uk f1 tv coverage - sky, bbc and ch4

[wolfhound]

The general F1 audience also seems to have fallen as this years German GP had lots of empty seats. I would imagine it also affects neighbouring race such as Spa.

[Pingguest]

In a number of countries the ratings have been declining for some years, even before pay-per-view was introduced. In my opinion the is due to the flawed concept Formula One embraced last decade. No wonder sponsorship revenues have detoriated in the past ten years, especially for the smaller teams.
To me, this proves not cost reductions but returning to proper racing is the right solution for Formula One.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

In a number of countries the ratings have been declining for some years, even before pay-per-view was introduced. In my opinion the is due to the flawed concept Formula One embraced last decade. No wonder sponsorship revenues have detoriated in the past ten years, especially for the smaller teams.
To me, this proves not cost reductions but returning to proper racing is the right solution for Formula One.

A decade ago, I'd stopped watching F1 primarily because of Schumacher's dominance. It was only when Hamilton appeared on the scene, that I started watching again.

What flawed concept would that be?

[old man]

Just trying to think what concept we want, what would "do it" for the spectators. We seem to want close racing in affordable cars so how do we define the cars?

Engine Concept
We could have an open formula with size limit
We could have an open formula with fuel capacity limit
We could define the engine …. that gets complicated

Chassis concept
No aero… oh, that is impossible
Limited aero, no wings, relatively high ground clearance
Defined aero…..that gets complicated

Series Concept Alternatives:
Race series contracted fully as now
Race series with guaranteed entries but all TV and circuit income to circuit owners
Open Race series with start and prize money offers

I could go on

My point is that we have come a long way from the first GP that I attended in 1955 at Aintree when Mercedes were dominating the series and expected to win and I went as schoolboy on the train to see Stirling Moss. Only 6 races for F1 cars that season in World Championship + Indy but 18 other races for F1 cars, 10 of them in GB, 3 in France. The whole scene has been developed to the "Nth" degree and is possibly about to collapse because to run teams with vast numbers of people at ludicrous cost is becoming unsustainable. WEC races are being seen by manufacturers as more relevant and TV coverage of racing is so diverse that you have to pay a TV channel to get your series on there.

The whole concept of racing is perhaps over managed and Joe Public has so much he can watch that only an enthusiast really makes the effort to watch a whole series.

If, as this year a National interest develops or a keen rivalry then interest grows but if the results are a forgone conclusion it diminishes. Personally I am in favour of less management, less rules and more opportunity for small teams, local teams to enter and add interest in seeing how they can compete.

But before that can happen I am afraid it has to implode and that would be a shame in many ways.

No easy direction change for the juggernaut that F1 has become

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

A decade ago, I'd stopped watching F1 primarily because of Schumacher's dominance. It was only when Hamilton appeared on the scene, that I started watching again.

What flawed concept would that be?

The German broadcaster RTL complains about 'incomprehensible rules' and I think they are very right indeed. In fact, incomprehensible, anti-autosport and contradictory rules have been introduced since 2003. In the past decade Formula One really transformed itself from a sport with cutting-edge technology and an interesting arms race to a fake show with artificial gimmicks and restrictions which are quite unreasonable.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Pingguest

The German broadcaster RTL complains about 'incomprehensible rules' and I think they are very right indeed. In fact, incomprehensible, anti-autosport and contradictory rules have been introduced since 2003. In the past decade Formula One really transformed itself from a sport with cutting-edge technology and an interesting arms race to a fake show with artificial gimmicks and restrictions which are quite unreasonable.

It's a Catch 22. The argument is, the costs in developing that cutting-edge technology in F1 were out of control and teams like Ferrari could just outspend many of their rivals, giving them an unfair advantage. Therefore limiting and then freezing technological development is imposed and gimmicks introduced, in order to spice up the racing because the imposition of those limitations on cutting-edge technology, has stifled the racing. However, the gimmicks haven't worked and have made things worse precisely because they are gimmicks, not a solution and so it goes on.

The one thing I find anti-autosport are the penalties.

[Sodemo]

There is so much wrong with the sport, I really don't have the energy and time to spell it all out. However the highlights are; generally rubbish new venues, gradual destruction of classic venues, DRS, terrible engine rules, the needless continued aero dominance of the formula, imbalanced financial team rewards, bribes.

[Paradise City]

The epicentre is simple.

