interest, on a dying medium (linear TV). And you think it is a good idea to put that behind a pay wall?
They are nice anecdotes and all, but they don't really reflect the reality. People are still making an appointment to view major live sporting events, and there is a ripe market of car enthusiasts under 40.On the point of your convoluted approach to receiving UK Sky TV, I think we can safely say that Liberty didn't have you in mind when they were negotiating their UK TV deal...
Kolbenkopp said:
Hm. I receive German FTA TV via IPTV, and UK TV via Freesat. Both are made visible on the living room screen by a Linux based 'roll-your own' PVR. If I wanted Sky Sports, I would have to sign some contract, pay, install another DVB-S receiver and run some extra cabling to the dish. Huge pain in the posterior for not much value.
Nobody I know under 35 really watches much TV any more. And even the blokes in that age bracket aren't terribly interested in cars. So we have is a subject (motor racing) that is getting less and less public interest, on a dying medium (linear TV). And you think it is a good idea to put that behind a pay wall?
If sensible, Liberty will manage to get F1 onto as many FTA broadcasters menu as possible -- while they sort out their streaming strategy.
Most people I know under 35 watchNobody I know under 35 really watches much TV any more. And even the blokes in that age bracket aren't terribly interested in cars. So we have is a subject (motor racing) that is getting less and less public interest, on a dying medium (linear TV). And you think it is a good idea to put that behind a pay wall?
If sensible, Liberty will manage to get F1 onto as many FTA broadcasters menu as possible -- while they sort out their streaming strategy.
1. Horse racing
2. cricket
3. Football
4. Rugby
5. Boxing
Most view it on TV (many illegally on the PPv I must add) but most do mix it up and go to live sports too
F1 isn't really mentioned apart from a few
Le Mans however certainly is plenty have been - none watch it live on TV I must add.
C70R said:
They are nice anecdotes and all, but they don't really reflect the reality. People are still making an appointment to view major live sporting events, and there is a ripe market of car enthusiasts under 40.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35399658People watching live TV is declining and the younger generations just aren't bothering.
Streaming to point of demand is critical if you are going to keep that audience demographic.
Sky TV, etc will remain, but the subscription channels in their current form will probably die over time.
Anyone saying that F1 has decreasing relevance today should take a look at the hashtag #BritishGP on Twitter. It is absolutely lit up and is the top trending hashtag right now.
C70R said:
They are nice anecdotes and all, but they don't really reflect the reality. People are still making an appointment to view major live sporting events, and there is a ripe market of car enthusiasts under 40.
On the point of your convoluted approach to receiving UK Sky TV, I think we can safely say that Liberty didn't have you in mind when they were negotiating their UK TV deal...
Yup -- agree on the point that I'm not a target customer for Sky UK. But would also refer back to the thread title that Liberty aren't really happy with the deal they somehow inherited. On the point of your convoluted approach to receiving UK Sky TV, I think we can safely say that Liberty didn't have you in mind when they were negotiating their UK TV deal...
And I still don't see any reason why big sports events are bound to end up behind pay-wall linear TV services. The technical platform with broadcast over cable or sat is totally outdated and the whole linear TV business is bound to decline continuously. Sure people still like to watch live events, but they would like to do so over more flexible, convenient and cheaper media than the current stuff that is locked into a subscription and only available in their living room for the brief moment of the live event.
About the sport profiting from the huge influx of pay-TV money... The people in the respective business certainly like that, especially the players in e.g. football. But I doubt it has made the game any more interesting to watch than it was before pay-TV. Which simply means a fan has to pay (a lot) more for getting the same quality entertainment that was once enjoyed free.
That's a pretty one sided business model. Hence, IMO, the traditional pay TV stuff will collapse fairly soon. More or less at the point when one of the big streaming companies decides to buy out football in a major market.
For Liberty and F1, this only opens up opportunities. They can catch the youngsters trying to decide to fire up either Forza or Gran Turismo on a Sunday afternoon -- or to watch F1 for *small* fee. Securing their future viewer base and massively expanding their reach. To the delight of viewers and sponsors alike.
ClockworkCupcake said:
Anyone saying that F1 has decreasing relevance today should take a look at the hashtag #BritishGP on Twitter. It is absolutely lit up and is the top trending hashtag right now.
A lot of casuals that wouldnt normally watch the sport make a point of tuning in for the home event though, same with wimbledon or the embassy etc etc.Although it shows interest remains, its a bit of a mob mentality, whether you can convert them to regular viewers...
hairyben said:
ClockworkCupcake said:
Anyone saying that F1 has decreasing relevance today should take a look at the hashtag #BritishGP on Twitter. It is absolutely lit up and is the top trending hashtag right now.
A lot of casuals that wouldnt normally watch the sport make a point of tuning in for the home event though, same with wimbledon or the embassy etc etc.(plus, I'd wager that a huge proportion of those hashtags didn't originate from the UK)
Kolbenkopp said:
C70R said:
They are nice anecdotes and all, but they don't really reflect the reality. People are still making an appointment to view major live sporting events, and there is a ripe market of car enthusiasts under 40.
On the point of your convoluted approach to receiving UK Sky TV, I think we can safely say that Liberty didn't have you in mind when they were negotiating their UK TV deal...
Yup -- agree on the point that I'm not a target customer for Sky UK. But would also refer back to the thread title that Liberty aren't really happy with the deal they somehow inherited. On the point of your convoluted approach to receiving UK Sky TV, I think we can safely say that Liberty didn't have you in mind when they were negotiating their UK TV deal...
And I still don't see any reason why big sports events are bound to end up behind pay-wall linear TV services. The technical platform with broadcast over cable or sat is totally outdated and the whole linear TV business is bound to decline continuously. Sure people still like to watch live events, but they would like to do so over more flexible, convenient and cheaper media than the current stuff that is locked into a subscription and only available in their living room for the brief moment of the live event.
About the sport profiting from the huge influx of pay-TV money... The people in the respective business certainly like that, especially the players in e.g. football. But I doubt it has made the game any more interesting to watch than it was before pay-TV. Which simply means a fan has to pay (a lot) more for getting the same quality entertainment that was once enjoyed free.
That's a pretty one sided business model. Hence, IMO, the traditional pay TV stuff will collapse fairly soon. More or less at the point when one of the big streaming companies decides to buy out football in a major market.
For Liberty and F1, this only opens up opportunities. They can catch the youngsters trying to decide to fire up either Forza or Gran Turismo on a Sunday afternoon -- or to watch F1 for *small* fee. Securing their future viewer base and massively expanding their reach. To the delight of viewers and sponsors alike.
This can be done on laptop/PC, Android/iOS mobile device and a whole host of connected devices (including games consoles and smart TVs).
What more exactly do you want them to do?
Vaud said:
C70R said:
They are nice anecdotes and all, but they don't really reflect the reality. People are still making an appointment to view major live sporting events, and there is a ripe market of car enthusiasts under 40.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35399658People watching live TV is declining and the younger generations just aren't bothering.
Streaming to point of demand is critical if you are going to keep that audience demographic.
Sky TV, etc will remain, but the subscription channels in their current form will probably die over time.
It's indisputable that general live TV viewing is declining - that's been a well-observed trend for 5+ years. However, people are still making time for major sporting events.
C70R said:
Vaud said:
C70R said:
They are nice anecdotes and all, but they don't really reflect the reality. People are still making an appointment to view major live sporting events, and there is a ripe market of car enthusiasts under 40.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35399658People watching live TV is declining and the younger generations just aren't bothering.
Streaming to point of demand is critical if you are going to keep that audience demographic.
Sky TV, etc will remain, but the subscription channels in their current form will probably die over time.
It's indisputable that general live TV viewing is declining - that's been a well-observed trend for 5+ years. However, people are still making time for major sporting events.
Vaud said:
C70R said:
They are nice anecdotes and all, but they don't really reflect the reality. People are still making an appointment to view major live sporting events, and there is a ripe market of car enthusiasts under 40.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35399658People watching live TV is declining and the younger generations just aren't bothering.
Streaming to point of demand is critical if you are going to keep that audience demographic.
Sky TV, etc will remain, but the subscription channels in their current form will probably die over time.
34 Yr old = nothing but games and i meen if the TV is on so is the PS4/X box/whatever he bought this week, he has his own virgin box but only records the series he likes and never watches it "live" basicly anything manga or marvel other wise he's not even remotly interested.
24 Yr old = youtube and web, he has his own YT channel and is a gamer like his bro (and dad)
27 Yr old, YT or streaming via netfilix, also has her own YT channel, does not own a gmaes consol,
non of them even have an arial plugged into thier TV, Me?
47 Yr old = i have freeview (no cable) but only watch maybe an hour a day, YouTube 4 to 6 hours in the eve and web streaming mainly when there's an F1 race on, i plays games sometimes, even my mum (78) only watches on demand/recorded programs from cable or YT, in fact of all the people i know who's viewing habbits i know of only the 2 90+ yr olds watch "live" TV cos they cant work out how to do otherwise (too old to learn/crazy as a box of frogs)
S0 What said:
Vaud said:
C70R said:
They are nice anecdotes and all, but they don't really reflect the reality. People are still making an appointment to view major live sporting events, and there is a ripe market of car enthusiasts under 40.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35399658People watching live TV is declining and the younger generations just aren't bothering.
Streaming to point of demand is critical if you are going to keep that audience demographic.
Sky TV, etc will remain, but the subscription channels in their current form will probably die over time.
34 Yr old = nothing but games and i meen if the TV is on so is the PS4/X box/whatever he bought this week, he has his own virgin box but only records the series he likes and never watches it "live" basicly anything manga or marvel other wise he's not even remotly interested.
24 Yr old = youtube and web, he has his own YT channel and is a gamer like his bro (and dad)
27 Yr old, YT or streaming via netfilix, also has her own YT channel, does not own a gmaes consol,
non of them even have an arial plugged into thier TV, Me?
