uk f1 tv coverage - sky, bbc and ch4

[Paradise City]

Coulthard's character comes out in his punditry but while competent in commentary, he does come across quite lifeless in the box. I presume he's ill at ease trying to keep up with developments and is more fluent in the less fast paced arena that is punditry.

Also what exactly is it with these guys and the word 'crucial'?

I'd also like to see Edwards more involved in a bit of post-race punditry and it's a pity we don't slightly see more of him.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mystery

I watch only the Sky coverage and even then only the sessions and none of the fluff. As a result I find it all quite enjoyable.

I don't subscribe to Sky, but as long as I can watch the race, that's good enough for me. Regarding the commentary teams, as long as the input's good, again that's good enough for me.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I don't subscribe to Sky, but as long as I can watch the race, that's good enough for me. Regarding the commentary teams, as long as the input's good, again that's good enough for me.

Yup BJ, I sometimes just turn the sound off, when they get particularly irritating! Usually when I am not doing something else while watching when I rely on the sound to alert me if anything actually happens!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Yup BJ, I sometimes just turn the sound off, when they get particularly irritating! Usually when I am not doing something else while watching when I rely on the sound to alert me if anything actually happens!

I do excatly the same with the sound, otherwise I use the scrolling, leader bar thing at the bottom of the screen, as well as watching the race,

[henners88]

I lost access to Sky Go after my father cancelled his subscription after 18 years because Sky wanted him to pay close to £70 for a new box after it failed. The box was only 2 years old and my father thought their customer service regarding the matter was shocking. I wasn't at all bothered though as if I ever need to watch a Sky only race (rare in the extreme), I just log on to one of the many streams.

Sky are still expensive and have priced themselves out of the market for many, yet they still knock on the door trying to sell me their product and seem confused when I say 'I can't justify the expense with a young family'. They always say 'yeah but you can get all these great channels only with us', great where do I sign, not. Sky are on a bit of a drive in my town at the moment and I wouldn't be surprised if they've cottoned on to the fact many are buying chipped boxes that are doing the rounds. I haven't gone down that route because I'm not desperate for it, but know many friends who have because of their kids.

F1 has become less of a priority in recent months and the hunger to watch on the day has diminished for me. Partly to do with the quality of the racing and mainly to do with the inconsistent coverage. Not the end of the world though.

[Mike Harte]

I stopped watching nearly three years ago, and my 40 year old sons told me that my world would stop if I no longer was a viewer. Funnily, enough, I have found more than enough other motor-sport based broadcasting to fill the gap and more.

Funnily enough, neither of my sons now bother to watch themselves even though one of them even has the full SKY sports package for something called football, whatever that is.

[Moneyseeker]

Personally I have no problem with Sky, agreed I don't want to know what Nico had for lunch, watch Lewis walk his dog or whatever the latest 'lifestyle glimpse' is, so I turn on as the cars set off on the GF laps and turn off when the race ends.

I guess we are lucky to have two broadcasters covering F1 and therefore a choice. For those who prefer to see it all live, it's clearly a shame that the BBC pleading poverty as usual, didn't remain in place as the live broadcaster of all races which begs the question why they send so many peole to the races still...?

[henners88]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

I guess we are lucky to have two broadcasters covering F1 and therefore a choice. For those who prefer to see it all live, it's clearly a shame that the BBC pleading poverty as usual, didn't remain in place as the live broadcaster of all races which begs the question why they send so many peole to the races still...?

Well those with Sky are lucky at least on that front, as a whole the UK audience are not so in comparison to 3 years ago. The BBC are making an effort with what they have I believe. They saved a huge sum of money by opting out of the 'full' rights and lets not forget they still cover the sport live for the sake of 10 live TV races, but they also need to cover it live for highlights edits. They also cover all races live via the radio so the effort is there. Sending people to cover the races costs considerably less than the money they have saved I would imagine.

I think the question should really be how Bernie and F1 justify the cost of the coverage to each broadcaster when it really is a niche sport? Personally I think they put a higher price on it than it is actually worth when compared to the interest level, and in recent times the quality of the racing.

When the sport goes out of its way to hide on subscription channels while being mystified the audience is dropping, its no wonder mainstream sports like football and tennis get their usual following and pick up the Sunday afternoon channel hoppers. I know the World Cup and Wimbledon are rare examples, but the point is F1 is losing its appeal slowly but surely.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

it's clearly a shame that the BBC pleading poverty as usual, didn't remain in place as the live broadcaster of all races which begs the question why they send so many peole to the races still...?

In Canada we still get a live BBC feed for every race, quali, and sometime one of the practice sessions.
Not sure how long our Canadian provider is going to continue with the beeb but if the BBC are also licensing it out to other counties as well its possible they are making money off of it.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

it's clearly a shame that the BBC pleading poverty as usual, didn't remain in place as the live broadcaster of all races which begs the question why they send so many peole to the races still...?

The BBC is not short of money. The question is how they choose to spend it.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

In Canada we still get a live BBC feed for every race, quali, and sometime one of the practice sessions.
Not sure how long our Canadian provider is going to continue with the beeb but if the BBC are also licensing it out to other counties as well its possible they are making money off of it.

Oh, our Auntie Beeb is really quite clever with it's accounting policies, and I am sure that they are doing very nicely from the contract, thank you very much. Kerching!!!!

The UK TV licence holders - in the good old UK, we have to pay a licence fee to the BBC to watch any form of TV, even if it's just streamed through a computer/tablet type thing, and applies equally to BBC programmes as well as any other TV provider (such as SKY, Fox etc.) - have and are paying for the purchase of the contract to buy the TV rights to see the Formula 1 seasons up until a certain future date.

The BBC then provides the broadcast to BBC Worldwide, an independent autonomous company within the BBC empire, which has the rights to sell those broadcasts on to other broadcasters throughout the world. Sometimes it is sold complete with the British commentary, and sometimes without.

Just in case anyone, for even a nano-second, is feeling a teensy bit sorry for Mr Ecclestone because he may be losing out along the way, don't worry, he isn't. The amount the BBC paid amply compensates him so that he doesn't have to bother hawking around the TV pictures that his in-house TV company, run by a Mr Baker I believe, filmed.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by davyboy

The BBC is not short of money. The question is how they choose to spend it.

They chose to give Ex-director general, George Entwistle a £450,000 payoff after spending just 54 days in the job, after he resigned in November 2012 following the Jimmy Savile scandal. They are not short of money.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

They chose to give Ex-director general, George Entwistle a £450,000 payoff after spending just 54 days in the job, after he resigned in November 2012 following the Jimmy Savile scandal. They are not short of money.

Money is wasted on an industrial scale there.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

... I don't want to know what Nico had for lunch, ...

Oddly that was actually interesting when they did that last because his lunch was eaten on the grid about 15 minutes before the race!

[mikuni]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

In Canada we still get a live BBC feed for every race, quali, and sometime one of the practice sessions.
Not sure how long our Canadian provider is going to continue with the beeb but if the BBC are also licensing it out to other counties as well its possible they are making money off of it.

So do we here in NZ, every session live complete with BBC comentary. I'm slightly concerned, because I want to keep it that way, however with the suggested changes that are coming, will the BBC continue to commentate live every GP?

I'm surprised at the dislike expressed to DC. I think he's good, and Ben Edwards is a more levelled off sider to him than Martin Brundel was. DC is kind of like an awkward father figure, where you often cringe when he is trying to be cool. I like that. Plus he is extremely quick to pick up problems with the cars and identify them.

[henners88]

I can't defend some of the ridiculous things the BBC has spent money on over the years like relocating to Manchester, paying off people who hadn't been in the job 5 mins, but as far as broadcasting is concerned, its a subjective view. Many will be furious the BBC spent so much money on F1 before they cut the deal, much like people hate the Voice and Strictly Come Dancing, yet many love it. The point is they have to invest in programs that will interest the most people and F1 isn't one of those any more. We, the F1 fans lose out of course.