Eccelstone, CVC and their collective infatuation with raking in astronomical amounts of cash for a short term windfall to the exclusion of everything else.

And even as the sport lurches into a public crisis; they're not learnin' a damn thing either.

RTL are right if that's their genuine position. Also the German public had only eyes for Schumacher. Post-Schumacher German hotshots are old hat and F1's popularity has struggled because of that.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

It's a Catch 22. The argument is, the costs in developing that cutting-edge technology in F1 were out of control and teams like Ferrari could just outspend many of their rivals, giving them an unfair advantage. Therefore limiting and then freezing technological development is imposed and gimmicks introduced, in order to spice up the racing because the imposition of those limitations on cutting-edge technology, has stifled the racing. However, the gimmicks haven't worked and have made things worse precisely because they are gimmicks, not a solution and so it goes on.

The one thing I find anti-autosport are the penalties.

Ferrari themselves were outspend by McLaren, Honda and Toyota prior the current economic crisis. Bu how many championships did they win?

Only one type of cutting-edge technology had a devastating effect on the racing: downforce generating aerodynamics. So far, Formula One have been unable to address that problem.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Guys there are plenty of other threads about the economics of F1, can we keep this thread for TV unless a specific point joins the two.

SBF

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Regarding RTLs possible withdrawal from F1, another factor which may or may not be relevant is that Sky Germany who also cover F1, has been totally bought out by BskyB ( as has Sky Italy). That new Sky company called Sky Plc, is going to have a major influence across Europe in rights.
The possibility of Sky pushing for exclusive rights in Gemany would be too expensive for RTL to compete with.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

Guys there are plenty of other threads about the economics of F1, can we keep this thread for TV unless a specific point joins the two.

SBF

You are right and maybe I didn't express myself particularly well. My point wasn't about the economics of F1 per se but how technological development has been stifled and F1 has brought in gimmicks, in order spice up the racing. However, this in turn has had a negative effect on TV audiences, who just see cars droning around and the only way they ever seem to race each other, is either using DRS, or undercutting each other with pitstops.

[chillibowl]

a lack of promotion is a concern also imo. rather organized promotion on a global scale carried out by FOM like every other major sport league and Olympics do.

it sounds nasty but people need to be told what to watch. thats the whole point of advertising. F1 needs to take a more active role in making itself itself the message.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

a lack of promotion is a concern also imo. rather organized promotion on a global scale carried out by FOM like every other major sport league and Olympics do.

it sounds nasty but people need to be told what to watch. thats the whole point of advertising. F1 needs to take a more active role in making itself itself the message.

Advertising costs money, something Bernie/CVC don't believe in just hovering it up by the billion.

[chillibowl]

no, they just believe in negative advertising. the positive kind works much better.

[wolfhound]

Another German speaking TV station is having second thoughts about F1. This time its Austria's ORF. However their might be a saviour waiting in the wing in the form of the RedBull owned Seruvs TV who might be interested in taking on F1 broadcasts.
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/au...thinks-f1-deal

[old man]

The title of this thread is UK TV , BBC and Sky and as a viewer I have to say I am really quite satisfied with the choice I have. For a long time I chose BBC because I had a slight preference for their team but as the season progressed I watched more Sky because of the in depth analysis which comes about because they have a full channel to fill, BBC could never do that.

The end of season review on BBC was good and the Sky piece on Lewis as champion was excellent IMO, particularly the comments by Toto Wolf.

Sadly however we cannot separate the finances of F1 from the TV because the two are inextricably linked. If the German channels are not getting the viewing figures FOM need to know why, the lack of spectators at the German GP must also reflect the public interest level and yet we had a German driver in a German car pushing for the title. How do the viewing figures in that market compare with the UK? The public interest in the UK was shown at Silverstone, does that reflect the quality of the TV in the UK in comparison with Germany?

Tight technical rules are often likely to bring processional racing, especially with limited numbers of cars on long tracks. NASCAR is as tight as it comes but we see lots if cars bunched up, often on short tracks and this makes for excitement and good viewing figures. Most of the people discussing the matter here want "pure" racing but it is difficult to say what formula would give that and what elements of the formula would be considered gimmicks.

Was the Schumaker era good? Even I found it boring. Michael won because he had a constantly honed car from a brilliant designer and well managed team. His constant testing and ability to sort the developments led to a dominant car and his team mate was not allowed to race him but that situation gave good TV figures in Germany apparently, why is it different now?

