planetf1.com

Only a minority of the British public watch F1. The BBC couldn't justify the money it was spending on something for only 4-5 million viewers max. The Olympics hits a much much wider target and only happens once every four years. It is a true world event like the World Cup. Both are the two world's most watched sporting events. Given London was hosting them I doubt the UK minded how much was spent on this occasion. We wanted to show off to the world how good we are and that included ourselves.

F1 isn't worth the money Bernie charges I'm afraid. Sky can afford his silly prices because of their own silly prices. They are a match made in heaven for the riches. For the poorer set you just have to lump it. Thems the new rules.

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Something is worth whatever the highest bidder is willing to pay. Bernie cannot be blamed if someone wants to pay a lot of money for his product. Hardly any major sport is available entirely on free to view anyway. On reflection we were lucky it lasted so long.

I seem to recall reading an article where it was implied the Beeb would rather the contract go to Sky than to another terrestrial channel so as not to lose as much face. I have no idea whether that would be something that would bother a nationalised non-commercial TV station.

What this article also supplied was a supposed Ch4 F1 proposition, which included all FP coverage, and (I think) no adverts during live action, as we now have with Sky. Couldn't find the proposal, but there's some stuff about it here... http://www.thedrum.com/news/2011/08/10/ ... d-document

Don't also forget that the coalition froze the license fee, which must have had some effect on the Beeb's ability to pay Bernie's fees.

Some people blame Bernie. Some people blame Sky. Some people blame the BBC.

Meanwhile the real culprit is sat in Downing Street laughing his big fat face off.

Agree with that.

Not only did the BBC coverage maximise the viewing figures in the UK, but it gave rise to better penetration worldwide, and the quality of coverage was never better than in those few years. I'd wager that the overall reduction in viewing figures is down to the reduced BBC coverage more than any other cause. F1 management/Bernie were shortsighted on that point, and they will surely pay for that mistake in the long term. Potential sponsors monitor viewing figures, and the demographics, very closely. They're not interested in the hardened enthusiasts, it's the casual viewers that add the value, and casual viewers don't pay hundreds in advance for the pleasure. F1 will come under more economic pressure as a result, because they will be more cautious about where they invest. Bernie and his shareholders should be making sure the balance is right and the BBC and their distribution network is a very important part of what they produce.

For those who say it was the BBC's own fault, well yes that is substantially correct. But it has to be understood that the BBC is the focus of a lot of outside pressures little to do with actual broadcasting content, and the current management isn't up to the job. They've mostly been placed in order to conform to what is expected of them from outside, and they do what they are told if they want to keep their jobs. There's no long term strategy any more. I think it's no coincidence that this all happened in the run up to the Olympics.

So Sky took the opportunity with both hands and is now exploiting their position to the maximum, and Bernie gave it his approval. I saw the look on his face at the first interview when all this blew up, and unusually for him he looked like a man who wasn't quite sure how to respond. Those of you who are happy to pay through the nose just to be able to watch Brundle and the adverts, you just go ahead and enjoy. I shan't be joining you, and neither will many others. I've got used to watching the highlights already, and if the BBC lose it I'll just do something else.

Most, yeah. Not me. Don't drink, and wouldn't have the money anyway. Otherwise I'd just cut back and get Sky.

_________________
Copper Masked Sunrise
http://tufty1992.wordpress.com/
P-F1 PHOTO COMPETITION: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7089&p=271860#p271860
http://www.justgiving.com/CIN-Mystery-P ... 00b9467dcb

I don't pay Sky soley for F1, they make plenty of original programs (many of which win awards.. Mad Dogs, Spy)

I my live was taken up with just F1 I think I'd probably have a pretty sad life. I love the sport and as my name suggests I go to a GP every year but one thing I personally hate is watching highlights and trying to avoid results before I see them

_________________
Multi 21 or Catch 22?!

It ain't hating just 'cause it's not love

Why the obvious resentment? I choose to pay for Sky so I can see every race live, you don't. There's no need to hate me (and many others) for making that choice.

_________________
"Where are all the good men dead, in the heart or in the head?"

Give 'em hell Dani!

British Driver Supporter (and Daniel Ricciardo)

It's weird how some people put some sort of television ideology before the ability to see live F1. I'm not saying it's right or wrong to do so... but, for me, my dedication is to getting as much F1 as possible, and watching it live is essential. I like to get angry at life's injustices, but television channel politics just doesn't make me angry enough.

I know there are some who love F1 but are missing out purely due to ideological issues with Sky, and for those I think it's a bit of a shame.

How did it get better penetration worldwide? The audiences that use the BBC feed outside of the UK are unaffected. BBC are still doing a full live show for them. Worldwide was not affected by the deal. That's why I think the set up is so daft. I'm in the UK, pay a licence fee but I can only get full BBC broadcast by paying an Irish provider.

As for the UK being the culprit for the reduction in figures. China dropped by 25mill viewers, UK by something like 4mill. So no the BBC/SKY deal is not the culprit.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

Sky hold the contract to broadcast it exclusively in the UK. If you want to watch F1, then you have to have Sky. Most households these days are subscribers to some provider, Virgin, BT, or Sky. You don't even have to have the box and dish; I used to use SkyGo on my laptop, and HDMI' connected it to my tele. Sky do a subscription through a browser now. And have even penetrated consoles.

Sky do a cracking coverage. Who cares about adverts, that play no part in Qualifying or Race day coverage. I don't refuse to watch ITV, C4 or Five due to adverts..

..I tend to Sky+ everything so I can skip adverts

Not to mention with Sky you get some decent Hardware.

Your first 2 sentences simply are not true.

I've adapted them slightly so that they become true statements.

No they still aren't correct.

Now?

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

In other words, you can watch all the races on the BBC. And you can watch half of them live on the BBC.

Il be honest and say that i am surprised they have put it with the hd package for so long aswell but I think it was asking a lot for a fan of f1 to pay the £22.50 for a few channels they may have no interest in just for the enjoyment of watching a Grand Prix on the weekend, far better to offer the f1 channel as a single channel at say £10.00 a month extra (like the football teams have there own channels at extra cost) this way they wouldn't lose the f1 fans that would be willing to pay slightly more (I know I would be happy with this), maybe they could bundle it with the sports aswell so that you have the choice wether you want those extra channels at the extra cost.
They have there own ideas though and we either accept that or don't watch it anymore!

Yes some football teams have their own channel but it doesn't show any love league or cup games, they don't hold the rights to show these but only to show them on delayed transmission (pretty much what you have with the BBC an F1!)

_________________
Multi 21 or Catch 22?!

It ain't hating just 'cause it's not love

watching the highlight shows on the BBC is not the same as a live race and having to spend the whole day avoiding results is a pain.

Must admit I do spend at least £90 a month on Drink, however I still live at home so I have the perks of bank of mum and dad paying for sky. But saying that we had Sky before it had F1. And to be honest for what you get on there, a good amount of channels with plenty on isn't bad for what you pay, plus Sky are usually open to negotiating in some way or another.

_________________
Vodafone Mclaren Mercedes

Yeah I understand that they are not live games being shown but what I mean is they have the option to offer a single channel at a set price, that way fans are not swindled into paying for content they don't want!

Nor is the last one.

A friend of mine has got sky hardware and it is absolute rubbish. e.g. a wireless router that has a range limited to barely 10 metres, and they refuse to change it. They are the only provider that will not permit the use of 3rd party hardware.

No resentment towards you. If you want to pour your money into Murdoch's pocket, that's up to you. And if you do that you're absolutely entitled to top class service.

My resentment is the fact that not so long ago, everything was on the BBC and I didn't have to pay extra for it above the licence fee. Now we have all this faffing around for half the races. Of all the people I know, quite a reasonable proportion of which are interested in motor racing, not a single one has paid to watch F1 on Sky. I concede that's probably not the norm, but it's definitely got to be holding the viewing figures back.

Well, you learn something new every day. I've got contacts in the business in Australia and the Far East, and they've told me something slightly different. I need to enquire further about that obviously. In the meantime, the current mood at the BBC seems to be that it's more trouble than it's worth, and Bernie et al seem indifferent.

Thing is a sports popularity seems to increase when given the "sky treatment" Cricket and football are both examples of this.

Well I dunno I've been told the Worldwide feed has been much unaffected and that by buying setanta Ireland through my SKY Box I can get a full live BBC feed . Which is taking the piss a bit I thought all things considered.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

Oh the drama!

A certain proportion of young people won't be able to watch all of the races live for a three year period of their lives? Oh lord no, how will F1 continue?!

Yes, your loan covers food and essential bills. It is not intended to fund expensive sports channels. If you want something you can't afford, do like the rest of the world and get a job.

Not trying to be a dick but that attitude gives students a bad name.

You say its only for three years, but it is unlikely that in 3 years a terrestrial or free to air channel will be able to compete with Sky unless the commercial rights holder decides to drop the price to encourage free to air channels to bid. We all know how likely that is...

_________________
Warning: The above post may contain sarcasm.

I think he means three years during Uni and then they can pay for sky when they get a job

_________________
Multi 21 or Catch 22?!

It ain't hating just 'cause it's not love

Ah yes, silly me...!


Its 5 more years till the rights are up for negotiation again isn't it.... Oh

_________________
Warning: The above post may contain sarcasm.

I think you've massively missed the points being made there.

Firstly, the poster was pointing out that Sky increasing their prices is generally likely to exclude those who cannot afford it. Included in that varied group of people are students. It was not being suggested that anyone should consider students charity cases. Excluding people at a point in their life at which they cannot afford or justify the cost of F1 is likely to have future ramifications for the sport. Whether that is significant or not is debatable.

Secondly, supposedly Sky have been running adverts that state that one is not a real fan of F1 if one does not have Sky. I have to confess that I have not seen these adverts myself. These adverts, if they exist, have quite rightly been deemed pretty insulting by those who cannot justify the Sky subscription (again, not just limited to students).

Raising these points certainly didn't necessitate a response as economical with manners as yours. And his or her student loan is there to do whatever he or she wants to do with it.

I've got the channel and I've watched it extensively but not once have I seen an advert that stated if you don't have the channel you're not a true fan

And I don't believe there's ever been one, sky are not stupid and wouldn't make an advert like that

_________________
Multi 21 or Catch 22?!

It ain't hating just 'cause it's not love

Living alone, I can't necessarily justify a Sky subscription to myself.

NowTV will be launching their sports channels soon (I'm on a trial beta) - but at £9.99 for a '24 hour pass', would you pay that every week to watch a race?

Just a point on "rip off Sky" there margin is 18%, average customer spend is £548 so that's a profit of £98.64 a year or £8 a month.


Its not like they are make massive amounts and By halving there profits would not really make a diferance.

In fact they were running at a loss for a long time when it started up and Murdoc bet everything on the football. Plowed all the money into that and in the end I paid off.

Sky is a business and 18% is a reasonble profit.

They say in business any return greater than you'd get at a bank is worth it. 18% will probably shock a lot of Skyhaters

_________________
Multi 21 or Catch 22?!

It ain't hating just 'cause it's not love

Not 100% but don't the Beeb also have first dibs on it too?

So they could once again buy it to job share with SKY .

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

I don't think I've missed them at all, I've responded to them directly. What you mean is, "I disagree with the points you made" - this is very different.

Prices increased, prices already too high, it's irrelevant. Yes, some people are now unable to afford it. This sucks and has to be a negative for F1, but in economic terms is probably not a disaster. The only people who will be put off completely (i.e. won't just resort to watching the Beeb) are those who are sickened by the raw commercialism of it all...but aren't those people sickened by the raw commercialism of F1 itself?

Either way students are not completely excluded, they can watch most of it on the Beeb (admittedly not ideal) or they can find a friend with Sky, or a pub showing the race, or get a stream online, or something. It's not that difficult.

Of course they can spend their student loan on whatever they like - if they want to eat value beans on toast all year in order to scrape together a Sky subscription, that's fine by me. I sympathise with anyone who doesn't have the cash to fund a subscription, but that sympathy is limited when it comes to those who complain about not being able to afford it because their student loan doesn't cover it.

As for the adverts, anyone offended by them is a fool. Oh no, the Murdoch empire says I'm "not a true fan" unless I pay them lots of money...this is the oldest trick in the book!

Honestly, if anybody has a problem with it, then just don't buy it and torrent it or stream it and get on with your life, those are both easy to do. That being said you guys are lucky to have that kind of F1 coverage, I pay a lot of money for my HD sports channels and the closest thing I get to an F1 channel is Speed, and even that is turning into an all sports channel as well.

And to whoever was complaining it's too expensive cause their a student, well guess what? YOU'RE A STUDENT, What the hell else do you expect? You go to school so you can get a good job to afford that shit. Be like every other student on the planet and download or stream it.

I WISH i had that kind of F1 coverage here, I would gladly pay for that, but that will never happen. So appreciate what you have because it could be a lot worse. You could be paying more or less the same amount of money over here for a channel like Speed HD instead of Sky F1.

The quality of Sky coverage rivals the likes of Speed's NASCAR coverage, I really don't understand how people expect it to be cheap in the first place.

I think everyone is being a bit nitpicky are they not? Sky are the ones with the exclusive rights to ALL 20 Races Live. My point was, if you want to watch the entire seasons races LIVE - you require a Sky subscription. Personally - I hate watching race 'highlights'.

And my last comment is true, in my case. I cant comment on the Broadband service they provide, but when I lived at home and my parents used Sky Broadband, we used our own Router?
When it comes to the Television service and the boxes they provide, apart from a couple of faults (which you would expect from any piece of Hardware), its faultless (has been for me). Its quick, simple and easy to use. Not to mention convenient..