uk f1 tv coverage - sky, bbc and ch4

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by S griffin

It just doesn't seem right to have the monopoly of live coverage behind the paywall. Just because it makes good business sense doesn't mean it makes good actual sense. That I feel is a well reasoned view on why I feel it's selfish, even if others don't agree. I don't feel it's 'drivel' to think that

It's nothing to do with others not agreeing with you that SKY are selfish about broadcasting behind a paywall; others like myself disagree with you because it's not factual that SKY are being selfish because it's their business philosophy to show the majority of the sports' rights broadcasting behind a paywall. That's a fact, and it's why most if not all Premier League footfall behind a paywall, for example.

F1 is primarily a business that promotes racing around the world. So, when about 10 years ago, when the TV rights were up for renewal, Mr Ecclestone put out the rights to tender and SKY came back with a considerably higher bid than any other broadcaster so they easily won the rights because Mr E and all the team principles wanted to cash in on SKY's generosity! At that point, the then government in the UK came along and insisted, as they do with other certain sports, that the British GP had to be shown live on terrestrial free to air TV.

Subsequently, Channel 4 negotiated the package that currently is available. However, there is no guarantee that when C4's current contract comes to an end that they will renew or be able to afford to renew. Who knows, maybe even SKY may lose their interest in F1 and then there is the possibility that another cash rich paywall broadcaster will come in?

The blame lies solely with MR E, FOM and the teams, not with SKY.

[The Fat Clerk]

The blame lies solely with MR E, FOM and the teams, not with SKY.[/QUOTE]

Couldn't agree more.

I'm a SKY subscriber for the Cricket & IndyCar, certainly not the F1.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by S griffin

That I feel is a well reasoned view on why I feel it's selfish, even if others don't agree.

Who is being accused of acting in a selfish manner?

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

However, there is no guarantee that when C4's current contract comes to an end that they will renew or be able to afford to renew. Who knows, maybe even SKY may lose their interest in F1 and then there is the possibility that another cash rich paywall broadcaster will come in?

The blame lies solely with MR E, FOM and the teams, not with SKY.

I'm sure they announced sometime during the weekend that Channel 4 had now re-signed and will continue their coverage of F1 (but I can't remember for how long).
As to your reasoning to where the blame lies for this, I totally agree (especially after just finishing reading Susan Watkins' 2012 biography of Mr E!)

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

I'm sure they announced sometime during the weekend that Channel 4 had now re-signed and will continue their coverage of F1 (but I can't remember for how long).
As to your reasoning to where the blame lies for this, I totally agree (especially after just finishing reading Susan Watkins' 2012 biography of Mr E!)

Yes, I just looked it up and they have renewed the contract until 2026.

[Alan52]

Originally Posted by S griffin

It just doesn't seem right to have the monopoly of live coverage behind the paywall. Just because it makes good business sense doesn't mean it makes good actual sense. That I feel is a well reasoned view on why I feel it's selfish, even if others don't agree. I don't feel it's 'drivel' to think that

That’s what’s happened to most international sport in most if not all countries.
Basic reason is that free to air TV is in financial free fall.As the broadcasting market has diversified and the number of viewers have splintered it no longer makes sense for advertisers to pay the premium prices they used to.So the FTA broadcasters have a lot less money to spend on programming.The trade off for sporting bodies between income and reach from broadcasting is completely different to what it was 20 years ago.The FTA broadcasters are no longer in the position to even make a serious offer for most rights.
As for government funded broadcasters get back to me when those governments have properly funded the infrastructure they need to provide and are properly paying health workers,teachers etc.

[chillibowl]

with the subscription models there has also been a tremendous improvement to the amount of content and a much higher level of broadcast quality and production values.

this current use of AI to fill in the gaps for their slow motion capture is just one of the improvements we get because of the way the broadcasts are being monetized now.

so its a net positive for me.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/a...20Grand%20Prix.

while i would disagree that F1 broadcasts have always been cutting edge...BE tried once and failed with his early attempt to move to a digital platform, F1 was, during the FTA era, well behind other sports (perhaps just n.american sports) in its adoption of a widescreen aspect ratio and HD broadcasts.

this only changed post BBC/ITV era and coincided with the move to behind a paywall to my recollection.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

with the subscription models there has also been a tremendous improvement to the amount of content and a much higher level of broadcast quality and production values.

this current use of AI to fill in the gaps for their slow motion capture is just one of the improvements we get because of the way the broadcasts are being monetized now.

so its a net positive for me.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/a...20Grand%20Prix.

while i would disagree that F1 broadcasts have always been cutting edge...BE tried once and failed with his early attempt to move to a digital platform, F1 was, during the FTA era, well behind other sports (perhaps just n.american sports) in its adoption of a widescreen aspect ratio and HD broadcasts.

this only changed post BBC/ITV era and coincided with the move to behind a paywall to my recollection.

