Head in the Sand Thinking

[Casper]

It is no wonder that F1 has got major ussues when you have thinking like this from BE....http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/114278

That is like saying that cars were never going to replace the horse or electricity was nothing more than a fad.

[Paradise City]

I see no problem with Eccelstone's remarks here. It's chic to be a social media whizkid but if you already have a global foothold then there's no need to panic in that area and arm flapping over the natural ebb and flow of TV ratings is what can damage sport. In fact, the sport could probably do with driving away a few of the idiots who watch it now.

However I also think Eccelstone is playing with the media a bit here.

[Casper]

Why do people who are older refuse to see that social media is not going to be the future along with mobile devices such as tablets and phones and whatever they invent next time. I am very much on the wrong side of 60 and one thing that is obvious is that older people are using it because they started young and that was quite a few years ago. Even fora such as this will be in the minority just as newsgroups which were the old fora disappeared from use.

[bella]

i think they don't see social media as the future because they personally don't get any value from it. i get completely different things from it from someone who uses it to market themselves (especially to the desired gender for dating purposes), for example.

the reason bernie doesn't see it as important is because he doesn't have any friends

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by Casper

Why do people who are older refuse to see that social media is not going to be the future along with mobile devices such as tablets and phones and whatever they invent next time. I am very much on the wrong side of 60 and one thing that is obvious is that older people are using it because they started young and that was quite a few years ago. Even fora such as this will be in the minority just as newsgroups which were the old fora disappeared from use.

You can get F1 up on your tablet with the Sky plus thingamijig. I'm sure other broadcasters have a similar facility. There's that F1 app. And F1 will move more and more in that direction despite Eccelstone's trollin' here.

The problem is people losing their heads. They lose their heads over idolising TV ratings when what is really happening is just natural ebb and flow. When they panic, they wind up then with the sport disfigured with some ridiculous gimmick in a desperate and panicked bid to overinflate the audience. Not cool.

[Casper]

Are you really serious? Do you expect TV ratings to lift in the near future or indeed anywhere in the future?

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by Casper

Are you really serious? Do you expect TV ratings to lift in the near future or indeed anywhere in the future?

Chillax dude. Remember: Ebb and flow.

[bella]

they do have to go with the communications trends though. with the massive increase in methods of communicating with each other increasing by the day it's important for sport and industry to keep up with that and find as many ways as they can to connect with their support and customer base. in the end, a random retweet of a video can reach millions.

on the other hand, there is the risk that the video ends up being something negative - the formula renault silverstone start, for example. i wonder if its that sort of thing that prevents them wanting to get too involved. you only need to see what kind of uproar there is when the bahrain race happens. imagine if the outraged at anything brigade gets involved....

[Biscuits In A Red Bull]

What's very concerning for me is that Alan Gow is attempting to do with the BTCC coverage rights of ITV what FOM has done.

Where's the marketing in that? I guess it forces to people to watch the TV coverage if they want F1, but then that's becoming more costly and soon people are going to just give in and F1's TV audience will be limited.

[Moneyseeker]

This type of thinking is led by the business model that FOM has - they get paid upfront by the TV companies and circuits just for the rights to show and hold the event. FOM do no promotion of F1, have no interest in interacting with fans, it makes no difference to them financially if no one tuned in or turned up at the circuit. And they always have the 100 rights to fall back on....

If they had to work to attract paying fans and make the events pay they would be all whatever outlets of promotion are available, instead of which a 3 minute of the GP clip on YouTube is seen as a threat to TV revenue and taken down...

[Bandicoot17]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

You can get F1 up on your tablet with the Sky plus thingamijig. I'm sure other broadcasters have a similar facility. There's that F1 app. And F1 will move more and more in that direction despite Eccelstone's trollin' here.

Yeah but this isn't really social media. SkyGo is part of Sky and the app is just timing and scoring.

[Biscuits In A Red Bull]

Surely a huge factor in the drop in Italy's TV audience is the downfall of Ferrari.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Biscuits In A Red Bull

Surely a huge factor in the drop in Italy's TV audience is the downfall of Ferrari.

imo thats the most likely cause of the drop. if Ferrari were in contention and winning races, TV numbers would be up everywhere and not just in Italy imo .

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

imo thats the most likely cause of the drop. if Ferrari were in contention and winning races, TV numbers would be up everywhere and not just in Italy imo .

I truly don't believe that that is the case in the UK. When the BBC decided, in the middle of the season, to cease broadcasting free-to-air live coverage of every race from that moment onwards, viewing figures started to recede from a record high level.

Now that total live coverage is only available on pay-to view Sky, the viewing figures remain depressed, and at times the audience figures are only reach to about a third of the average previous BBC numbers.

I must admit that I wonder whether Sky will renew the contract when the next round of negotiations come around!

[chillibowl]

sure that was the shock of moving to PPV but from what i have read those numbers are coming back all be it not to the levels pre PPV yet (perhaps indicating a more accurate level of F1 viewership).

but that aside given what we can readily observe through peoples' consumer behaviour i dont see how anyone can still say FTA would have continued to produce an ever growing TV audience.

whether you pay for the signal or get it for free people are not designing their houses around a room in which you gather to watch television. watching TV (free or not) is rapidly becoming a thing of the past.

moving into the future, the fact that TV sales are slumping should be enough of an indication that FTA is not a sustainable model in terms of generating an audience.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

moving into the future, the fact that TV sales are slumping should be enough of an indication that FTA is not a sustainable model in terms of generating an audience.

There are too many assumptions here to draw those conclusions. The fact that what was once free is now only available under a charge assumes that people can afford to pay the charge, have access to paid sport TV, and are willing to part with money, or make alternative arrangements to watch it if it is not FTA.

Audience will fall if it is not FTA, and that audience that does not pay may shift elsewhere rather than go PPV. That audience may not come back, or be won back at all, which is why sponsors are not renewing or looking at reduced numbers of $$$$$.

The FTA audience has the disposable income advertisers are after, not the PPV one. PPV viewers watch only what they are interested in and there are cheaper strategies for advertisers to get their attention and commitment.

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I truly don't believe that that is the case in the UK. When the BBC decided, in the middle of the season, to cease broadcasting free-to-air live coverage of every race from that moment onwards, viewing figures started to recede from a record high level.

Now that total live coverage is only available on pay-to view Sky, the viewing figures remain depressed, and at times the audience figures are only reach to about a third of the average previous BBC numbers.

I must admit that I wonder whether Sky will renew the contract when the next round of negotiations come around!

Good point and it's worth noting that in fact the current basis that Sky covers F1 is not actually pure PPV. I have Sky F1 bundled in with my general Sky HD package, if it were literally PPV as per Sky Box office boxing matches for example, the viewers would be even less.

If Sky didn't bid again, would ITV be able to make it work financially now that ad revenues are stronger for them and as the BBC are always pleading poverty, it's unlikely they would want to pay BE's fee again?

Could be an interesting dilemma for FOM!

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

sure that was the shock of moving to PPV but from what i have read those numbers are coming back all be it not to the levels pre PPV yet (perhaps indicating a more accurate level of F1 viewership).

but that aside given what we can readily observe through peoples' consumer behaviour i dont see how anyone can still say FTA would have continued to produce an ever growing TV audience.

whether you pay for the signal or get it for free people are not designing their houses around a room in which you gather to watch television. watching TV (free or not) is rapidly becoming a thing of the past.

moving into the future, the fact that TV sales are slumping should be enough of an indication that FTA is not a sustainable model in terms of generating an audience.

I kind of agree that media is being consumed in various ways, with the rider that this is probably an age led thing. Speaking as a middle aged household, we do gather around the TV, although we do have other TV's scattered around the house if other viewing preferences are preferred.

Although we are seemingly dripping in computers, phones and tablets in our house, I've not seen the appeal of watching anything squinting at a 10" screen myself.

Personally I think that mobile media devices will only ever be for short bursts of viewing - small soundbites and segments (unless you are on a train or plane and are trapped into amusing yourself), is anyone really going to watch a GP on a small screen - no, they might wacth a 5-10 minute review of the race.

Do the younger viewers that all brands seem to aspire to reach even sit down for 2 hours to watch a race, where it might be braodcast on?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

The FTA audience has the disposable income advertisers are after, not the PPV one. PPV viewers watch only what they are interested in and there are cheaper strategies for advertisers to get their attention and commitment.

perhaps this is a chicken and the egg scenario but imo there is an argument to be made that the sponsors left the sport well before the the relatively recent phenomenon of moving the sport behind a pay wall began.

but you are right, there are easier ways for advertisers to target people and its not through F1 whether its a PPV or FTA model.

for the last decade there has been an almost complete lack of sponsors selling affordable consumer products. F1 is a niche market and regardless of it being FTA or not its still not free for the sponsors to advertise in...frankly they can reach far more people through the internet then they ever could through FTA...in other words at the very least, if targeting the most amount of customers while spending the least amount of money to do so then wouldnt it be more fair to say both FTA and PPV are simply inadequate?

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

Do the younger viewers that all brands seem to aspire to reach even sit down for 2 hours to watch a race, where it might be braodcast on?

thats really the challenge for all entertainment providers imo.

personally i see the PPV evolving to embrace smaller scale a la carte purchases. forcing someone to pay for a long term subscription is also becoming an antiquated model. selling each race for 5-10 dollars and allowing the purchaser to watch or stream their purchase to any platform they choose...more choice is the future imo.

[Paradise City]

A feed that is in HD on a small smartphone is surprisingly good and watchable. My experience is that you're not really squinting although you certainly do have to hold it closer to your face. It has a travelling utility I guess.

The bigger Ipad has the screen the size of an old portable TV though and is very agreeable with a stand I got for a euro.

There will be a substantial shift towards that kind of medium although the family in the living room surrounding a TV will always be relevant of course.

[FordCosworthPanoz]

I don't buy the Ferrari argument. F1 saw huge losses in ratings and attendance from 2001-2004 during the Ferrari and Schumacher domination period.

The years that did see a rather large increase in viewership were 1994-2000 and 2005-2008.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by FordCosworthPanoz

I don't buy the Ferrari argument. F1 saw huge losses in ratings and attendance from 2001-2004 during the Ferrari and Schumacher domination period.

The years that did see a rather large increase in viewership were 1994-2000 and 2005-2008.

Are you relating this to the UK or across the world?

[FordCosworthPanoz]

Originally Posted by wnut

Are you relating this to the UK or across the world?

Across the world, particularly Europe and Latin America. Germany however was an exception for obvious reasons. Interestingly from 2001-2004 Italy saw some of the worst viewership declines of any major F1 market and saw Monza raceday attendance plummet from around 120,000 in 2000 to under 60,000 in 2004.