uk f1 tv coverage - sky, bbc and ch4

[davyboy]

You've touched on the second major problem F1 has... and that's it's failure to attract the younger viewer. Kids today are just not interested in F1 the way their predecessors were. Of course it's failure to embrace on-line and increasingly closed nature are only exacerbating that problem.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

I have to pay to watch F1, and some don't think they should, although they are first to say "I have followed F1 for thirty years"

So then is it not time you guys paid to watch it then ??

No. It's simply not worth it. And I am an ex-racer with more than a passing interest.

[Greem]

Interestingly I was talking to people at work earlier about F1. I'm 43, two of them are in their mid 30s and one is in his early 20s.

I am, in their words, an "F1 nut". One of the guys in his 30s has a passing interest because his father-in-law is like me; the other has no interest at all, saying "it's really boring", and the guy in his early 20s said "I've watched a few races but they're really dull and now I can't afford it anyway".

Both of the people who think it's boring will happily watch the BTCC, though, because "more stuff happens".

Not exactly scientific, but it does support some of the conjecture in this thread.

I love F1, personally, but I'm afraid it does seem to be disappearing up its own behind.

[henners88]

I agree with the point that F1 has over valued itself in recent years and may have confused the willing demand, with what they feel the sport is worth. Sure it has always been a luxury sport for the rich and famous to enjoy, however they underestimate the price fans will put on it and with prices to watch so high, its clear most fans don't feel a bit of F1 is worth nearly double the average households monthly gas bill.

[chunder]

One big issue is copying.

Bernie thinks people who watch F1 on telly and go to races are the same. He also must think they are as passionate and therefore stupid as premier league football fans!

Football is a different passion, you buy into it, its your team, you will pay over the odds to watch games. Its totally irrational really.

F1 isn't like that, you are a casual fan, you get no access, you can't aspire to be a driver, you can't aspire to anything, you can look and marvel, but all of it is exclusive. Some people might want to buy into that but a lot won't.

You can't sell F1 like football because the fanbase simply isn't THAT passionate enough to pay for it. Think about it, if you are say a Norwich fan, you are in the Prem league yes, but do you get many games on telly? No, but I bet a lot of them have SKY, they might watch cricket a bit too, but football is their sport, that is the only justificaiton for paying for SKY, if you don't like football it simply isn't worth it.

And it will be the same on BT Sport, all you will be paying for is football. Rugby, GP, anything else is easily covered by subs, football costs billions to buy and Bernie thinks F1 should too.

he is hopelessly misguided if he thinks that.

Greed is pathetic, and it is entering every single facet of your worlds from health, to local authorities to energy supply. They are essentials, F1 and pay tv isnt and I hope it rots to the core very soon.

But the only way it will is if no-one buys it. Same as why evening telly is so utterly garbage, if people didn't bloody watch celebrity this or fake tan that they wouldnt show it, we are our own worst enemies sadly.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

There are exceptions, like Wimbledon and the 6 Nations and recently the Superbowl, otherwise it's all on Sky.

Not to be pedantic but the Suberbowl this year was produced and broadcast by Fox Sports a company controlled by Murdoch. They bring a lot of international sport that no one was willing to into my living room every day so for me respect were respect is due.

Now the NFL is a great example of a sport behind a pay wall and year on year more people line up to pay to watch it. Each week we get two nationally televised games but of you want it in HD it effectively is also behind a pay wall.

However chunder raises a good point in that team sports generate greater passion and support from its fans. In F1 only one team has ever generated that level of fanatic support so it's a harder sell. I don't know if that make the SKYs of the world greedy for delivering to us something we want nor do I think they over value it. I have an nfl and nba league pass subscription on top of my cable...some people like me choose to pay which as you say is my fault not theirs.

Also team sports have more games so there is real value in paying for it. 16 games a week for 17 weeks and then playoffs. F1 is barely giving you 2 hours of racing every fortnight or half the year.

For me this still comes down to offering value and F1 doesn't. If it was free then it becomes a function of is it even worth your time to watch it because it still will not offer any tangible value other than to the most devoted imo.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Not to be pedantic but the Suberbowl this year was produced and broadcast by Fox Sports a company controlled by Murdoch. They bring a lot of international sport that no one was willing to into my living room every day so for me respect were respect is due.

Now the NFL is a great example of a sport behind a pay wall and year on year more people line up to pay to watch it. Each week we get two nationally televised games but of you want it in HD it effectively is also behind a pay wall.

However chunder raises a good point in that team sports generate greater passion and support from its fans. In F1 only one team has ever generated that level of fanatic support so it's a harder sell.

Also team sports have more games so there is real value in paying for it. 16 games a week for 17 weeks and then playoffs. F1 is barely giving you 2 hours of racing every fortnight or half the year.

For me this still comes down to offering value and F1 doesn't. If it was free then it becomes a function of is it even worth your time to watch it because it still will not offer any tangible value other than to the most devoted imo.

Not wanting to go completely off topic but I mentioned the Super Bowl in the light of a person viewing over here in the UK. I know it was broadcast by Fox this year but the rights to televise the Super Bowl are rotated on an annual basis by broadcasters CBS, Fox and NBC. The actual production, like the half-time show, is controlled by the NFL.

Anyway, for three decades NFL games had been soley shown on Sky but Channel 4 over here, who introduced the NFL to the UK in the '80s, to much acclaim and popularity, managed to secure the latenight Sunday slot for the 2011 regular season. Since then the popularity of the game has increased again over here and this year C4 not only showed the 2013 regular season games but post season games and also the Super Bowl.

In the case of the NFL being televised over hear, the pay-wall hasn't worked. The NFL is more popular here than it ever was on Sky and it's still considered a minority sport but it's growing. Just goes to show how pay to view can actually do a sport more harm than good. That's enough about the NFL/Super Bowl; glad the Squawks beat the Donkeys.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

In the case of the NFL being televised over hear, the pay-wall hasn't worked. The NFL is more popular here than it ever was in Sky and it's still considered a minority sport but it's growing.

True true the SB rotates from network to network each year and while they are nationally broadcast we still have to pay for those channels so that too is something we pay for and you guys get for free. Although we get far more than one game a week so for me it's worth it.

Anyways I'm confused, in the UK are the HD channels also free (or included in your licence)?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

True true the SB rotates from network to network each year and while they are nationally broadcast we still have to pay for those channels so that too is something we pay for and you guys get for free. Although we get far more than one game a week so for me it's worth it.

Anyways I'm confused, in the UK are the HD channels also free (or included in your licence)?

While the NFL and the SB were in Murdoch's clutches, you had to pay to watch.

The Sky HD channels have to be payed for. I haven't looked into BT Sport as I don't intend to subscribe but I'm sure it will be the same as Sky for HD viewers. Otherwise the commercial channels are finaced by advertising and the BBC by the licence fee. Bear in mind though, whatever channel or broadcaster you are watching, you have to pay your licence fee to the BBC, even if you never watch the BBC.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

F1's global TV audience has dropped 50 million to about 450 million viewers. This has been blamed on Vettel's domination of the championship.

They are wrong. It was the failure of the rest of the field to compete with him that is the problem. If they got their act together the so called dominance would disappear and everyone could stop their moaning and groaning.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by davyboy

You've touched on the second major problem F1 has... and that's it's failure to attract the younger viewer. Kids today are just not interested in F1 the way their predecessors were. Of course it's failure to embrace on-line and increasingly closed nature are only exacerbating that problem.

Very true. My son aged 25 has raced since he was 8 years old and refuses to watch any motorsport at all. He would rather be involved in gaming on his computer and strangely enough he has never been interested in computer racing sims either.

[MarkG]

Originally Posted by Casper

They are wrong. It was the failure of the rest of the field to compete with him that is the problem. If they got their act together the so called dominance would disappear and everyone could stop their moaning and groaning.

I think more accurately, it was the failure of the rest of the teams to compete with Red Bull that is the problem.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by chunder

One big issue is copying.

Bernie thinks people who watch F1 on telly and go to races are the same. He also must think they are as passionate and therefore stupid as premier league football fans!

Football is a different passion, you buy into it, its your team, you will pay over the odds to watch games. Its totally irrational really.

F1 isn't like that, you are a casual fan, you get no access, you can't aspire to be a driver, you can't aspire to anything, you can look and marvel, but all of it is exclusive. Some people might want to buy into that but a lot won't.