Formula One costs a lot of money because FOM/CVC demand big money for it. These prices never seem to go down and its forced broadcasters to assess whether or not its value for money. I personally don't believe it is good value any more. Companies like Sky who have huge budgets are able to pay big money for sports due to high subscription prices and flooding channels with ad breaks for extra revenue. They themselves make huge profits. This new era of F1 just needs to accept that money comes at the expense of exposure to fans. They may be confused that fans aren't jumping over each other to sign up for pay TV services and in an ideal world this is what would happen, yet for obvious reasons it doesn't. Viewing figures are down globally, but revenue is up from television. They can't have it both ways in a world that has changed the way fans interact with sports.

F1 is naive in the fact they are changing the rules constantly to 'spice up the show' and is now blaming the changes for the fall in viewers. They forget they started drastically changing the rules because people were starting to lose interest in the first place. The shift to pay TV has just added to the problem, but this is bringing in the cash so lets play it all down and just blame the rules.

[Moneyseeker]

As I have said before on other threads, this is the result when the rights holder/promoter of F1 gets paid before an F1 car has turned a wheel. Thier buisness model is netirely on up front payments for TV rights and circuit rights fees, therefore there is a very low impact on them if viewers fall or nobody turns up at the circuits.

F1 only has a relative handfull of sponsors and advertisers themselves and this is all incremental jam on top income, not reliant income I would suggest. And of course they have the security of tenure of the 100 year rights deals.

I agree that subscription TV takes away the immediate accessability and won't pick up the casual viewer that terrestrial will. But I also believe it is a wider issue of not attracting younger viewers, that is F1 and the team sponsors main problem long term.

Not something the purists will want to hear, but I think one of the main barrier to interest from younger viewers is that the races are too long and largely decided on the 1st lap, but this is an issue we have covered many times already...

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

Not something the purists will want to hear, but I think one of the main barrier to interest from younger viewers is that the races are too long and largely decided on the 1st lap, but this is an issue we have covered many times already...

The real problem with F1 is that nothing exciting ever happens on the track!

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

Not something the purists will want to hear, but I think one of the main barrier to interest from younger viewers is that the races are too long and largely decided on the 1st lap, but this is an issue we have covered many times already...

The format is overdue an overhaul.

[Tucky]

Originally Posted by davyboy

The format is overdue an overhaul.

The problem is trying to balance the risks and benefits. If they are trying to cater to a younger audience who get bored easily then reducing the race length to half an hour is the easiest thing to do, however that would completely undermine the sport in my mind and i'm guessing practically all of us would turn our backs on F1 and go elsewhere.

Something has to be done, but no matter what they do someone will lose out because trying to target everyone just won't work.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Tucky

The problem is trying to balance the risks and benefits. If they are trying to cater to a younger audience who get bored easily then reducing the race length to half an hour is the easiest thing to do, however that would completely undermine the sport in my mind and i'm guessing practically all of us would turn our backs on F1 and go elsewhere.

Something has to be done, but no matter what they do someone will lose out because trying to target everyone just won't work.

There will always be disgruntled people who'll walk away. It's happening right now under the 'do nothing' scenario which is leading to a net decrease in audience figures. You'd hope that any changes would either slow or reverse that.

[Adam43]

Fans are saying that all the changes are bad and calling for more changes. They have no chance. They should just stop asking and listening. It started to go wrong from when they asked.

[garcon]

Never ask the fans. They're all ****ing stupid.

[Sodemo]

As a former bbc employee, I can say, without doubt, that there is a phenomenal amount of waste that goes on within the organisation. Some through incompetence and some just through plain greed or bad decision making.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by davyboy

There will always be disgruntled people who'll walk away. It's happening right now under the 'do nothing' scenario which is leading to a net decrease in audience figures. You'd hope that any changes would either slow or reverse that.

F1 is F1. If you change what it essentially to gather new younger viewers (essentially that is what they want because it figures in the money calculation and assessment) is you run the risk of alienating your existing audience.

What they are doing is fiddling with peripheral stuff but doing that has reached the stage where it's beginning to manipulate the sport and few people are attracted to sport that way.

What it was once was real competition and that is what will always be needed to make it significant to the mass market. It is a 200 mile (approx.) competition but that is now only an hour and a half because of speed. To make it shorter is a nonsense. What is needed is competition. If you had that the time wouldn't matter. Most televised sport activity is between 60-120 minutes.