uk f1 tv coverage - sky, bbc and ch4

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Apparently, Motorsport.tv are launching a free-to-air service.

http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/141802

I watched something using that service recently- either Bathurst 12 or Daytona 24, but it’s not stretching to F1 unfortunately! I think WSBK is subscription only as well.

Oh well, wishful thinking....

Edit- while typing an email from them arrived.... As I thought, subscription for WEC, TCR, WSBK and others....

[justracing]

Originally Posted by Mike Bell

I watched something using that service recently- either Bathurst 12 or Daytona 24, but it’s not stretching to F1 unfortunately! I think WSBK is subscription only as well.

Oh well, wishful thinking....

Edit- while typing an email from them arrived.... As I thought, subscription for WEC, TCR, WSBK and others....

WSBK highlights are shown on itv4 usually on Tuesday after the race weekend, IMSA has a free stream for the North American sportscars, unfortunately neither F1 or the WEC offer free streaming but the Bathurst races are usually streamed free and are available on YouTube and BT has lost the rights to show Indycars live this year.

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by justracing

WSBK highlights are shown on itv4 usually on Tuesday after the race weekend, IMSA has a free stream for the North American sportscars, unfortunately neither F1 or the WEC offer free streaming but the Bathurst races are usually streamed free and are available on YouTube and BT has lost the rights to show Indycars live this year.

Thanks. I missed the recent WSBK highlights so need to concentrate harder....

I usually watch IMSA for NASC, but think Motorsport TV sent out a flyer for Bathurst, so I tried it. Otherwise it would have ootoob.

As for F1, it will be on All4 catchup, probably. No way I’m paying extra to watch it!

[justracing]

Originally Posted by Mike Bell

As for F1, it will be on All4 catchup, probably. No way I’m paying extra to watch it!

Likewise

[Akrapovic]

A good majority of the Motorsport.tv service is the same as MotorTrendOnDemand - you're paying for stuff that's already free. If you want sportscar racing, then just YouTube it. ELMS, LM Cup, Creventic, VLN, Blancpain Sprint, Blancpain GT, IGTC, SuperGT. All free on YouTube. IMSA is free elsewhere and then uploaded to YouTube later. WEC is paid for live, but uploaded to YouTube later.

And YouTube has a well built, well tested robust player that won't break. Unlike MToD, IMSA and WEC streams.

[LC2guy]

All Indycar Races including Indy 500 are live this season on Sky F1 channel for those who have it, which is a nice Bonus.

[BertMk2]

Originally Posted by LC2guy

All Indycar Races including Indy 500 are live this season on Sky F1 channel for those who have it, which is a nice Bonus.

But for those that have BT and not Sky it's a loss for this year as Indycar was on there last year. As seems to be the way you need multiple subscriptions to be able to watch everything - so I just end up with none - I begrudge paying subscriptions for channels showing 90% I'm not interested in just to get at the 10%.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Here is the official release from Sky..

https://www.skygroup.sky/corporate/m...racing_in_2019

[bella]

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14...ee-tv-presence

i mean, he's just saying what we're all saying. so why isn't anyone listening?

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by bella

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14...ee-tv-presence

i mean, he's just saying what we're all saying. so why isn't anyone listening?

I think it's just the aural version of 'There's none so blind as those who don't wan to see' bella...

[bjohnsonsmith]

We haven't had a driver's take on TV coverage and Hamilton makes some good points.

http://classic.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/141914

I see bella has already posted this but from Autosport's new site, as opposed to their classic site.

[bella]

i just posted that but it's ok if you need a bloke to say it too

[S griffin]

Well we’ve all said it for a long time. So nothing new there

[bella]

there IS something new in a high profile sportsman saying that it doesn’t make any sense in his world as well as ours....

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bella

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14...ee-tv-presence

i mean, he's just saying what we're all saying. so why isn't anyone listening?

A quote from the article that summarizes the problem in my view...

Hamilton said he grew up watching F1 races on the BBC "and it was awesome".

As to why nobody is listening. I expect F1 (Liberty) is of two minds...

1. Squeeze profit where you can find it.
2. Expand the business.

The problem is that how (or if) you monetize the broadcast side creates a direct conflict between those two goals. So far item #1 is winning the internal battle over #2. At least with respect to free to air broadcasts and it's impact of not just keeping the current generation of fans, but creating the next generation.

IMHO, they should utilize a "freemium" online model. Basic world feed shown online for free. Potentially embedded advertisements to help offset the cost. Premium could be advertisement free as well as provide additional access (in-car access, etc.) Individual national broadcast rights could be negotiated for minimal fees. I expect markets that already have large F1 penetration (UK) may find broadcasters who will show it even if it is available online for free. Other markets like the US in which we feel luck if we can see F1 at all, would likely only get it online. Regardless, online is the future anyhow.

Richard

[gert]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

As to why nobody is listening. I expect F1 (Liberty) is of two minds...

1. Squeeze profit where you can find it.
2. Expand the business.

If we not only look at the UK coverage, but include other countries, there's also factor 3.

3. Liberty also own TV stations and/or Internet Service Providers - where the TV stations are exclusive to said ISP.

In Belgium, Liberty owns Telenet, which is the sole cable network provider in the Dutch-speaking part. Telenet has some premium packages (a.o. their Sports Channels) which can only be watched if you have a Telenet connection.

Their direct competitor is Proximus (new name for Belgacom) which also has its own exclusive sports channels.
Zero chance F1 would be run there since it would require Liberty's ISP customers move to their direct competitor.

