F1 Coverage - The Verdict: 2013 Season

12829313334120

Comments

  • User68571User68571 Posts: 3,901
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    lettice wrote: »
    Ive used that app in the past, I notice its £23.99
    I'm sure it was a lot less than that last year.
    That is a bit steep really.

    Glad I got it when it was on an apple free day a few years back.

    Yes it was £20 last year, and free in previous years. I wonder what the uptake was once it went to £20. I don't begrudge a token fee being paid. but it's not worth £10 let alone £23. I use some very high end astronomy apps that I can just about justify £20 outlay on.

    What I find relevant to the F1 timing app issue is that it relies on a working 3g or wifi signal. If people have access to that, then surely it makes more financial sense to go direct to the mobile version of F1.com and use the live timing in there for free. I'm almost on the verge of thinking what's the point in it. Where is the market? I have a friend who works at soft pauer who's responsible for maintaining the live link on race weekends to the app, I'll ask her next time I see her what the take up is of the app.

    In the meantime can anybody explain what your extra buck actually buys?
  • _SpeedRacer__SpeedRacer_ Posts: 6,721
    Forum Member
    the harcore fan sat on the sofa at home who never spends a penny on F1 is dead weight to FOM, they're not going to waste their time trying to satisfy people who contribute very little to their bottom line. It's a business not a national right, I think some seem to be slow on working that one out.
    Of course every person who watches F1 has a value. The less people who watch, the less FOM can sell their trackside advertising for etc which hurts them. How do you think ITV make money?

    The big question is can the inevitable loss in advertising revenue be subsidised by selling the rights for an increased cost - something which IMO cannot be judged for a few years yet.

    A sad side effect is that the overall public interest in the sport will inevitably diminish as more and more coverage goes behind the pay wall.
    mlt11 wrote: »
    I have no desire to get into the rights and wrongs and what is better or worse but there's one point worth reflecting on that I don't think has ever been mentioned on here.

    If the BBC had completed their original contract to the end of 2013 (or if Bernie had made them) then the negotiations for the next rights contract would have been happening about now.
    Actually it's been mentioned repeatedly and your assumption that it would've ended up on PayTV (immediately anyway) is completely incorrect.

    Bernie did say publically he was impressed with Channel 4's offer to take over from 2013, but according to Arius ITV would've taken over for 3 years from this year - the sticking point for ITV and C4 was that they couldn't start in 2012 due to other commitments.

    But I agree that ultimately it all comes down to FOM. They had the power to reject the BBC's "coalition" offer with Sky and force them to honour their original contract.
  • BenFranklinBenFranklin Posts: 5,814
    Forum Member
    mikw wrote: »
    I don't think it's "simplistic and wrong" at all. It was only a matter of time before the money being offered was un-refusable.

    It's always refusable. FOM hold the rights, they make the decisions.
  • R410R410 Posts: 2,991
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    lettice wrote: »
    Ive used that app in the past, I notice its £23.99
    I'm sure it was a lot less than that last year.
    That is a bit steep really.

    Glad I got it when it was on an apple free day a few years back.
    £20+ for an app :eek: For something you can access for free via the F1 website.

    Glad I don't pay for them then. I got the 2012 app for free online last year but never used it.
  • BenFranklinBenFranklin Posts: 5,814
    Forum Member
    What I find relevant to the F1 timing app issue is that it relies on a working 3g or wifi signal. If people have access to that, then surely it makes more financial sense to go direct to the mobile version of F1.com and use the live timing in there for free. I'm almost on the verge of thinking what's the point in it. Where is the market?

    You can't use the website based timings on tablets/phones. Java issues.
  • User68571User68571 Posts: 3,901
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    You can't use the website based timings on tablets/phones. Java issues.

    Not sure what you mean....I've used it for years! I used a direct link last year to the website when I was at the GP. I imagine on some 'smart' (lol) phones it may not work.

    What does the £23 get you that's different if you do have access?
  • User68571User68571 Posts: 3,901
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Of course every person who watches F1 has a value. The less people who watch, the less FOM can sell their trackside advertising for etc which hurts them. How do you think ITV make money?

    The big question is can the inevitable loss in advertising revenue be subsidised by selling the rights for an increased cost - something which IMO cannot be judged for a few years yet.

    A sad side effect is that the overall public interest in the sport will inevitably diminish as more and more coverage goes behind the pay wall.

    I understand where you're coming from the with advertising aspect. I think though Bernie isn't that fussed with regards to FTA if FOM can raise enough money from subscription based providers. Advertising revenue was down IIRC across the board last year in F1 and I wonder how much this impacts on future decisions. I suppose talking in the wider context too that Bernie really couldn't careless for the people who sit at home and contribute personally very little, they maybe numbers that bolster an advertising tarfiff, but if Bernie could earn the same money from elsewhere, he'd simply go with what's easiest. I wouldn't ever trust him to make a decision in such scenarios with the fans interests at heart.

    It is frustrating the popularity of the sport could wane (and did based on tv figures last year) but that's not our problem to solve, hopefully FOM will get the message when the viewing figures drop even more in their 'core' markets. There's tension building somewhere within F1, a good podcast i listened to this week was pontificating about all the this money going through F1 (estimated to be valued at £10 Billion for the upcoming float) yet all the teams are in dire financial straights and running close to the breadline (hence long discussion then about pay drivers). The money is there but it's only going one way, if FOM aren't careful they'll eventually pull the ladder up behind them. Maybe F1 needs a 'cash crash' to sort it out and remind itself it's a sport and sport only succeeds if people watch.
  • JackFoleyJackFoley Posts: 812
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    lettice wrote: »
    Ive used that app in the past, I notice its £23.99
    I'm sure it was a lot less than that last year.
    That is a bit steep really.

    Glad I got it when it was on an apple free day a few years back.

    It's 1 pound per GP in the end. It's not that expensive. And for those asking you have the live timing but it's much more complete than the one on F1.com, plus Driver Tracker.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Forum Member
    Yes it was £20 last year, and free in previous years. I wonder what the uptake was once it went to £20. I don't begrudge a token fee being paid. but it's not worth £10 let alone £23. I use some very high end astronomy apps that I can just about justify £20 outlay on.

    What I find relevant to the F1 timing app issue is that it relies on a working 3g or wifi signal. If people have access to that, then surely it makes more financial sense to go direct to the mobile version of F1.com and use the live timing in there for free. I'm almost on the verge of thinking what's the point in it. Where is the market? I have a friend who works at soft pauer who's responsible for maintaining the live link on race weekends to the app, I'll ask her next time I see her what the take up is of the app.

    In the meantime can anybody explain what your extra buck actually buys?

    Would be good to see the take up of this app. Look forward to what your friend says.
    I manage a team of app/web developers/programmers across many platforms and few apps that we have created/updated/supported are that expensive. I feel this does not offer enough to justify that high price.
  • mlt11mlt11 Posts: 21,065
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Actually it's been mentioned repeatedly

    Well I don't recall seeing a single post on here re impact of BT on F1 if BBC had run through to 2013 - apologies if I've missed any.

    Anyway - time for a change of direction - I have just seen some information that may well be of interest to many people on here - indeed it looks pretty "MASSIVE" to me.

    Will collate and post within next 10 to 15 mins!
  • D.M.N.D.M.N. Posts: 34,167
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mlt11 wrote: »
    Anyway - time for a change of direction - I have just seen some information that may well be of interest to many people on here - indeed it looks pretty "MASSIVE" to me.

    Will collate and post within next 10 to 15 mins!

    I agree. ;)

    :D
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 121
    Forum Member
    Harsh as it is to say....the harcore fan sat on the sofa at home who never spends a penny on F1 is dead weight to FOM

    You're wrong. They do contribute to FOM through the licence fee and through viewing F1 with all its sponsorships. Sponsors pay good money to appear in F1 due to the numbers of fans that you seem to be lambasting. The teams also reap the benefits of high viewer figures. Well, they used to.

    You only have to look at what's happened to the UK viewing figures for the past few years to see the change in direction. A move to pay TV may suit Bernie and CVC in the short term but we all know that neither of them will be around in a few years to deal with the consequences. This is what private equity companies do.
  • RedSnapperRedSnapper Posts: 2,569
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Whilst we wait for the "massive" news - I would just like to say that , in line with most, I thought Craig Slater was awful last year.

    Having watched 2 days of his reports from Barcelona this week I am struggling to really find fault.

    Yes his Kimi interview got the reaction it deserved (and the one Slater was looking for ?) but the questions were no worse than anyone elses efforts - and Slater has somehow managed to relax into the F1 role and has clearly done some homework this time out.

    Credit where its due.
  • JonpollakJonpollak Posts: 2,552
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Strange as it may seem..My 2010 FREE LT app STILL worked by the end of last season.
    Not that I used it much but I was wondering if, seeing my I-Pod is iOSbackintheday, they forgot to turn it off?

    Oops.. I done gone and screwed myself now huh..?
    (Oh wait..they don't come round here anymore do they..)
    Jp
  • mlt11mlt11 Posts: 21,065
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    OK, everyone - is this "MASSIVE"???

    SSF1 schedule (per SPI website - no link as not publicly available):

    Sat 9 Mar:
    8.30pm to 10.30pm - F1 Classic race: Australia 1994

    Sun 10 Mar:
    8.30pm to 10.30pm - F1 Classic race: Australia 1999

    Mon 11 Mar:
    8.30pm to 10.30pm - F1 Classic race: Australia 2003

    Tue 12 Mar:
    8.30pm to 10.30pm - F1 Classic race: Australia 2007

    Wed 13 Mar:
    8.30pm to 10.30pm - F1 Classic race: Australia 2010
  • D.M.N.D.M.N. Posts: 34,167
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    And there you have it! :D
  • JonpollakJonpollak Posts: 2,552
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    wbm00 wrote: »
    You're wrong. ...

    She's right
    Jp
  • _SpeedRacer__SpeedRacer_ Posts: 6,721
    Forum Member
    1999 and 2007 certainly weren't "classics", 1997, 2006, 2008 and 2009 were all much better races.

    They could choose to show 2003 in TEN's 16:10 format
  • mlt11mlt11 Posts: 21,065
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Other bits and pieces:

    Thurs 14 Mar:
    4am - Live Drivers Press Conference

    Fri 15 Mar:
    1am - Live Practice 1 (ends 3.20am)
    5.15am - Live Practice 2
    7.30am - Live Team Principal Press Conference (end time unclear)
    9.30am - Live F1 Show
    10.30am onwards (for rest of day) - repeats of Practice 1 and 2, F1 Show and Classic races (1994 and 1999)

    Sat 16 Mar:
    2.45am - Practice 3
    5am - Qualifying (end time unclear - looks like 7.45am)

    No more info available - probably have to wait 7 days until the following week's schedule is released.
  • D.M.N.D.M.N. Posts: 34,167
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    1999 and 2007 certainly weren't "classics", 1997, 2006, 2008 and 2009 were all much better races.

    They could choose to show 2003 in TEN's 16:10 format

    Whilst true, you would assume that they will want to use a separate five next year, so they can pick 2006, 2008 and 2009 then.
  • stefmeisterstefmeister Posts: 8,390
    Forum Member
    1999 and 2007 certainly weren't "classics", 1997, 2006, 2008 and 2009 were all much better races.
    1999 wasn't too bad but 2007 was one of the dullest races held at Melbourne (Along with 98/04).
    They could choose to show 2003 in TEN's 16:10 format
    I remember the BBC used the 16:10 feed while showing some clips of DC's win, However the highlights they put online used the 4:3 world-feed:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8581053.stm


    Archive races are a welcome addition to the SSF1 schedule & I hope its something we see more regularly through the year.
  • pakokelso93pakokelso93 Posts: 11,018
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    2002 too, missed!! I know after the first lap crash and so few cars some of it was pedestrian but the Minardi-Webber thing! Again though Sky may air at a later date (or next year).
  • D.M.N.D.M.N. Posts: 34,167
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    My understanding is that it will be five archive races before every race weekend.

    (and yes DanielF, that was the second announcement)
  • mlt11mlt11 Posts: 21,065
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Surely 1986 would be the most classic.

    But presumably they aren't able / aren't allowed to go back that far?
  • User68571User68571 Posts: 3,901
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    wbm00 wrote: »
    You're wrong. They do contribute to FOM through the licence fee and through viewing F1 with all its sponsorships. Sponsors pay good money to appear in F1 due to the numbers of fans that you seem to be lambasting. The teams also reap the benefits of high viewer figures. Well, they used to.

    You only have to look at what's happened to the UK viewing figures for the past few years to see the change in direction. A move to pay TV may suit Bernie and CVC in the short term but we all know that neither of them will be around in a few years to deal with the consequences. This is what private equity companies do.


    Forgive me if it appears I'm just lambasting anyone that is a free to air (ie BBC) viewer, that's not my intention at all.. I'm taking issue with those viewers that come across entitled for wanting the best of everything but unwilling to see how/why the market is changing. I'm was trying to point out the fact that Bernie will take money from what ever source provides it and isn't as fussed if that means putting some viewers noses out of joint so to speak. I think those ranty entitled fan types over value their worth in Bernies eyes.
This discussion has been closed.