DRS, rapid wear tyres, 3 part qualifying and a lack of testing are part of the sport now and without them I fear we would had a very boring season but all are gimmicks to those of us who want "pure" racing on our TV screens.

Given that, why is the UK interest apparently so much higher than the German interest?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by old man

Given that, why is the UK interest apparently so much higher than the German interest?

Ah, but is it? Viewing figures from earlier in 2014 had shown a drop off of somewhere in the region of 20% compared to 2013.

And it is my opinion that if the BBC do not renew their contract, which I believe is highly likely, then the viewing figures will be dramatically slashed. There are many viewers who do not have access to Sky F1, and many that do, like myself, refuse to pay £25.00 per month for the privilege of watching something like 60 hours a year of a "sport" that I have fallen out of love with.

[old man]

I don't recall a jump of £25 per month in my Sky subscription. Granted I have a full package that accommodated things my late wife wanted like films for example but don't think I pay £25 extra for F1, perhaps I am mistaken

The actual viewing figures would be interesting if anyone has access to them

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by old man

I don't recall a jump of £25 per month in my Sky subscription. Granted I have a full package that accommodated things my late wife wanted like films for example but don't think I pay £25 extra for F1, perhaps I am mistaken

The actual viewing figures would be interesting if anyone has access to them

I am not a Sky customer, but have access to their sports package through my cable provider but that would cost me an extra £25. And I have no interest in other sports!

My point is that the majority of the households in the UK does not have Sky as their TV provider, so they would have to pay extra to be able to view Sky's coverage, which may be the only option available in the not too distant future.

[Derwent Motorsp]

I don't have Sky and have no desire to either. There is too much rubbish on the free channels already that I don't watch! I have watched the Sky F1 coverage on Sky at my son's and was not impressed. Far too long winded with too many presenters. I am happy with BBC. I like to possibly watch some of qualifying if there is nothing better to do and if I an at home on a Sunday I switch on 5 minute before the start and 5 minutes after the finish. I have better things to do!
If there is no BBC coverage I won't bother. I won't be held to ransom by Murdock and his criminal gang!

[Sodemo]

Sadly, something like 95% of the Sky Sports subscription money goes straight to the Premier League. It makes it something of a laughing stock if you want to just watch sports other than football. My mother subscribes to Sky Sports, not for the football or the F1, but for tennis and golf, of which I imagine 0.0001% of her sky sports fee actually goes on the costs for those sports rights.

[old man]

Are there any actual attributable figures for the fee paid by Sky to screen F1? Similarly do we know what the BBC pay for their limited access?

The quote that 95 % of the Sky subscription money goes to football is interesting, is that actually traceable?

The TV money keeps F1 going and this is one of the few series that gets paid for TV rights, the rest have to pay from the privilege, if the TV money fails we go back to square one where attendance at races is the main income, that would never happen. Bernie has done a tremendous job getting F1 on screens all over the world, I am old enough to remember when we were grateful for the Monaco race and the British with Raymond Baxter. Believe me, we have moved on somewhat!

[Paradise City]

Well, we pool our resources here. So getting Sky F1 does not exact a major drain on my personal finances. But if I had to pay the full amount myself I wouldn't do it - and I do think Sky do a good job all and all and they should be commended for that. But no amount of entertainment is worth the thump I would get if I had to hand out hard cash for the full amount. I'd sooner use that money to go abroad and live a little courtesy of inexpensive Ryanair than stay glued to the couch.

I'm not happy with the loss of Anderson and I'm still pretty disgusted by the fact that F1 could've landed intact, free-to-air, all live on Channel 4. Being imprisoned behind a Sky paywall whilst BBC staggers along with crippled F1 coverage is so unnecessary. It really sums be the damaging, profiteering short sightedness that is the hallmark of the Age of Eccelstone.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by old man

Are there any actual attributable figures for the fee paid by Sky to screen F1? Similarly do we know what the BBC pay for their limited access?

Not that I am aware of due to "confidential commercial reasons", however, according to the Telegraph in 2012, they believed (attributed to a Sky source) that the annual Sky fee was £25 million per season, whilst the saving to the BBC was thought to have, or will have, brought about savings in the region of £150 million over the 7 year contract, which runs to the end of the 2018 season.

I am not necessarily convinced that the contract will actually run to it's natural end, and have serious doubts that it would be renewed.