The nicest solution would be to put F1 on a normal channel, that can be watched by everybody regardless if they are a Telenet, Belgacom or TVVlaanderen (satellite) customer.

Sadly, they use it to try to lure customers from their competitors.


AFAIK the situation in the Netherlands is quite similar, with Liberty owning Ziggo (formerly UPC), and their competitors being KPN (copper network ISP, similar to Proximus/Belgacom in Belgium) and CanalDigitaal (satellite, comparable to TVVlaanderen)

[Mike Harte]

The opposite applies in the UK.

Liberty owns Virgin Media which is forced to buy F1 coverage from Sky, it's major competitor, that now has the sole live broadcasting rights in the UK. And Virgin, to cover it's costs, charges around £24 per month (last time I looked) to get Sky sports coverage added to their subscription package.

What does need to be said is that since F1 coverage around the world has been slowly disappearing behind a paywall, that audience figures are reducing. And I would hazard a guess that even that figure will plummet this year as potential viewers will either a) refuse to add the Sky sports channels to their cable (non Sky) packages, b) not wish to pay extra if they are existing Sky customers or c) have to purchase access to a cable supplier if they only view terrestrial TV via an aerial which is free in the UK having paid for a TV licence.

[bella]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

And I would hazard a guess that even that figure will plummet this year as potential viewers will either a) refuse to add the Sky sports channels to their cable (non Sky) packages, b) not wish to pay extra if they are existing Sky customers or c) have to purchase access to a cable supplier if they only view terrestrial TV via an aerial which is free in the UK having paid for a TV licence.

i'm in the c) category. no current paid sky or cable access, and no intention to spend the money on getting one.

i think they've unintentionally made it worse by gradually withdrawing the live coverage from terrestrial telly in the uk. if it had suddenly disappeared i think more people would have felt the need to sign up and continue to watch. now people have had the opportunity to get used to *not* seeing f1 races live they've realised the world doesn't stop if they miss it...

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

The opposite applies in the UK.

Liberty owns Virgin Media which is forced to buy F1 coverage from Sky, it's major competitor, that now has the sole live broadcasting rights in the UK. And Virgin, to cover it's costs, charges around £24 per month (last time I looked) to get Sky sports coverage added to their subscription package.

What does need to be said is that since F1 coverage around the world has been slowly disappearing behind a paywall, that audience figures are reducing. And I would hazard a guess that even that figure will plummet this year as potential viewers will either a) refuse to add the Sky sports channels to their cable (non Sky) packages, b) not wish to pay extra if they are existing Sky customers or c) have to purchase access to a cable supplier if they only view terrestrial TV via an aerial which is free in the UK having paid for a TV licence.

That'll include me Mike. I'm not a Luddite, scared of new technology (quite the opposite in fact) but I don't have the time to watch all of this extra guff on the TV. I'm not that fussed about watching a lot of TV anyway (a good things as my missus has first call on the remote control anyway!), but have always enjoyed watching the Grands Prix when I can, either directly when shown, or early morning/late at night if I've recorded it. This year will be 'interesting' for me as the Channel 4 highlights will be shown at a popular time meaning that for me, I will not be able (allowed/ignorant enough to insist the rest of the family sit through it and keep quiet etc) to watch it live so will have to record it and get up a couple of hours earlier for work on Monday to see the race. (If I don't see it before coming to work, then I'll be on here and find out what happened anyway). So, a gauge of how strong my interest still is in GP Racing will be to see how many times I get up extra early on a Monday morning. Sadly I feel that this year may be the first of many that I don't see 90% of the races.

[Mike Harte]

My fear is that you Viv and bella will just be two of many in the UK, which has, I believe, traditionally been the largest audience centre in the world. China may have overtaken the UK, although I am not sure on that.

[Peter Mallett]

Ditto. I'm already uninterested in this year. Hardly read any coverage of testing etc. What's the point if I can't actually watch a race?

[gary396]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Ditto. I'm already uninterested in this year. Hardly read any coverage of testing etc. What's the point if I can't actually watch a race?

Yep, same here. I was quite happy with the Channel 4 mix of live / highlights (apart from their lad presenter) but I won't go back to Sky on the off-chance of the odd decent race.

[Mike Harte]

And if this is typical of diehard followers of the sport, then it will be magnified by casual viewers.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

And if this is typical of diehard followers of the sport, then it will be magnified by casual viewers.

F1's not going to attract that many casual viewers, if they are televising behind a pay-wall, as most won't want to pay.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

And I would hazard a guess that even that figure will plummet this year as potential viewers will either a) refuse to add the Sky sports channels to their cable (non Sky) packages, b) not wish to pay extra if they are existing Sky customers or c) have to purchase access to a cable supplier if they only view terrestrial TV via an aerial which is free in the UK having paid for a TV licence.

Common misconception (not accusing you of this, Mike) on that last bit: you need a TV licence if you watch broadcast TV in any way, shape or form - and that includes via Sky or Virgin, or online using BBC iPlayer, ITV Hub, 4OD etc.

It's interesting that Sky have an exclusivity clause in their contract, which means Virgin Media have to pay for the Sky coverage despite being a child company of the company that Sky have the deal with!

I'm going to review my Virgin Media package at the end of the F1 season. The Sky Sports side of things is close to reaching the "not value for money" point for me and the family. That said, I watched more live IndyCar than F1 last year, so it might be a reason to keep the sports package...