If you were paying the rights to rebroadcast it, you probably could say it was the 'FOM Fan Beatles Music'. Sky & BBC are paying for the rights, they can do what they want.
True, but I just feel the way Sky word it, it implies they have an exclusive, and that they're producing it, which isn't the case. It's different for the world feed, which is integrated into their race program with their own commentary etc.
the jealousy appearing on this thread is incredible - sky have chosen to pay for a product, people choose to pay for sky - NO ONE forces anyone to watch it.
we are all forced however to pay for the BBC - and if people remembered correctly the pre 97 coverage of F1 by the beeb then really we should all be thanking ITV for turning around F1 coverage in the UK and maybe forcing the beeb to take their fingers out of their rear ends when they got the coverage back.
ALL the channels self promote endlessly, at least SKY and others are honest about it, that's how they make their revenue. BBC are being paid for by us anyway and still spend as long on self promotion as the others.
I agree with the comments about who actually runs F1. The FIA have given the teams to much of a say and they teams only look after one thing - themselves.
Bernie runs F1 and God forbid anyone who forgets it!:)
we are all forced however to pay for the BBC - and if people remembered correctly the pre 97 coverage of F1 by the beeb then really we should all be thanking ITV for turning around F1 coverage in the UK and maybe forcing the beeb to take their fingers out of their rear ends when they got the coverage back.
Uninterrupted races and qually, a real disgrace wasn't it...
Pre 97 coverage of most sports wasn't as good as it is now. Sports coverage as a whole has moved on, for an individual broadcaster to try and take credit is a bit weird.
Pre 97 coverage of most sports wasn't as good as it is now. Sports coverage as a whole has moved on, for an individual broadcaster to try and take credit is a bit weird.
To be fair, it's only moved on because individual broadcasters moved it on - generally because they introduced a new innovation to it or simply devoted more airtime to it, mainly in response to outbidding the previous broadcasters. I don't think it's unfair to credit broadcasters with new things they brought in/embraced.
It's funny, while I used to like ITV's coverage, in recent years I prefer a more bare-bones approach, i.e. I just turn on when the FOM Ident begins and turn off as soon as they cut away to the local broadcaster (BBC or Sky) after the podium again. But you can blame that approach on the internet I suppose, no need to have all the off-track news between weekends explained to me on air in the build-up to the race, I already know it from motoring news sites like Autosport, ESPN & the official F1 website. Plus I've grown tired of all the interviews disguised as quirky gimmicks now, like Alonso doing card tricks or DC on a golf cart around Montreal.
Interesting to start a new year of the thread having the same old arguments.
How I think F1 differentiates from the other sports in question is that, something posters like Ellie fail to comprehend with their daily mail-esque "boo licence fee boo!" rhetoric, is that for so long F1 fans have been taught how the teams depend on sponsorship and how having as many eyeballs on the races as possible is essential to maintain that level of sponsorship.
Since the sport is moving of FTA television in search of higher dollar, we've noticed a lot of teams struggle to find sponsorship, and since the TV revenue distribution is about as fair as an HSBC tax statement, we're seeing quite a few teams struggle, not just the established back of the grid (which has already vanished and will likely be just the first casualties of a lengthy war of attrition until the powers that be make drastic changes).
Taking the sport off FTA permanently would be to sound its death knell.
While it's easy to dismiss the arguments as partisan Sky Vs BBC I honestly think we'd be having the exact same argument if it was ITV VS BT Sports.
FTA is vital for our sport, or if it is to go fully Pay (something I'm resigned to when the next contract is bid for....SKY Vs BT with one or two marquee events live on BBC or ITV ) then a serious review of how that money filters down to the participants is needed to.
But knowing the way F1 works we'll likely get one without the other, we'll go pay and the teams will argue so long for their own interest, the sport will implode.
Bernie, who will be smart to retire any time soon, will be laughing all the way to CVCs bank as it does his reputation no harm for the sport to self destruct the second he isn't around.
So yes, there's a lot more going on here than the tired old Sky vs BBC arguments.
Can we please start getting that?
They said that about the Premier League in 1992, and that's always been Pay TV. Le Mans has been Pay TV for years noe and that's hardly dying. IMO the rights money that gets paid by the Pay TV broadcasters probably far outstrip the money they'd get from FTA exposure, so no wonder they go down the Pay route...
What could happen is that the teams will approve an increase in Pay TV once they see how the increase in TV money they'd get from Pay broadcasters offsets any potential loss in sponsorship. The *real* death knell will be when the fans stop watching to such an extent that even the pay TV companies push for a reduction in their rights fees.
the viewership in recent years has gone up if anything and probably helped by the $ky/ BBC split - so that's really no excuse for failing teams.
as has been previously discussed the split of monies is a joke, and the costs have spiralled way beyond control - purely the fault of F1.
personally i couldn't care which channel broadcasts it (as long as there are no ads in the race!) i switched to $ky as the Beebs excellent coverage went downhill fast imho and they were a bit simplistic in their presentation style which was great for newcomers and probably what their remit is.
oh and pre 97 i don't remember a season where we got full qualy and full races every session all year long!
*Billion - that's if you were referring to the cost of the rights all together.
Yeah, Sky have paid 4.2 billion for the 3 year deal (BT paid 920 million) so 1.4 Billion a year.
PL football is crucial to SKY's entire business model, and having lost the European rights to BT they went big to keep the majority and prime picks of the new PL deal.
They are talking about efficiency savings but i'd say it's a given that SS subs will rise.
Yeah, Sky have paid 4.2 billion for the 3 year deal (BT paid 920 million) so 1.4 Billion a year.
PL football is crucial to SKY's entire business model, and having lost the European rights to BT they went big to keep the majority and prime picks of the new PL deal.
They are talking about efficiency savings but i'd say it's a given that SS subs will rise.
Yeah, Sky have paid 4.2 billion for the 3 year deal (BT paid 920 million) so 1.4 Billion a year.
PL football is crucial to SKY's entire business model, and having lost the European rights to BT they went big to keep the majority and prime picks of the new PL deal.
They are talking about efficiency savings but i'd say it's a given that SS subs will rise.
Billion That's even worse.
Must have misheard what they said on the TV...
I doubt it will just be the Sky Sports sub price that goes up either.
the viewership in recent years has gone up if anything and probably helped by the $ky/ BBC split - so that's really no excuse for failing teams.
Any rise in viewing numbers cannot be attributed to this deal. It didn't make it so more people could watch F1, but the opposite.
It reminds me of the stupid statements made when the deal was announced that it would mean F1 could reach a potential 10 million people, as if people would watch F1 simply because it is on Sky Sports even though they didn't when it was on the BBC, a channel they already have.
personally i couldn't care which channel broadcasts it (as long as there are no ads in the race!) i switched to $ky as the Beebs excellent coverage went downhill fast imho and they were a bit simplistic in their presentation style which was great for newcomers and probably what their remit is.
Quality of both channel's coverage has deteriorated, it isn't just a BBC F1 thing.
Oh and can we please stop typing Sky as $ky, it is just childish.
It's funny, while I used to like ITV's coverage, in recent years I prefer a more bare-bones approach, i.e. I just turn on when the FOM Ident begins and turn off as soon as they cut away to the local broadcaster (BBC or Sky) after the podium again. But you can blame that approach on the internet I suppose, no need to have all the off-track news between weekends explained to me on air in the build-up to the race, I already know it from motoring news sites like Autosport, ESPN & the official F1 website. Plus I've grown tired of all the interviews disguised as quirky gimmicks now, like Alonso doing card tricks or DC on a golf cart around Montreal.
Same here. I used to regularly watch ITV coverage from beginning to end.
Any rise in viewing numbers cannot be attributed to this deal. It didn't make it so more people could watch F1, but the opposite.
It reminds me of the stupid statements made when the deal was announced that it would mean F1 could reach a potential 10 million people, as if people would watch F1 simply because it is on Sky Sports even though they didn't when it was on the BBC, a channel they already have.
In terms of the BIB, only if you're talking about watching a live Formula 1 race.
I think inherently it is possible that the deal could have increased viewing figures of F1. Less people watching live, sure, but there was scope to claw that back and add some more simply by dint of the fact that the BBC broadcast highlights in the evening when the total number of people watching television is greater.
In practice, however, I'm not sure it's quite worked out like that. D.M.N. tends to be the one with the finger on the BARB viewing number pulse and so I'm sure he'll have a better-founded opinion on what the BBC/Sky split has done for viewing figures, but I suspect they're probably down a little overall - taking into account live plus highlights.
There's so much scope for creativity in interpreting what a "viewer" is, though, that I'm sure there are some reasonably legitimate stats that the teams and or the sport can cite as "officially" showing the BBC/Sky split has increased the number of viewers.
Maybe an interesting measure would be the number of viewers per minute of action shown...that surely must be down, seeing as the highlights are only a fraction of the race (a decent-sized fraction, but a fraction nevertheless).
They are talking about efficiency savings but i'd say it's a given that SS subs will rise.
Which is already too high. I have no desire to subsidise Football just to watch F1.
Maybe in 2018 when F1 rights are up, those savings may come in the form of dropping F1 as the cost of watching just F1 becomes too much to bear and numbers decline.
Same here. I used to regularly watch ITV coverage from beginning to end.
Same here, I think the last year where I watched all the pre and post race stuff for every race would be 2010. I think it's due to a number of reasons, none of which are quality of what is produced.
I think the main reason is the internet. I am able to get all the comment and opinion when I want, watching someone like Eddie Jordan take a deliberately controversial stance to make good tv just holds no interest for me because I (and most of you in this thread) are simply well enough informed these days to know when he's just full of bluster.
Comments
we are all forced however to pay for the BBC - and if people remembered correctly the pre 97 coverage of F1 by the beeb then really we should all be thanking ITV for turning around F1 coverage in the UK and maybe forcing the beeb to take their fingers out of their rear ends when they got the coverage back.
ALL the channels self promote endlessly, at least SKY and others are honest about it, that's how they make their revenue. BBC are being paid for by us anyway and still spend as long on self promotion as the others.
Bernie runs F1 and God forbid anyone who forgets it!:)
Uninterrupted races and qually, a real disgrace wasn't it...
To be fair, it's only moved on because individual broadcasters moved it on - generally because they introduced a new innovation to it or simply devoted more airtime to it, mainly in response to outbidding the previous broadcasters. I don't think it's unfair to credit broadcasters with new things they brought in/embraced.
Within reason, of course
How I think F1 differentiates from the other sports in question is that, something posters like Ellie fail to comprehend with their daily mail-esque "boo licence fee boo!" rhetoric, is that for so long F1 fans have been taught how the teams depend on sponsorship and how having as many eyeballs on the races as possible is essential to maintain that level of sponsorship.
Since the sport is moving of FTA television in search of higher dollar, we've noticed a lot of teams struggle to find sponsorship, and since the TV revenue distribution is about as fair as an HSBC tax statement, we're seeing quite a few teams struggle, not just the established back of the grid (which has already vanished and will likely be just the first casualties of a lengthy war of attrition until the powers that be make drastic changes).
Taking the sport off FTA permanently would be to sound its death knell.
While it's easy to dismiss the arguments as partisan Sky Vs BBC I honestly think we'd be having the exact same argument if it was ITV VS BT Sports.
FTA is vital for our sport, or if it is to go fully Pay (something I'm resigned to when the next contract is bid for....SKY Vs BT with one or two marquee events live on BBC or ITV ) then a serious review of how that money filters down to the participants is needed to.
But knowing the way F1 works we'll likely get one without the other, we'll go pay and the teams will argue so long for their own interest, the sport will implode.
Bernie, who will be smart to retire any time soon, will be laughing all the way to CVCs bank as it does his reputation no harm for the sport to self destruct the second he isn't around.
So yes, there's a lot more going on here than the tired old Sky vs BBC arguments.
Can we please start getting that?
What could happen is that the teams will approve an increase in Pay TV once they see how the increase in TV money they'd get from Pay broadcasters offsets any potential loss in sponsorship. The *real* death knell will be when the fans stop watching to such an extent that even the pay TV companies push for a reduction in their rights fees.
I thought they still were ! both BBC and Sky !
as has been previously discussed the split of monies is a joke, and the costs have spiralled way beyond control - purely the fault of F1.
personally i couldn't care which channel broadcasts it (as long as there are no ads in the race!) i switched to $ky as the Beebs excellent coverage went downhill fast imho and they were a bit simplistic in their presentation style which was great for newcomers and probably what their remit is.
oh and pre 97 i don't remember a season where we got full qualy and full races every session all year long!
£5 million, thats is just ridiculous.
Yeah, Sky have paid 4.2 billion for the 3 year deal (BT paid 920 million) so 1.4 Billion a year.
PL football is crucial to SKY's entire business model, and having lost the European rights to BT they went big to keep the majority and prime picks of the new PL deal.
They are talking about efficiency savings but i'd say it's a given that SS subs will rise.
Must have misheard what they said on the TV...
I doubt it will just be the Sky Sports sub price that goes up either.
It reminds me of the stupid statements made when the deal was announced that it would mean F1 could reach a potential 10 million people, as if people would watch F1 simply because it is on Sky Sports even though they didn't when it was on the BBC, a channel they already have.
Quality of both channel's coverage has deteriorated, it isn't just a BBC F1 thing.
Oh and can we please stop typing Sky as $ky, it is just childish.
Same here. I used to regularly watch ITV coverage from beginning to end.
In terms of the BIB, only if you're talking about watching a live Formula 1 race.
I think inherently it is possible that the deal could have increased viewing figures of F1. Less people watching live, sure, but there was scope to claw that back and add some more simply by dint of the fact that the BBC broadcast highlights in the evening when the total number of people watching television is greater.
In practice, however, I'm not sure it's quite worked out like that. D.M.N. tends to be the one with the finger on the BARB viewing number pulse and so I'm sure he'll have a better-founded opinion on what the BBC/Sky split has done for viewing figures, but I suspect they're probably down a little overall - taking into account live plus highlights.
There's so much scope for creativity in interpreting what a "viewer" is, though, that I'm sure there are some reasonably legitimate stats that the teams and or the sport can cite as "officially" showing the BBC/Sky split has increased the number of viewers.
Maybe an interesting measure would be the number of viewers per minute of action shown...that surely must be down, seeing as the highlights are only a fraction of the race (a decent-sized fraction, but a fraction nevertheless).
Which is already too high. I have no desire to subsidise Football just to watch F1.
Maybe in 2018 when F1 rights are up, those savings may come in the form of dropping F1 as the cost of watching just F1 becomes too much to bear and numbers decline.
Same here, I think the last year where I watched all the pre and post race stuff for every race would be 2010. I think it's due to a number of reasons, none of which are quality of what is produced.
I think the main reason is the internet. I am able to get all the comment and opinion when I want, watching someone like Eddie Jordan take a deliberately controversial stance to make good tv just holds no interest for me because I (and most of you in this thread) are simply well enough informed these days to know when he's just full of bluster.