F1 tv viewing set to plummet further

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I must admit, I think a bit of a music might make the racing better, its the obvious choice. Maybe they could use the Benny Hill theme?

Quite.

[steve_r]

Just my personal opinion:-

I sat through the absolutely dire Schumacher dominated era in the early 2000's, when there was no overtaking at all apart from during the pits-stops, the cars had ridiculous skinny or grooved tyres and usually the only driver who could get close to Schumacher was his teammate, but they were not allowed to race him due to team orders.

By comparison, this is a golden age. In fact, by comparison any other age is a golden age. I therefore find the bleating about the current state of F1 hard to take too seriously.

Current racing could be vastly improved by reducing the reliance on aero grip, and increasing the reliance on mechanical grip, even if that means slower lap times. That is not going to happen any time soon. But it is still better than it was. At least Rosberg and Hamilton were allowed to race each other.

[E.B]

Originally Posted by Sodemo

I must admit, I think a bit of a music might make the racing better, its the obvious choice. Maybe they could use the Benny Hill theme?

In any case, using tighter angles won't make the cars seem faster, if anything they need to use wider angles but move the cameras closer to the track.

They cant get close enough due to the huge runoffs.

[AdrianM]

Originally Posted by steve_r

Just my personal opinion:-

I sat through the absolutely dire Schumacher dominated era in the early 2000's, when there was no overtaking at all apart from during the pits-stops, the cars had ridiculous skinny or grooved tyres and usually the only driver who could get close to Schumacher was his teammate, but they were not allowed to race him due to team orders.

By comparison, this is a golden age. In fact, by comparison any other age is a golden age. I therefore find the bleating about the current state of F1 hard to take too seriously.

Current racing could be vastly improved by reducing the reliance on aero grip, and increasing the reliance on mechanical grip, even if that means slower lap times. That is not going to happen any time soon. But it is still better than it was. At least Rosberg and Hamilton were allowed to race each other.

All very debatable. The stats show clearly that the Mercedes is a far more dominant car than either Schumachers Ferrari or Vettels Red Bull. The rules were changed specifically to stop both of those cars yet nothing is done to stop the Mercedes.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by steve_r

Just my personal opinion:-

I sat through the absolutely dire Schumacher dominated era in the early 2000's, when there was no overtaking at all apart from during the pits-stops, the cars had ridiculous skinny or grooved tyres and usually the only driver who could get close to Schumacher was his teammate, but they were not allowed to race him due to team orders.

By comparison, this is a golden age. In fact, by comparison any other age is a golden age. I therefore find the bleating about the current state of F1 hard to take too seriously.

Current racing could be vastly improved by reducing the reliance on aero grip, and increasing the reliance on mechanical grip, even if that means slower lap times. That is not going to happen any time soon. But it is still better than it was. At least Rosberg and Hamilton were allowed to race each other.

If overtaking is all, then you may have a point. But for me the drivers had much more input into the behaviour of the car compared to now.

Hence I'd have to disagree the tyres, DRS, and the power units all serve to make the sport tedious.

[steve_r]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

If overtaking is all, then you may have a point. But for me the drivers had much more input into the behaviour of the car compared to now.

Hence I'd have to disagree the tyres, DRS, and the power units all serve to make the sport tedious.

You seem to have missed my point about aero grip, which would probably make DRS unnecessary and also be more of an old-school challenge for the driver. But as this is not on the agenda, I don't suppose it matters whether anyone agrees or disagrees.

[Peter Mallett]

Apologies, yes I agree but that, together with a return to more basic cars would be a good step forward for enthusiasts. Failing that the Benny Hill music..............................

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by steve_r

Just my personal opinion:-

I sat through the absolutely dire Schumacher dominated era in the early 2000's, when there was no overtaking at all apart from during the pits-stops, the cars had ridiculous skinny or grooved tyres and usually the only driver who could get close to Schumacher was his teammate, but they were not allowed to race him due to team orders.

By comparison, this is a golden age. In fact, by comparison any other age is a golden age. I therefore find the bleating about the current state of F1 hard to take too seriously.

Current racing could be vastly improved by reducing the reliance on aero grip, and increasing the reliance on mechanical grip, even if that means slower lap times. That is not going to happen any time soon. But it is still better than it was. At least Rosberg and Hamilton were allowed to race each other.

I stopped watching after Austria 2002. It was on hearing about the arrival of Lewis Hamilton to F1 that got me interested again. The irony is the domination of Hamilton and Mercedes is about as tedious as Schumi and Ferrari and the fact there is little actual racing doesn't help.

[S griffin]

Intriguing ideas of Liberty to improve TV coverage. Lower cameras seem to be a nice idea and the idea of having 20 something spotters round the track to spot overtaking seems intriguing. Will they be able to relay the info to race control in time?

[Peter Mallett]

No they say they'll use more replays.

[chillibowl]

just a little bit of background on this David Hill (former head of FoxSports and one of the people Liberty brought in to help with the F1 broadcast).

David Hill was the head of Fox Sports when it took over the broadcasting rights to NHL in the US during the mid to late 90's and was tasked to help improve hockey viewership in the states.

along with a few others he was instrumental in bringing about changes in the way the hockey was covered including the addition of the FOX puck tracker (a little glowing light over the puck so that the uninitiated could better follow the game).



some considered it a major advance in how sports are broadcast live but anyone who was actually a fan of the game hated it and others, including myself, felt it was an insult as the concerns of lifelong fans were being pushed aside in favour of potential new viewers...viewers who sadly never materialized.

more of a summary on wiki below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FoxTrax

no doubt there are sensible changes to be made in how F1 is broadcast but i do worry that they will go too far/miss the mark in their pursuit of engaging the 'casual' viewer.

[S griffin]

David Hall also used to work for Channel 7 down under and famously got into a heated argument with Hunt the Shunt during the first Aussie GP in 85, when Hunt refused to say anything on air during quali

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Intriguing ideas of Liberty to improve TV coverage. Lower cameras seem to be a nice idea and the idea of having 20 something spotters round the track to spot overtaking seems intriguing. Will they be able to relay the info to race control in time?

Lower cameras, agreed. But spotters, isn't that what the tv cameras are for and as for the recap videos and music during the coverage, we wait and see on that.

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

It hasn't been boring for two decades but its direction has changed in the last five years. No longer are the cars exciting. Forget overtaking etc. there's no sense that the drivers have any input anymore. The oversteer we see is purely throttle based not from speed, because if it were they'd be in the boonies because the tyres wouldn't stand the slip angle. The engines are crap and the rules which go along with the engines create daft penalties.

In summary, this is in no way Formula One racing. And that is why viewing figures are set to fall.

I’m not so sure of that. They’ve looked on rails for a long time. Say 20 years to humour me. The narrow cars and the grooved tyres did a lot to get rid of that. It hasn't returned with each iteration. At least these cars do have the torque to cause some of it with throttle. Some = a little.

Engine penalties. Yep, crap.

Engines. Well the changes in the late ‘90s where V10 became homogenous, then regulated then V8s came. The V10 were loud, but nice sounding? nah. The V8s? They never ticked my V8 itch. So I’ll go with they’ve been crap since Ferrari ditched the V12 and we lost good sound and variety. That’s over 20years ago.

As you can tell I’m not saying current F1 is great, just it’s not significantantly crapper than the crap before it.

I don’t get why now particularly. If the introduction of that crap didn’t impact viewing figures why should more of the same?

The noise I hear of F1 fans saying F1 is boring has been constant to me for 20 odd years. That’s what I question. How does this whinging differ from previous whinging? (I don’t mean whinging negatively). The same with some people, they just see bad in everything. It’s a little cry wolf. I don’t class you in this bracket Peter which is why I am intrigued by your view.

[Sodemo]

Its a death by a thousand cuts in my view Adam.

A lot of what I loved from the sport 30 years ago has been eroded away. Great looking cars, great sounding cars, cars that could follow closely. Can you imagine one of today's cars overtaking around the outside of turn 1 at Hungary, completely broadside like Piquet did?

The tracks have had the majority of the driving challenges removed or eroded away. This is a pet peeve of mine because its not like they can just roll back those track changes for other series when they come to race there.

I am not totally against change and "progress", but when these things fundamentally affect the racing, that's when I think that it’s not for the good of the sport. For example, HANS device, great invention, it improves safety without taking away anything. Increased crash test standards, again, a good thing. Wheel tethers, again a good step, no one wants wheels bouncing around after a crash. However when you look at the changes like excessive tarmac run off, DRS, engine / gearbox penalties, id have a hard time arguing they were positive changes. I am ambivalent on the Halo, it’s an absolute horror show in terms of looks, however I see the need to improve safety, I just disagree with the direction taken. If they wanted to go down that route, they should have explored a full canopy.


The tracks have had the majority of the driving challenges removed or eroded away. This is a pet peeve of mine because its not like they can just roll back those track changes for other series.

I am not totally against change and "progress", but when these things fundamentally affect the racing, that's when I think that its not for the better. For example, HANS device, great invention, it improves safety

[wnut]

Martini set to drop Williams sponsorship.

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/o...-under-25-rule

"Ferrari also lost Santander as a major backer in 2017. However, Williams agreed that there was a downward trend in F1’s ability to attract sponsors.
“We’ve done a lot of work into why Formula 1 is not attracting as many sponsors as it once did,” she said.
“I do think that F1 needs to work harder as a collective in order to make it a really attractive destination again." Claire Williams

Are the sponsors moving out because of pay TV, or Peter's theory that whatever is going on is just not F1?

[E.B]

Originally Posted by wnut

Are the sponsors moving out because of pay TV, or Peter's theory that whatever is going on is just not F1?

Probably all of the above.

[Moneyseeker]

Look at where the big money used tocome from..

Tobacco - F1 was one of the few global places they could get their brand and they had massive cash to spend

Telecoms - now a mature market and focused on bundling products and upselling to existing customers - no longer needs F1

Banking and finance - still tarnished by a myriad of banking scandals and either still recovering financially or reputationally so not going to splash cash in F1. Corporate governance is limiting client entertainment.

Drinks industry - will be the next to be legislated out of F1 - IMO

Gambling - focus on online and mobile games/betting - and will probably also face tougher rules in the short term

Oil,and auto industry - falling prices have hit global profits and many auto supply chain are on tight margin deals to supply manufacturers

Social media - Facebook/twitter don't need an offline way to promote themselves

Who else is there who could afford/justify a $40m spend on F1 and the cost of activating it worldwide?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

Drinks industry - will be the next to be legislated out of F1 - IMO

Gambling - focus on online and mobile games/betting - and will probably also face tougher rules in the short term

In addition - those categories have issues with promoting to restricted age groups around the globe, which causes some problems.

Energy / Soft Drinks seems to be one are where money can / does come from?

Possibly also tech products might be interested?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

Corporate governance is limiting client entertainment.

expanding on this a bit...not just limited to banking/finance sector, i wonder if corporate guidelines are also having a knock on effect on other B2B sponsorship deals teams have.

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

Social media - Facebook/twitter don't need an offline way to promote themselves

Who else is there who could afford/justify a $40m spend on F1 and the cost of activating it worldwide?

40mil (or whatever) can be better spent and have a far greater reach using fb/twitter/ other social media platforms.

and even if F1 was FTA and still enjoyed viewing numbers of the past i would think offline advertising would still be considered an outdated and a non cost effective way to advertise.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Martini set to drop Williams sponsorship.

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/o...-under-25-rule

"Ferrari also lost Santander as a major backer in 2017. However, Williams agreed that there was a downward trend in F1’s ability to attract sponsors.
“We’ve done a lot of work into why Formula 1 is not attracting as many sponsors as it once did,” she said.
“I do think that F1 needs to work harder as a collective in order to make it a really attractive destination again." Claire Williams

Are the sponsors moving out because of pay TV, or Peter's theory that whatever is going on is just not F1?

The sponsors will go where they can get the most exposure for the least cost. A lot of car manufacturers are going to FE and I think many automotive sponsors will want to go there as well, a long with tech companies.

[Akrapovic]

Tech companies aren't coming. $40m for a title sponsor on a car for a couple of hours every few weeks is insane nowadays. The internet has changed the advertising landscape. If you spent that $40m on, let's say for sake of discussion, Google AdWords, you'd reach more people and a more targeted audience than you would be spending it in F1. And you'd reach them ALL the time, rather than just a few hours a weekend. For $40m in advertising, Twitter would put your tweet right below the most popular users in the world and you'd get so an immeasurable amount of views.

Tech companies aren't coming because they've already built a better platform for themselves to advertise on.

There's plenty of industries that can afford to spend that money, it's just a case of return. Aerospace and defence is a hotly contested set of industries, and they can afford it. But they won't because it isn't the audience.

Slapping stickers on cars is an outdated way of advertising. Car brands and associated brands are still here because they're selling products. Energy drinks are here because they can associate it with extreme sports. Watch manufacturers are here because they can pretend that it isn't a watch, it's a high precision chronograph that measures the distance to Saturn. But it's a struggle to link any other products now.

[pole2pole]

Formula E has no problem attracting sponsors. The cars and circuits are plastered with giants from the business world. Some have even made the switch from F1 to Formula E.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by pole2pole

Formula E has no problem attracting sponsors. The cars and circuits are plastered with giants from the business world. Some have even made the switch from F1 to Formula E.

Because it's dirt cheap and looks modern. You've got a larger chance of getting your money back from a small investment than a large investment.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Because it's dirt cheap and looks modern. You've got a larger chance of getting your money back from a small investment than a large investment.

If it's dirt cheap, why won't it attract Tech companies?