I thought Bernie was opposed to F1 having a digital platform and that it only happened because Liberty took over?


https://www.raconteur.net/report/bus...-digital-push/

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I thought Bernie was opposed to F1 having a digital platform and that it only happened because Liberty took over?


https://www.raconteur.net/report/bus...-digital-push/

i dont know that he was opposed to it as it provided additional income from those broadcasters that bought the service but the costs to FOM to develop etc were much more then what was coming in and that service that he started in the late 90s ultimately failed as customers were, i assume, not willing to pay for the enhanced coverage at the time...or maybe it was just ahead of its time?

from what i can gather BE then scrapped the idea and the sport didnt come back to this issue until after Liberty had taken over and the F1 TV Pro platform was launched.

despite its failure though, FOM would increasingly make efforts to take over more and more aspects of the world feed and no doubt from there the logic of the subscription modeled evolved in order to fund these improvements but in those intervening years (2002-2018) F1 coverage was, imo, really behind what other sports i was following at the time were doing.

most sports i had been watching at the time were already going to full HD broadcasts in the early 2000s, F1 didnt go there until 2011. maybe it was just a N.American thing but had already adopted HD TV as the standard for broadcasts around the same time BE's F1 Digital platform failed (again early 2000s).

in those intervening years, we would occasionally get a few races in a widescreen format (typically just the Japanese GP) and they stood out as massive improvements over what other local broadcasters were (willing or capable of) producing but overall in terms of picture quality and production values, F1 broadcasts really paled in comparison to the n.american broadcasting sports standards at that time imo.

this wont be a popular opinion, but the quality of F1 broadcasts improved massively since Liberty took over and i have to think their ability to better monetize the sport has allowed them to make the required investments to achieve this.

imo none of this happens under a FTA system.

apologies if that was a bit rambling

[Richard C]

Following on with what chilibowl says above...

My perception is that BE was generally stuck in a specific revenue model plus not a big fan of embracing some newer aspects such as social media. So he was continuing upon the path of selling broadcast rights to region specific broadcasters. Of which I think the current Sky situation for UK would fit perfectly into the model he was using.

I would agree with chilibowl that my personal experience has improved under Liberty. Both in viewing and F1's move to embrace more fan outreach via social media.

While this thread is about UK coverage, I find it interesting as to the lack of FTA F1. I am trying to think back. Outside of the fact that some NA broadcasters have shown select races FTA (such as Monaco and maybe a few others), generally speaking I think F1 has never been FTA here. Either it wasn't available at all, or once cable became more pervasive, it was available there. Sometimes in relatively "base" packages (for a price) and more recently only on more premium packages (for even more money).

Richard

[Mike Harte]

Some of the perceived improvements possibly come about because I understand that they now produce the output from a purpose built facility in Biggin Hill near London. This means that they no longer have to lug around 3 container loads of equipment from race to race, especially flying all of that to the far-flung races. Mr E appointed a chap by the name of Baker (I'm afraid I can no longer recall his first name) to direct and produce the broadcast; and the area where they set up at the circuits came to be known as Baker's village.

The other thing that must be said is that, since the latter years of Mr E and the subsequent take over by Liberty, all the equipment available has moved on by leaps and bounds which allows for a far better production. However, as others have said, Mr E didn't really embrace modern technology possibly because of his advancing years, even though he was still able to run the show with the aid of just one other person - not the legions that Liberty require to do virtually the same job.

