F1 TV audience dwindling.

[TheDeuce]

RDMcG said:

I've been watching F1 for most of my adult life, and have attended quite a few races.

I do still watch it, and enjoyed last year in general. Still, the performance differences between the few top teams and the rest are so marked that it is only in freak circumstances that some team will even be on the podium, let alone win. Thus we have the Mercedes-Ferrari-Red Bull and then a trailing group of also rans that are often just development teams for the very well financed leaders.

There is less tension because to a degree we all know after the first few races who will be dominant. I know this has happened in the past, but I wonder if new audiences will find this exciting. Also. the myriad technical rules and attempts to level things out such as DRS have not served to level the playing field. The amount of money it takes to win consistently is staggering.

I do hope F1 continues and improves, but I am of the opinion that interest is cars in general is on the decline. I know a surprising number of people who are 18-20 years old without driving licences. They live in cities and have web services. I hope I am completely wrong.

Regarding the gap in performance between the middle and the top teams.. I've ended up of the opinion that it's perhaps a problem that doesn't need solving. The teams want to win in F1 in order to promote their brand, and it's true that right now only 3 teams can do that. But because the gap is so big, because the rest have no chance at a title at all, then 4th place has become a very important placing in the WCC, and probably enough for most teams be considered very effective by their sponsors if they achieve it. The middle and the top teams are essentially two separate series running two separate races, albeit on the same circuits at the same time. Is that arrangement weird? Probably, but it's not 'bad' as a spectator imo.

As for the newer generations going off cars, I've noticed the same but I think the problem is the current level of criticism for all things wasteful and polluting. I don't think the core attraction to personal transport has waned, or that owning a car can no longer be something to feel proud of, it can be, it just has to be the right car. The right car the new kids want sadly hasn't existed for a generation now. The only ones that tick all the 'socially responsible' boxes are either shockingly undesirable in other ways, or shockingly expensive! That will change and the core attributes of speed, comfort, independence, individuality, adventure and privacy vs other forms of transport are all things that will continue to appeal. In any case, in motorsport the car is just the tool, the spectacle is speed/jeopardy/drama etc. Again, all things that appeal timelessly.

Having said all that, I do think F1 and other series are in for a punishing decade in the not too distant future. The general transition away from ICE is going to have to be embraced at some point by any form of motorsport that wants to remain current and mainstream. In the long term I can see people coming to terms with that, and the power source is not the core of sport at all, it can work whatever the power source. But in the medium term.. the transition period, whenever it gets underway, will no doubt be protracted and I think however they do it, some viewers will be lost and the criticisms will be endless.

[Eric Mc]

TheDeuce said:

I can see that it would have been a big visual difference, but I don't see why it's a bad thing, nor any different in principal than track side advertising. The money had to increase if the sport was to grow and develop as it has did in the following decades. It also enabled teams to enter the sport that didn't have the level of capital required to do so - didn't Frank Williams effectively bankroll the beginnings of WGPE by having sponsors lined up ahead of bringing the team together?

It began the modern era, which led to more money, more professionalism and made many people very wealthy. It effectively "industrialised" what had been for the previous 80 plus years, a large scale, high end, hobby.

I'll leave it up to others as to whether they look on that as a good or bad thing.

[TwentyFive]

TheDeuce said:

Regarding the gap in performance between the middle and the top teams.. I've ended up of the opinion that it's perhaps a problem that doesn't need solving. The teams want to win in F1 in order to promote their brand, and it's true that right now only 3 teams can do that. But because the gap is so big, because the rest have no chance at a title at all, then 4th place has become a very important placing in the WCC, and probably enough for most teams be considered very effective by their sponsors if they achieve it. The middle and the top teams are essentially two separate series running two separate races, albeit on the same circuits at the same time. Is that arrangement weird? Probably, but it's not 'bad' as a spectator imo.

I agree with that. A lot is made of the lack of teams winning and how that contributes to predictability and thus a lack of new fans but I just don't see how people believe that is any different to other sports. Look at the Premier League, its generally the same teams at the top of the table each year. Sure Leicester won it once, but so did Brawn in F1. Apart from those freak instances I would suggest that football is just as predictable as F1 but nobody seems to complain about that?

The wealth of a team normally dictates their targets irrespective of what sport they compete in. The biggest expect to win outright whereas smaller teams target certain places such as 4th in the WCC or maybe a Europa League place in football. You are ultimately competing with your financial peers rather than the entire field.

I believe F1 is very competitive as long as you watch it with the appreciation that everyone's target is different. A Williams in 10th is a competitive showing in the same way that Sheffield United are punching well above their weight in the PL at the moment.

Interestingly since the Premier League started their have been 6 different title winners, and in that same time frame there have been 8 different F1 constructors champions. It seems F1 is more competitive than people give it credit for in a sporting context. Where are the calls for football to reinvent itself due to predictability?

[TheDeuce]

Eric Mc said:

TheDeuce said:

I can see that it would have been a big visual difference, but I don't see why it's a bad thing, nor any different in principal than track side advertising. The money had to increase if the sport was to grow and develop as it has did in the following decades. It also enabled teams to enter the sport that didn't have the level of capital required to do so - didn't Frank Williams effectively bankroll the beginnings of WGPE by having sponsors lined up ahead of bringing the team together?