47 Yr old = i have freeview (no cable) but only watch maybe an hour a day, YouTube 4 to 6 hours in the eve and web streaming mainly when there's an F1 race on, i plays games sometimes, even my mum (78) only watches on demand/recorded programs from cable or YT, in fact of all the people i know who's viewing habbits i know of only the 2 90+ yr olds watch "live" TV cos they cant work out how to do otherwise (too old to learn/crazy as a box of frogs)
ETA: To be clear, you (and a lot of people in this thread) are MASSIVE outliers.
c.87% of TV content is currently viewed live, even though we're on a slowly declining trend. (I bet that's a lot higher than most thought)
Source: http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing-data/catch-up-and-li...
Edited by C70R on Tuesday 18th July 15:20
C70R said:
5-7hrs in front of a screen at home per day???
ETA: To be clear, you (and a lot of people in this thread) are MASSIVE outliers.
c.87% of TV content is currently viewed live, even though we're on a slowly declining trend. (I bet that's a lot higher than most thought)
Source: http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing-data/catch-up-and-li...
Did you get a chance to read the link?ETA: To be clear, you (and a lot of people in this thread) are MASSIVE outliers.
c.87% of TV content is currently viewed live, even though we're on a slowly declining trend. (I bet that's a lot higher than most thought)
Source: http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing-data/catch-up-and-li...
Edited by C70R on Tuesday 18th July 15:20
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35399658
The coming generations are already switching away from live TV. Not outliers.
Vaud said:
C70R said:
5-7hrs in front of a screen at home per day???
ETA: To be clear, you (and a lot of people in this thread) are MASSIVE outliers.
c.87% of TV content is currently viewed live, even though we're on a slowly declining trend. (I bet that's a lot higher than most thought)
Source: http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing-data/catch-up-and-li...
Did you get a chance to read the link?ETA: To be clear, you (and a lot of people in this thread) are MASSIVE outliers.
c.87% of TV content is currently viewed live, even though we're on a slowly declining trend. (I bet that's a lot higher than most thought)
Source: http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing-data/catch-up-and-li...
Edited by C70R on Tuesday 18th July 15:20
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35399658
The coming generations are already switching away from live TV. Not outliers.
- People aren't watching live sporting events: Yes, they are. 200m+ (and growing) watched the SuperBowl.
- Most people don't watch live TV: Yes, they do. 87% of all TV content in the UK is watched live.
- Under-16s are still watching more than 2hrs of TV a day.
- 62% of under-16s do most of their TV viewing live.
Edited by C70R on Tuesday 18th July 15:34
C70R said:
I wasn't disputing that, or really discussing it in general. I was addressing two (erroneous) points in previous posts:
It's quite interesting, and something I have noticed lately. - People aren't watching live sporting events: Yes, they are. 200m+ (and growing) watched the SuperBowl.
- Most people don't watch live TV: Yes, they do. 87% of all TV content in the UK is watched live.
- Under-16s are still watching more than 2hrs of TV a day.
- 62% of under-16s do most of their TV viewing live.
My theory is that the return to watching TV live is down to one thing - Social Media.
We went through a stage of watching most TV time delayed. For something like Top Gear, so long as you'd managed to watch it by work next day for the inevitable Water Cooler conversations, you were fine. And it didn't matter *too* much if you just said "I haven't watched it yet".
But these days, a lot of people like to live tweet live TV - comment on it in real time. A shared experience. We even have something similar here when people like to post live on the F1 thread whilst a race is running, whilst also getting Live Timing etc.
I think it's this kind of thing that is pulling TV back into a live thing again, away from On Demand.
However, for repeats and for films, I think On Demand is the way things will go almost exclusively.
ClockworkCupcake said:
C70R said:
I wasn't disputing that, or really discussing it in general. I was addressing two (erroneous) points in previous posts:
It's quite interesting, and something I have noticed lately. - People aren't watching live sporting events: Yes, they are. 200m+ (and growing) watched the SuperBowl.
- Most people don't watch live TV: Yes, they do. 87% of all TV content in the UK is watched live.
- Under-16s are still watching more than 2hrs of TV a day.
- 62% of under-16s do most of their TV viewing live.
My theory is that the return to watching TV live is down to one thing - Social Media.
We went through a stage of watching most TV time delayed. For something like Top Gear, so long as you'd managed to watch it by work next day for the inevitable Water Cooler conversations, you were fine. And it didn't matter *too* much if you just said "I haven't watched it yet".
But these days, a lot of people like to live tweet live TV - comment on it in real time. A shared experience. We even have something similar here when people like to post live on the F1 thread whilst a race is running, whilst also getting Live Timing etc.
I think it's this kind of thing that is pulling TV back into a live thing again, away from On Demand.
However, for repeats and for films, I think On Demand is the way things will go almost exclusively.
It drives interaction with content, which is key to maintaining shortening attention spans.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff