F1 on TV - 2019
Discussion
MissChief said:
Agreed. I've said before, Vodafone, Rolex and Mercedes/Ferrari aren't hugely bothered by a small drop in viewers in a 'mature' country when the amount of disposable income in China and the far East is rising at a much faster rate than ever before. Those are the people they're concentrating on and I wouldn't be surprised to see another race in the far east at some point. Vietnam or Thailand are likely. There are people getting richer there with more disposable income than ever before and it's those people Mercedes, Rolex and Vodafone want to advertise to.
I keep seeing the above getting trotted out, but it seems like a pre-packaged excuse for short-term exploitation of an existing image at the expense of it not existing at all in future. We've had this discussion dozens of times over - sports like F1, golf et al only have a premium image because of heritage and heritage is built up over generations. New market audiences are buying into the heritage, so it is really about cashing in on the audience support built up over the years when access to the sport was easier (and relatively free).For football the pay-wall has worked because (a) you get literally hundreds of hours of it every week for your money and (b) the interest is built on youngsters being taken to see a local game by their parents.
No matter - F1 is not going to be exclusive to Sky pay-to-view in the UK in 2019. There will be a free-to-air offering.
Eric Mc said:
I actually think that pay TV in the Sky model is also on borrowed time. So, already we are seeing sports beginning to exploit other options such as internet streaming etc.
I'm not so sure Eric. I've no doubt it will change a bit but the fundamental notion of paying to watch a specific programme is here to stay as it is a principal aspect in the economics of the sports that are viewed through it.I'm not a football fan at all but have just finished reading Alex Ferguson's book; Leading, in which he talks about how TV money completely transformed the sport in the 90s and how it underpins it today. The same applies to F1 so any transition in the way we access it will always come at a price and that beyond which the BBC are prepared or willing to pay. We are all watching TV today in an entirely different way compared to the past and sport is just responding (and capitalising) on this.
Commercially it makes sense as the paradox is that a smaller but more subject-engaged audience that you get with pay-per-view carries a far higher rate card price for advertising space than more generic programme scheduling. And also worth noting that F1 as with most sports, is a global thing. The debate in the UK is slightly skewed as a result of us having the BBC whereas in almost all other countries, commercial and subscription based TV has been the norm and only choice for a great many years.
Of course the counter argument is that if TV revenue fell, the amount available to the teams would fall forcing them to operate at a reduced budget - but it wouldn't because a) the manufacturer teams would continue to spend what they do because they have the means to do so (thus creating an even bigger divide that exists at present) and b) free market enterprise dictates that money will be found from elsewhere.
From a viewers point of view, it all comes down to value and quality. That's determined by the sporting completion that you are viewing and the quality of the broadcast. Personally, I'm greatly enjoying the F1 season this year and Sky continue to provide what I think is an excellent channel and programming through which to watch it. If there's a drop off in either, then I may reconsider, as would many others and this, one would hope, is what keeps everyone on their toes.
Equating football/soccer with F1 is never realistic in my opinion.
Football is genuinely "the world game" watched and played by millions (maybe even billions).
F1 most definitely is not in that category and anyone who thinks it can operate and behave in the same way as football is delusional (and that includes some at the top of the sport).
Other more comparable sports are having second thoughts about restricting TV access to viewers. We shall see how F1 does in its attempts to stop people watching it. I am sure they will succeed in reducing their audiences as that seems to be the current strategy.
Football is genuinely "the world game" watched and played by millions (maybe even billions).
F1 most definitely is not in that category and anyone who thinks it can operate and behave in the same way as football is delusional (and that includes some at the top of the sport).
Other more comparable sports are having second thoughts about restricting TV access to viewers. We shall see how F1 does in its attempts to stop people watching it. I am sure they will succeed in reducing their audiences as that seems to be the current strategy.
rscott said:
The PGA aren't that bothered - they decided not to renew their deal with Sky and went with Elevensports. They might get a few £ more for the rights, but have a tiny audience (Elevensports has no smart Tv app, no carriage deal with Sky or Virgin and doesn't support AirPlay2/Chromecast yet, so can only be viewed on mobile/tablet/pc) .
The PGA is not the entirety of golf. Eric Mc said:
Equating football/soccer with F1 is never realistic in my opinion.
I don't disagree but the same basic economic framework applies.Up until the early 90s, football was reliant upon ticket sales, shirt (and pitch side) advertising and merchandising revenue. There was no commercial arrangement between the teams and broadcasters. The same applied to F1 (although I think they started to sell the rights to broadcast sooner than other sports).
As pay TV took hold, this created a brand new revenue stream that didn't exists previously so either reducing a dependancy on ticket sales, sponsorship, etc...or adding to it enabling rapid business growth.
I recall reading an article in F1 Racing magazine around the time of the sports first foray into digital TV (late 90s I think) that explained the potential and aim to generate sufficient revenues from global TV rights to enable teams to exist without sponsorship; running national racing colours or whatever.
Sky have recently dropped their subscriptions for a limited time.
I priced up getting it again and it works out £57 a month for:
2tb sky q box
HD and UHD on everything
mini box and multi room subscription
entertainment pack
boxsets
full sports package (inc HD/UHD)
that used to be nearly £80 which made me cancel and go the channel 4 > ipad > airplay > apple tv route previously but we are considering it again..
I priced up getting it again and it works out £57 a month for:
2tb sky q box
HD and UHD on everything
mini box and multi room subscription
entertainment pack
boxsets
full sports package (inc HD/UHD)
that used to be nearly £80 which made me cancel and go the channel 4 > ipad > airplay > apple tv route previously but we are considering it again..
StevieBee said:
I don't disagree but the same basic economic framework applies.
Up until the early 90s, football was reliant upon ticket sales, shirt (and pitch side) advertising and merchandising revenue. There was no commercial arrangement between the teams and broadcasters. The same applied to F1 (although I think they started to sell the rights to broadcast sooner than other sports).
As pay TV took hold, this created a brand new revenue stream that didn't exists previously so either reducing a dependancy on ticket sales, sponsorship, etc...or adding to it enabling rapid business growth.
I recall reading an article in F1 Racing magazine around the time of the sports first foray into digital TV (late 90s I think) that explained the potential and aim to generate sufficient revenues from global TV rights to enable teams to exist without sponsorship; running national racing colours or whatever.
No point in drawing parallels. Football is WAY ahead if F1 (and motorsport in general) when it comes to audiences. Up until the early 90s, football was reliant upon ticket sales, shirt (and pitch side) advertising and merchandising revenue. There was no commercial arrangement between the teams and broadcasters. The same applied to F1 (although I think they started to sell the rights to broadcast sooner than other sports).
As pay TV took hold, this created a brand new revenue stream that didn't exists previously so either reducing a dependancy on ticket sales, sponsorship, etc...or adding to it enabling rapid business growth.
I recall reading an article in F1 Racing magazine around the time of the sports first foray into digital TV (late 90s I think) that explained the potential and aim to generate sufficient revenues from global TV rights to enable teams to exist without sponsorship; running national racing colours or whatever.
Trying to turn motorsport into football doesn't work. It's even been tried - and it fell on its face - as everyone predicted.
Eric Mc said:
Yes - I've started watching the F1 you tube channel to keep abreast of what has happened. I don't even want to bother with Channel 4 highlights as they tend to be on fairly late.
Just watched this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXg1sGWpLlQCrikey! The sky commentator is very shouty - not sure I could watch/listen to much more of that.
LordGrover said:
Eric Mc said:
Yes - I've started watching the F1 you tube channel to keep abreast of what has happened. I don't even want to bother with Channel 4 highlights as they tend to be on fairly late.
Just watched this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXg1sGWpLlQCrikey! The sky commentator is very shouty - not sure I could watch/listen to much more of that.
StevieBee said:
Nope. Was just pointing out the economic reasoning is the same. The application of it is very different.
I'm not sure that the economic reasoning, at least as far as F1 going PPV, is the same. Whatever the reason for opting for sole TV rights in the UK to Sky, it was not in the interests of long term viability, or even profitability. At the very least it is a risk, and one that it is likely that the current holders of the rights to F1 wished hadn't been taken.F1 is the premier formula because it has the cachet of ultimate. This is reinforced 20 times a year by each race. If people don't see it, not even 10 races pa, then its hold on the imagination falters. Further, and most importantly, with other avenues of broadcasting opening, where's the new blood going to come from?
Media coverage of F1 has fallen in recent years. Various newspapers cover it to a limited extent, but much of what they report is put out by F1 itself; little more than press releases. Autosport covers it in depth, and is mined for any pre-race column, but at 18k, it is hardly being read by the masses.
The main problem is that it leaves a gap. If enthusiasts are lucky it might be filled by another race series, but I doubt it. I was at the British GT series a month ago and there were no crowds fighting to get in. It'll be different at the BTCC next month, but I wonder by how much. Rockingham closing helps other circuits to an extent, but it's hardly a positive move.
I'm planning to see the WEC next year, Silverstone Classic, GFoS and the Revival, with one or two club events or lower series. I'll miss F1 live, but I wonder by how much. <7 minutes of highlights from Spa on YT, and some of them were not exactly riveting. There was the crash at the start then various replays, which took up two minutes. Four minutes later we see Vettel cross the line unthreatened. Further, a pit stop is not all that exciting on replay. There were four or five of them, and even with how quick each was, that's still another couple of minutes gone.
The race was interesting if not thrilling. On YT is was all rather naff. Not the sort of stuff to get people to fork out money for Monza. Yet this is a most exciting season.
I'll still pay out next year, although not for the full season, but then I paid for Sky when they ran side by side with ITV. I'm a nerd.
Whoever decided it was a good thing to go PPV in the UK needs a good kicking.
Derek Smith said:
I'm not sure that the economic reasoning, at least as far as F1 going PPV, is the same. Whatever the reason for opting for sole TV rights in the UK to Sky, it was not in the interests of long term viability, or even profitability. At the very least it is a risk, and one that it is likely that the current holders of the rights to F1 wished hadn't been taken.
F1 is the premier formula because it has the cachet of ultimate. This is reinforced 20 times a year by each race. If people don't see it, not even 10 races pa, then its hold on the imagination falters. Further, and most importantly, with other avenues of broadcasting opening, where's the new blood going to come from?
The concept of PPV (which as you will probably know, started with Rumble in the Jungle fight) is that it offers enthusiastic viewers the opportunity of exclusive coverage, often live for which they are prepared to pay a premium for. The broadcasters get double bubble; both the subscription and the ability to charge more to advertisers by virtue of the ability of more precise targeting. Promoters can then charge a higher broadcast fee to generate additional revenue for themselves and the participants. This applies across all sports.F1 is the premier formula because it has the cachet of ultimate. This is reinforced 20 times a year by each race. If people don't see it, not even 10 races pa, then its hold on the imagination falters. Further, and most importantly, with other avenues of broadcasting opening, where's the new blood going to come from?
However, I do agree (potentially) with your point about new blood. The downside to PPV is that excludes the casual viewer - interested but nothing more. But casual viewers are those that turn into enthusiastic ones. This is certainly a risk.
The anticipated benefit to F1 (and part of what drove the initial direction towards PPV) was that the revenue would compensate for the loss of tobacco sponsorship and lessen the need for sponsorship full stop. Whilst this has in part happened, the big issue here is that the dispersal of the revenue is not exactly 'fair' although the largest recipients might argue otherwise.
At the moment, it is difficult to see the popularity in F1 waining. As I mentioned earlier, Silverstone, Monza, Spa, etc, seem to have little trouble filling stands and spectator banking. But I agree entirely that there exists the risk.
Derek Smith said:
Media coverage of F1 has fallen in recent years. Various newspapers cover it to a limited extent, but much of what they report is put out by F1 itself; little more than press releases. Autosport covers it in depth, and is mined for any pre-race column, but at 18k, it is hardly being read by the masses.
Two reasons for this. One is a legacy of the previous 'owners' (CVC) that charged a fortune for news outlets to show footage of F1. So if BBC. ITV wanted to show Lewis winning a GP, they'd have to pay a huge fee for a 10 second clip to levels that rendered it not worth it so coverage slipped down the list of priorities. I believe Liberty have lessened this but the damage has been done and will take a while to reverse.In other media, the coverage of sports they cover is skewed by the rise of online gambling, the companies of which spend a lot on advertising in papers and websites and want to see those sports upon which people bet the most given greater coverage. Not that many people bet on F1. So the papers only cover big F1 stories and crashes (Expect to see a lot of big back page pictures of Marcus Ericsson tomorrow!!)
Some interesting discussion on the number of spectators at other event over in the General Motorsport / Rockingham to Close thread.
HustleRussell said:
budgie smuggler said:
Bugger, I thought Ch4 highlights were confirmed, apparently not:
C4 might not, but whisper films mightMissChief said:
HustleRussell said:
budgie smuggler said:
Bugger, I thought Ch4 highlights were confirmed, apparently not:
C4 might not, but whisper films mightJust done a quote on Sky seems to want £38 a month for 18 months so 450 a year. No thank you
Ashtray83 said:
Just watch it online for free, a quick google brings up lots of options
You know, I just cannot be arsed to jump through a few hoops like that just to watch F1 any more. The racing is processional and mostly uninteresting, the drivers are mostly primadonnas, the cars look absolutely ridiculous and the Formula is jammed well and truly up it's own backside. It just really isn't an interesting form of motor sport to me any more. Sky are just helping to kill the sport in the UK and doing a bloody good job of it at that.Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff