F1 goes to Sky sports

[Moneyseeker]

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

The irony is that the BBC doesn't even need to chase viewing figures, they get paid even if someone buys a TV and never turns it on.

[jab]

Originally Posted by beau1

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.

If the coverage is better than the BBC's, as was the case with Eurosport in the 90s, people will subscribe and watch all the races on Sky

Autosport subscribers - great article here

[Paulaweybridge]

Wow. 11 pages and counting

[beau1]

Originally Posted by jab

If the coverage is better than the BBC's, as was the case with Eurosport in the 90s, people will subscribe and watch all the races on Sky

Who cares? Those figures are going to be no-where near BBC's 'old coverage'.

[bjohnsonsmith]

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

It is different, though the BBC doesn't need the viewing figures to get revenue, the TV Licence does that for them and all those people who have subscribed to Sky Sports or who are thinking about it will be paying for their TV Licence as well. So yes Sky are going to have to make their F1 coverage pretty damn good if they are going to get new subscribers.

[Knowlesy]

Originally Posted by jab

If the coverage is better than the BBC's, as was the case with Eurosport in the 90s, people will subscribe and watch all the races on Sky

Autosport subscribers - great article here

BBC coverage has moved on a lot since the 90's. I fail to see how Sky can significantly better it, although they will do a good job I am certain.

[jab]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

BBC coverage has moved on a lot since the 90's. I fail to see how Sky can significantly better it, although they will do a good job I am certain.

1) I think the BBC will cut back further and their coverage will go backwards

2) Sky aren't going to rest on their laurels. They will innovate. Take cricket, for instance. Channel 4 took it forward after snatching the rights from the BBC, but Sky have taken it further again

My only concern is that Sky Go, Sky's live streaming service which will be my only way of accessing Sky when I'm in uni, is only free up until February 2012 with no word on whether it'll continue to be free after (i.e. they're probably going to charge). In which case, I have no legal access when I'm in uni, and I can't be bothered streaming it illegally as that's just too much of a hassle

[dyewat808]

Originally Posted by jab

If the coverage is better than the BBC's, as was the case with Eurosport in the 90s, people will subscribe and watch all the races on Sky

Autosport subscribers - great article here

Great coverage doesn't always equal more subscribers though. Even if the coverage is brilliant (and I'm sure Sky will do a good job) I know I won't bother subscribing. Just not that interested enough to pay such a ridiculous sum, and I'm guessing (I know it's such a long shot ) from the comments here that I'm not the only one in that situation

[neiltb]

the beeb could cut down to the speed (fox) standard, send a pit reporter, will buxton?, and have the other 3 idiots in the studio in north carolina gleaning the international feed for info.

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by jab

1) I think the BBC will cut back further and their coverage will go backwards

2) Sky aren't going to rest on their laurels. They will innovate. Take cricket, for instance. Channel 4 took it forward after snatching the rights from the BBC, but Sky have taken it further again

My only concern is that Sky Go, Sky's live streaming service which will be my only way of accessing Sky when I'm in uni, is only free up until February 2012 with no word on whether it'll continue to be free after (i.e. they're probably going to charge). In which case, I have no legal access, and I can't be bothered streaming it illegally as that's just too much of a hassle

Only problems is that F1 is in the dark ages as regards TV and media- FOM didn't recognize the power/potential of the internet, thought HD was an unneccesary expense and believes restricting broadcasters rights to use of footage (to protect F1 revenue) is the way to go rather than letting broadcasters innovate.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by neiltb

the beeb could cut down to the speed (fox) standard, send a pit reporter, will buxton?, and have the other 3 idiots in the studio in north carolina gleaning the international feed for info.

That's rather similar to Sky's coverage of Indy Car.

[jab]

Originally Posted by dyewat808

Great coverage doesn't always equal more subscribers though.

People have short memories. When people see how good the coverage is, they'll forget ever having said they'll never subscribe

The only people that lose out here when it all pans out will be those who genuinely can't afford it

[old man]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

Could I ask you all kindly to vote in this poll in armchair, if you have time?

http://tentenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=129486

Nowhere for a person who alreadt has Sky to vote, sadly

[Lotusonpole]

Originally Posted by jab

People have short memories. When people see how good the coverage is, they'll forget ever having said they'll never subscribe

The only people that lose out here when it all pans out will be those who genuinely can't afford it

And that, in these uncertain times, may be more than an insignificant few.

[Paulaweybridge]

4766 so far !!!

Originally Posted by Alan Raine

There's already a petition.

http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/keepf1onthebbc

If they get 100,000 it's possibly debated in Parliament

[AndyS]

Originally Posted by jab

If the coverage is better than the BBC's, as was the case with Eurosport in the 90s, people will subscribe and watch all the races on Sky

No they won't. When you've a mortgage, children and bills to pay in the curent climate everything has to be costed and justified. A lot of people will not be able to justify the cost.

[GrahamH]

I agree with the posts here critical of the BBC.

Firstly, it looks like they are desperate to get out early from a contract that they entered into to broadcast F1, in order to reduce their spending. Effectively selling their F1 rights is an easy way to do that, certainly much easier than managing the costs in the rest of their business more effectively.

Secondly, in the context of the unsavoury business of the phone hacking scandal, doing a deal to pass control of another sport to a company part owned by the Murdoch family seems to show some very poor judgement from a public service broadcaster.

Finally, Adam Parr: Oh dear. Adam, make your team perform better. Then you'll be able to get more money from sponsors, and fans might buy more of your branded merchandise. Don't blame the fans for your own commercial problems.

[Lotusonpole]

Originally Posted by GrahamH

I agree with the posts here critical of the BBC.

Firstly, it looks like they are desperate to get out early from a contract that they entered into to broadcast F1, in order to reduce their spending. Effectively selling their F1 rights is an easy way to do that, certainly much easier than managing the costs in the rest of their business more effectively.

Secondly, in the context of the unsavoury business of the phone hacking scandal, doing a deal to pass control of another sport to a company part owned by the Murdoch family seems to show some very poor judgement from a public service broadcaster.

Finally, Adam Parr: Oh dear. Adam, make your team perform better. Then you'll be able to get more money from sponsors, and fans might buy more of your branded merchandise. Don't blame the fans for your own commercial problems.

Bravo. Very good post.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by AndyS

No they won't. When you've a mortgage, children and bills to pay in the curent climate everything has to be costed and justified. A lot of people will not be able to justify the cost.

Too true.

[Steve Fox]

We can't even vote with our feet and not pay the license fee, Democracy anyone?

[jab]

Originally Posted by Lotusonpole

And that, in these uncertain times, may be more than an insignificant few.

It won't matter, though. You could get a quarter of the viewers that is currently expected on Sky and they'll still do well out of it. The only way it could go wrong is if only one man and his dog watches, which isn't going to happen - F1 fans are far too loyal

We've had it far too cushy with F1 for a long time. Look at every other sport. Football went largely to Sky in the early 90s. Golf and tennis is very much split between Sky and the BBC like F1 now. Cricket is all live on Sky with highlights on the BBC or Channel Five. They're all split in the same way as F1 will be

F1 is the only one that currently has all its events broadcast on 1 FTA channel, and has been for years - it's unusual in the sporting world for that to be the case. So 1) it was inevitable that F1 would go to a subscription channel at some point and 2) it's only following all the other sports, who realised years ago that you can make more money if you have 2 or more TV channels paying a quite a bit instead of 1 paying a lot

For a sports championship to have some events on one channel and some on another one is not unusual. In fact, it's pretty much standard. F1 is catching up, not falling behind

[Paulaweybridge]

This is what Jake Humphrey has said about it in today's Evening Standard:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...put-into-f1.do

[chunder]

Lol, sounds to me like he might be about to jump ship!

Blimey, he couldnt be fuether up Sky's wallet!

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by chunder

Lol, sounds to me like he might be about to jump ship!

Blimey, he couldnt be fuether up Sky's wallet!

His entire piece had one single paragraph on Sky..............

Sky has done wonderful things with cricket and football, it offers incredible depth of the sports it covers and has already signalled its intention to take the sport to new levels. We'll see how a sport that is so dependent on big TV audiences will react to the news of partly non-free-to-air F1 coverage.

And i, personally, can't see anything other than the truth in his statement.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Steve Fox

We can't even vote with our feet and not pay the license fee, Democracy anyone?

Of course you can vote with your feet. Get rid of your telly, no need to pay the licence fee. Simple.

Oh, hold on, you want to keep your telly? Because you watch stuff on it? That isn't F1?

okkkkaaayyyy.....

Point being, the license fee covers a lot of stuff, F1 is just a minor (but expensive) part of it.