uk f1 tv coverage - sky, bbc and ch4

[henners88]

I am a BT broadband customer and get BT sports free for now. I fully expect them to contact me after 12 months and ask me to pay for the sports part but my answer will be simple, no. I watch it now because it is there and must admit I have enjoyed some of the football and will likely watch the MotoGp season. Would I pay £15 a month extra for it, no I wouldn't.

Its still a better deal than F1 fans get with Sky though. If Sky offered the F1 channel on its own for £15 a month I wouldn't hesitate to sign up because its the one sport I enjoy above all others and at that price it wouldn't break the bank. At £43.50 a month as it stands now however, its an absolute rip off as they simply tell you that you can get all the other sports that you have no interest in watching thrown in too! Fabulous. I think this is the reason why they are not attracting the F1 crowd right now, the price point is far too high. Having said that, when the channel was £30.25 a month with the HD package the uptake was disappointing so you have to question whether F1 on Pay TV will ever be successful.

Its fighting a losing battle on Sky right now because the demand is less than football and its not like you can pop down any old pub to watch it if you haven't got Sky. I get the impression people in the sport are starting to take notice of this though. The BBC may be cleaning up in regards to ratings, but the overall audience is going down each year. Some seem to think its the action on track that is turning people off but its more to do with lack of consistent coverage that everybody can receive. I would say 'in my opinion', but I think its becoming fact.

[Peter Mallett]

Hmm,

Yet, years ago when the only coverage was BBC radio or TV highlights, there was much more discussion about the races on the Monday in the office than there is now. I firmly believe that turning it into a show has had more of a negative effect than the coverage issues. I also firmly believe that if it went back to its original ethos which was basically a car that fits inside an imaginary box, with an engine of a configuration that the makers wished to use; no rules enforcing KERs or daft overtaking aids and stupid tyres there would be much more interest and thus better TV coverage.

[henners88]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Hmm,

Yet, years ago when the only coverage was BBC radio or TV highlights, there was much more discussion about the races on the Monday in the office than there is now. I firmly believe that turning it into a show has had more of a negative effect than the coverage issues. I also firmly believe that if it went back to its original ethos which was basically a car that fits inside an imaginary box, with an engine of a configuration that the makers wished to use; no rules enforcing KERs or daft overtaking aids and stupid tyres there would be much more interest and thus better TV coverage.

I get the impression Peter you are sitting on a side of the fence where your coverage hasn't been affected at all. You most probably had Sky anyway, or can justify the expensive therefore just tune in as you always have. Assumptions but that is the vibe I have got.

We can't really compare the coverage now to pre 1978 when it wasn't on TV. The fact of the matter is in 2009 to 2011, F1 had never had a larger audience in the UK. You could argue it was because we had back to back British champions, but even before that the figures were into the millions. Rule changes have played their part in people turning off, but I really don't know how anybody can argue putting the sport onto pay TV exclusively for more than half a season has not had a damaging effect! We didn't lose this many viewers in the Schumacher era or in 2010 and 11 when Vettel was making it all very boring.

When the coverage changes from one race to the next, you are going to get people who can't be bothered with it. The fact Sky are showing the first race of the season means the season starts in a rather covert manner. Watching live for most people or for me in full delayed, is what it is all about. If you remove half a season and broadcast it as highlights, it removes the magic. It dumbs it down, simple as that. The massive drop in interest has happened over the last 2 years and we've had stupid rules introduced for years but at least we've been able to watch it.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by henners88

I get the impression Peter you are sitting on a side of the fence where your coverage hasn't been affected at all. You most probably had Sky anyway, or can justify the expensive therefore just tune in as you always have. Assumptions but that is the vibe I have got.

No, I haven't got Sky. I use BBC iPlayer

Originally Posted by henners88

We can't really compare the coverage now to pre 1978 when it wasn't on TV. The fact of the matter is in 2009 to 2011, F1 had never had a larger audience in the UK. You could argue it was because we had back to back British champions, but even before that the figures were into the millions. Rule changes have played their part in people turning off, but I really don't know how anybody can argue putting the sport onto pay TV exclusively for more than half a season has not had a damaging effect! We didn't lose this many viewers in the Schumacher era or in 2010 and 11 when Vettel was making it all very boring.

Well in the Schumacher era, the prescriptive regs weren't around to the extent they are now. As to Vettel, well I've found the whole thing tiresome not because of his success but because of the tyres/kers/DRS rubbish.

