• 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
<<
<
3 of 7
>>
>
samja
17-04-2013
Despite being a big F1 fan, I never bothered getting Sky. You can very easily find online streams or go down the satellite route with RTL (and 5 live commentary), without having to pay the rip off prices they charge. Sure you won’t get the HD, 3D or whatever else Sky offer, but the average person couldn't care less about that. Like myself, they just want to watch the race in full and live. I already watch my team’s football matches in the same way, so it was just a case of readjusting.
For those that only want the F1, it’s simply not worth it for the sake of 10 races. That’s approximately 20 hours of race coverage at £40-50 a month. Sure, if you take advantage of all the other channels then maybe, but just for a few hours a month it’s pointless. Its no surprise viewing figures have fallen and Bernie only has himself to blame. Channel 4 were ready and waiting.
stewM
17-04-2013
If the timing had been different, could have been something BT Vision could have bid for.
derek500
17-04-2013
Originally Posted by stewM:
“If the timing had been different, could have been something BT Vision could have bid for.”

Now that would have really made the sponsors happy!!
1andrew1
17-04-2013
Does anyone know the revenue split between broadcasting rights and sponsorship rights and the economics? Do the teams get a share of the TV rights revenue?
If TV revenue is getting substantial through the pay-TV deals throughout the world, will F1 get to the stage where the sponsors have less influence?
Colin_London
17-04-2013
Both my wife and myself are avid F1 fans. But we drew the line at taking out a Sky subscription to continue watching it live. We are perfectly happy with Freeview / Youview for all our other viewing (maybe rent an on-demand film once a month from BT!) and see no justification for paying for all the other dross on Sky to watch the other half of the races live.

So we obviously watch the live races on BBC One HD, and on weekends with highlights we just avoid the news bulletins until the highlights are shown (and they are extended highlights after all).

Did Sky really think that the present arrangement would persuade people like us to fork out for a sub and to have a hunk of metal attached to their wall? I think they got blinded by the glitz.

Don't get me wrong - we could afford it if we were so inclined, but we don't throw money away on things when it's not justified.

Plus I hate the digger and all his organisation stands for
keicar
17-04-2013
Originally Posted by Colin_London:
“Both my wife and myself are avid F1 fans. But we drew the line at taking out a Sky subscription to continue watching it live. We are perfectly happy with Freeview / Youview for all our other viewing (maybe rent an on-demand film once a month from BT!) and see no justification for paying for all the other dross on Sky to watch the other half of the races live.

So we obviously watch the live races on BBC One HD, and on weekends with highlights we just avoid the news bulletins until the highlights are shown (and they are extended highlights after all).

Did Sky really think that the present arrangement would persuade people like us to fork out for a sub and to have a hunk of metal attached to their wall? I think they got blinded by the glitz.

Don't get me wrong - we could afford it if we were so inclined, but we don't throw money away on things when it's not justified.

Plus I hate the digger and all his organisation stands for ”

Much the same here although I do have a 'hunk of metal' pointing at the RTL satellite and still enjoy the races live. However if that option was closed to me, and although I can afford it, like yourself would never consider it.
Ed-Nigma
17-04-2013
Originally Posted by 1andrew1:
“Does anyone know the revenue split between broadcasting rights and sponsorship rights and the economics? Do the teams get a share of the TV rights revenue?
If TV revenue is getting substantial through the pay-TV deals throughout the world, will F1 get to the stage where the sponsors have less influence?”

The teams get 47.5% + 7.5% for top 3 teams in past 3 years + 5% for Ferrari = 60%. This should increase to 63% when the new agreement is signed.
PrinceGaz
17-04-2013
Obviously audiences would decline significantly in the UK with it being no longer FTA, and equally obviously, the sponsors who provide most of the money to fund the teams would be very unhappy with this because they want lots of viewers.

If you're serious about watching F1, you're going to watch it live one way or another, whether by subscribing to Sky Sports F1 yourself, or via a family-member who does, or using some other online or international satellite feed.

Most people aren't that serious about F1 which is the problem. If the race is on their TV when they switch to that channel, they'll watch it; if not, they won't. In addition for semi-serious viewers who would like to watch but aren't going to go out of their way to do so, only showing half of the races is almost like only showing only half of each football match in terms of the enjoyment of the sport. Not being able to watch half of the races live pretty much kills the deal so you just don't bother at all. So most people who used to watch the races are no longer doing so.

All that matters to BE will be whether the increased money from the deal with Sky in the UK makes up for the likely drop in sponsorship revenue for the teams. The teams won't be happy if they end up worse off because of this Sky deal and could refuse to sign up to another year unless changes are made which makes up for it. In an ideal world that would be all the races back on FTA channels, that's what the sponsors would want, but if BE can get more money out of Sky (and therefore Sky subscribers) to give to the teams that would be the other option.
mrprosser
17-04-2013
Originally Posted by 1andrew1:
“Does anyone know the revenue split between broadcasting rights and sponsorship rights and the economics? Do the teams get a share of the TV rights revenue?
If TV revenue is getting substantial through the pay-TV deals throughout the world, will F1 get to the stage where the sponsors have less influence?”

