Discussion
Derek Smith said:
It's the rich what gets the money and the poor what gets the blame, at least in F1, if you listen to Ecclestone on the need to cut costs. Here's an article which suggests that the problem is more subtle.
https://apexracingpr.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/f1s-...
https://apexracingpr.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/f1s-...
I don't see how the figures add up for SKY TV. They paid a lot for the rights, produce an expensive show format, but only gained 0.5million viewers.
But that misses the point of the OP. The series promotors take 50% of the net income and don't even bother to promote the series, take existing fans for granted and do not give a thought about generating new fans or generating a younger viewing profile.
As long as a few cars turn up once a fortnight and put on some sort of show, they are happy to take the cash and do new deals with any despot they bump into.
But that misses the point of the OP. The series promotors take 50% of the net income and don't even bother to promote the series, take existing fans for granted and do not give a thought about generating new fans or generating a younger viewing profile.
As long as a few cars turn up once a fortnight and put on some sort of show, they are happy to take the cash and do new deals with any despot they bump into.
Gaz. said:
rallycross said:
The global viewing figures are always massively over estimated.
My SSF1 package hasn't increased in cost by 55% over three years either.£0 on bbc
Then when sky announced their packages, I paid;
£120 to gain the HD package over my £220 annual entertainment subscribing.
In real terms, just to watch F1 for a full season a customer would be shells by out £340 or so.
Now however, the HD with free F1 coverage is gone and anyone wanting to watch the full season has to purchase Sky Sports at what-£55 per month?
Like it or lump it we're all paying a lot more to watch the full season in the UK if you're not streaming dodgy feeds online.
As usual, the forums are full of people moaning, all while F1 profits increase. Good business model (in the short term at least).
LaurasOtherHalf said:
Now however, the HD with free F1 coverage is gone and anyone wanting to watch the full season has to purchase Sky Sports at what-£55 per month?
Like it or lump it we're all paying a lot more to watch the full season in the UK if you're not streaming dodgy feeds online.
I still get Sky F1 for free as part of the HD package, I thought all existing HD subscribers kept the F1 as part of their package? If Sky expect everyone to pay for the full Sports package just to watch F1 then they'll be disappointed, the current show isn't worth that much to me (and I was one of the few who paid for Bernie Vision back in the day).Like it or lump it we're all paying a lot more to watch the full season in the UK if you're not streaming dodgy feeds online.
RYH64E said:
LaurasOtherHalf said:
Now however, the HD with free F1 coverage is gone and anyone wanting to watch the full season has to purchase Sky Sports at what-£55 per month?
Like it or lump it we're all paying a lot more to watch the full season in the UK if you're not streaming dodgy feeds online.
I still get Sky F1 for free as part of the HD package, I thought all existing HD subscribers kept the F1 as part of their package? If Sky expect everyone to pay for the full Sports package just to watch F1 then they'll be disappointed, the current show isn't worth that much to me (and I was one of the few who paid for Bernie Vision back in the day).Like it or lump it we're all paying a lot more to watch the full season in the UK if you're not streaming dodgy feeds online.
LaurasOtherHalf said:
RYH64E said:
LaurasOtherHalf said:
Now however, the HD with free F1 coverage is gone and anyone wanting to watch the full season has to purchase Sky Sports at what-£55 per month?
Like it or lump it we're all paying a lot more to watch the full season in the UK if you're not streaming dodgy feeds online.
I still get Sky F1 for free as part of the HD package, I thought all existing HD subscribers kept the F1 as part of their package? If Sky expect everyone to pay for the full Sports package just to watch F1 then they'll be disappointed, the current show isn't worth that much to me (and I was one of the few who paid for Bernie Vision back in the day).Like it or lump it we're all paying a lot more to watch the full season in the UK if you're not streaming dodgy feeds online.
It's greed to put all of the sports together and charge £x/month. Why not break it down, so I can just get the F1. I do not want to give additional money to get pumped into the football pit, I don't like it, so why am I supporting it?
illmonkey said:
I have the 'free' F1 with HD package. I've tried to change, but get told it means I'll end up paying for sports for the F1. So that won't happen.
It's greed to put all of the sports together and charge £x/month. Why not break it down, so I can just get the F1. I do not want to give additional money to get pumped into the football pit, I don't like it, so why am I supporting it?
