F1 goes to Sky sports

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

This is the bit that gets me:

'Formula 1 boss Bernie Ecclestone told BBC Sport: "It's super for F1. It will mean a lot more coverage for the sport.'

I think the missing word there is 'expensive'...

[andy666]

Originally Posted by JamesH

Hmm. They may be one of the best funded, but they still have a limited amount of cash, and they are under orders to make the best use of it. F1 is very expensive and we can blame BE for that - he puts the price up so high even the BBC balks at the cost. The BBC have chosen to spend the money elsewhere, and that elsewhere probably serves more people over a year than F1.

Once again, don't blame the BBC for BE overpricing F1 so that only Sky can afford it.

I personally think that this will result in a rapid reduction in viewing figures, and the sponsers are not going to be happy. But we shall see.

Out of interest does anybody know how much the BBC had to pay the poison dwarf for coverage ?

[MagnetON]

Originally Posted by LandieLad

Probably a silly question but how did the television rights end up in the hands of one person / organisation ?

Originally Posted by Oldtony

Bernie did a deal with Max Mosley when he became FIA president. It lasts for !00 years rights and he got it for peanuts.

Slightly OT but get a hold of the Tom Bower Bernie biography, it's a good read!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Paulaweybridge

Just received this via e-mail from Autosport:

No adverts during the race !!!

http://email.autosport.com/q/1MP32ZxIS8aAOu/wv

That doesn't surprise me. On their movie channels, Sky show all the adverts at the end/beginning of each film, leaving the film uninterrupted. They aren't that stupid at Sky and have obviously seen how well the BBC model works.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Cynic

I think the missing word there is 'expensive'...

I think the missing word is a lot more money, in Bernie's pocket.

[Robert Morris]

Its progress going backwards i wonder how many gp fans dont have sky tv ? A sad day in my view.

[AndyS]

The comments by Adam Parr and Martin Whitmarsh tend to suggest they are not overly concerned, so looks unlikey that FOTA will object I'm afraid. Some have mentioned the beeb maybe looking at the new WEC, I cannot see this myself due to the length of the races. It would take up too much air time and the casual spectator won't sit there for that long. I suspect they'll concentrate on MotoGp.

There does appear to be a bit of a gap for somebody to fill now, certainly in the UK. I'm surprised another racing series hasn't tried to push their product harder with the drift of F1 out of Europe and the increasingly turgid show. Instead most seem to bury their coverage on ESPN, which you have to pay more for on top of Sky Sports.

From a UK point of view the BTCC must be rubbing their hands together with glee and urgently seeking a meeting with ITV to see how they are going to further improve the already extensive coverage. There are a number of race series out there that with improved access to TV coverage could really nick some of the presently very disalusioned F1 fans.

[bjohnsonsmith]

What will be interesting is seeing whose coverage the fans prefer, the BBC's or Sky's.

[Moosehead]

Well we have full Sky in our house so I guess I'll still watch it, however, other than Top Gear F1 is the only programme we watch on BBC. Don't see why I should pay for licence now, Beeb has nothing to offer me as I can do without TG.

[beau1]

Originally Posted by jab

Hate to say it but as much as I hate Murdoch, I agree with Knowlesy here. I think Sky will do a good job with it - we may even finally get Ben Edwards. It's more the principle that hurts, and the fact that I only see exclusive Sky coverage as the future once everyone gets used to it being there. The BBC's viewing figures will drop too as a result of this, so it won't last there

And Davyboy, the BBC can't afford it. They've dropped it here - they had an exclusive deal for another year. It was F1 or BBC4 for the chop

It may be quality coverage but what is the point of that if you have a far lower viewership? Surely a lower quality product with a higher viewing audience is better than some sort of elitist broadcasting?

[Knowlesy]

What I wouldn't mind would be a PPV service like in 2002. Charge a tenner a race or £150 a year.

You get all the special cameras and interaction same as we did that year.

You don't have to pay for channels you don't want.

To me that is the only acceptable alternative to free to air, although I know many would hate that also.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by beau1

It may be quality coverage but what is the point of that if you have a far lower viewership? Surely a lower quality product with a higher viewing audience is better than some sort of elitist broadcasting?

This is about Bernie making money for himself. With the BBC and Sky he's now got two sources of income.

[Paulaweybridge]

The Monaco and British Grands Prix and the season finale are among the races that the BBC will continue to show.

See: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/93447

[warweezil]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

What I wouldn't mind would be a PPV service like in 2002. Charge a tenner a race or £150 a year.

You get all the special cameras and interaction same as we did that year.

You don't have to pay for channels you don't want.

ummmm... Didnt F1Digital+ die because of poor subscriber rates?

Many people are facing cuts in the real amount they have to spend. The REALITY for many is F1 is becoming a luxury that they cant afford. Its a strange business that alienates its fan base..

[Lotusonpole]

Sky are to show all races live with the BCC doing half live in UK.
Which makes it feel even worse.

Sky Sports' managing director Barney Francis added: "This is fantastic news for F1 fans and Sky Sports will be the only place to follow every race live and in HD.

Fantastic news for F1 fans? On which planet, certainly not planet Earth.

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

Well they are critical, but the F1 team view is very short term, especially a struggling team like Williams.

If viewing figures drop, then nobody will pay the Ecclestone fee and the teams take a big hit. At this moment in time though, Bernie has just received a huge lump of cash and everybody is happy.

I must say I don't like Adam Parr much. Some of the ****e he has come out with this year... Seems an idiot.

I totally agree they are critical to other teams as it is the sponsors that need the exposure. Simply saying that as this is not apparently critical to Williams, which is short sighted in the least. Apparently they are more concerned with their FOM revenue than fans being able to see the races...

[Knowlesy]

Originally Posted by warweezil

ummmm... Didnt F1Digtal+ die because of poor subscriber rates?

Yes it did indeed. It was poorly promoted and was prohibitively expensive. They reduced prices towards the end of the season though.

It was a vastly superior service to what we had on FTA at the time though and could have worked if used properly.

But then again, the sport has changed. Back then you had more practice, a warm-up, proper qualifying, people ran constantly as they didn't have to save engines. So I suppose now there is less value there. It's the same reasons I stopped attending races and went to testing instead (which was promptly dispensed with also!).

[The Fat Clerk]

Hooray, hopefully no more steady Eddie talking drivel.

[Woolley]

It's not said which half BBC will be showing live. My guess is the half that happen on our time zone.

I rarely watch F1 now, that's not going to change with Sky even though I have Sky Sports, just a shame I'm now paying for it directly, but I suppose with the licence fee I was doing that anyone. If this frees up the Beeb for making more of the TV I do watch it's no bad thing in my book. Would be wonderful to see them giving coverage to a lot of other motorsport instead.

[jab]

Originally Posted by beau1

It may be quality coverage but what is the point of that if you have a far lower viewership? Surely a lower quality product with a higher viewing audience is better than some sort of elitist broadcasting?

Let's just get this straight (with everyone) - Sky's model is completely different to the BBC. Where the BBC chase viewing figures, Sky chase subscriptions. That's how they make their money. If Sky can increase subscriptions, it doesn't matter so much if they get far less viewers than the BBC

I reckon Sky will produce very good coverage because they will want more subscribers. If they can produce coverage that is good enough to win over the hardcore that does watch it, it may tempt many of those who initially refuse to subscribe

Plus it's all about creating a monopoly in sports

[Knowlesy]

Lots of lovely Sky advertising hoardings at tracks now too.

All hail our new overlords!

[beau1]

Originally Posted by jab

Let's just get this straight (with everyone) - Sky's model is completely different to the BBC. Where the BBC chase viewing figures, Sky chase subscriptions. That's how they make their money. If Sky can increase subscriptions, it doesn't matter so much if they get far less viewers than the BBC

I reckon Sky will produce very good coverage because they will want more subscribers. If they can produce coverage that is good enough to win over the hardcore that does watch it, it may tempt many of those who initially refuse to subscribe

Plus it's all about creating a monopoly in sports

I can pretty much gurantee it won't happen. If Sky had a full deal people may approach it better but with half the races being shown on BBC most fans will just put up with that and not wish to fork out £600 for the other 10 races. This half-half approach has only worked with football, its been a complete failure with Rugby, Cricket and other sports and I see F1 going much the same way.

The only positive I can see of this is that people might attend the races instead of paying for SKy.

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by Moosehead

Well we have full Sky in our house so I guess I'll still watch it, however, other than Top Gear F1 is the only programme we watch on BBC. Don't see why I should pay for licence now, Beeb has nothing to offer me as I can do without TG.

I'm a firm believer that in the medium term the BBC is only just clinging to the licence fee and in a multi-channel and media world it is increasingly hard to justify. The BBC doesn't need to have web, digital TV and radio channels or send so many people to cover events.

I don't think we can blame Sky, the BBC made a deal and wanted out and clearly no other terrestrial broadcaster wanted it either.

I've no dobut the BBC will still send staff halfway around the world to cover the races and produce the highlist programme, a misnomer if ever there was one.

[MonkeyDeath]

This really annoys me, i just checked how much it would cost to get a sky box and dish. with the minimum package to watch F1.

£40 + £10 for it in HD. sod that

andwhats the betting this will be Aired on Sky Sports 4?

my reason for saying this:

on Freeview, BT Vision and Xbox360, you can pay for Sky content for a subsription cost. this is ONLY for Sky Sports 1, 2 and 3 Standard Deffinition (HD not included)

On Virgin you can only get Sky Sports 4 if you pay for the total Sky Sports package, only Sky Sports 1 and 2 are offered as individual subscriptions

Freesat are looking into getting Sky Sports 1 and 2 ONLY on subscription as well

and online Sky Player you do get sky Sports 4, but again you have to have the full sky Sports pack.

Fetch Box £205 to buy the box, and you get Sky Player for a subscription, but i could see if Sky Sport 4 was on there

or you pay for Sky Dish and Box

i think i have covered all the ways we can receive TV legally.

I'm sorry, But Adam Parr has no fooking clue about anything

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/93455

Meanwhile, Williams chairman Adam Parr is refusing to comment on the new deal until such a time as he knows all the details.

Meanwhile, Adam Parr is a **** with no idea

"In principle I have no issue with optimising the balance between the revenues that we need, and getting a good reach in the audience," he said. "The devil is in the detail.

"I think it is a balance and, without knowing the details, you cannot comment on whether it is good or bad. What I do know is that Bernie is a very passionate believer in getting the broadest audience possible and I think he has almost certainly done this in order to do that."

fair enough, more details are needed and clarification. but it sets a dangerous presedence for other countries to follow suit

BBC is broadcast to everyone who has paid a TV licence (and then online for free after the event) in the UK. so 60 million+ potential viewers. Sky is not

As for UK fans who don't have Sky, Parr says that while he sympathises, they need to understand how expensive it is to run Formula One.

"I am sympathetic to them. I understand it is difficult - but English Premier League fans have had that for a while haven't they?

this is different, Sky has the EXCLUSIVE TV rights to the premiership, and have been able to plough millions, if not billions of £ over the years to make it their own, all Sky are doing for F1 is showing the FOM broadcast.

now if Sky bid to rival FOM and take over the broadcasting of the sports then yes you could compare it, but its like comparing F1 cars to Beef Curry

"The one thing I would say, which I have said before, I know that whether you are coming to a race or are watching the sport at home and have to do that on pay TV which seems expensive, people have to bear in mind what it costs to put on this show. It is part of the character of F1.

TV companies in the UK get their money 2 ways. Advertising revenue from selling slots of Adverts, before, During and after a programme. the other is to force us to pay a TV licence tax. the former has paid on our behalf to watch the event for free. the latter we have already paid for it, if we watch it or not.

"For us to design and build the two cars that we will have on the grid on Sunday here, without putting an engine in them, without putting a driver in them, without accounting for the 70 staff that we bring to each race - without all of that those cars cost £2 million. You multiply that by all the cars on the grid and that is £24 million minimum of the costs just to make the parts. That is part of the show.

thats what sponsorship is for, the running of the teams. TV rights should not be a guranteed revenue stream for the teams.

how do lower formulas do it with no or little TV coverage and more than likly no revenue from TV coverage?

""It is not a bloke or two blokes with a tennis racket and a pair of plimsolls with zero cost. It is a very, very expensive sport. The best thing we can do for fans, whether they want to come to the races or want to watch it on TV, is to reduce the cost of the sport without spoiling the show."

worst case the EVENT should get the TV money, IE Wimbledon, to help run the event, the palyers are paid for by their SPONSORS

Parr also pointed out that the Sky/BBC deal was part of a changing media platform – and he drew comparisons between it and the 'freemium' platform of AUTOSPORT.

"I think that media distribution has changed so much, whether you have gone from paper magazines to a combination of magazine and online," he said. "For example, if you are a lover of AUTOSPORT you have a subscription service there as well as a free-to-air element. The whole media landscape is changing so quickly.

"The argument from AUTOSPORT would be: we cannot do this for free. We can get some revenue from advertising on the website, some from selling magazines, but we have to optimise our income – and if you want the really good quality of the coverage that you love it is not free, we have to pay to get people to the events.

"It is a question of degree and balance but also recognising that the way media is distributed is changing. It may well be that the next time around it is not Sky because Google has won the bid and we are all watching it live on the Internet."

BBC commentator and former F1 driver Martin Brundle said on Twitter that he was "not impressed" with the deal.

if i enjoy reading a mag, yes i will and have paid for a subscription, to that mag. but i am not going to buy a subscription to every mag the PUBLISHER makes, like cross stitch monthly as its of no interest to me.
if i could buy JUST the F1 races, practice and qualifying, with no extra costs at all, then i would, but i have to pay for ALL the other crap content i will not want to watch.

TBH Adam Parr is winding me up more than the Sky deal

/Rant

[Knowlesy]

It will make sod all difference to race attendances I would imagine.