BBC to drop F1?

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.

Post Sun Jun 19, 2011 1:40 pm

http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/06/ ... o-drop-f1/

It would be a shot in the arm for Sky. The BBC serves a lot of their potential subscription customers. I reckon that Murdoch will be participating in that bidding and it can have an impact on the sales price for F1.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue
 
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Post Sun Jun 19, 2011 2:22 pm

Copied and pasted from Digital Spy.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showt...65431&page=110
“In short: The newspaper is pro-Tory. It’s F1 editor is openly wanting F1 to go to Sky. Hence, the article is best ignored as it is inaccurate throughout.”
1) “Its contract to screen F1 for five seasons until 2013 will cost £300m.
- incorrect. It is well known that the contract costs BBC about £200m over 5 years, with the next contract increased to £235m. I guess that may factor in production costs, but as far as I know they are minimal and definitely would not amount to an extra £20m per year.
2) “At about £3m per race, it is the most expensive BBC programme being broadcast.”
- incorrect. As the first point of £300m is wrong, the second point is also wrong. At 19 races, each race costs BBC about £2.1m. In my book, that is not £3m. The point “it is the most expensive BBC programme being broadcast” is factually incorrect. You cannot compare 5 hours of programming on BBC1 at £3m with a drama at 9pm on BBC1 which typically costs about £600,000. In fact, going on the £2.1m figure, F1 costs BBC about £420,000 per hour. I’ve even excluded things like the F1 Forum and Practice with that figure and all the other stuff they do, in reality the figure will be lower than that. Some dramas on BBC1 only get 4.5m viewers and cost £600,000, whereas with F1 you get you’re hard to reach 16 to 34 audience, it doesn’t cost much and you get at least 4.5m viewers on average per race. Everyone wins.
3) “An insider said the cost of covering 19 F1 races was more than the entire budget of BBC4.”
- again depends on whether the £60m per year figure is correct, because its the first time I’ve seen it. BBC4 costs £55m per year, so if the £60m per year figure for F1 is wrong, then the entire article is spouted with inaccuracy and riddles.
4) “The source said the BBC did not intend to rebid for the F1 contract when it expired in November 2013.”
- in which case, why did you have a scaremongering title saying ‘BBC AXES FORMULA ONE’. Axes suggests you’re terminating the contract early. No early termination is being seeked hear if you are to believe the article. Besides, they would not rebid for a contract an entire one and a half years before you would even begin discussing it.
5) “It has emerged that F1 costs £1 a head for every viewer, compared with the average 7p an hour broadcast cost for BBC1 and BBC2.”
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets…rts_rights.pdf ; page 35
- Formula 1 2009 – hit in every category, only one of two events to do this.
- as a said at the time (page 36) : “[✂ Redacted] is the outstanding success, significantly exceeding all of its reach, average audience and cost per viewer hour targets” – is almost certainly referring to F1
- hence this on Page 4: “Formula 1 has been a significant success in 2009/10, exceeding all of its reach, average audience and cost per viewer hour target”
- report was done earlier this year into the process of acquiring sports rights
- see page 33: “Formula 1 and Premier League highlights attract a younger (16-34) male audience that is otherwise hard to reach….”
6) “Apart from the British Grand Prix, most races attract between 2m and 4m viewers.”
- http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?showtopic=112436 – enough said at this point
- only one race has dipped under 4m, and that was because it was against a Ford Super Sunday triple header on Sky Sports
7) “It costs more for each hour than even the most expensive dramas such as South Riding, Cranford and Doctor Who.”
- again, this depends on whether the £60m figure is actually true. I mean, why have we only just heard about this now? They’ve had the rights for 2 and a half years, yet we’ve only just heard about the £60m figure despite numerous source saying £40m.
“The proposal to dump F1 will be among a package of measures to be put to the BBC Trust in the Autumn.”
- so only towards the end of the article do you actually tell us that they haven’t axed it, despite the headline saying to the contrary?
In short: The newspaper is pro-Tory. It’s F1 editor is openly wanting F1 to go to Sky. Hence, the article is best ignored as it is inaccurate throughout.
---------------
from the comments section of the F1Fanatic article.

Lock plz.
I cried like a baby when I saw Alonso win the 2012 Malaysian GP. I almost died of happy when he lifted the trophy.
Ferrari Magic.
SchumacherM
 
Joined: 7 Mar 2010
Location: Slovenia

Post Sun Jun 19, 2011 4:29 pm

So lets get this straight... their case is that F1 is just more expensive than DrWho if you overestimate the cost by 50%, underestimate the audience by 83% and underestimate the viewing figures by 50%.

By my reconning that makes it 18 times better value than DrWho. Sounds safe to me.
beelsebob
 
Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Location: Cupertino, California

Post Sun Jun 19, 2011 6:57 pm

The BBC made the mistake of loosing F1 before (along with virtually all other motorsport, considering what they used to air) and only just held onto MotoGP. They won't make the same mistake again.

Putting F1 to pay-to-view goes agains the Concorde Agreement and I can't see FOTA being happy at the F1 audiance numbers being reduced by discriminating against those who can't afford and/or don't want Sky or any pay-to-view TV (I'm in both). Does not work out well for the sponsors thus why FOTA will not be happy about F1 loosing a large part of its audience.

Therefore I doubt it will happen.
andrew
 
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland - WhiteBlue Country (not the region)

Post Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:00 pm

Pay-per-view and putting F1 on subscription channels has been discussed before. If they think six million viewers is poor then wait until you get it on a subscription channel. F1 and sponsors need viewers and exposure and they need there to be as few barriers to people watching sponsor logos going round and round as possible. No subscription amount will make up for that.
munudeges
 
Joined: 10 Jun 2011

Post Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:07 pm

Ill point out this fact.

Newspaper reporting this was The Sunday Times. Paper is owned by News Corp (Rupert Murdoch)

Who is trying to buy F1 from CVC and Bernie???

Rupert Murdoch.

This is a strategic and key early story in the power struggle for F1s rights by trying to get F1 on all the Sky platforms first probably by Sky Sports, then PPV.
ESPImperium
 
Joined: 5 Apr 2008
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Post Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:19 pm

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=43965

Final paragraph probably the most relevant:

[url]Both claim that the Sunday Times story contains "many inaccuracies"[/url]

However, this is one of those rumours that has been on the go for quite a while. It's a bit like one of those corny will they won't plots from a trashy sitcom.
andrew
 
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland - WhiteBlue Country (not the region)

Post Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:10 am

Dear BBC
With Brundle and DC commentating on enormous
racing by Alonso, Button, Vettel, Webber, Petrov,
Heidfeld, Di Resta and Hamilton....to name a few........
without any commercial break-aways, it's an F1 fan's heaven.

It's worth buying. We will tune in.
red748
 
Joined: 30 May 2011
Location: London

Post Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:31 am

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tomc ... e-article/

Martin Whitmarsh, speaking for McLaren and FOTA wrote:Formula One insiders have been surprised by the recent newspaper reports, since they contain significant statistical inaccuracies. The reality is that the Formula 1 viewing figures in the UK are high and getting higher.

In terms of average viewership, peak viewership and average share of viewership – the three key indices for TV executives – more people are watching Formula 1 this year than last year or indeed than in recent previous years.

For example, the average share of viewership for the BBC’s coverage of the recent Chinese Grand Prix, which’ Lewis Hamilton won, was more than 50 per cent.

In other words, as many people were watching Formula One in the UK that Sunday morning as were watching every other channel combined – including all terrestrial channels and all satellite channels – a staggeringly impressive statistic. And the TV viewing figures for other recent Grands Prix have been massively impressive too.

It’s crucial to the commercial model of Formula One that TV coverage should remain free-to-air, and therefore universally accessible, and therefore widely consumed and enjoyed by large numbers of viewers – and the BBC delivers that in the UK.

Moreover, besides the quantity of viewership, the quality of the BBC’s coverage is consistently high too – which is just as important. Also important is the demographic data – which shows that F1 is now attracting an increasing number of younger and female viewers, which is also very positive.

Formula One is the pinnacle of world motorsport – always has been, always will be. As such, it’s appropriate that the BBC should continue to cover it.

I think it would be very sad, and most unwise, if the BBC were to disappoint so many millions of British sports fans by axeing it, and that’s why I don’t believe for a moment that they’d seriously consider doing such a thing.

Pretty good answer by Martin!
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue
 
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Post Mon Jun 20, 2011 9:32 am

If the article in The Sunday Times was so inaccurate then they should print a retraction, fed up with garbage news papers printing trash and getting away with it.
"Unbelievable how silly this Formula 1 is these days, with this stupid overtakes."
—Sebastian Vettel, 2012 US GP
Diesel
 
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Location: ...

Post Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:04 am

Free advertising for News Corp? Either that or someone is trying to light a fire under MrE's backside and put a bit of pressure on him to not renew the BBC's contract when it expires.
andrew
 
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland - WhiteBlue Country (not the region)

Post Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:36 am

Interestingly, MrE has spoken out in support of the BBC having the contract – I wonder if he's just been put in a position to have the BBC demand lower fees.
beelsebob
 
Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Location: Cupertino, California

Post Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:38 am

I don't have Sky, and in all honesty, probably never will because I can't find anything to watch on TV that doesn't satisfy me more than a good film (of which there are many).

If it goes to subscription, that will be the end of F1 pretty much. I wouldn't be able to watch it, and that makes me very sad because I love motor racing and love watching F1. Surely the retards at the BBC know that this is a good thing they have here? Their coverage has been absolutely brilliant from the get go, they have a good team, and you can watch it in HD, what more could a viewer want?
Felipe Baby!
SiLo
 
Joined: 25 Jul 2010

Post Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:50 am

I'm with you there SiLo. I have Freeview and more often than not is it 40 odd channels of utter rubbish. Even if I could afford it, I would not waste money on Sky. There are regular adverts for Sky and there never seems to be anything I want to watch. The only benefit is that it would take longer to flick through the channels until I find something watchable!

beelsebob - F1 needs to be on free to view TV. I think it is in the Concorde Agreement.
andrew
 
Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland - WhiteBlue Country (not the region)

Post Mon Jun 20, 2011 12:08 pm

There's nothing in the Concorde agreement that specifically mandates free-to-air, but the commercial interests of sponsorship and advertising in the sport demand viewership. I don't see how that's ever going to change.

Formula 1 gets absolutely nothing out of Sky subscribers paying money to Sky and then getting less viewers. Nothing. All of the hard work to make the sport more exciting, increase overtaking and attract viewers would be wiped out completely. Trying to then remedy that by going to a pay-per-view model like boxing on Sky Box Office (on top of the subscription for Sky!) would put six inch nails into the coffin of the sport. No one would watch it and the subscription revenue would never make up for the loss in a million years. Pay-per-view is where poorly watched sports like boxing go to die.

Formula 1 being viewed on a subscription basis was discussed years ago. It is simply not commercially viable in any way.
munudeges
 
Joined: 10 Jun 2011

Next

Return to General chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 7 guests