Ditto. I don't dislike football but don't enjoy it enough to watch the stuff I have for 'free' on BT so there's no way I'd buy SS. There's no way I'd change my current package where I get F1 as part of the HD pack even if there were other services I'd like to make use of.It's greed to put all of the sports together and charge £x/month. Why not break it down, so I can just get the F1. I do not want to give additional money to get pumped into the football pit, I don't like it, so why am I supporting it?
IainT said:
illmonkey said:
I have the 'free' F1 with HD package. I've tried to change, but get told it means I'll end up paying for sports for the F1. So that won't happen.
It's greed to put all of the sports together and charge £x/month. Why not break it down, so I can just get the F1. I do not want to give additional money to get pumped into the football pit, I don't like it, so why am I supporting it?
Ditto. I don't dislike football but don't enjoy it enough to watch the stuff I have for 'free' on BT so there's no way I'd buy SS. There's no way I'd change my current package where I get F1 as part of the HD pack even if there were other services I'd like to make use of.It's greed to put all of the sports together and charge £x/month. Why not break it down, so I can just get the F1. I do not want to give additional money to get pumped into the football pit, I don't like it, so why am I supporting it?
Unless F1 gets it's act together it's not worth paying any more for IMO, and any suggestion of changing the contract and me having to pay for SS, it'll be gone.
Well we can all chime in on how we pay for our coverage, but it'll make for a pretty boring thread.
How about we discuss the point the article in the OP doesn't address? Namely that as profits grow, viewing figures are falling.
Are we about to see a fundamental change in the direction F1 (& specifically the coverage) is heading? Do they see the value in reduced viewing figures but with an audience who are willing to pay for it?
How about we discuss the point the article in the OP doesn't address? Namely that as profits grow, viewing figures are falling.
Are we about to see a fundamental change in the direction F1 (& specifically the coverage) is heading? Do they see the value in reduced viewing figures but with an audience who are willing to pay for it?
LaurasOtherHalf said:
Are we about to see a fundamental change in the direction F1 (& specifically the coverage) is heading? Do they see the value in reduced viewing figures but with an audience who are willing to pay for it?
Do who see a value in a reduced number of paying viewers? The teams? The circuits? CVC? Sponsors? Car manufacturers? The FIA?There are many different groups within F1 all with different financial objectives, which is part of the problem for F1 in general. CVC just want to make money and don't care how, and the car manufacturers want to sell road cars and see f1 as just another marketing tool, neither of which objective is necessarily compatible with the fans desire for exciting racing.
Imo F1 was better served by having a benign dictator pulling the strings.
LaurasOtherHalf said:
Well we can all chime in on how we pay for our coverage, but it'll make for a pretty boring thread.
How about we discuss the point the article in the OP doesn't address? Namely that as profits grow, viewing figures are falling.
Are we about to see a fundamental change in the direction F1 (& specifically the coverage) is heading? Do they see the value in reduced viewing figures but with an audience who are willing to pay for it?
Firstly, I'm not in any way suggesting that the figures are wrong.How about we discuss the point the article in the OP doesn't address? Namely that as profits grow, viewing figures are falling.
Are we about to see a fundamental change in the direction F1 (& specifically the coverage) is heading? Do they see the value in reduced viewing figures but with an audience who are willing to pay for it?
Various reports suggest that CVC (and others) feel the need to divest themselves of some of their investment in F1. Some time ago I remember reading something along the lines of the pressure has been relieved because of the low interest rates. Once, it suggested, rates went up, then decisions would have to be made.
It was suggested that the Americans will put up rates soon and that this will lead to a steady increase over time. A slight increase will hurt those who have extensive loans.
For the sport to appeal to investors, the thing that will be important will over overall income. Viewing figures are important to others in the sport, such as sponsors, advertisers, teams and fans. If they are dropping then there will be no immediate problem for investors, in it for the short term.
There did seem to be some obfuscation about the viewing figures some time ago, the suggestion being that they were increasing by thousands every hour, but this seems to have been a bit of generous interpretation/calculation.
If the sport is for sale then income is the important criterion. Everything else is background.
F1 without a German GP, when Vettel is the challenger to Merc, and driving a revived Ferrari, is an odd way to run a sport.
Interest in motor sport is out there, at least in this country. Goodwood FoS, Silverstone Classic and the Revival: all will be packed. All run over a long weekend. Yet I know no one without Sky F1 who will be watching Sunday's race. All very disturbing.