[chillibowl]

indeed that the equipment and tech has improved tremendously making these improvements possible...but at the same time it has also become a much more expensive and capital intensive process.

in order to keep pace, new ways to monetize events was required. BE didnt do that for whatever reason (probably shouldn't ignore CVCs desire to squeeze and not re invest as part of the problem) but now that these investments are being made and its results apparent, do people still feel the same way about subscription models?

yes it cost more to watch the races but there is a significant and tangible improvement in the quality and quantity of content available.

for me it is worth it even tho there is now far too much content to keep up with lol but these 4K HDR races with the AI anti aliasing high motion capture tech...to each their own as always, but just from a purely eye candy point of view these races are glorious to watch now days.

arguably might be the best looking/filmed sport now days and that might be because subscription models do, in this regard at least, work?

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Some of the perceived improvements possibly come about because I understand that they now produce the output from a purpose built facility in Biggin Hill near London. This means that they no longer have to lug around 3 container loads of equipment from race to race, especially flying all of that to the far-flung races. Mr E appointed a chap by the name of Baker (I'm afraid I can no longer recall his first name) to direct and produce the broadcast; and the area where they set up at the circuits came to be known as Baker's village.

The other thing that must be said is that, since the latter years of Mr E and the subsequent take over by Liberty, all the equipment available has moved on by leaps and bounds which allows for a far better production. However, as others have said, Mr E didn't really embrace modern technology possibly because of his advancing years, even though he was still able to run the show with the aid of just one other person - not the legions that Liberty require to do virtually the same job.

Further to this, for those not aware,

The live feed from every FOM camera (Track side, on board, hand held and FOM presentation) and microphone (including team radio) is fed back to Biggin.
Tata Communications extended their agreement last year Link

I believe only the Live race world feed is directed from onsite, with the replays, team radio inserts and most graphics being produced by teams at Biggin to be inserted by the on-site director.
The other channels such as the battle channel, and the individual on board camera channels are all produced and directed from Biggin as well.

[Derwent]

I sometimes turn the volume down and use the subtitles when I get fed up with screaming Jacques.
The sub titles bring up some howlers like "Max's Red Balls"; and "Oscar Pastry".

[Skam85]

Originally Posted by Derwent

I sometimes turn the volume down and use the subtitles when I get fed up with screaming Jacques.
The sub titles bring up some howlers like "Max's Red Balls"; and "Oscar Pastry".

Charl Eclair?

[Aysedasi]

Off-topic, but I watched ITV's coverage of the FOS yesterday. I thought it was dreadful. All they wanted to do was talk and primarily discuss new cars and EV technology. We finally got a few cars going up the hill in the shoot-out near the end of the programme.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Off-topic, but I watched ITV's coverage of the FOS yesterday. I thought it was dreadful. All they wanted to do was talk and primarily discuss new cars and EV technology. We finally got a few cars going up the hill in the shoot-out near the end of the programme.

Luckily I spent the weekend decorating so didn't know this was on. Thanks for your feedback I'll not bother looking for it feedback now either!

[S griffin]

I thought it was ok. At least it gave a good angle of the event, although we could have seen more vehicles going up the hill

[The Fat Clerk]

Fortunately I'd recorded both days, so watched most of it on the fast forward button, in my opinion far to much talking and not enough cars on the hill.
I did like the interview with Dario though, especially when he mentioned wearing a kilt.
Luckily the IndyCar race from Toronto was worth watching 'live'.

[peebee2]

The Goodwood hill isn’t really much of a competition though - more of a glorified parade.

[Mike Harte]

It was pretty good on the live Goodwood feed on Youtube, though, which is accessible via my cable package on the TV.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by peebee2

The Goodwood hill isn’t really much of a competition though - more of a glorified parade.

Absolutely. But there's still a buzz from looking at some incredible cars in the paddock and seeing them go up the hill.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

It was pretty good on the live Goodwood feed on Youtube, though, which is accessible via my cable package on the TV.

Yeah, I need to go back and catch some of that. It's a shame the weather did it's best to spoil the event. It was pretty wet while I was there on Friday.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I thought it was ok. At least it gave a good angle of the event, although we could have seen more vehicles going up the hill

For the uninitiated perhaps. These programs seem to be designed these days for those with short attention spans.... (IMO).

[The Fat Clerk]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

For the uninitiated perhaps. These programs seem to be designed these days for those with short attention spans.... (IMO).

Probably true, and it was on a 'mainstream channel' as opposed to a specialist one.