Probably not, the teams sell the advertising space on the cars to the sponsors based on the expected number of viewers who would see that advert. The overall viewing figures for the UK have fallen by roughly 10% since sky took over. If you were an advertiser would you be happy being asked to pay the same, or more for a reducing customer base?

On top of that, not everyone is as lucky as Sebastian Vettel or Lewis Hamilton. Some of the younger drivers have to raise sponsors to fund their drives, again those sponsors will decide on how much based on the media exposure of funding the junior driver.
mlt11
17-04-2013
Originally Posted by Ed-Nigma:
“The teams get 47.5% + 7.5% for top 3 teams in past 3 years + 5% for Ferrari = 60%. This should increase to 63% when the new agreement is signed.”

Can you confirm how that is split?

- How is the 47.5% split - is it split equally or some other method?

- How is the 7.5% split - 2.5% each to the top 3?

- Why do Ferrari get a separate 5%? Or are they somehow excluded from the 47.5%?
TelevisionUser
18-04-2013
Originally Posted by Colin_London:
“Both my wife and myself are avid F1 fans. But we drew the line at taking out a Sky subscription to continue watching it live. We are perfectly happy with Freeview / Youview for all our other viewing (maybe rent an on-demand film once a month from BT!) and see no justification for paying for all the other dross on Sky to watch the other half of the races live.

So we obviously watch the live races on BBC One HD, and on weekends with highlights we just avoid the news bulletins until the highlights are shown (and they are extended highlights after all).


Did Sky really think that the present arrangement would persuade people like us to fork out for a sub and to have a hunk of metal attached to their wall? I think they got blinded by the glitz.

Don't get me wrong - we could afford it if we were so inclined, but we don't throw money away on things when it's not justified.

Plus I hate the digger and all his organisation stands for ”

I know some people who "increase" the BBC Formula 1 content as it were be recording the qualifying session coverage and then watching that before the race highlights commences so you get a long period of F1 action overall.

(I also agree with your last point on ethical grounds, btw)

Originally Posted by PrinceGaz:
“Obviously audiences would decline significantly in the UK with it being no longer FTA, and equally obviously, the sponsors who provide most of the money to fund the teams would be very unhappy with this because they want lots of viewers.

If you're serious about watching F1, you're going to watch it live one way or another, whether by subscribing to Sky Sports F1 yourself, or via a family-member who does, or using some other online or international satellite feed.

Most people aren't that serious about F1 which is the problem. If the race is on their TV when they switch to that channel, they'll watch it; if not, they won't. In addition for semi-serious viewers who would like to watch but aren't going to go out of their way to do so, only showing half of the races is almost like only showing only half of each football match in terms of the enjoyment of the sport. Not being able to watch half of the races live pretty much kills the deal so you just don't bother at all. So most people who used to watch the races are no longer doing so.

All that matters to BE will be whether the increased money from the deal with Sky in the UK makes up for the likely drop in sponsorship revenue for the teams. The teams won't be happy if they end up worse off because of this Sky deal and could refuse to sign up to another year unless changes are made which makes up for it. In an ideal world that would be all the races back on FTA channels, that's what the sponsors would want, but if BE can get more money out of Sky (and therefore Sky subscribers) to give to the teams that would be the other option.”

We can't be sure but I suspect that Bernie expected (did he see a prediction in some dodgy Sky business plan?) a mass transference of F1 fans to Sky so that none of this would have arisen. That quite clearly hasn't happened because of the very low viewing figures for the Sky F1 channel as reported by BARB.

Perhaps a sponsor or advertiser decided to bend Bernie's ear over the disturbing loss of F1 viewers because something like that could well have provoked Bernie's public outburst which must have embarrassed Sky hence their unwillingness to comment. I still don't think Bernie's proposed remedy is practical though.
Armagideon Time
18-04-2013
Originally Posted by samja:
“Despite being a big F1 fan, I never bothered getting Sky. You can very easily find online streams or go down the satellite route with RTL (and 5 live commentary), without having to pay the rip off prices they charge. Sure you won’t get the HD, 3D or whatever else Sky offer, but the average person couldn't care less about that. Like myself, they just want to watch the race in full and live. I already watch my team’s football matches in the same way, so it was just a case of readjusting.
For those that only want the F1, it’s simply not worth it for the sake of 10 races. That’s approximately 20 hours of race coverage at £40-50 a month. Sure, if you take advantage of all the other channels then maybe, but just for a few hours a month it’s pointless. Its no surprise viewing figures have fallen and Bernie only has himself to blame. Channel 4 were ready and waiting.”

But not ready for 2012, the point I made on my previous post.
HenryVIII
18-04-2013
Originally Posted by Colin_London:
“Both my wife and myself are avid F1 fans. But we drew the line at taking out a Sky subscription to continue watching it live. We are perfectly happy with Freeview / Youview for all our other viewing (maybe rent an on-demand film once a month from BT!) and see no justification for paying for all the other dross on Sky to watch the other half of the races live.”

I see no justification for paying for all the other dross on BBC either.

But at least you get a choice...
Ed-Nigma
18-04-2013
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“Can you confirm how that is split?

- How is the 47.5% split - is it split equally or some other method?

- How is the 7.5% split - 2.5% each to the top 3?

- Why do Ferrari get a separate 5%? Or are they somehow excluded from the 47.5%?”

The 47.5% is split between the top 10 teams in graduation, dependent on their finishing positions.

The 3 CCB teams split an extra 7.5%

Ferrari claim an extra 5% on top of their split of the 47.5%, and a likely split of the CCB 7.5%.
hendero
18-04-2013
Originally Posted by Ed-Nigma:
“The 47.5% is split between the top 10 teams in graduation, dependent on their finishing positions.

The 3 CCB teams split an extra 7.5%

Ferrari claim an extra 5% on top of their split of the 47.5%, and a likely split of the CCB 7.5%.”

Ferrari get an extra 5%? Based on what? The legions of saddos who root for a brand of car as opposed to a driver? Good old F1, that decision has all the credibility of boxing having four world champions at every weight.
R410
18-04-2013
Originally Posted by hendero:
“Ferrari get an extra 5%? Based on what? The legions of saddos who root for a brand of car as opposed to a driver? Good old F1, that decision has all the credibility of boxing having four world champions at every weight.”

Because they are the only team to have been in Grand Prix/F1 since the very start. It has used this to negotiate getting extra money. Hardly fair really.
derek500
18-04-2013
Originally Posted by TelevisionUser:
“We can't be sure but I suspect that Bernie expected (did he see a prediction in some dodgy Sky business plan?) a mass transference of F1 fans to Sky so that none of this would have arisen. That quite clearly hasn't happened because of the very low viewing figures for the Sky F1 channel as reported by BARB.”

Over 6m viewers for the F1 channel is pretty good. Not forgetting that BARB don't report on any viewing in pubs or Sky Go.
hendero
18-04-2013
Originally Posted by R410:
“Because they are the only team to have been in Grand Prix/F1 since the very start. It has used this to negotiate getting extra money. Hardly fair really.”

Interesting, thanks for the explanation. By that logic McLaren need some sharper lawyers to argue for an extra 3%.
ktla5
18-04-2013
F1 teams get a cut of the deal that is done between F1 and Provider, no doubt Sky and all the other TV Stations that have pay tv pay a fair wedge, this is then no doubt also split between all involved, thus if the contract is worth more than a FTA contract, then the amount of viewers is partially irelevent? How many people who see VF on the side of a cra actually say I MUST get a VF phone?
mlt11
18-04-2013
Originally Posted by Ed-Nigma:
“The 47.5% is split between the top 10 teams in graduation, dependent on their finishing positions.

The 3 CCB teams split an extra 7.5%

Ferrari claim an extra 5% on top of their split of the 47.5%, and a likely split of the CCB 7.5%.”

Many thanks.

Having Googled a bit further it appears the 7.5% goes to the top 3 based upon results in the 4 years prior to 2012:

Ferrari
McLaren
Red Bull

CCB = Constructors Championship Bonus for anyone who doesn't know (I didn't!).

ie If any other team comes in top 3 this year they don't get any of it?

Or is it based on a rolling 4 year results table?

http://www.pitpass.com/48762-Confirm...es-regulations
hendero
18-04-2013
Originally Posted by mlt11:
“Many thanks.

Having Googled a bit further it appears the 7.5% doesn't go to the top 3 depending upon how they actually do but automatically to:

Ferrari
McLaren
Red Bull

CCB = Constructors Championship Bonus for anyone who doesn't know (I didn't!).”

So Ferrari get 7.5% more than the run of the mill teams, and 5% more than Red Bull? I can see the argument, "People tube in to watch the big teams and big drivers, and in order to be a big team our running costs are much higher". Doesn't exactly encourage competition amongst the teams though.
mikw
18-04-2013
Originally Posted by HenryVIII:
“I see no justification for paying for all the other dross on BBC either.

But at least you get a choice...”

Debateable how much of a "choice" with bundling.
HenryVIII
18-04-2013
Originally Posted by mikw:
“Debateable how much of a "choice" with bundling.”

Having some choice vs no choice is still a having a choice...

The OP indicated he didn't want to subscribe to Sky at all.

At least in that respect he does have a choice.
mikw
18-04-2013
Originally Posted by HenryVIII:
“Having some choice vs no choice is still a having a choice...

The OP indicated he didn't want to subscribe to Sky at all.

At least in that respect he does have a choice.”

Some choice really...if you want it we decided the terms and what you pay for...and it costs more than what it used to it watch.

And, of course, and yet again, people DO have a choice about whether they want to pay for the Beeb anyway. (and still watch the races on the iplayer)

Why do i have to keep pointing this out?
HenryVIII
18-04-2013
Originally Posted by mikw:
“Why do i have to keep pointing this out?”

Because you keep making an invalid point?
<<
<
3 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