Derek Smith said:
If the sport is for sale then income is the important criterion. Everything else is background.
F1 without a German GP, when Vettel is the challenger to Merc, and driving a revived Ferrari, is an odd way to run a sport.
Interest in motor sport is out there, at least in this country. Goodwood FoS, Silverstone Classic and the Revival: all will be packed. All run over a long weekend. Yet I know no one without Sky F1 who will be watching Sunday's race. All very disturbing.
Derek, thoroughly interesting points as always.....F1 without a German GP, when Vettel is the challenger to Merc, and driving a revived Ferrari, is an odd way to run a sport.
Interest in motor sport is out there, at least in this country. Goodwood FoS, Silverstone Classic and the Revival: all will be packed. All run over a long weekend. Yet I know no one without Sky F1 who will be watching Sunday's race. All very disturbing.
I've quoted the above as it's an interesting point but it's your last paragraph that echoes my slightly differing points....
Yes, goodwood FOS is a massive success and appears very busy when you're their-250k people over the weekend iirc? Anyway regardless of the figures (which when you think about it aren't very many in the grand scheme of things) what makes manufacturers like Audi spend many thousands of pounds setting up "pop up" showrooms and exhibits for four days is the fact that those 250k visitors are 99% interested parties.
They are all most likely committed car/motorsport enthusiasts and susceptible to influence through marketing.
Now look at a free to air Grand Prix viewing audience. Of the millions of viewers watching across poor income households in far flung countries, how many are looking at Martin Brundle's watch and thinking "next time I'm at the jewellers I must try on that Hublot"?
Because that's F1's core advertisers-aspirational multinational brands (for the most part).
Bernie has even said so himself.
If F1 does move to a pay-per-view model (which it has in the UK) the advertisers are guaranteed access to a viewer who is naturally interested in the product albeit a smaller audience. Think of it as no different to the ambulance chaser or pay day loans that are only advertised during day time TV-they are targeting their budget to those feckless customers from whom they can achieve better revenue from.
So, should 250M people watch a Grand Prix, why would you care if only 2M of those were actually interested in the product you're advertising to sell.
Me? I'd monetise coverage in my established markets (UK, Germany etc etc) and give it free to growing economies to build the brand. Sort of what they're now doing.....
By the way, this only makes sense if you consider F1 to be very fast advertising boards!
Edited by LaurasOtherHalf on Thursday 18th June 07:34
Eric Mc said:
And eventually it drifts away from the established territories which nourished and sustained the sport for 100 years plus.
What is left is no longer F1 nor Grand Prix racing.
Again, another interesting point.....What is left is no longer F1 nor Grand Prix racing.
The established territories that have sustained motorsport for so long are what? The only reason they established it in the first place is because they were the economic powerhouses of the time.
Things change, it's naive to think F1 shouldn't too.
(I by the way, think certain events should be preserved as historical events are important to the brand. Some, but not all!).
Eric Mc said:
And eventually it drifts away from the established territories which nourished and sustained the sport for 100 years plus.
What is left is no longer F1 nor Grand Prix racing.
Different sponsors want exposure in different markets, for instance Renault might well be interested in selling cheap cars in far flung corners of the world so might welcome races at circuits in new territories. traditional F1 sponsors will be less keen. I doubt CVC particularly care where the races are provided the organisers pay the price.What is left is no longer F1 nor Grand Prix racing.
Are you both suggesting that Grand Prix racing is limited to "economic powerhouses" only?
Are you suggesting that because Europe may not be AN economic centre of the world (a debatable point to be honest)that it should lose what is, after all, part of its culture.
For me sport is not just business. It is linked closely to art, culture, society etc and just predicating "sporting" decisions purely on economic criteria is, eventually, ruinuous to that sport.
On that basis you might as well say that the Louvre or the Sistine Chapel should be relocated to Shanghai or Seoul because that's where the dosh is.
Are you suggesting that because Europe may not be AN economic centre of the world (a debatable point to be honest)that it should lose what is, after all, part of its culture.
For me sport is not just business. It is linked closely to art, culture, society etc and just predicating "sporting" decisions purely on economic criteria is, eventually, ruinuous to that sport.
On that basis you might as well say that the Louvre or the Sistine Chapel should be relocated to Shanghai or Seoul because that's where the dosh is.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff