• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Broadcasting
Bernie E considers free Sky F1 boxes as viewers desert F1
<<
<
2 of 7
>>
>
jenzie
15-04-2013
1: they are NOT ever EVER going to give you "free boxes" for one channel!
2: showing the races delayed is already done on the BBC
3: the loss of viewers is because people are de-scribing from the HD package, never really understood why the F1 channel was free with the HD channel myself
R410
15-04-2013
Originally Posted by jenzie:
“1: they are NOT ever EVER going to give you "free boxes" for one channel!
2: showing the races delayed is already done on the BBC
3: the loss of viewers is because people are de-scribing from the HD package, never really understood why the F1 channel was free with the HD channel myself”

1. That is just plainly obvious. They only give free boxes if the person is subscribing.

2. The BBC show only highlights, if they showed the full races albeit delayed it would be better for the fans would do have Sky.

3. The Sky Sports F1 was made avaiable via the HD pack because Sky realised that most F1 fans were not willing to take out the full Sky Sports pack just to watch F1, so they made a cheaper way to at least get some money.
R410
15-04-2013
Originally Posted by swills:
“Or it is simply another money making idea from Mr E ? I think F1 are quite happy it is behind a sub package, eventually all the coverage will be that way, (nit just the UK) but will just take a couple of years or so to get there.
Quite a nifty idea by F1, give everyone a box, then bang, you've got 'em where you want them.”

BE is a delusional fool. If he wants the viewing numbers to stay up, or indeed grow, he needs to get F1 back on free channels, not behind paywalls.

But he seems to also want the extra money that pay TV provides since they bid higher to stop the FTA channels getting the rights, but doing this is going to lead to lower viewer numbers, as not everyone can afford or wants pay TV.
mrprosser
15-04-2013
Originally Posted by hendero:
“Thanks. Seems surprising that F1 would lose 3.6 million just because half the races are live on Sky. Unless it's more to do with everyone having more channels to watch since digital switchover, so just about all viewing figures for everything are down the same 10% as F1.”

What it means is that the average F1 viewer who has enjoyed the sport for years on the BBC, (and endured the adverts on ITV!!) doesn't have sky.

Everyone in the UK with a TV (that receives channels) can watch BBC or ITV. NOT GETTING INTO A TVL ARGUMENT, but there were nearly 25 million TVL sold in 2009/2010 (most recent figures I can find.

This website http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2012/09/0...-bbc-sky-2012/ has compiled all the viewing figures for 2011 (BBC only) to 2012 (Sky and BBC) the really shocking stat was that the 2011 Canadian GP had 6.2 million viewers live on BBC1, the following year Sky and the BBC together had less than 1 million. If a TV show haemorrhaged 5.5 million viewers in one year it would have been cancelled

In 2010 Sky reached it's goal of 3 million HD customers, and 10 million customers in total. Now not all of those 10million subscribe to sports, and some of those 3 million will get everything.

So say Sky have 5million people with the ability to watch. That means FTA terrestrial has a potential 5 times the number of viewers.

A quick look at some of the previous seasons viewing figures is even more damning, some of the races that were shown on the BBC in it's last season of full coverage pulled in 3 to 4 million viewers, the same race 1 year later on sky had less than a million. The sponsors where always going to take notice when they realised just how many fewer potential customers their ads were reaching, and demand a reduction in fees in return.
mikw
15-04-2013
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“Whether or not this is a plan can anyone explain exactly what is supposedly being proposed?

It looks to me as if the plan is that Sky supply free boxes and people then just subscribe to SSF1 for £10.25 per month. Is that it?

If it is there's a problem.

Sky already supply free boxes today.

But Sky are never going to supply a free box (and free installation etc) and then only charge £10.25 per month because that will completely change the economics of supplying the free box and free installation in the first place.

It will also change the economics of anyone who was previously influenced to get Sky by the F1 - they'll be able to downgrade to a far cheaper price - again changing the economics.

Conclusion: Non-starter.

However isn't Now TV sort of the solution to the problem anyway - ie giving similar result to Bernie "proposal" - ie much cheaper option if you just want to watch F1.”

Agreed on the first part - waste of time giving away "free" boxes, as the box is free when you take out a subscription!
malcy30
15-04-2013
F1 has a very different demographic to the "normal" Sky and Sky Sports subscribers and I include myself in that group. Most buy Sky Sports for the football although in my case its cricket. Am also an avid F1 watcher.

F1 has a higher socio economic profile and average household income level than the general population hence the type of brands which are sponsors. It's not the Coca Cola and McDonalds !

I have close friends who are massive F1 fans who go to the Britsih and a couple of European GP each year. They are livid that F1 is on Sky. They have loads of money but will never subscribe to Sky as its "common" and they view F1 should be on free TV.

The final straw with them and I think many other F1 fans who don't have Sky is when they realise the BBC were idiots and failed to pick Monaco as one of their live races this year. I believe they chose Italy instead so Monaco is exclusively live on Sky.

Many casual fans only watch British and Monaco GP so Monaco live on Sky with evening highlights on the BBC is like the Derby or Grand National going to Sky. So even fewer viewers.

In my view though is given the BBC desire to save money pay on Sky and no adverts is a better option than adverts on ITV. However thinking about it why not the Sky live races on Sky Aone with adverts then if you pay for Sky Sports you get no adverts and all the red button extra screens. So all Sky customers can watch, but those who pay more get the extras.
R410
15-04-2013
Originally Posted by malcy30:
“F1 has a very different demographic to the "normal" Sky and Sky Sports subscribers and I include myself in that group. Most buy Sky Sports for the football although in my case its cricket. Am also an avid F1 watcher.

F1 has a higher socio economic profile and average household income level than the general population hence the type of brands which are sponsors. It's not the Coca Cola and McDonalds !

I have close friends who are massive F1 fans who go to the Britsih and a couple of European GP each year. They are livid that F1 is on Sky. They have loads of money but will never subscribe to Sky as its "common" and they view F1 should be on free TV.

The final straw with them and I think many other F1 fans who don't have Sky is when they realise the BBC were idiots and failed to pick Monaco as one of their live races this year. I believe they chose Italy instead so Monaco is exclusively live on Sky.

Many casual fans only watch British and Monaco GP so Monaco live on Sky with evening highlights on the BBC is like the Derby or Grand National going to Sky. So even fewer viewers.

In my view though is given the BBC desire to save money pay on Sky and no adverts is a better option than adverts on ITV. However thinking about it why not the Sky live races on Sky Aone with adverts then if you pay for Sky Sports you get no adverts and all the red button extra screens. So all Sky customers can watch, but those who pay more get the extras.”

I cannot agree with that. I am glad that they didn't choose Monaco. It is a f*cking boring race, well precession.

The only reason they still go there is for the glitz and glamour attached. I would certainly watch Canada instead, at least there is actual racing there and not just follow the leader.

Sky are not going to put any of the races on Sky One, they treat sports as a cash cow. Purely to make massive profits.
derek500
16-04-2013
Originally Posted by malcy30:
“
F1 has a higher socio economic profile and average household income level than the general population hence the type of brands which are sponsors. It's not the Coca Cola and McDonalds !

I have close friends who are massive F1 fans who go to the Britsih and a couple of European GP each year. They are livid that F1 is on Sky. They have loads of money but will never subscribe to Sky as its "common" and they view F1 should be on free TV.”

It's a common misconception that Sky is downmarket. Sky subscribers have a higher than average socio economic demographic.

Sky Sports F1 has a large 58% ABC1 demo. So although it's viewing figures are lower it's attracting the sort that advertisers strive for.

http://www.skymedia.co.uk/Audience-I...les-sport.aspx
hendero
16-04-2013
Originally Posted by derek500:
“It's a common misconception that Sky is downmarket. Sky subscribers have a higher than average socio economic demographic.

Sky Sports F1 has a large 58% ABC1 demo. So although it's viewing figures are lower it's attracting the sort that advertisers strive for.

http://www.skymedia.co.uk/Audience-I...les-sport.aspx”

Do Sky publish figures about how many homes have Sky Sports and how many have the F1 channel?
thedrewser
16-04-2013
Originally Posted by malcy30:
“In my view though is given the BBC desire to save money pay on Sky and no adverts is a better option than adverts on ITV. However thinking about it why not the Sky live races on Sky Aone with adverts then if you pay for Sky Sports you get no adverts and all the red button extra screens. So all Sky customers can watch, but those who pay more get the extras.”

Sky F1 doesn't have any adverts during the duration of the race. There are adverts in the pre and post race stuff, but none during the race itself. Same goes for qualifying.
blueisthecolour
16-04-2013
Originally Posted by malcy30:
“F1 has a very different demographic to the "normal" Sky and Sky Sports subscribers and I include myself in that group. Most buy Sky Sports for the football although in my case its cricket. Am also an avid F1 watcher.

F1 has a higher socio economic profile and average household income level than the general population hence the type of brands which are sponsors. It's not the Coca Cola and McDonalds !

I have close friends who are massive F1 fans who go to the Britsih and a couple of European GP each year. They are livid that F1 is on Sky. They have loads of money but will never subscribe to Sky as its "common" and they view F1 should be on free TV.

The final straw with them and I think many other F1 fans who don't have Sky is when they realise the BBC were idiots and failed to pick Monaco as one of their live races this year. I believe they chose Italy instead so Monaco is exclusively live on Sky.

Many casual fans only watch British and Monaco GP so Monaco live on Sky with evening highlights on the BBC is like the Derby or Grand National going to Sky. So even fewer viewers.

In my view though is given the BBC desire to save money pay on Sky and no adverts is a better option than adverts on ITV. However thinking about it why not the Sky live races on Sky Aone with adverts then if you pay for Sky Sports you get no adverts and all the red button extra screens. So all Sky customers can watch, but those who pay more get the extras.”

I don't want to generalize, but it does seem like F1 posters on here have a much higher expectation of watching their sport for free than any other group of supporters. I know that a lot of people take a general interest in F1 but surely the total number of 'hardcore' fans isn't higher than other sports (football, cricket, golf, tennis). Obviously it would be great if F1 fans could watch everything free to air but they can't expect to be treated different to any other sport - the rest of us have to put up with subscribing to pay-tv to watch live events. I mean if other fans had the same FTA access as F1 we'd be ecstatic - I can't watch a single Premier League game on free tv, let alone 50% of them.

I don't know whether being on Sky is detrimental to the sport; I thought that cricket made a huge mistake going pay-only but that has seemed to turned out ok.
HenryVIII
16-04-2013
Originally Posted by derek500:
“It's a common misconception that Sky is downmarket. Sky subscribers have a higher than average socio economic demographic.

Sky Sports F1 has a large 58% ABC1 demo. So although it's viewing figures are lower it's attracting the sort that advertisers strive for.”

I live in a small development of large detached houses in an affluent area. My neighbours are a couple of company directors, a doctor of science, a film director, a couple of retired people, and a senior IT consultant.

Every one of them as a Sky HD subscription
The Phazer
16-04-2013
Quote:
““I said [to Sky] you can guarantee that when you put a Sky box in the house, although it is only for F1, people are going to say ‘why can’t I watch the rest’ and they will sign up,”.

“Children will say ‘my friends at school watch this so why can’t we?’ Sky are very good with that kind of idea. It would use F1 to drive their subscriptions.””

Oh Bernie... how are you so rich when you have such a poor grasp of business?

The reality is that there's only so much more of the population that can afford pay television to grow into to, and it's pretty shrinking. Which is why Sky have diversified into providing triple play services and trying to increase ARPU instead.

A free box would cost Sky a lot of money, deliver none of the things they wrote you a large cheque for (which was exclusivity to prevent churn to other services) and generate virtually no conversions.

Sky are clever enough to see that. To be fair, a first year business studies undergrad would be clever enough to see that.
mlt11
16-04-2013
Originally Posted by hendero:
“Do Sky publish figures about how many homes have Sky Sports and how many have the F1 channel?”

Sky Sports - not any more, but they did 6 years ago.

At that point it was just under 60% of Sky homes and they have said many times the % is very similar now. So that would mean just under 6m Sky homes today. Last year a Sky employee posted the figure as 5,850,000.

Another 1m homes take Sky Sports on other platforms - primarily VM but a few on BT as well (though BT doesn't get SSF1).

So Sky Sports total with SSF1 will be in the region of 6.5m.

There are then the Sky HD homes without SS.

Sky do report HD homes - 44% of Sky homes.

They don't split that between SS and non SS but I think obvious that SS much more likely to take HD than non SS - ie HD much more worthwhile for sport, SS more ABC1 demographic, if you can afford SS much more likely to be willing to pay for HD etc.

So if you apply say 30% HD in non SS homes you would get another 1.25m homes.

So the grand total with the SSF1 channel would be in the region of 7.75m homes.
mlt11
16-04-2013
Originally Posted by derek500:
“It's a common misconception that Sky is downmarket. Sky subscribers have a higher than average socio economic demographic.

Sky Sports F1 has a large 58% ABC1 demo. So although it's viewing figures are lower it's attracting the sort that advertisers strive for.

http://www.skymedia.co.uk/Audience-I...les-sport.aspx”

Yes, OFCOM survey back in 2010 found Pay TV skews very significantly upmarket, not downmarket.

Satellite - 61% ABC1
Cable - 54% ABC1
Freeview - 49% ABC1
Analogue - 41% ABC1

(Overall population - 55% ABC1)

It's one of the main reasons why Sky is able to charge high prices - most of their customers are well off.

Link (178/379):

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin...2010_FINAL.pdf
theARE
16-04-2013
BE would be better off trying to get pressure them with regards to a reasonably priced F1 season ticket for NowTV

£10 for 24 hours access to all the Sky Sports channels is steep - especially if you are only interested in the F1 channel.

Maybe a free Roku box with a £100- £150 F1 season pass would be something that could possibly work and tempt some more people.
derek500
16-04-2013
....and the quarterly reach of Sky Sports F1 (which gives a more accurate idea of viewing numbers than the programme averages) for last year were:-

Q2 6.149m

Q3 6.148m

Q4 5.393m

For comparison Sky Sports 1's figures were:-

Q2 11.714m

Q3 11.220m

Q4 11.246m
mlt11
16-04-2013
Originally Posted by hendero:
“Thanks. Seems surprising that F1 would lose 3.6 million just because half the races are live on Sky. Unless it's more to do with everyone having more channels to watch since digital switchover, so just about all viewing figures for everything are down the same 10% as F1.”

I agree - it does look a bit odd.

However I think one reason will be that the only two prime-time races (ie races in UK prime-time) were both only live on Sky - ie Canadian and US Grand Prix.

As they were the only races in that slot then when they were live on BBC they would have attracted a chunk of people who would not have seen anything of any other races - thereby boosting the overall annual "reach" figure.

Remember the 2011 reach was over 50% of entire UK population - threshold is very low - there could easily be a chunk of people who just saw say 5 or 10 mins (or more obviously) of Canadian / US GPs but no other races.
starsailor
16-04-2013
It was all too obvious that this was going to happen.

Like it or not, most people are not 'proper' F1 fans, in fact the vast majority are not. The numbers which watched F1 on the BBC are people which just tuned in because they like a bit of sport, or the TV just happened to be on the BBC (which probably happens with most people watching).

There's probably 2m max fans of F1 in the UK I would say..and it's likely that a good half of these either can't afford, or won't buy Sky for it. Hence SSF1 was never going to get millions and millions of viewers (and I expect Sky know and knew this full well).

Bernie just wants his cake and to eat it. He wants high broadcast rights, (and the Beeb wouldn't/couldn't pay), but he also wants the audience for sponsorship.

He can't have both... but he's trying to bend reality to fit both, and it ain't going to work.
hendero
16-04-2013
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“Sky Sports - not any more, but they did 6 years ago.

At that point it was just under 60% of Sky homes and they have said many times the % is very similar now. So that would mean just under 6m Sky homes today. Last year a Sky employee posted the figure as 5,850,000.

Another 1m homes take Sky Sports on other platforms - primarily VM but a few on BT as well (though BT doesn't get SSF1).

So Sky Sports total with SSF1 will be in the region of 6.5m.

There are then the Sky HD homes without SS.

Sky do report HD homes - 44% of Sky homes.

They don't split that between SS and non SS but I think obvious that SS much more likely to take HD than non SS - ie HD much more worthwhile for sport, SS more ABC1 demographic, if you can afford SS much more likely to be willing to pay for HD etc.

So if you apply say 30% HD in non SS homes you would get another 1.25m homes.

So the grand total with the SSF1 channel would be in the region of 7.75m homes.”

Interesting analysis. Thanks for that, and the possible rationale for the reach numbers being down due to the US and Canadian GPs not being on the Beeb.
popeye13
17-04-2013
Well Bernie, if losing that amount of viewers is something so painful for you, then just why in the name of a good (bleep) did you decline the offer that Channel 4 put in?
FTA, meaning no sub and you wouldn't have lost more viewers than some small countries have in population!!!!

I could live with ads if they did it the way alot of European FTA broadcasters do. One or two ads that last maybe 30 seconds of the race and then back to the race.
ITV used to have 5 breaks an hour that lasted 2 and a bit minutes.
Thats a piss take in anyones book!
Channel 4 were not going to be that ITV slashy with ad interruption but the money from Sky got Bernie a semi and well, look at it now!
More people are downloading off 'illegal' pirating sites and watching via HQ streams online or via European free TV like RTL.
Sorry Bernie, not a scrap of sympathy for your pockets, i just hope the advertisers go ape and the teams too soon and force this Sky F1 deal to not be something that gets renewed and we can get back to have F1 like its been for more years than most have had of life!
Armagideon Time
17-04-2013
Originally Posted by popeye13:
“Well Bernie, if losing that amount of viewers is something so painful for you, then just why in the name of a good (bleep) did you decline the offer that Channel 4 put in?
FTA, meaning no sub and you wouldn't have lost more viewers than some small countries have in population!!!!

I could live with ads if they did it the way alot of European FTA broadcasters do. One or two ads that last maybe 30 seconds of the race and then back to the race.
ITV used to have 5 breaks an hour that lasted 2 and a bit minutes.
Thats a piss take in anyones book!
Channel 4 were not going to be that ITV slashy with ad interruption but the money from Sky got Bernie a semi and well, look at it now!
More people are downloading off 'illegal' pirating sites and watching via HQ streams online or via European free TV like RTL.
Sorry Bernie, not a scrap of sympathy for your pockets, i just hope the advertisers go ape and the teams too soon and force this Sky F1 deal to not be something that gets renewed and we can get back to have F1 like its been for more years than most have had of life!”

When the change in broacasting rights for F1 wa announced in July 2011, IIRC C4 were interested in covering F1, but from 2013 onwards as their budgets for 2012 were already sorted, but this was no good to Bernie as he wanted the new TV rights deal to commence from 2012, as the BBC had to come out early of the exclusive 5-year deal from 2009-2013 at the end of the 2011 season due to the licence fee freeze.
hendero
17-04-2013
Plus Channel 4 would have had to outbid BBC and Sky combined to get the rights, and I can't see that happening. This way Bernie probably figures he gets the best of all worlds, even if most UK F1 fans can't see all the races live and in full.
BenFranklin
17-04-2013
Originally Posted by Armagideon Time:
“When the change in broacasting rights for F1 wa announced in July 2011, IIRC C4 were interested in covering F1, but from 2013 onwards as their budgets for 2012 were already sorted, but this was no good to Bernie as he wanted the new TV rights deal to commence from 2012, as the BBC had to come out early of the exclusive 5-year deal from 2009-2013 at the end of the 2011 season due to the licence fee freeze.”

BBC would have had to pay £50m to break the contract so if Bernie had insisted they had carried on with 2012, they would have had to.
keicar
17-04-2013
If Bernie is that worried about falling TV audiences I guess that it could ensure that RTL's rights to show it FTA could be extended beyond 2016.

There was talk closed season that there were going to be some changes regarding the BBC R5Live commentary, thus stopping RTL viewers in the UK using it with the RTL pictures. Maybe he's happy enough to let that go now?
<<
<
2 of 7
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map