uk f1 tv coverage - sky, bbc and ch4

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

But who was it a bad idea for.
The organisers?
The fans?
The tv viewers?
The teams?
The sport as a whole?

Judging the benefit of an idea based on viewing figures alone does not give the whole picture. I'm sure there are at least a few people who felt, and still feel, that it was a good idea. (I'm not saying I am one of them though ).

Apart from Sky who receive the extra revenue I can't think of anyone else who has benefited from it.
It makes no difference to the organisers.
The fans are losing out because if they haven't got access to Sky, they can't see the races live on TV.
The TV viewers - see the answer above.
The teams are losing out sponsorship-wise as less people are seeing the mobile advertising hoardings whizzing around the track - also see the answer above.
The sport as a whole is also losing out as there is less chance of a casual TV viewer being converted into an enthusiast - see answers above.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

But who was it a bad idea for.
The organisers?
The fans?
The tv viewers?
The teams?
The sport as a whole?

Judging the benefit of an idea based on viewing figures alone does not give the whole picture. I'm sure there are at least a few people who felt, and still feel, that it was a good idea. (I'm not saying I am one of them though ).

Many UK fans/TV viewers certainly thought it was a bad idea, as it would mean having to pay for Sky on top of the TV licence fee. I don't see that as a benefit and the viewing figures are now testament to that.

Televised sport needs sustainable viewing figures, not a declining TV audience, in order to attract advertising revenue and sponsors. If TV audiences are allowed to decline further, then the organisers and teams will be effected.

[Peter Mallett]

I guess it could be likened to the Premier league in the UK. That has such a massive fan base moving to pay tv was always going to be a winner. Formula one has a massive worldwide fan base but not, as a percentage of sports fans, big in the UK.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

Apart from Sky who receive the extra revenue I can't think of anyone else who has benefited from it.

as a Canadian and someone who has been required to pay for cable sports packages since forever i can say i am a big fan of SKY (as my provider uses the SKY broadcast). it is by far the most comprehensive coverage ever offered.

Canada is of course a tiny market so we dont make a difference, but outside of the UK i thought viewership numbers were going up?

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

as a Canadian and someone who has been required to pay for cable sports packages since forever i can say i am a big fan of SKY (as my provider uses the SKY broadcast). it is by far the most comprehensive coverage ever offered.

Canada is of course a tiny market so we dont make a difference, but outside of the UK i thought viewership numbers were going up?

I see your point but don't forget the UK pays a TV licence fee so before starting on a pay tv system, we are already down approx £160.00.

[chillibowl]

i assume that is the household fee for the year?

obviously a difference in currencies, but a cable subscription here with the sports tiers is about CAN$100/m which i think works out to about £700 a year.

i dont know if that comparable or not to what you guys would have to pay for a similar bundle of channels?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

Apart from Sky who receive the extra revenue I can't think of anyone else who has benefited from it.
It makes no difference to the organisers.
The fans are losing out because if they haven't got access to Sky, they can't see the races live on TV.
The TV viewers - see the answer above.
The teams are losing out sponsorship-wise as less people are seeing the mobile advertising hoardings whizzing around the track - also see the answer above.
The sport as a whole is also losing out as there is less chance of a casual TV viewer being converted into an enthusiast - see answers above.

To the best of my knowledge, F1 broadcasting is a loss leader to SKY, and worse for them is that the UK audience via SKY is falling month on month.

The winners, by far, were the Ecclestone family and the teams who all shared the proceeds from the sale of the contract to SKY. That money may still be trickling down to them all.

[Peter Mallett]

Yeah per household and yes that is approx £700 per year. Frankly not worth it.

[crmalcolm]

A summary of the 2019 costs to watch F1 in the UK can be found here.

In short, every method requires a TV Licence at a cost of £154.50, which was the case when F1 was broadcast as FTA.

On top of this, the cheapest way to watch every F1 race in the UK was a further £76.93 for the season if using a mobile device, £179.80 on a TV, or £404 if you don't have an internet connection.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

I guess it could be likened to the Premier league in the UK. That has such a massive fan base moving to pay tv was always going to be a winner. Formula one has a massive worldwide fan base but not, as a percentage of sports fans, big in the UK.

It needs to be borne in mind that whilst F1 was FTA, especially during the halcyon BBC days, that the UK's audience was by far the largest in the world. I do not think that that is the case any more.

[chillibowl]

well not much enjoys the same audience size it used to...free or PayTV there is so much more content and competition for eyeballs today then there was back in the day.

if people had as much choice as they do today back then, then F1's historical audience would have been smaller.

[justracing]

I temporarily have access to Sky and have been watching some of the F1 pre season testing which is a first for me and I can't believe the desperate bilge that the so called commentary team pump out. For the most part it is a complete insult to anyone with an interest in motorsport listening to the drivel being broadcast.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by justracing

I temporarily have access to Sky and have been watching some of the F1 pre season testing which is a first for me and I can't believe the desperate bilge that the so called commentary team pump out. For the most part it is a complete insult to anyone with an interest in motorsport listening to the drivel being broadcast.

Mind you, even the most polished broadcasters run would run out of on the button info when having to talk for that long every day!

That said, it has given Croft a perfect platform to highlight why it is he should not be involved in any way shape or form!!

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Originally Posted by justracing

I temporarily have access to Sky and have been watching some of the F1 pre season testing which is a first for me and I can't believe the desperate bilge that the so called commentary team pump out. For the most part it is a complete insult to anyone with an interest in motorsport listening to the drivel being broadcast.

Remember this is 6 days at 8 hours a day without commercial breaks of trying to make nothing much happening seem entertaining.

Anything of real note, in terms of the car designs was beaten to death on the first day, and it would only have been worse had Mercedes not shown off the telescopic toe adjuster.

[S griffin]

Testing is harder to commentate on than untimed practice

[hoffman66]

The point being, why show it at all then, why not simply do an hour long wrap up show every night, live is utterly pointless, and for such a tiny minority of people.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by hoffman66

The point being, why show it at all then, why not simply do an hour long wrap up show every night, live is utterly pointless, and for such a tiny minority of people.

If you have a channel solely dedicated to F1, what else would you broadcast while the testing is in progress?

[Adam43]

Why not show it live? I’m not bothered, but a few others are and they are there. I suspect that the additional costs aren’t that much. I could imagine having it on in the background.

Although it doesn’t surprise me that the commentary could be better. There is a real opportunity for engaging discussion. Now that is a niche idea!

[Akrapovic]

I often feel like those who cannot stand Croft never watched the James Allen or Legard years. Croft may not be amazing, but he's competent.

[The Fat Clerk]

I watched all 6 days (the joys of retirement )
The first week the Commentators were good, the second week was a lot of drivel, but I thought Jolyn Palmer was very good as was Nicholas Latifi & Lando.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

Remember this is 6 days at 8 hours a day without commercial breaks of trying to make nothing much happening seem entertaining.

Anything of real note, in terms of the car designs was beaten to death on the first day, and it would only have been worse had Mercedes not shown off the telescopic toe adjuster.

You might almost compare it to a normal historic Motorsports weekend. As a driver you just spend your time with the car and forget anything else around you. Two days and you spend it all looking at or driving your car. Pretty tedious for those on the outside.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Originally Posted by hoffman66

The point being, why show it at all then, why not simply do an hour long wrap up show every night, live is utterly pointless, and for such a tiny minority of people.

For years there was a vocal minority who wanted to see testing, now with Liberty’s more open attitude, and with major broadcast partners looking to fill the hours...

Voila they now produce the coverage, and low and behold ... it’s dull, with commentators having to fill for hours on end.

Oh and Sky did an hour long review at the end of each day.

[Peter Mallett]

Frankly they've got the monopoly and have dumbed the whole thing down in tune with Liberty.

[crmalcolm]

If most people complain that a 2hr race is boring most weekends, what do they expect from testing?

[Peter Mallett]

Yes indeed, you can't polish a turd.