My little experiment

[Sonic]

Hello guys and gals...it's been a while for me on the F1 side of the forum, and here's why.

I've been doing a little experiment to see what watching half a GP season would be like (seemed like a good season to miss a few rounds with Seb dominating). Since Bernie announced the SKY/BBC deal I haven't watched a single live Grand Prix - the first time in more than 20 years that I have missed more than one race.

And the results of my experiment?

Well if my experiences are anything to go by, I think Bernie has a problem.

The highlights didn't hold my attention at all...I only watched two races like that, and even then I tended to just watch the start and that was about it as I already knew the result.

Now I know some will be saying I'm a fair weather fan, and if that's your opinion fair enough, but if a long term fan and competitor like me can loose interest because of an inability to watch the races as they happen then I wonder what the long term future of the sport in it's homeland countries will be.

Personally I liken it to cricket. Fifteen odd years ago I could have easily named the England eleven, but now...

Is this really what F1 should be aiming for? A niche market with an entire channel watched by thousands instead of transmitting with a mass broadcaster and showing to millions?

I'll be interested to hear your thoughts.

Sonic :)

[Mark]

Football can't be directly compared. Firstly you need to subscribe to Sky Sports, whereas for F1 you just need the HD pack which a lot more people have.

Secondly, you generally only watch a football match if you support the teams playing, its the nature of football that there is only two teams playing so only two sets of fans. Whereas this isn't an issue for F1.

[Sonic]

Football can be compared IMO. I don't agree that people generally only watch football matches of their chosen team and that certainly isn't true in my case or most people I know. You may feel differently about that, but I feel we can only really relate to our own experiences. The news for existing Sky viewers that a HD pack is needed is slightly better news than the Sports pack as originally thought, but its still a small audience in the grand scheme of things.

I'd wager 99% of the UK have access to BBC1 and F1 draws in 5 million. I don't know the figures (perhaps someone does) as to how many homes have Sky HD packages, but my expectation is F1 will be lucky to have an audience of 500,000 next year for sky only races. That's a pretty huge drop in exposure for the sponsors etc..

[driveace]

I will not be watching the Sky races as I dont intend paying Sky.I have all the cannels i need,and as a pensoiner,with not as much dosh as Bernie(£104 per week pension)),i will only be watching the races on BBC

[tfp]

Whats also worrying is if we get another season of a single driver dominance in 2012, what will happen if the much smaller audience on sky HD tire of the repetitiveness, and stop watching?
It would be different if it was like the 2010 season, and the average joe sees on the news the reporters banging on about how close the races were/how close the drivers championship was, thats what gets more people watching.

[Sonic]

It's a good point tfp. A lot of people knock the 'casual fan' but I know I didn't become a die hard motorsport fan overnight. I watched a few GP's in 89 & 90, more in '91 and all of them from '92 onwards.

My question is will any new fans really ever get to become passionate about the sport when there will be no real motivation to watch the next race if the championship is going to be decided in a race which just happens to be shown only on SKY for example.

[yodasarmpit]

I'd wager 99% of the UK have access to BBC1 and F1 draws in 5 million. I don't know the figures (perhaps someone does) as to how many homes have Sky HD packages, but my expectation is F1 will be lucky to have an audience of 500,000 next year for sky only races. That's a pretty huge drop in exposure for the sponsors etc..

Sky have just over 10M subscribers ( 1 in 2 homes), with 4M of those with HD subs (just under 1 in 4 homes) so this would suggest at worst an audience level on non BBC weekends of 1.25M.

[Sonic]

Sky have just over 10M subscribers ( 1 in 2 homes), with 4M of those with HD subs (just under 1 in 4 homes) so this would suggest at worst an audience level on non BBC weekends of 1.25M.

Top gear maths! ;)

Seriously, thanks for the figures, but as I believe Henners pointed out the big football matches only just beat that 1.25 million figure, so I would be very surprised if that proved to be the case.

[yodasarmpit]

I agree that we are going to see a drop in viewing figures, simply based on current availability. However Sky HD subs are increasing every quarter so one can only hope F1 viewing increases in parallel, although I do believe we won't see the same levels that the beeb has maintained - cost will always make it prohibitive for a great many.

[Rollo]

Is this really what F1 should be aiming for? A niche market with an entire channel watched by thousands instead of transmitting with a mass broadcaster and showing to millions?


If Australia is anything to go by, then the experiment will be repeated across the globe. Personally I expect that you'll probably see falling attendances in countries where the coverage has gone to Pay-TV only, so they'll be dropped off the calendar, which suits Bernie fine as he's been wanting to kill the British, French, German, Australian, Belgian... GPs for some time.

If F1 is to be driven by profit even harder than it already is, then it will probably become more efficient at deriving those profits; in which case, don't expect it to grow in popularity in existing markets. Why keep existing customers when there's more profit to be gained from new ones?

[anthonyvop]

Even if the UK TV audience drops by 20% it would still be a miniscule part of what is the Whole TV package world-wide.

Consider that F1 is a sponsor driven sport and most of that sponsorship is attracted to the sport through TV exposure. Most of the complaints I have seen here and in other places have been the added cost of Sky and that they can't afford it.

So would a sponsor or manufacturer of say, Ferrari or Mercedes really be upset in the loss of that demographic viewership? Most F1 sponsors are going after the Male, 15-35, upwardly mobile consumer who revels in owning every electronic gadget, newest fashion or hippest trend.

My apologies if I upset anyone's sensibilities here but unless you have some discretionary income most F1 sponsors aren't interested in you.

[Sonic]

Sad but very true. Bernie has done some great things to get the sport to the level it is today, but it appears its got to the stage where greed has taken over. He'll eventually die and his replacement will either carry on the trend or they'll be approaching all the countries and fans who were pushed away, and they'll expect everyone to suddenly get interested again.

And the IRL are proving just how difficult it is to revitalise interest in a fan base that has become disillusioned with the sport.

[anthonyvop]

Sad but very true. Bernie has done some great things to get the sport to the level it is today, but it appears its got to the stage where greed has taken over.

F1 was created by Greed. F1 has grown to be one of the Planet's premier sports because of Greed. Sponsor's Greed is what fuels the teams and drivers. F1 Wouldn't exist without Greed. This very forum was created and maintained because of greed.

So what is so bad about Greed?

[MAX_THRUST]

I won't be going to Sky and no doubt I will watch the highlights and avoid hearing the results. Will it be the same, NO!! I used to watch CART on Eurosport for years and then when the races went to sky, I didn't bother. Its not that I hate sky I just can't justifying watching and paying for a channel that is mostly sport I'm not interested in. I think F1 will suffer in the UK, and i cn't imagine everyone tuning in to SKY.

As for being a far weather fan, well that is the market Bernie needs to be concerend about. Those casual viewers you want to make regular viewers. You won't get casual viewers on SKy.

[Rollo]

F1 was created by Greed. F1 has grown to be one of the Planet's premier sports because of Greed. Sponsor's Greed is what fuels the teams and drivers. F1 Wouldn't exist without Greed. This very forum was created and maintained because of greed.

So what is so bad about Greed?

Nothing implicitly but like any other commodity on a supply and demand basis, if you alienate your old customer base, don't be surprised if they don't buy the product anymore. Surely you as a consumer who keeps on rabbiting on about freedom of choice would realise that the ex-customers have the free will to tell the people they used to buy from to go do business elsewhere.

[anthonyvop]

Nothing implicitly but like any other commodity on a supply and demand basis, if you alienate your old customer base, don't be surprised if they don't buy the product anymore. Surely you as a consumer who keeps on rabbiting on about freedom of choice would realise that the ex-customers have the free will to tell the people they used to buy from to go do business elsewhere.

Of course.


But as a believer of Freedom of Choice I also realize that nobody else has a right to demand a private entity to do what YOU want.

Personally I believe that the Sky deal will be a big win for F1 financially.

[Sonic]

Nothing implicitly but like any other commodity on a supply and demand basis, if you alienate your old customer base, don't be surprised if they don't buy the product anymore. Surely you as a consumer who keeps on rabbiting on about freedom of choice would realise that the ex-customers have the free will to tell the people they used to buy from to go do business elsewhere.

I was about to say something similar but you've said it better than I ever could.

[SGWilko]

Turning it on its head a little.

Will the casual fan really care if they are watching a live broadcast or a delayed highlights programme? If the Beeb F1 shows are all going out at peak times, wont the casual viewer potentially have more exposure to the sport?

As an example, I don't watch live football as generally it's not my cup of tea, but when Grandstand used to be on, I was quite happy to watch football focus, as it showed just all the good bits (the goals, not all the spitting, swearing and fouling).....

Will I lose interest in F1? That is a question I await to find the answer to with bated breath.........

[Mark]

This very forum was created and maintained because of greed.



Was it? Ok then.

[Sonic]

Was it? Ok then.

We all know you're a secret billionaire off the back of this Mark...don't try to deny it! ;)

[anthonyvop]

In some cases I beleive you are right but F1 is a private entity that relies on the public to watch and remain interested for it to be successfull. F1 has relied on its "free to air" television audience for the past 30 plus years in the UK to keep its profile as high as it is. They have decided to sell half the season off to a private entity with a significantly smaller audience. Time will tell whether that has been the right decision.

Free TV? Where in the world is there Free TV. Surely you are not suggesting that the BBC is free?



The reason this deal was done was because the BBC no longer wanted to pay the full amount to FOM for the TV rights. Sure the sport will get money from Sky (how much more I don't know), and a share from the BBC, but they have to balance that with a drop in viewing figures and the amount of casual fans who will no longer tune in. You may think it is more finantially benificial to the sport but I see that as the immediate result. I also see it as reducing the amount of viewers, therefore its only logical that interest will dwindle and less money will be spent either at the home GP or on products the sport is only willing to promote. Britain is the home of Formula One and once a very important market which I feel has been forced out of the game over a mere £20m.

As I stated earlier the typical F1 Sponsor probably isn't interested in the viewer who won't watch F1 because they can't afford the extra cost of Sky. They are after those with substantial discretionary income.

[Dave B]

Free TV? Where in the world is there Free TV. Surely you are not suggesting that the BBC is free?

He didn't say "free", he said "free to air" which is the generally accepted term for TV which doesn't require any subscription beyond the mandatory licence fee which every household pays if they receive live broadcasts from any broadcaster.


As I stated earlier the typical F1 Sponsor probably isn't interested in the viewer who won't watch F1 because they can't afford the extra cost of Sky. They are after those with substantial discretionary income.
That's not a wholly unreasonable point but a huge amount of Sky Sports' audience is from the unfashionable C2DE end of the spectrum, a group who although they don't have a massive amount of disposable income are also a goldmine to advertisers becuase their spending patterns are often more easily influenced by marketing - it's probably patronising and insulting simply to say "poor people like shiny things", but there is a grain of truth in that.

[SGWilko]

"poor people like shiny things", but there is a grain of truth in that.

Any social/council/affordable housing, usually - but not exclusively - inhabited by benefit beneficiaries, will adorn the Sky dish on an external wall somewhere.......

[anthonyvop]

He didn't say "free", he said "free to air" which is the generally accepted term for TV which doesn't require any subscription beyond the mandatory licence fee which every household pays if they receive live broadcasts from any broadcaster.

BINGO! So by paying a licensing fee you are paying.

In the US there is no Licensing fee whatsoever for viewing broadcast TV. Off course the Broadcast Networks are also private companies and not Financed by the Tax payers. So in the UK there is no such thing as free TV but in the USA there is.

[anthonyvop]

No I wasn't suggesting that and you have clearly misunderstood. Please see Dave's explanation above.

I don't agree with that at all. I may not be able to afford £30 p/m month for a Sky subscription but I can afford a can of Red Bull every now and then. I can also afford a cheap Vodafone contract on my mobile, and fill my car up with sponsored fuels. Who knows I may have been someone who would consider a Santander account or loan in the future? Not every sponsor in F1 is aimed at the wealthy I think you'll find.

Didn't say ALL I said Most.

Just look at Mercedes-AMG GP's sponsors
Aabar Investments, Autonomy, MIG Bank, Graham London.
Also many others aren't even available in the UK. Such as Petronas

Then you have the actual manufacturers
Ferrari (6 Cars), Mercedes (6 Cars), Lotus (2 Cars)

[DexDexter]

Fortunately for you guys in the UK, it's really quite easy to watch the races BBC doesn't show live online. I know a guy who's been watching BBC F1 coverage in Finland all year ;)

[Mark]

BINGO! So by paying a licensing fee you are paying.

In the US there is no Licensing fee whatsoever for viewing broadcast TV. Off course the Broadcast Networks are also private companies and not Financed by the Tax payers. So in the UK there is no such thing as free TV but in the USA there is.

That's all true - but the term "Free to air" still stands, it might be misnomer, but the term is very commonly used and you aren't going to change it I'm afraid ;)

[DexDexter]

I'm not sure the BBC are going to give us the option to watch the non live races online next year though? If they are not receiving the full coverage to put it on their channel, I doubt they'll put the whole thing online. It certainly hasn't been mentioned to my knowledge.

There are lots of options, you may have to learn Chinese, though :)

[Dave B]

BINGO! So by paying a licensing fee you are paying.

In the US there is no Licensing fee whatsoever for viewing broadcast TV. Off course the Broadcast Networks are also private companies and not Financed by the Tax payers. So in the UK there is no such thing as free TV but in the USA there is.
Yes you're paying, but the term "free to air" still stands as there are no additional costs other than the compulsory licence fee.

Anyway, to take your argument to its logical conclusion there's still no "free" TV in the States, unless you count PSB channels which are nevertheless still funded by donations. Commercial TV is free at the point of delivery but you still pay for it: in the UK it's estimated that TV advertising costs each person around £300 per year on their expenditure, compared with £145 per household for the licence fee. That's even before you add on subscription costs - and even then most subscription channels still bombard you with adverts even though you've already paid!

I think we're straying off the point somewhat though... :p

[Dave B]

Fortunately for you guys in the UK, it's really quite easy to watch the races BBC doesn't show live online. I know a guy who's been watching BBC F1 coverage in Finland all year ;)

With a £50 receiver from Maplin and a slight shift of dish direction it should be possible to watch German unencrypted broadcasts. There's a conspiracy theory (isn't there always?) that part of the reason Sky have wholesale poached the 5Live radio team is to discourage people from watching a foreign broadcast with the English language radio commentary. Indeed Bernie has hinted that there might not even be a radio commentary... :s

[Mark]

Indeed we don't know if the BBC contract includes radio or not, possibly not. Remember that the BBC continued to broadcast radio commentary even when ITV had the contract to show the races.

[wedge]

Indeed we don't know if the BBC contract includes radio or not, possibly not. Remember that the BBC continued to broadcast radio commentary even when ITV had the contract to show the races.

Yes, the BBC do have live rights for radio broadcasts.

[Sonic]

Yes, the BBC do have live rights for radio broadcasts.

So they'll be looking for a replacement for Crofty? Simon Hill anyone? I think he'd be ace on the radio.

[Rollo]

A parallel experiment is going on in Australia with T20 Cricket. This Domestic Cricket competition was shown on free-to-air telly last year and managed to get reasonable crowds. This year the first two matches have been exclusively on Foxtel and as far as ratings have gone, a Midsomer Murders repeat and Going Postal outrated the T20 cricket.
Energy Australia who sponsor the Melbourne Stars have already hinted that poor TV subscriber rates will mean that they're thinking about pulling the plug. There were just over 12,000 at the SCG for the opening match, and just 23,496 at the MCG when organisers had hoped for 44,000.

It looks like the entire series is being playing for the benefit of TV subscribers in India and SE Asia, because the STAR TV is carrying it. Maybe that's what the intent of FOM is? Run races all over the world mainly for the benefit of subscribers on Pay TV in India and SE Asia?

[Mark]

Indeed. Formula 1 just needs to look at the likes of the WRC, used to be very popular due to good TV coverage - well for the British round anyway, and now a lack of TV coverage means nobody has heard of it.