You can't sell F1 like football because the fanbase simply isn't THAT passionate enough to pay for it. Think about it, if you are say a Norwich fan, you are in the Prem league yes, but do you get many games on telly? No, but I bet a lot of them have SKY, they might watch cricket a bit too, but football is their sport, that is the only justificaiton for paying for SKY, if you don't like football it simply isn't worth it.

And it will be the same on BT Sport, all you will be paying for is football. Rugby, GP, anything else is easily covered by subs, football costs billions to buy and Bernie thinks F1 should too.

he is hopelessly misguided if he thinks that.

Excellent post. That's exactly the reason why subscription PPV works for football and nothing else.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Casper

Very true. My son aged 25 has raced since he was 8 years old and refuses to watch any motorsport at all. He would rather be involved in gaming on his computer and strangely enough he has never been interested in computer racing sims either.

My son's 16.5 and has no interest in motorsport at all. He likes playing Rugby or American Football. When it comes to gaming he'd rather charge round the streets of Los Santos than play a racing sim.

[Tucky]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Most of those under 20 years old don't have their own income. If they do its at the lower end of the pay scales. How are future fans to see what F1 is about

You've hit the money there. I'm only 20 and at uni, the only jobs available to me are for a few hours a week at minimum wage. I'd love to have sky for all the extra motorsports on offer, but the most I can afford is £4 a month for Eurosport, and that's just for rallying. I'd gladly pay for F1, but £40 is just far too much for me to justify it. It's already taken me enough time working to get enough to go to Silverstone

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Tucky

You've hit the money there. I'm only 20 and at uni, the only jobs available to me are for a few hours a week at minimum wage. I'd love to have sky for all the extra motorsports on offer, but the most I can afford is £4 a month for Eurosport, and that's just for rallying. I'd gladly pay for F1, but £40 is just far too much for me to justify it. It's already taken me enough time working to get enough to go to Silverstone

Keep your money, you're not missing anything !

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Casper

They are wrong. It was the failure of the rest of the field to compete with him that is the problem. If they got their act together the so called dominance would disappear and everyone could stop their moaning and groaning.

Yes. That was Bernie's reasoning in offloading the responsibility for the double points disaster... He had to do to give Ferrari a chance to catch up to Red Bulls performance...

[wnut]

Originally Posted by chunder

One big issue is copying.

Greed is pathetic, and it is entering every single facet of your worlds from health, to local authorities to energy supply. They are essentials, F1 and pay tv isnt and I hope it rots to the core very soon.

But the only way it will is if no-one buys it. Same as why evening telly is so utterly garbage, if people didn't bloody watch celebrity this or fake tan that they wouldnt show it, we are our own worst enemies sadly.

The problem rotting the whole of Western society?

P.S. Does anyone really watch celebrity this or fake tan that?
I really don't believe the supposed viewership figures!
Just cheap to make drivel that occupies hours and meets content requirements!

[henners88]

Originally Posted by wnut

Does anyone really watch celebrity this or fake tan that?

I really don't believe the supposed viewership figures!
Just cheap to make drivel that occupies hours and meets content requirements!

If you see what is trending on social media you often find the trashy reality TV topics are top of everything so yes, far too many people watch it. Its cheap to make TV and earning millions too. Put someone on a stage or in a house and film it, easy TV. If you compare that to F1 where it is ridiculously inflated and over priced, its no wonder TV companies would buy cheaper alternatives like 'The Voice', 'Big Brother' and 'X-Factor'. Viewing figures do matter to broadcasters because it adds value to their portfolio, and this is why I never believe the opinion viewing figures don't matter to Formula One. Of course they do and Bernie is proving they do by discussing his concerns in public.

They can blame the downturn on Vettel all they like but its a case of simple mathematics. If you restrict the audience by putting the sport behind a pay wall, don't be surprised if less people watch. The Vettel-effect may have played its part, but we can't ignore a factor that has played an even bigger role in the sports decline.

[LC2guy]

Back in the early 70's when i first went to a British GP and caught the bug, there was bu*ger all F1 on TV apart from maybe the British GP and Monaco, and yet the sport was MASSIVELY popular. I guess the world is a different place now, people have a right here / right now or not atall attitude. I think the only reason we are debating this is because the BBC don't want to continue to line bernies pocket alone, and they are happy with 9 races a year. ( What i'd have given to watch 9 live races a year in the seventies !!!!! ) The fact is, in the UK we have been spoilt now for many years, in a lot of other countries they have NEVER had it free. Instead of making Sky the scapegoat, maybe Bernies Greed and the BBC wanting shot of it are more to blame.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by LC2guy

Back in the early 70's when i first went to a British GP and caught the bug, there was bu*ger all F1 on TV apart from maybe the British GP and Monaco, and yet the sport was MASSIVELY popular. I guess the world is a different place now, people have a right here / right now or not atall attitude. I think the only reason we are debating this is because the BBC don't want to continue to line bernies pocket alone, and they are happy with 9 races a year. ( What i'd have given to watch 9 live races a year in the seventies !!!!! ) The fact is, in the UK we have been spoilt now for many years, in a lot of other countries they have NEVER had it free. Instead of making Sky the scapegoat, maybe Bernies Greed and the BBC wanting shot of it are more to blame.

The world is a completely different place now. With just 3 channels operating part time, there was very little of anything on TV back then... and attending events was the only real way of seeing the sport. It's one of the reasons that track attendances were so high back then.

Today, F1 is just one of a myriad of things vying for our attention across a plethora of different media. It doesn't have the tribal attraction [addiction ?] of football club support and is seen as boring and irrelevant by much of the younger generation.

I'm quite sure that none of this is news to Bernie. Everybody knows that shoving F1 behind a pay wall will significantly reduce the audience size and eventually lead to its demise [at least as we know it]. It's not the direction you'd pursue if you were developing the long term interests of the sport. But it will certainly help to line your pockets for the next 4 to 5 years... which fits in with the kind of 'long term vision' of an 83 year old !

[henners88]

Originally Posted by LC2guy

Back in the early 70's when i first went to a British GP and caught the bug, there was bu*ger all F1 on TV apart from maybe the British GP and Monaco, and yet the sport was MASSIVELY popular. I guess the world is a different place now, people have a right here / right now or not atall attitude. I think the only reason we are debating this is because the BBC don't want to continue to line bernies pocket alone, and they are happy with 9 races a year. ( What i'd have given to watch 9 live races a year in the seventies !!!!! ) The fact is, in the UK we have been spoilt now for many years, in a lot of other countries they have NEVER had it free. Instead of making Sky the scapegoat, maybe Bernies Greed and the BBC wanting shot of it are more to blame.

I have been blaming Bernie and the BBC since the very start. You can't compare F1 coverage now to the early 70's can you? The technology and broadcasting in this day and age is vastly superior to 43 years ago. I'm only 31 and I've witnessed massive changes in my life time.

We may have been spoilt with free coverage, but why are the powers that be now whining that they've lost 50 million viewers? If they feel us Brits and other Europeans should now start paying for it, we have the choice not to pay for it. Simple as that. If we are not entitled to moan that we've lost the coverage, why should they moan that nobody is willing to pay for it? Its a double edged sword. The fan lose the coverage at no real life changing financial loss and the sport loses revenue because we don't watch. I think in the long run its not the viewers that are going to lose out and the move to pay TV will be the sports downfall. They can't say we didn't warn them lol.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by henners88

They can't say we didn't warn them lol.

You most certainly have, that's for sure. Of your (to date) 528 posts, 226 (that's , give or take, 43%) of them have been on this very subject

[Rennen]

I think I can trump you all...I've been following F1 since 1957 and can only recall Silverstone and Monaco being shown on fuzzy 428 lines of Black & White!

I LOVE my SKY F1 !!!! FP1,2,3 & Qualy and 'Ted's Notebook' after the race really bring the whole paddock atmos flooding to my Couch Grandstand! All for a Tenner a month too!

I just wish it was around when my son was in F1...now he's in LMP (WEC Sports cars) I tear my hair out at how poor the commentators and coverage is in comparison! Grrrrrrr!

[Knowlesy]

Originally Posted by Rennen

really bring the whole paddock atmos flooding to my Couch Grandstand!

Surely this is a windup?

It is, right?