Originally Posted by henners88

When the coverage changes from one race to the next, you are going to get people who can't be bothered with it. The fact Sky are showing the first race of the season means the season starts in a rather covert manner. Watching live for most people or for me in full delayed, is what it is all about. If you remove half a season and broadcast it as highlights, it removes the magic. It dumbs it down, simple as that. The massive drop in interest has happened over the last 2 years and we've had stupid rules introduced for years but at least we've been able to watch it.

Maybe, but as I said, I don't have the choice anyway. I can watch live on Abu Dhabi Sports 2 , in Arabic with 5Live Extra on the iPlayer but they keep breaking to go to football, cricket, bowls, snooker or the current horse race.

I'd stop blaming the providers, because I'm sure its not them.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

I'd stop blaming the providers, because I'm sure its not them.

It's not the providers... it's the product. F1 is loosing viewers/fans and failing to attract new ones... and it would appear from the corrective measures taken at least, that it doesn't understand why.

[henners88]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

I'd stop blaming the providers, because I'm sure its not them.

If the providers are pricing me out of watching it, who else do I blame? If I am not physically tuning in to watch certain races, surely I am contributing to the decline?

The fault lays with people like Bernie who allowed the BBC to do a deal with Sky and ended up in the mess we have today. Sure the BBC could have done a deal with Channel 4 and the coverage would have remained on FTA, but Bernie sat back and allowed the outcome.

It is basic maths. If you take half the races away from 80% of the audience, half the season will record a lower than average viewing. You combine that with the last 2 years where the racing has been incredibly dull, you have a major problem. I don't believe for one second if the racing suddenly became exciting, everyone would subscribe to Sky because the product is too good to miss. Sky once offered the channel considerably cheaper than it is now and the uptake was poor. It speaks volumes.

[henners88]

Originally Posted by davyboy

It's not the providers... it's the product. F1 is loosing viewers/fans and failing to attract new ones... and it would appear from the corrective measures taken at least, that it doesn't understand why.

Its failing to attract new ones because half the season is on a pay channel that only a third of the country can receive. If the races are not available to channel hoppers because they are hidden amongst a sports package that costs £43.50 a month to receive, how are new fans expected to get a serious interest? If F1 goes exclusively to Sky, its the end of the road. You can't expect the same level of interest in future.

Look what happened to cricket, a sport that has a similar level of following to F1 and was pushed behind a pay wall. After the 2005 ashes success, cricket was booming in this country and then Sky bought the rights hoping to pick up the audience. What happened? Test matches went from having a couple of million viewers to sometimes as low as 60k.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by henners88

Its failing to attract new ones because half the season is on a pay channel that only a third of the country can receive. If the races are not available to channel hoppers because they are hidden amongst a sports package that costs £43.50 a month to receive, how are new fans expected to get a serious interest? If F1 goes exclusively to Sky, its the end of the road. You can't expect the same level of interest in future.

Look what happened to cricket, a sport that has a similar level of following to F1 and was pushed behind a pay wall. After the 2005 ashes success, cricket was booming in this country and then Sky bought the rights hoping to pick up the audience. What happened? Test matches went from having a couple of million viewers to sometimes as low as 60k.

This hasn't helped but it's more fundamental than that. We've discussed this previously, either here or possibly on another thread. F1 is off the radar of younger people. They're not interested in it the way previous generations were. The audience demographics have changed and weakened... and nothing F1 has done in recent years has arrested, let alone reversed, this. The TV companies are chasing their tails attempting to glitz up the show as the product itself is beyond their control.

[henners88]

Originally Posted by davyboy

This hasn't helped but it's more fundamental than that. We've discussed this previously, either here or possibly on another thread. F1 is off the radar of younger people. They're not interested in it the way previous generations were. The audience demographics have changed and weakened... and nothing F1 has done in recent years has arrested, let alone reversed, this. The TV companies are chasing their tails attempting to glitz up the show as the product itself is beyond their control.

I agree with you davy. The sport itself is less appealing to new or potential fans and its a massive problem. This problem is magnified though if you then take a sport with declining appeal and put a price on it that is out of reach of most people. Hiding the sport behind a pay wall and expecting new fans to flock is never going to happen and if anything, it's putting more nails in the coffin.

Sky might be doing wonders in terms of F1 coverage, but the simple fact is they are too expensive and a lot of fans including myself, are not willing to pay £43.50 a month for half a season's worth of live coverage regardless of how exciting it could be.

[Peter Mallett]

The sport itself is less appealing to new or potential fans

I think that's what I said.

[Knowlesy]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Hmm,

Yet, years ago when the only coverage was BBC radio or TV highlights, there was much more discussion about the races on the Monday in the office than there is now. I firmly believe that turning it into a show has had more of a negative effect than the coverage issues. I also firmly believe that if it went back to its original ethos which was basically a car that fits inside an imaginary box, with an engine of a configuration that the makers wished to use; no rules enforcing KERs or daft overtaking aids and stupid tyres there would be much more interest and thus better TV coverage.

This really.

Always seems to happen with certain sports. They jazz it up to get more viewers, lose their core demographic and the so called new fans weren't interested anyways. NASCAR has gone down exactly the same road and the fall in audience is even more dramatic.

[chunder]

I do not really think the fanbase has changed that much.

The only change in recent years has been the idea that as fans we would be prepared to pay to watch f1, as is the case with a lot of sports.

It is a new fad, and one that has only really succeeded with football, not many other sports that you can watch regularly (not boxing/WWE) have been offered to fee paying customers and lasted the course. And plenty of channles have tried to match SKY and failed.

It is pretty basic economics really. You have a certain amount of viewers FTA say 5 million. You make a bunch selling the rights to SKY, so you perhaps make abother 200 million per year on top of what FTA were willing to pay. That is all profit.

But now your viewing figures drop by maybe 50% perhaps more.

But you recoup that by charging them 15 quid a month.

It is a simple case of profit and greed. NOTHING ELSE. They dont care that fewer people are watching, all they care is that a certain number are PAYING, after that it will be dropped as a boat anchor. As others have said SKY are clearly not happy as they are putting it on Sky1, a sure sign they are struggling, lol!

The tv companies have been done over really as there is no way us Brits are going to flood and pay for F1 as football fans do for their sport, because it simply isn't a sport that attracts that level of devotion, and in pure numbers terms is dwarfed in its popularity by football.

There is and always will be a sport that fans over here will pay to watch in the kind of numbers that make it profitable, and that is football. Nothing else that you can watch regularly will ever, ever be able to match it.

[henners88]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

I think that's what I said.

And it was something I had said was a contributing factor, but you inferred that it was the main problem and I don't agree with that. You said not to blame the providers as its not their fault, but they have done the most damage to the sport by reducing the coverage. There is more to a point than just one line.

[henners88]

Originally Posted by chunder

I do not really think the fanbase has changed that much.

The only change in recent years has been the idea that as fans we would be prepared to pay to watch f1, as is the case with a lot of sports.

It is a new fad, and one that has only really succeeded with football, not many other sports that you can watch regularly (not boxing/WWE) have been offered to fee paying customers and lasted the course. And plenty of channles have tried to match SKY and failed.

It is pretty basic economics really. You have a certain amount of viewers FTA say 5 million. You make a bunch selling the rights to SKY, so you perhaps make abother 200 million per year on top of what FTA were willing to pay. That is all profit.

But now your viewing figures drop by maybe 50% perhaps more.

But you recoup that by charging them 15 quid a month.

It is a simple case of profit and greed. NOTHING ELSE. They dont care that fewer people are watching, all they care is that a certain number are PAYING, after that it will be dropped as a boat anchor. As others have said SKY are clearly not happy as they are putting it on Sky1, a sure sign they are struggling, lol!

The tv companies have been done over really as there is no way us Brits are going to flood and pay for F1 as football fans do for their sport, because it simply isn't a sport that attracts that level of devotion, and in pure numbers terms is dwarfed in its popularity by football.

There is and always will be a sport that fans over here will pay to watch in the kind of numbers that make it profitable, and that is football. Nothing else that you can watch regularly will ever, ever be able to match it.

Absolutely.

[Greem]

Looking at the demographic "problem" - part of this lies in the assiduous takedown of all F1 content on YouTube and other, similar sites (even on Facebook).

If FOM continue to strangle online coverage - even of snippets - then there is nothing for the younger online audience to engage with - and that's where they engage.

[aki13]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Hmm,

Yet, years ago when the only coverage was BBC radio or TV highlights, there was much more discussion about the races on the Monday in the office than there is now. I firmly believe that turning it into a show has had more of a negative effect than the coverage issues. I also firmly believe that if it went back to its original ethos which was basically a car that fits inside an imaginary box, with an engine of a configuration that the makers wished to use; no rules enforcing KERs or daft overtaking aids and stupid tyres there would be much more interest and thus better TV coverage.

Spot on. I have to agree 100% this is my first problem with F1 personally ahead of anything else.

[aki13]

Originally Posted by Greem

Looking at the demographic "problem" - part of this lies in the assiduous takedown of all F1 content on YouTube and other, similar sites (even on Facebook).

If FOM continue to strangle online coverage - even of snippets - then there is nothing for the younger online audience to engage with - and that's where they engage.

I think you are right.

Not something I had thought about, but it stands to reason, that less ability to look and learn about F1 without watching a season then the less people will switch on to try the real thing.

[chunder]

The thing is

When you have circuits and Arabs quite wiling to spend billions to et you to go to their country, yet you are also just as prepared to ignore traditional areas like France, Holland, Portugal, then you are maybe in a little bubble thinking everyone else in the world thinks F1 is worth paying for.

A lot of sports in recent years like drifting, Gymkhana, freestyle motocross have largely become popular because of you tube and some carfeully places marketing. Hence people get into it, buy the relatively cheap products invovled and are buying into a "scene"

this doesnt happen in F1, about as far as it might get is buying some overpriced F1 merch that makes you look very silly and is made for huge profit margins by a sweatshop in malaysia and is out of date in a year!!

F1 has a lot to learn, and here is hoping that once Bernie has gone, they might try and make it current, becaue right now it relys far too much on its own hype to succeed.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by davyboy

The difference between Formula One and other sports mentioned [i.e. soccer, rugby etc...] is that under the current model the F1 teams need as big an audience as possible in order to secure the millions they get in advertising revenue from their sponsors. If that exposure is reduced [by migrating to pay per view], sponsorship revenue will be reduced too. The teams will need the gap plugged in some way - through increased PPV charges, driver funding or [perish the thought (!)] lower budgets.

This is what's happening to IndyCar; though it's been going on for sometime things are getting worse. The majority of races are broadcast by NBCSN, the result is a dwindling TV audience, leading to a drop in sponsorship revenue, with sponsors leaving the series and even some teams folding.

[henners88]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

This is what's happening to IndyCar; though it's been going on for sometime things are getting worse. The majority of races are broadcast by NBCSN, the result is a dwindling TV audience, leading to a drop in sponsorship revenue, with sponsors leaving the series and even some teams folding.

I really hope that happens to F1 because I think it is the only thing that will make the powers that be really take this problem of coverage seriously. At the moment its just huge amounts of people not watching, but the broadcasters are still paying big money to Bernie so its only superficial at the moment. When the knock on effect starts to take hold and sponsors and broadcasters do start to question the pricing, I think F1 will be forced down the route of assessing what really went wrong. The thing is we can see where the problems lie because we are viewing it from an average Joe public angle. The likes of the team bosses, sponsors and senior FOM members are seeing it from the opposite end of the scale and at present are not in the least bit interested as long as they are getting their money. Crash and burn sooner rather than later and we can sort it out.

If die hard F1 fans are not willing to pay for Sky now, what chance have they got tempting new fans who are made to invest on the off chance they will like it? I'm in the wrong job.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by henners88

I really hope that happens to F1 because I think it is the only thing that will make the powers that be really take this problem of coverage seriously. At the moment its just huge amounts of people not watching, but the broadcasters are still paying big money to Bernie so its only superficial at the moment. When the knock on effect starts to take hold and sponsors and broadcasters do start to question the pricing, I think F1 will be forced down the route of assessing what really went wrong. The thing is we can see where the problems lie because we are viewing it from an average Joe public angle. The likes of the team bosses, sponsors and senior FOM members are seeing it from the opposite end of the scale and at present are not in the least bit interested as long as they are getting their money. Crash and burn sooner rather than later and we can sort it out.

If die hard F1 fans are not willing to pay for Sky now, what chance have they got tempting new fans who are made to invest on the off chance they will like it? I'm in the wrong job.

I hope it doesn't happen to F1. The powers that be in IndyCar have certainly learned nothing. They continue with this NBCSN deal because they get a fee from them, meanwhile the TV audience continues to decline and they are now so concerned about this, that this season, all 18 races of it, is crammed between the 30th of March and the 30th of August to avoid clashing with the NFL, whose regular season starts on September 5th because the IRL fear what's left of their audience will watch that instead.

This means there's going to be a massive off season, from the end of August to March the next year and in the meantime what do teams do with their personnel, especially the smaller teams?

[henners88]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I hope it doesn't happen to F1. The powers that be in IndyCar have certainly learned nothing. They continue with this NBCSN deal because they get a fee from them, meanwhile the TV audience continues to decline and they are now so concerned about this, that this season, all 18 races of it, is crammed between the 30th of March and the 30th of August to avoid clashing with the NFL, whose regular season starts on September 5th because the IRL fear what's left of their audience will watch that instead.

This means there's going to be a massive off season, from the end of August to March the next year and in the meantime what do teams do with their personnel, especially the smaller teams?

I see what you are saying but I really don't know what else would kick them up the backside and take notice. F1 is a global sport whereas IndyCar's main audience is in the US. I don't think I have ever seen a whole IndyCar race and its certainly not advertised over here, although I do hear Sky have shown races, but say no more.

F1 needs money to survive and this hits the smaller teams more than any. They decided to stick the coverage on Pay TV because it was a guarantee of getting more money in the short term. Now the audience is in decline they have forced a new problem, less people watching. Unfortunately I think they know this is the reason for the interest decline but they seem intent on altering the 'show' because its easier to suggest that is solely at fault rather than restrictive coverage. There was a time when the teams were unhappy about this and stood up for the fans, like when Martin Whitmarsh said their was no future for F1 unless it was on FTA. Then the money appeared and it was all fine.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by henners88

I see what you are saying but I really don't know what else would kick them up the backside and take notice. F1 is a global sport whereas IndyCar's main audience is in the US. I don't think I have ever seen a whole IndyCar race and its certainly not advertised over here, although I do hear Sky have shown races, but say no more.

F1 needs money to survive and this hits the smaller teams more than any. They decided to stick the coverage on Pay TV because it was a guarantee of getting more money in the short term. Now the audience is in decline they have forced a new problem, less people watching. Unfortunately I think they know this is the reason for the interest decline but they seem intent on altering the 'show' because its easier to suggest that is solely at fault rather than restrictive coverage. There was a time when the teams were unhappy about this and stood up for the fans, like when Martin Whitmarsh said their was no future for F1 unless it was on FTA. Then the money appeared and it was all fine.

At one point CART/Champcar was becoming global, with races outside of North America but since reunification IndyCar has contrcated, though there was a race in Brazil for a couple of seasons but now that's gone. If you get the chance watch an IndyCar race. Last season produced some excellent racing compared to some of the GPs I watched.

Has the F1 audience been in decline prior to Pay TV or has it started to decline since Pay TV?

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

At one point CART/Champcar was becoming global, with races outside of North America but since reunification IndyCar has contrcated, though there was a race in Brazil for a couple of seasons but now that's gone. If you get the chance watch an IndyCar race. Last season produced some excellent racing compared to some of the GPs I watched.

Has the F1 audience been in decline prior to Pay TV or has it started to decline since Pay TV?

For pure 'big' single seater racing value, CART was becoming a serious rival to F1 for several years with much better closer racing, plenty of real overtaking and a calendar boasting the Indy 500, the best of the US road courses and superspeedways and a host of international rounds in Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Japan and latterly (although by then it may already have been too late to capitalise because of the silly power struggle) Germany and Britain.

The audience has definitely declined as a result of pay TV over here, at least, but any drop has also coincided I am sure with Red Bull cleaning up year after year as Ferrari did for so long. No one generally likes to see one driver or team dominating. 2012 as in 2010 got good viewing figures because it was closer, and there were spikes for the odd race like Montreal in the year Hamilton came in and when Button got that magic win.

[LC2guy]

Bottom Line is that no-one involved cares sufficiently enough ATM to do anything about it. That will probably only change when the BBC contract ends, and Channel 4 or Channel 5 take the FTA agreement over and only do a half hour highlight show of each race on a Monday night. That could be the future. If that happens, then i'm sure very quickly the F1 fraternity will look at it a lot closer. As it stands now, the UK get 9 races live on FTA, which is 9 more than a lot of other countries, and if you want all of them, and its within your budget, you pay. If you can't justify it, its harsh, but you probably aren't the sponsors target audience anyway. They view it very much as a business, whereas we all view it as a sport ( regardless of our views on Sky , we share a love of the Sport and care little for the Business side of F1 ). IMO of course.