F1 on TV - 2019
Discussion
MissChief said:
It's not for sale? How can they buy something that Sky/Liberty/FOM don't have available? Jesus Wept!
Everything is for sale and contracts can be binned with the right motivation.Independence of the teams is crucial, and that is only possible through team sponsorship stacking up.
Teams have been struggling for sponsorship of late. When mass audiences were delivered via the BBC brands were banging on team doors to buy a placement.
sparta6 said:
The BBC should buy it for a knockdown price. Will keep all the sponsors happy.
Actually... the whole sponsorship thing works better with commercial TV. Car makers ads are screened during the ad breaks. Mercedes, Nissan, Hyundai i30N plus techie stuff like Nest are all there on CH4. You don’t get that with the BBC... someone mentioned high end stuff like Rolex is the sort of sponsorship F1 is about. Yes in terms of a bit of extra glam but Rolex sell anyway. Like Porsche, you see no general advertising for their products.sparta6 said:
MissChief said:
It's not for sale? How can they buy something that Sky/Liberty/FOM don't have available? Jesus Wept!
Everything is for sale and contracts can be binned with the right motivation.Independence of the teams is crucial, and that is only possible through team sponsorship stacking up.
Teams have been struggling for sponsorship of late. When mass audiences were delivered via the BBC brands were banging on team doors to buy a placement.
Liberty wants FTA coverage in the UK of some sort, it's just that Sky will need to be the ones to offer concessions to do it. Something they most certainly won't announce until perhaps days or a week or two before the opening race of 2019 so they can get all the sign ups and 18 month contracts from the new customers. They have ZERO incentive to even enter into discussions now, never mind be considering it.
The BBC have shown they have zero real interest in showing the F1, clearly it's not posh enough. The BBC is ruled by the middle and upper class who have no real interest in F1 and don't see any benefit in it at all. They all prefer the tennis!
MissChief said:
The BBC have shown they have zero real interest in showing the F1, clearly it's not posh enough. The BBC is ruled by the middle and upper class who have no real interest in F1 and don't see any benefit in it at all. They all prefer the tennis!
It's odd isn't it ?You would have thought that the BBC's Rolex wearing champagne socialists would be all over F1.
sparta6 said:
HighwayStar said:
Yes in terms of a bit of extra glam but Rolex sell anyway. Like Porsche, you see no general advertising for their products.
I see plenty of Rolex ads on a regular basis in publications.https://f1broadcasting.co/2017/06/22/bratches-libe...
"As Bratches alludes to, Formula 1’s outfits should benefit financially from the Sky contract, helping to offset the loss of viewers and sponsors, which was a concern when the deal was first announced. Estimates produced by this site suggested that each team could gain around £6 million per season depending on how the revenue generated is distributed, and assuming the teams see every single penny".
How many people will shell out for Sky remains to be seen. I love F1 and would likely pay for a quality service just for F1. Paying for a load of channels of stuff I don't want to get it though. That's not going to happen.
sparta6 said:
MissChief said:
It's not for sale? How can they buy something that Sky/Liberty/FOM don't have available? Jesus Wept!
Everything is for sale and contracts can be binned with the right motivation.Independence of the teams is crucial, and that is only possible through team sponsorship stacking up.
Teams have been struggling for sponsorship of late. When mass audiences were delivered via the BBC brands were banging on team doors to buy a placement.
London424 said:
But as has been pointed out before...that doesn't make Liberty any money. If Liberty were to give it away to FTA channels somehow they need to fill the revenue gap. Got any ideas?
The point as I made earlier is that with sponsorship going directly to the teams then there is no requirement for F1 organisers to collect and distribute the money.Problem is if they have no intention to distribute the money from F1 being behind a paywall and the teams are starved of cash from sponsors then before too long there will be no F1 left to sell TV rights for.
The bottom line is though that F1 doesn't fit Sky's current model of bundling channels together because it cannot attract enough customers willing to pay for a huge amount of content they have no or just a passing interest in order to access a small amount of content they are interested in.
F1 can work on two tiers with a delayed FTA service and premium live coverage for a nominal fee that many more people would be willing to pay supplied directly rather through intermediaries. This is the model Liberty are aiming for.
Edited by r11co on Tuesday 19th June 07:44
r11co said:
London424 said:
But as has been pointed out before...that doesn't make Liberty any money. If Liberty were to give it away to FTA channels somehow they need to fill the revenue gap. Got any ideas?
The point as I made earlier is that with sponsorship going directly to the teams then there is no requirement for F1 organisers to collect and distribute the money.Problem is if they have no intention to distribute the money from F1 being behind a paywall and the teams are starved of cash from sponsors then before too long there will be no F1 left to sell TV rights for.
The bottom line is though that F1 doesn't fit Sky's current model of bundling channels together because it cannot attract enough customers willing to pay for a huge amount of content they have no or just a passing interest in order to access a small amount of content they are interested in.
F1 can work on two tiers with a delayed FTA service and premium live coverage for a nominal fee that many more people would be willing to pay supplied directly rather through intermediaries. This is the model Liberty are aiming for.
Edited by r11co on Tuesday 19th June 07:44
MissChief said:
They care more about China and the Far East where the economy is rapidly heating up and many millions of people are becoming richer and better off than they've ever been and they have more disposable income.
Have you watched the news today? Nothing is certain by any means.MissChief said:
As has also been said, sponsors don't hugely care about potential viewers in the UK, the UK isn't where their focus is at the moment. They care more about China and the Far East where the economy is rapidly heating up and many millions of people are becoming richer and better off than they've ever been and they have more disposable income. That's where Rolex, Vodafone and Mercedes want to advertise to. And the teams won't mind so much either as the extra money coming in from a pay TV deal will offset the lower payments from Sponsors.
So people keep repeating, but I mentioned consumer level brands like Sure/Rexona, Kaspersky, Johnnie Walker etc. who are absolutely competing for sales in the UK and Europe because that is their bread-and-butter markets. Fall out of the public eye even for a short time and someone else will be along to take their place. These are the companies putting their names on the cars rather than the billboards or the GPs. They absolutely rely on eyes-on for exposure and return on their investment, and are the companies the teams look to to keep them independent from the need to negotiate with F1 management for handouts.As an aside (but related to the above) there are companies that process the footage from F1 race coverage (and other sporting events) using automated character and logo recognition to work out exactly how much airtime a sponsor's branding is getting so that they know if they are getting value for their money. The metric produced is multiplied by the reported total viewing figures in each market.
Edited by r11co on Wednesday 20th June 11:26
r11co said:
London424 said:
But as has been pointed out before...that doesn't make Liberty any money. If Liberty were to give it away to FTA channels somehow they need to fill the revenue gap. Got any ideas?
The point as I made earlier is that with sponsorship going directly to the teams then there is no requirement for F1 organisers to collect and distribute the money.Problem is if they have no intention to distribute the money from F1 being behind a paywall and the teams are starved of cash from sponsors then before too long there will be no F1 left to sell TV rights for.
The bottom line is though that F1 doesn't fit Sky's current model of bundling channels together because it cannot attract enough customers willing to pay for a huge amount of content they have no or just a passing interest in order to access a small amount of content they are interested in.
F1 can work on two tiers with a delayed FTA service and premium live coverage for a nominal fee that many more people would be willing to pay supplied directly rather through intermediaries. This is the model Liberty are aiming for.
Edited by r11co on Tuesday 19th June 07:44
In your model you are asking them to give up a load of money.
London424 said:
Liberty aren't a not for profit charity! They aren't just collecting and redistributing...they are making money.
In your model you are asking them to give up a load of money.
No I am not. Liberty have already worked out that they can sell the product direct - it is what they do as they are a rival to Sky/Fox in the entertainment distribution business. It was the previous owners who had to rely on third parties for distribution of the sport and took fees in return for the rights to do so. They knew that indirectly the teams had to survive by selling their own sponsorship (which is why Bernie insisted on a FTA presence) but latterly put that requirement aside in return for an inflated sum from a TV company that could if they wanted to put the product behind a paywall as they were 'fattening the cow' for selling and were no longer considering the sport's long-term welfare.In your model you are asking them to give up a load of money.
It was a cash boost that will not be repeated as Sky will never bid that amount again unless there is another bidding war, which is unlikely if value diminishes through the lack of exposure. The last time these rights were negotiated was peak value for them IMO. Sky know this and Liberty know this.
The difference will be that Liberty will be able to target the product at the fans and sell to more of them at less cost making the package more attractive which is their main interest because the sport belongs to them and growing it is what they need to do to get back their investment. This is why they have vocalised their unhappiness about the contracts they inherited.
Sky bought F1 as a spoiler to persuade existing customers of their increasingly out-dated model of pay TV to stick with them rather than jump to (seller of similarly outdated model of pay-TV) rivals BT.
We will never know for sure, but I would be willing to bet that the number of extra customers signing up to Sky as a result of 2019 F1 will be in the hundreds of thousands rather than the millions as the cost is prohibitive because of the bundles of other s
t you are obliged to pay for along with it. As I said - look to Italy where Sky were slashing their costs and announcing FTA F1 days before the season began. If they were inundated with new subscribers that would not have happened (and Italy was starting from a bigger fan base than the UK).Edited by r11co on Wednesday 20th June 12:56
MissChief said:
Sky's 'increasingly outdated model' has seen them gain customers every quarter for over three years now. Hardly 'outdated'!
Who then stay customers by threatening to leave and stay because Sky slash their package price rather than letting them walk. Sky’s real fear is Netflix, Amazon and Apple. They are all on the move and are awash with money. It’s why Sky and BT have done their deal to make each other’s sports channels available on the others platforms next year. Enemies and allies. TV is changing and they are having to adapt.
MissChief said:
Sky's 'increasingly outdated model' has seen them gain customers every quarter for over three years now. Hardly 'outdated'!
Has it?The headline figures quoted probably tend to include customers who are not traditional TV subscribers - Sky have a lot of broadband / telephone customers as well - and they don't necessarily take any TV subscription packages.
BARB tends to show the number of households with 'traditional' Sky TV subscriptions as very slowly declining over the last few years.
So that would suggest that any net increase in customers is coming from newer forms of business and that the 'increasingly outdated model'. However that doesn't mean the traditional model is dead - and it doesn't mean that there isn't the opportunity to increase the revenue from those customers even if their numbers are static or declining.
HighwayStar said:
Who then stay customers by threatening to leave and stay because Sky slash their package price rather than letting them walk.
Sky’s real fear is Netflix, Amazon and Apple. They are all on the move and are awash with money. It’s why Sky and BT have done their deal to make each other’s sports channels available on the others platforms next year. Enemies and allies. TV is changing and they are having to adapt.
Sky have also done a deal with Netflix to offer it as part of a Sky subscription and integrate it into the TV guide for the first time anywhere. Sky’s real fear is Netflix, Amazon and Apple. They are all on the move and are awash with money. It’s why Sky and BT have done their deal to make each other’s sports channels available on the others platforms next year. Enemies and allies. TV is changing and they are having to adapt.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff