look, there has been a noticable change from this season in how the sports rights are shared. Not just in the UK, but across the major markets in europe.
It's not only Sky UK.
The whole tv portal has changed, and that is down to Bernie.
We have discussed this long before now
Sky UK was his guinea pig last season, testing the water.… anyone that believes otherwise is just completely clueless.
Can this thread please not become another runaway debate about how the rights have been split?
That's exactly what i have said! this is being repeated worldwide, and that is because what has happened with other sports, is now happening with F1.
It's now wanted by Pay TV - hence all the deals recently.
I think personally F1 has done very well so far to avoid the 'pay wall' to degree other sports such as football are under it. Although some of us may argue it, F1 is often perceived as a rich man’s sport, with that perception imo it's done very well. I certainly see the valid points about the reduction of viewers vs. the loss of advertising revenue. I see the current 'transitional era' in F1 as 'educating' viewers into paying for access. I see the long term goal being completely internet based. I feel the days of needing satellite dishes and recorders etc are numbered, i.e. within a decade they'll be a paradigm shift. I see a reduction in the number of media appliances amongst the home. TV's can already give you internet access etc, it won't be long before there's 'all in one' style products coming. Maybe someone like Microsoft will combine gaming, computing, and home entertainment into one package.
The coverage access we're likely to see in the future will (imo) be internet based. I'm not sure if it'll happen while Bernie is around, he's often quite contradictory when it comes to technological advance, but it makes sense to have one single distribution of coverage (i.e. FOM) and disseminate it via the internet, rather than make deals with endlessly problematic broadcasters. I think TATA signed up to work with FOM a year or two ago and provide them landline data links (that right?) I could see FOM teaming up with them to launch their own internet channel. The sticking point with internet based services is the quality of the viewer’s infrastructure. For instance where I am (a couple of miles outside Silverstone) I can barely scrape 600kps, I couldn't stream a race live without buffering issues, let alone in HD.
It's going to be an interesting few years technology wise and in comparison to the last ten years, I expect it to be markedly different. A different kind of question is 'are people happy to pay' and I think truth be told it's likely to be a generational thing, some may call it brain washing! But basically people growing up now that become accustomed to paid access will not have the memories of FTA programming, you can't miss what you've never had etc.
On a happier note, here's another link to that podcast I mentioned earlier:
On a completely separate note, I've seen few mentions of Webber's ECU story gathering pace today (it's built by McLaren), for once it's nice to sit back and not care either way.
I think there are 2 debates here - the Sky/BBC one yes we've had it before many times and nothing new can be added to that one.
But the larger debate is if moving to a partial or fully Pay TV platform in many major European markets is putting off (or potentially putting off) sponsors from entering the sport and how that effects the smaller teams and the entire health of the sport moving forward.
We've seen signals that this might be happening over the winter with HRT going under and Caterham and Marussia having to take paid drivers in order to survive
It's a different debate and potentially has wide reaching implications for the sport.
It's just way too easy to lay the blame of that stuff at going away from FTA.
The truth is that its been an immensely tough market for sponsors for several seasons, a tough environment for teams for several seasons. Teams at the back of the grid have always struggled for money and had to take pay drivers and HRT/Caterham/Marussia have came into the sport a few seasons ago and had shit-all success, so why would it be the natural assumption they'd be getting healthier not less healthy?
I don't doubt that the TV thing hasn't necessarily helped much but in the grand scheme of things I'm not convinced its anywhere near being the dominant factor.
For what it's worth in my opinion the optimum coverage has both FTA and pay-wall elements.
The real trick is to work out the terms of a deal that allows FTA decent exposure for eyeballs on sponsor logos yet sufficiently superior coverage for pay broadcasters that people will pay for it (even if still in the minority).
I think the current deal could be better in that sense. The half-live half-highlights is an ugly compromise (not helped by the BBC adding a third tier of half the highlights programmes being significantly shorter than the other half).
Maybe I'll get shot down for this but it'd almost be better if the BBC paid, say, 70% as much as they do now and had nothing live but were able to show everything in full a few hours after the event. Maybe that's just my prejudice of highlights and maybe I can say that more easily since I pay for Sky anyway and maybe I'd not say that if I relied solely on the BBC, so I don't expect or require people to agree.
I'm just floating the possibility that FTA and pay could and should be able to coexist in some way if the deal is right for both sides. I think just saying "no pay TV F1! EVER!" is too simplistic an argument.
There was a lot of talk in media land about it having to end prematurely in 2012.
What does "having" mean - the BBC was contracted to 2013 and could have been made to fulfil its contract - unless it went bust which has not happened and wouldn't have happened - F1 being a miniscule part of the BBC's overall operations.
F1 was always going to go pay tv. It had already been on pay tv in smaller countries for a while, Setanta have had it for a good few years now in Ireland (although BBC is widely available). In Norway it has been on Viasat only for a good few years. Much as I am disappointed by this and think it will be bad for the sport in the long run, at least Sky are doing a great job for the money. Setanta initially signed the RTÉ team (Gary Anderson, Declan Quigley and David Kennedy), but after a couple of years started to just take the BBC coverage with Ben and DC from F1 sting to the podium celebrations. No buildup, no post race analysis. We don't even get to see the podium interviews. Much as I like to support an Irish business, they really did a good job at convincing me to get Sky in.
What does "having" mean - the BBC was contracted to 2013 and could have been made to fulfil its contract - unless it went bust which has not happened and wouldn't have happened - F1 being a miniscule part of the BBC's overall operations.
There was a lot of talk about them not being able to do it at all - i'm not sure what would've happened if that had been the case.
You can't really "make" anyone fulfil a contract, but you can expect a heavy fine and never working together again.
Formula1blog.com have just put up their latest race review, I haven't had chance to listen yet but I often find their podcasts quite enjoyable to listen to, even if I don't always agree on every point.
Passes an hour or two while I'm pottering around with it in the background
A podcast you say? Talking about a podcast in an attempt to move on from the tired old merry go round that is the rights discussion, you say?
Failing to get any attention for said podcast, you say?
It sounds like the F1InPubscast should be right up your pit lane too!
It's very good you know, recorded at the F1inpubs events so you get a breadth of fan opinion before and after the race.
To get back on topic and to try and further spur non contract talk, this might be the most nerdy post ever made on here but with the graphics refresh this year there seems to be a change for the negative in the DRS icon.
Before it would have seperate stages for "DRS inactive" (Grey)
"Within 1 second of the car in front in the DRS zone but not activated the wing yet" (Green square) and "DRS active" (green square with yellow box around it)
This year it seems it's either DRS off or DRS on (grey or black) which leads to slightly more confusion as to whether they've actually activated it or not, particularly if you were used to the old graphics.
Yeah, tiny thing, but a big enough annoyance to super-cool me to bring it up.
Matt Roberts saying he's heard exciting news about BBC's MotoGP coverage today. This I imagine will be MotoGP Qualifying and support races moving to BBC2. (I hope!)
What would be more exciting if they made the quali sessions for all classes available on iPlayer regardless if they were broadcast or were bumped for the snooker / tennis / rowing / cycling / whatever as has often happened in the past.
To get back on topic and to try and further spur non contract talk, this might be the most nerdy post ever made on here but with the graphics refresh this year there seems to be a change for the negative in the DRS icon.
Before it would have seperate stages for "DRS inactive" (Grey)
"Within 1 second of the car in front in the DRS zone but not activated the wing yet" (Green square) and "DRS active" (green square with yellow box around it)
This year it seems it's either DRS off or DRS on (grey or black) which leads to slightly more confusion as to whether they've actually activated it or not, particularly if you were used to the old graphics.
Yeah, tiny thing, but a big enough annoyance to super-cool me to bring it up.
Maybe a part of the problems with the FIA telemetry system?
Matt Roberts saying he's heard exciting news about BBC's MotoGP coverage today. This I imagine will be MotoGP Qualifying and support races moving to BBC2. (I hope!)
Could it be a new contract for the BBC to cover the sport from 2014 as I believe it is the last year of their current contract
Matt Roberts saying he's heard exciting news about BBC's MotoGP coverage today. This I imagine will be MotoGP Qualifying and support races moving to BBC2. (I hope!)
I imagine it'll just be Friday practice going onto BBC2, so it'll be the same as F1, which is still pretty cool.
On Sky's Classic coverage, I'm willing to bet that the main reason the 2002 race is from the world feed and not F1D+ is Ben Edwards and/or, to a lesser extent, the lack of Brundle.
To be fair, it's not an illogical choice by Sky (unlike the BBC removing J Allen from history :cool:) as it's a choice between having the coverage featuring your current favourite 'Talent' and a neutral, or having the BBC's Ben Edwards and John Watson, neither of whom much of Sky's audience would be familiar with. And though it's a shame it is for us F1 broadcasting geeks, I doubt many people will be too fussed or even aware that they're watching an inferior feed!
I imagine it'll just be Friday practice going onto BBC2, so it'll be the same as F1, which is still pretty cool.
On Sky's Classic coverage, I'm willing to bet that the main reason the 2002 race is from the world feed and not F1D+ is Ben Edwards and/or, to a lesser extent, the lack of Brundle.
To be fair, it's not an illogical choice by Sky (unlike the BBC removing J Allen from history :cool:) as it's a choice between having the coverage featuring your current favourite 'Talent' and a neutral, or having the BBC's Ben Edwards and John Watson, neither of whom much of Sky's audience would be familiar with. And though it's a shame it is for us F1 broadcasting geeks, I doubt many people will be too fussed or even aware that they're watching an inferior feed!
With the BBC it could be argued it was just a quality decision.
Take the best commentary possible.
With Sky, opting for JA and MB on the World Feed over F1 digital Pictures and Ben Edwards commentary is a crazy one for those who are fans of the sport over the personalities behind the mic.
Digital Pictures and commentary was just a whole heap better, and deliberately so.
Why ITV opted for James Allen after Murray retired has been long debated (also why they announced they were going to treat 2001 as a commentator audition and rotate the non-Murray rounds between various different commentators then failed to enact this too ) but we never really look at it in the context of the F1 Digital operation.
Maybe ITV had their eyes on Ben but Bernie/Sky was too quick to sign him up once they knew Murray was going.
(Though we all know bernie thought he could tempt Murray to not retire and lead the F1 Digital commentary. Had Murray not been so honourable about not wanting to have a public retirement from one broadcaster and then going to work for another, we'd still probably be watching F1 Digital today as his voice would've added a huge amount more subscriptions than actually did take up the service IMO )
Still, from a Sky point of view I'm sure its less about making sure the lead BBC commentator doesn't appear on their channel and more about promoting Brundle as the de facto voice of F1 over anyone else.
Heck, if you look at all the publicity photos they took before the start of the season, Brundle is front and centre of every one, even Lazenby, who you'd think is the "star" and lead of the show, is behind him.
Make no mistake, Sky F1 is centered around MB and no-one else.
Got that, Georgie?
I think there's a bigger story here than we're being told.
Perhaps the press aren't willing to touch it for fear of Bernie-slaps but...hang on. The F1 telemetry systems that have worked so reliably for so long suddenly aren't working very well before the first race.
Why? Did they sell off some equipment in the off-season?
Are they in the process of an upgrade? Why NOW? Why didn't they get it done in the off-season?
Why are we losing important safety information like the cockpit lights and marshals not knowing which car is on the lead lap to blue flag?
I flash back to Max Mosely at Indy 2005 and how he said the sport has to follow its own rules otherwise they're wide open to legal challenges.
Well, if there had been a serious incident with a car crashing into an accident scene under yellow flags in wet conditions (too bad to see the flags, etc) then would the sport have been massively liable because they usually had a cockpit warning light that was mysteriously missing for this race?
Is it an LG thing?
I just don't understand why this is happening to something that we've never heard of as being a problem before.
And also why F1 fans and the media is happy to sweep it under the carpet, shrug their shoulders and say "Oh well, can't be helped, hopefully it'll be back for Malaysia!"
Comments
That's exactly what i have said! this is being repeated worldwide, and that is because what has happened with other sports, is now happening with F1.
It's now wanted by Pay TV - hence all the deals recently.
It's laughable to claim that pay tv didn't want f1 before, which is what you are implying.
F1 wanted to move to pay tv. It could have been on pay tv 10 years earlier if it wanted to but it chose not to.
The coverage access we're likely to see in the future will (imo) be internet based. I'm not sure if it'll happen while Bernie is around, he's often quite contradictory when it comes to technological advance, but it makes sense to have one single distribution of coverage (i.e. FOM) and disseminate it via the internet, rather than make deals with endlessly problematic broadcasters. I think TATA signed up to work with FOM a year or two ago and provide them landline data links (that right?) I could see FOM teaming up with them to launch their own internet channel. The sticking point with internet based services is the quality of the viewer’s infrastructure. For instance where I am (a couple of miles outside Silverstone) I can barely scrape 600kps, I couldn't stream a race live without buffering issues, let alone in HD.
It's going to be an interesting few years technology wise and in comparison to the last ten years, I expect it to be markedly different. A different kind of question is 'are people happy to pay' and I think truth be told it's likely to be a generational thing, some may call it brain washing! But basically people growing up now that become accustomed to paid access will not have the memories of FTA programming, you can't miss what you've never had etc.
On a happier note, here's another link to that podcast I mentioned earlier:
http://www.formula1blog.com/2013/03/19/formula1blog-com-podcast-306-australian-gp-review/
On a completely separate note, I've seen few mentions of Webber's ECU story gathering pace today (it's built by McLaren), for once it's nice to sit back and not care either way.
I NEVER claimed they didn't want F1 before, please don't be argumentative for the sake of it.
However, their desire for it got really stoked up when they saw the viewing figures for the Canadian Grand Prix on BBC1.
They then made proclamations about buying the sport (they weren't going to, but it was a statement of intention to say "we're serious".
Sky would have got F1 from this year one way or another, as is happens, the Beeb were able to "extend" their contract with this new deal.
It is debateable there would have been any FTA live races without this deal.
No, BBC's original contract expired at end of 2013.
Now - 1999 Malaysia
21:45 - 2002 Malaysia
Tomorrow
- 19:30 - 2003 Malaysia
- 21:45 - 2007 Malaysia
Thursday
- 20:00 - 2010 Malaysia
It's just way too easy to lay the blame of that stuff at going away from FTA.
The truth is that its been an immensely tough market for sponsors for several seasons, a tough environment for teams for several seasons. Teams at the back of the grid have always struggled for money and had to take pay drivers and HRT/Caterham/Marussia have came into the sport a few seasons ago and had shit-all success, so why would it be the natural assumption they'd be getting healthier not less healthy?
I don't doubt that the TV thing hasn't necessarily helped much but in the grand scheme of things I'm not convinced its anywhere near being the dominant factor.
For what it's worth in my opinion the optimum coverage has both FTA and pay-wall elements.
The real trick is to work out the terms of a deal that allows FTA decent exposure for eyeballs on sponsor logos yet sufficiently superior coverage for pay broadcasters that people will pay for it (even if still in the minority).
I think the current deal could be better in that sense. The half-live half-highlights is an ugly compromise (not helped by the BBC adding a third tier of half the highlights programmes being significantly shorter than the other half).
Maybe I'll get shot down for this but it'd almost be better if the BBC paid, say, 70% as much as they do now and had nothing live but were able to show everything in full a few hours after the event. Maybe that's just my prejudice of highlights and maybe I can say that more easily since I pay for Sky anyway and maybe I'd not say that if I relied solely on the BBC, so I don't expect or require people to agree.
I'm just floating the possibility that FTA and pay could and should be able to coexist in some way if the deal is right for both sides. I think just saying "no pay TV F1! EVER!" is too simplistic an argument.
There was a lot of talk in media land about it having to end prematurely in 2012.
That's a late addition to the schedule, isn't it?
2001 was removed, 2010 added.
What does "having" mean - the BBC was contracted to 2013 and could have been made to fulfil its contract - unless it went bust which has not happened and wouldn't have happened - F1 being a miniscule part of the BBC's overall operations.
I hope it's the 'proper' version some of us saw on Sky and not the watered down World Feed... although I suspect it will be.
I remember talking to mates who watched the ITV version and it was like they had watched a different race!
Edit: Thought so :mad:
There was a lot of talk about them not being able to do it at all - i'm not sure what would've happened if that had been the case.
You can't really "make" anyone fulfil a contract, but you can expect a heavy fine and never working together again.
You sue for damages actually - breach of contract is a civil matter.
They didn't want to drop it anyway, it was quite a surprise that they got a, sort of, "extension".
Some were speculating that there would be no FTA live coverage at all.
A podcast you say? Talking about a podcast in an attempt to move on from the tired old merry go round that is the rights discussion, you say?
Failing to get any attention for said podcast, you say?
It sounds like the F1InPubscast should be right up your pit lane too!
It's very good you know, recorded at the F1inpubs events so you get a breadth of fan opinion before and after the race.
You can listen to it here:
www.f1inpubs.co.uk/pubscast
Or just search for F1InPubscast on Itunes.
Might get you through another hour of pottering anyway!
*shudders* Ewww, I suddenly feel dirty.
Before it would have seperate stages for "DRS inactive" (Grey)
"Within 1 second of the car in front in the DRS zone but not activated the wing yet" (Green square) and "DRS active" (green square with yellow box around it)
This year it seems it's either DRS off or DRS on (grey or black) which leads to slightly more confusion as to whether they've actually activated it or not, particularly if you were used to the old graphics.
Yeah, tiny thing, but a big enough annoyance to super-cool me to bring it up.
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2013/03/16/fia-telemetry-glitch-drs-problems/
Could it be a new contract for the BBC to cover the sport from 2014 as I believe it is the last year of their current contract
I imagine it'll just be Friday practice going onto BBC2, so it'll be the same as F1, which is still pretty cool.
On Sky's Classic coverage, I'm willing to bet that the main reason the 2002 race is from the world feed and not F1D+ is Ben Edwards and/or, to a lesser extent, the lack of Brundle.
To be fair, it's not an illogical choice by Sky (unlike the BBC removing J Allen from history :cool:) as it's a choice between having the coverage featuring your current favourite 'Talent' and a neutral, or having the BBC's Ben Edwards and John Watson, neither of whom much of Sky's audience would be familiar with. And though it's a shame it is for us F1 broadcasting geeks, I doubt many people will be too fussed or even aware that they're watching an inferior feed!
With the BBC it could be argued it was just a quality decision.
Take the best commentary possible.
With Sky, opting for JA and MB on the World Feed over F1 digital Pictures and Ben Edwards commentary is a crazy one for those who are fans of the sport over the personalities behind the mic.
Digital Pictures and commentary was just a whole heap better, and deliberately so.
Why ITV opted for James Allen after Murray retired has been long debated (also why they announced they were going to treat 2001 as a commentator audition and rotate the non-Murray rounds between various different commentators then failed to enact this too ) but we never really look at it in the context of the F1 Digital operation.
Maybe ITV had their eyes on Ben but Bernie/Sky was too quick to sign him up once they knew Murray was going.
(Though we all know bernie thought he could tempt Murray to not retire and lead the F1 Digital commentary. Had Murray not been so honourable about not wanting to have a public retirement from one broadcaster and then going to work for another, we'd still probably be watching F1 Digital today as his voice would've added a huge amount more subscriptions than actually did take up the service IMO )
Still, from a Sky point of view I'm sure its less about making sure the lead BBC commentator doesn't appear on their channel and more about promoting Brundle as the de facto voice of F1 over anyone else.
Heck, if you look at all the publicity photos they took before the start of the season, Brundle is front and centre of every one, even Lazenby, who you'd think is the "star" and lead of the show, is behind him.
Make no mistake, Sky F1 is centered around MB and no-one else.
Got that, Georgie?
I think there's a bigger story here than we're being told.
Perhaps the press aren't willing to touch it for fear of Bernie-slaps but...hang on. The F1 telemetry systems that have worked so reliably for so long suddenly aren't working very well before the first race.
Why? Did they sell off some equipment in the off-season?
Are they in the process of an upgrade? Why NOW? Why didn't they get it done in the off-season?
Why are we losing important safety information like the cockpit lights and marshals not knowing which car is on the lead lap to blue flag?
I flash back to Max Mosely at Indy 2005 and how he said the sport has to follow its own rules otherwise they're wide open to legal challenges.
Well, if there had been a serious incident with a car crashing into an accident scene under yellow flags in wet conditions (too bad to see the flags, etc) then would the sport have been massively liable because they usually had a cockpit warning light that was mysteriously missing for this race?
Is it an LG thing?
I just don't understand why this is happening to something that we've never heard of as being a problem before.
And also why F1 fans and the media is happy to sweep it under the carpet, shrug their shoulders and say "Oh well, can't be helped, hopefully it'll be back for Malaysia!"