It began the modern era, which led to more money, more professionalism and made many people very wealthy. It effectively "industrialised" what had been for the previous 80 plus years, a large scale, high end, hobby.

I'll leave it up to others as to whether they look on that as a good or bad thing.

Was it ever avoidable though? Maybe for a few more years.. at most. Beyond F1, the entire western world has rapidly evolved since, what used to be simple, is generally increasingly complex and costs more. It's the same for my business, every business I know. Safety, corporate and social responsibilty all drive cost and complexity. That situation would remain regardless of any changes F1 made in 1968.

Of all the sponsorship money that comes in, the vast majority goes to the employees that make up the teams, who 99.9% will never get rich off it. The headline few such as Lewis that receive significant pay stand out, but that's not where the lions share of the ad income goes. Simply complying with the ever increasing volume of regulation demands more money. Did the regulation have to continue to expand? Yes, there was/is no option because safety had to improve, which meant regulation to both improve circuit safety, and also to slow the cars down when their development path led to them being too quick.

I'd personally love to go back to the days where Kids could walk to school without being donned in hi-vis, and it was possible to sack someone simply for being crap at their job.. Or how about those villages, that pay their tax so that the functional, smooth two lane main road through the middle can be maintained, then they pay again for a another chap to come along and deliberately build bumps in the road... then pay another chap to come along and build islands in the middle of each lane at 200 yard intervals, effectively turning it from a smooth 2 lane road in to a bumpy 1.5 lane road. The same enforced reduction in speed could have been achieved by just not maintaining it in the first place

This is the world we live in, and F1 is dragged along by that world way more than it has dictated it's own path - that's how I see it.

Edited by TheDeuce on Tuesday 4th February 09:29

[Eric Mc]

Doesn't mean we have to like it though.

There are lots of aspects of the modern world (and even some modern permutations of certain sports) that I actually like and appreciate. However, the over industrialisation/commercialisation of F1 is not one of them.

[TheDeuce]

Eric Mc said:

Doesn't mean we have to like it though.

There are lots of aspects of the modern world (and even some modern permutations of certain sports) that I actually like and appreciate. However, the over industrialisation/commercialisation of F1 is not one of them.

True enough. My point was more that F1 can't really be blamed for the bigger part of the changes that have happened. Ultimately the increasing demands on the sport/teams would always have made sponsorship unavoidable at some point, and with those flood gates open, the teams were always going to end up in a race to out spend one another. That latter bit is at least starting to be addressed now with the cost caps..

[Derek Smith]

TwentyFive said:

TheDeuce said:

Regarding the gap in performance between the middle and the top teams.. I've ended up of the opinion that it's perhaps a problem that doesn't need solving. The teams want to win in F1 in order to promote their brand, and it's true that right now only 3 teams can do that. But because the gap is so big, because the rest have no chance at a title at all, then 4th place has become a very important placing in the WCC, and probably enough for most teams be considered very effective by their sponsors if they achieve it. The middle and the top teams are essentially two separate series running two separate races, albeit on the same circuits at the same time. Is that arrangement weird? Probably, but it's not 'bad' as a spectator imo.

I agree with that. A lot is made of the lack of teams winning and how that contributes to predictability and thus a lack of new fans but I just don't see how people believe that is any different to other sports. Look at the Premier League, its generally the same teams at the top of the table each year. Sure Leicester won it once, but so did Brawn in F1. Apart from those freak instances I would suggest that football is just as predictable as F1 but nobody seems to complain about that?

The wealth of a team normally dictates their targets irrespective of what sport they compete in. The biggest expect to win outright whereas smaller teams target certain places such as 4th in the WCC or maybe a Europa League place in football. You are ultimately competing with your financial peers rather than the entire field.

I believe F1 is very competitive as long as you watch it with the appreciation that everyone's target is different. A Williams in 10th is a competitive showing in the same way that Sheffield United are punching well above their weight in the PL at the moment.

Interestingly since the Premier League started their have been 6 different title winners, and in that same time frame there have been 8 different F1 constructors champions. It seems F1 is more competitive than people give it credit for in a sporting context. Where are the calls for football to reinvent itself due to predictability?

And another agreement.

The 'best of the rest' gave us some fabulous racing in 2019. There seemed to be something going on all down the field. The TV production crew could cover it better, although some had a good go. I follow live timing, https://f1.tfeed.net/ , and it adds to the excitement no end. I'm a big fan of McLaren, so it's good for me. Their improvement over the season has been one of the highlights for me.

Mind you, rugby won't have the same team at the top next season. The Sarries are -77 points last time I looked.

[Eric Mc]

Rugby is another sport that has suffered in recent decades as far as I'm concerned. Watching Ireland V Scotland on the weekend was watching two teams of lumpen monsters just pushing and shoving against each other. The flow and flair seems to have gone out of the game.

[Derek Smith]

Eric Mc said:

Rugby is another sport that has suffered in recent decades as far as I'm concerned. Watching Ireland V Scotland on the weekend was watching two teams of lumpen monsters just pushing and shoving against each other. The flow and flair seems to have gone out of the game.

The problem is that there is a demand for results. In reality, it matters little who wins a particular 6N match. However, a loss can result in the loss of a manager and dreadful headlines. The Welsh used to have a great attitude. If their 15, say, had a run where he beat 4 tackles, they’d be cheering on the train back regardless of the result. Now, winning seems to be everything.

The simplest way of decreasing the chance of a poor result is to increase the weight of the pack. The likelihood of a #11 on a run being tackled by a robust second row means that the backs need to beef up as well. #15s never used to be tackled.

I’m nearly 6’3”. A Toulouse side we were clapping off their coach came past and every player was as tall, if not taller than me. Including the #9. I doubt I would be tall enough (or young enough, or good enough) to play second row for a decent club side.

Rugby has changed. Yet audiences are up. Participation is up – including at my club. After the RWC, there was almost a queue of youngsters wanting to play. They have no memory of the pre-professional days.

F1 seems to eschew the young fans. They are the ones who will not care that McLaren used to be the best, that the engines sounded different, and Senna was the greatest. But they are the ones that the races are not aimed at.

[Eric Mc]

Maybe.

[Norfolkit]

Derek Smith said:

F1 seems to eschew the young fans. They are the ones who will not care that McLaren used to be the best, that the engines sounded different, and Senna was the greatest. But they are the ones that the races are not aimed at.

I can't agree with that Derek, I think the opposite is true, F1 is trying to attract younger fans and I think it's working. Some of the stuff they do, "Fan Zones" and that kind of stuff is of no real interest to me but they certainly interest someone as they're always packed with people. There has been a definite (downward) shift in the average age of people attending races (IMO, I haven't actually counted them).

The last 3 races we've been to (Spa/17, Paul Ricard/18, Red Bull Ring/19) I woud say there's been a noticeable increase in younger fans (and families come to that), the facilities at the tracks are much improved from the "old days" (Spa toilets excepted*). 20 or 30 years ago you may have been correct, pretty sure you are not today.

Some of that is certainly down to the Max factor (how many will continue after he quits I've no idea but some of them will) and it probably started 10 years or so before that with Hamilton, but that should tell the teams a lot, get a charismatic young driver in there and people will get excited and go to races. They also need to remember going to a F1 race isn't cheap so the viewing public won't settle for what was acceptable in the 1950/60s.

I think they're going in the right direction.

• Spa toilets excepted.

They really are dreadful but it also has the best toilet in F1 (in GA areas anytway), the brick built one overlooking Pouhon, you have to pay but it's very clean and you can at least inhale.

[Derek Smith]

Norfolkit said:

I can't agree with that Derek, I think the opposite is true, F1 is trying to attract younger fans and I think it's working. Some of the stuff they do, "Fan Zones" and that kind of stuff is of no real interest to me but they certainly interest someone as they're always packed with people. There has been a definite (downward) shift in the average age of people attending races (IMO, I haven't actually counted them).

The last 3 races we've been to (Spa/17, Paul Ricard/18, Red Bull Ring/19) I woud say there's been a noticeable increase in younger fans (and families come to that), the facilities at the tracks are much improved from the "old days" (Spa toilets excepted*). 20 or 30 years ago you may have been correct, pretty sure you are not today.

Some of that is certainly down to the Max factor (how many will continue after he quits I've no idea but some of them will) and it probably started 10 years or so before that with Hamilton, but that should tell the teams a lot, get a charismatic young driver in there and people will get excited and go to races. They also need to remember going to a F1 race isn't cheap so the viewing public won't settle for what was acceptable in the 1950/60s.

I think they're going in the right direction.

• Spa toilets excepted.

They really are dreadful but it also has the best toilet in F1 (in GA areas anytway), the brick built one overlooking Pouhon, you have to pay but it's very clean and you can at least inhale.

Thanks for that. As you say, given your choice of circuits, much might be down to Verstappen. Whatever, if they come through the gates, then there's a chance to nail them. It's the premise religious schools work on. I've a son-in-law who's an F1 fan. Together with two of his friends, I know of no one else his age or younger. I go to rugby clubs. None of the players are the least bit interested.

But as you say, the facilities at Spa are rather poor. I like the circuit, as it is intimate, despite the circuit length, but you really don't want to go there with loose bowels.

A friend went there a few years ago and the organisers had put up a tarpaulin to stop those in the cheaper areas being able to view the hairpin. It didn't last the first day, despite threats.

[Teddy Lop]

Derek Smith said:

But as you say, the facilities at Spa are rather poor. I like the circuit, as it is intimate, despite the circuit length, but you really don't want to go there with loose bowels.

A friend went there a few years ago and the organisers had put up a tarpaulin to stop those in the cheaper areas being able to view the hairpin. It didn't last the first day, despite threats.

that all sounds a bit fking ryanair.

I've been toying with the idea of going to spa this year but hate this kind of stuff - overall things have improved massively in recent years from the "minimal possible" attitude large event organisers had not so long ago. (That is to say, I don't mind roughing it, but despise any rough because "they" either don't give a damn about an aspect or actively conspire)