Ecclestone wants to charge for online streaming of F1 races.
Discussion
Just came across this report. http://www.pitpass.com/49164-F1-considering-chargi...
This means that even if you already pay for a Sky HD package or a BBC licence if you happen to be somewhere you can't receive them - on holiday, travelling etc - then you'll have to pay Ecclestone an additional fee.
This means that even if you already pay for a Sky HD package or a BBC licence if you happen to be somewhere you can't receive them - on holiday, travelling etc - then you'll have to pay Ecclestone an additional fee.
It seems fairly straightforward and won't change a great deal apart from perhaps giving people more options.
Sky and BBC will continue to broadcast live F1 they just won't be able to show it online. Instead you go to F1.com where you pay whatever they charge and watch it online.
So everyone who complains about giving Murdock money or just don't want to pay for a full Sky Sports subsription have somewhere else to get their F1 from.
Sky and BBC will continue to broadcast live F1 they just won't be able to show it online. Instead you go to F1.com where you pay whatever they charge and watch it online.
So everyone who complains about giving Murdock money or just don't want to pay for a full Sky Sports subsription have somewhere else to get their F1 from.
The detail is within the prospectus in anticipation of floatation. Such documents are well known for containing much wonderfully potential profit making plans and ideas, not all of which comes to fruition once floated.
Whether or not this does so will depend upon whether it's actually possible to turn a profit once you've installed the means to police it which is very difficult and the number of likely subscribers or people willing to pay per view. Personally, I'm not so sure this is a financially viable thing.
Whether or not this does so will depend upon whether it's actually possible to turn a profit once you've installed the means to police it which is very difficult and the number of likely subscribers or people willing to pay per view. Personally, I'm not so sure this is a financially viable thing.
All of these ideas and words come from the 'brains' (read fools) at CVC. They are rapidly trying to stir up interest in their end of year Singapore flotation of F1 and need to interest potential investors with regard to new forms of revenue, ie web streaming. Don't get too excited yet.....the hackers are not far away.
The world of television is changing. It's an obvious step, to run side by side with existing outlets for now. Say you bin your sky subscription as you "only got it for F1", he charges you say £20 a race to live stream it given Sky churned out a 5.5 hr broadcast that would still save you money, be fair value and put more money in the FOM coffers. The advantage that F1's brand is well known, policing the scum who rip off original content and rebroadcast it without permission would require either new tech or heavy political lobbying for better control of the Internet I'm sure both are already in the works. i was reading somewhere that the key to this side of marketing is email addresses. Getting an audience to register then tailor offers & content accordingly. The question is how the revenue is divided and the impact it might have on team sponsors and the loss of exposure in territories where it might be pay per view only. Devil in the detail...
Paying for video content online as a stream or download has already begun, and it's just getting mainstream customers used to buying digital media, there was a time when services like iTunes was never going to work for music. YouTube has given people the idea if it's online video it ought to be free. Which is a nonsense. With decent broadband, the right tv, or decoder box, you can watch quality HD through our tv. Indeed if 4k takes off the only way to watch 4k content may require bit torrent style peer to peer delivery down the broadband cable. That's not coming for free.
Paying for video content online as a stream or download has already begun, and it's just getting mainstream customers used to buying digital media, there was a time when services like iTunes was never going to work for music. YouTube has given people the idea if it's online video it ought to be free. Which is a nonsense. With decent broadband, the right tv, or decoder box, you can watch quality HD through our tv. Indeed if 4k takes off the only way to watch 4k content may require bit torrent style peer to peer delivery down the broadband cable. That's not coming for free.
StevieBee said:
The detail is within the prospectus in anticipation of floatation. Such documents are well known for containing much wonderfully potential profit making plans and ideas, not all of which comes to fruition once floated.
Whether or not this does so will depend upon whether it's actually possible to turn a profit once you've installed the means to police it which is very difficult and the number of likely subscribers or people willing to pay per view. Personally, I'm not so sure this is a financially viable thing.
Indeed.Whether or not this does so will depend upon whether it's actually possible to turn a profit once you've installed the means to police it which is very difficult and the number of likely subscribers or people willing to pay per view. Personally, I'm not so sure this is a financially viable thing.
The situation that F1 finds itself with regards the TV rights is virtually unique in sports. Further, it is all based on a name, a title, a logo: Formula 1.
There are considerable problems with the current package and the tyre situation is a bit of sticking plaster that is, literally, falling apart.
The current row over tyre testing shows the problem. Two powerful parts of the circus, Pirelli and Mercedes, are under threat of censure. What penalty can the FIA impose? They, the FIA, needs income and a juicy fine is just the ticket, but neither Pirelli nor Mercedes 'need' F1. Indeed, if Merc left the sport for reasons of principle, they would have saved a considerable amount of money and the board would e a pleasanter place to be. I don't think an exit is likely but the possibility of it will limit the FIA.
Pirelli still (AFAIK) hasn't singed on the dotted for 2014. This is brinkmanship and most people seem of the opinion that they will sign. But it is not much of a threat if no one believes that refusing is not a possibility. I for one cannot see what they get from supplying tyres that last minutes.
F1 will be at its most vulnerable in the next 12 months or so. If the new, untried, formula is not a success who knows what might happen? It needs Merc and it needs Pirelli, especially for the flotation.
Northern Munkee said:
The world of television is changing. It's an obvious step, to run side by side with existing outlets for now. Say you bin your sky subscription as you "only got it for F1", he charges you say £20 a race to live stream it given Sky churned out a 5.5 hr broadcast that would still save you money, be fair value and put more money in the FOM coffers. The advantage that F1's brand is well known, policing the scum who rip off original content and rebroadcast it without permission would require either new tech or heavy political lobbying for better control of the Internet I'm sure both are already in the works. i was reading somewhere that the key to this side of marketing is email addresses. Getting an audience to register then tailor offers & content accordingly. The question is how the revenue is divided and the impact it might have on team sponsors and the loss of exposure in territories where it might be pay per view only. Devil in the detail...
Paying for video content online as a stream or download has already begun, and it's just getting mainstream customers used to buying digital media, there was a time when services like iTunes was never going to work for music. YouTube has given people the idea if it's online video it ought to be free. Which is a nonsense. With decent broadband, the right tv, or decoder box, you can watch quality HD through our tv. Indeed if 4k takes off the only way to watch 4k content may require bit torrent style peer to peer delivery down the broadband cable. That's not coming for free.
Erm, it's only £9.99 a race on NowTV.Paying for video content online as a stream or download has already begun, and it's just getting mainstream customers used to buying digital media, there was a time when services like iTunes was never going to work for music. YouTube has given people the idea if it's online video it ought to be free. Which is a nonsense. With decent broadband, the right tv, or decoder box, you can watch quality HD through our tv. Indeed if 4k takes off the only way to watch 4k content may require bit torrent style peer to peer delivery down the broadband cable. That's not coming for free.
Great Dane said:
I am just curious of all the knots F1 fans want to tie themselves into to watch it..
It's not quite a straightforward as this (though many do tie themselves in knots!).Of the 60 or so countries that pay to carry the F1 TV feed, very few are of the level that we have in the UK, which, putting aside any other argument, is excellent. Many countries will pay for something akin to what the BBC has, quite often, less. This affords little more than a 1 hour programme at some obscure hour of the day.
CVC want more countries to go the Sky route and pay accordingly. This, they are unlikely to do if people can watch online for free.
StevieBee said:
It's not quite a straightforward as this (though many do tie themselves in knots!).
Of the 60 or so countries that pay to carry the F1 TV feed, very few are of the level that we have in the UK, which, putting aside any other argument, is excellent. Many countries will pay for something akin to what the BBC has, quite often, less. This affords little more than a 1 hour programme at some obscure hour of the day.
CVC want more countries to go the Sky route and pay accordingly. This, they are unlikely to do if people can watch online for free.
Ecclestone tried to keep F1 free to air as this is what the advertisers want. By going fully Sky, CVC is, in effect, selling the TV rights to one broadcaster. If, as appears likely, the viewing figures drop in those countries where there is no free to air broadcasting, then the advertisers at the circuit are receiving less coverage and, one assumes, CVC's income will drop. Of the 60 or so countries that pay to carry the F1 TV feed, very few are of the level that we have in the UK, which, putting aside any other argument, is excellent. Many countries will pay for something akin to what the BBC has, quite often, less. This affords little more than a 1 hour programme at some obscure hour of the day.
CVC want more countries to go the Sky route and pay accordingly. This, they are unlikely to do if people can watch online for free.
I don't know if Sky's fee will cover this or not, although I would have thought it unlikely.
Everything that CVC/Ecclestone have been doing over the last couple of years has been concentrated on upping the floatation price. They have no other target. The argument about TV coverage, free to air and such, is of little concern at this stage.
Ecclestone's replacement, and one would assume this would be fairly soon after the floatation, will have to make a number of vital decisions. And they will be critical for the life of F1.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff