BBC possibly to drop F1 coverage...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Who doesn't have Sky Sports? - the majority of the viewing public.

To be fair, who doesn't watch F1 - the vast majority of the viewing public :p

Football doesn't seem to be doing badly out of going to Sky only, I'm sure F1 will continue to do just as well - if you are too poor or tight to afford Sky Sports you're probably too poor or tight to be of interest to the advertisers anyway. :p
 
[TW]Fox;19710248 said:
Absolutely. It's nothing to do with affordability. Very few people cannot afford sky - I could quite easily afford Sky - but why should I?

All I watch on television is Top Gear and some of the F1, or The Apprentice when its on. Thats it. I don't watch anything else and I wouldnt watch anything else if I had Sky.
Click to expand...

100% this ^
 
Rich_L said:
Who doesn't have Sky Sports? - the majority of the viewing public.

To be fair, who doesn't watch F1 - the vast majority of the viewing public :p

Football doesn't seem to be doing badly out of going to Sky only, I'm sure F1 will continue to do just as well - if you are too poor or tight to afford Sky Sports you're probably too poor or tight to be of interest to the advertisers anyway. :p
Click to expand...

there does seem to be some sort of problem with the debts the PL teams are piling up.

But with the football, don't you get 2 live games at the weekend and one during the week, I'm sure when it was on FTA you never got that much so pay tv added to the experience, I don't see how it can with F1.
 
[TW]Fox;19710248 said:
Absolutely. It's nothing to do with affordability. Very few people cannot afford sky - I could quite easily afford Sky - but why should I?

All I watch on television is Top Gear and some of the F1, or The Apprentice when its on. Thats it. I don't watch anything else and I wouldnt watch anything else if I had Sky.
Click to expand...

Exactly this. I only watch those shows really and I watch F1 on iPlayer on Sunday mornings at my mates house.

Sky internet is pish aswell :mad:
 
EVH said:
How many people can't afford it? People pay £30-40 a month for broadband in some cases and it's really only £5 a week to save. I certainly can, but being free to air would save that outlay.

.. and that's my beef.. Paying for something that's been free since I can remember :/
Click to expand...

dont know about you - but Im paying something like £18 incl the phone line - so its still £40/month more than Im currently paying to get the same quality Im getting now for free (as you have to pay licence fee anyway)

What really ******* me off is the £600m or something the BBC are paying to move BBC Sport from London to Salford - NO **** SHerlock you cant afford the F1 rights after that kind of bill
 
FrankJH said:
dont know about you - but Im paying something like £18 incl the phone line - so its still £40/month more than Im currently paying to get the same quality Im getting now for free (as you have to pay licence fee anyway)

What really ******* me off is the £600m or something the BBC are paying to move BBC Sport from London to Salford - NO **** SHerlock you cant afford the F1 rights after that kind of bill
Click to expand...

I pay around £15 for sky broadband & £10 for line rental.

It wasn't meant as a pro-sky post, but rather a "people willingly spend up to £40 for Internet I.e. Fibre which is a premium product like sky sports" post. I hate that it's been sold.

I'll admit fox said it better than me. Oh and it was £900m to move the BBC departments ;)
 
Westyfield2 said:
... Then all the money wasted on BBC3, BBC4, Asian Network, Radio 6. ...
Click to expand...
I imagine that the BBC have viewing / listening figures to suggest that BBC3, BBC4, the Asian Network and Radio 6 offer better value for money that F1 does . . . do you have any statistics to suggest that this is not the case?


Rich_L said:
... Football doesn't seem to be doing badly out of going to Sky only, I'm sure F1 will continue to do just as well - if you are too poor or tight to afford Sky Sports you're probably too poor or tight to be of interest to the advertisers anyway. :p
Click to expand...
100% spot on!

F1 is an advertising platform, pure and simple. BSkyB is exactly the same, it is not a public service. Bernie Ecclestone will have a pretty clear idea as to what his target audience is and where it can be found. It is unlikely to include people who can't afford or will not get Sky.
 
stockhausen said:
F1 is an advertising platform, pure and simple. BSkyB is exactly the same, it is not a public service. Bernie Ecclestone will have a pretty clear idea as to what his target audience is and where it can be found. It is unlikely to include people who can't afford or will not get Sky.
Click to expand...

So the biggest sponsors in F1 right now are Marlboro and Vodafone and you are telling me people without sky are not in the target audience of those people?
So those sponsors are not interested in the other 58 million people in this country?
 
dannyjo22 said:
So the biggest sponsors in F1 right now are Marlboro and Vodafone and you are telling me people without sky are not in the target audience of those people?
So those sponsors are not interested in the other 58 million people in this country?
Click to expand...
I suspect that Marlboro & Vodafone have a pretty fair idea as to what their target audience is and believe that it is better covered by BSkyB than by BBC1, yes. They may be wrong, but I doubt it.

As RichL suggested, many people who insist on watching F1 on a free platform are not going to be of interest to Marlboro, Vodafone or most of the other F1 advertisers.
 
How could it possibly be better covered by Sky than BBC?

Everyone who will be watching on Sky, can already watch on BBC, so there is only going to be a reduction in audience.

I'd be interested to hear how the act of cutting off a large chunk of audience could possibly lead to 'better' coverage of potential audience.
 
I think moaning at Sponsors right now is largely pointless. The big sponsors who are on the winning teams will still get seen, albeit by not as big an audience in this country.

It's the teams at the back of the grid who won't get much air time in a highlights show, but then how long have HRT had empty spaces on their car advertising you can buy the space.

What might go are some of the smaller per race sponsors, the type that have a tiny logo next to the air intake on a McLaren. For example during Silverstone, they had the sponsor of an online bikini store!

Secondly, from an advertising point of view they haven't totally lost out. What they get back is advertising breaks on Sky, obviously not during the race, but there will be plenty during build up and post race. This audience watching on Sky Sports will be well realised and so works quite well for targeted advertising.

The current advertising in Formula 1 is also fairly general and is more about brand awareness than anything. For example:

Red Bull - The team itself is the advertisement for the energy drink and it's their spending on athletes that has brought their success over the years as it is. It's not like you see Seb and Mark doing product shoots or adverts on tv for the drink do you?

Ferrari - Their cars are out of reach of most people. They have included Fiat, but their advertising given the lack of a dubbing for Alonso in their UK advert suggests they don't care much for the market association in the UK.
Marlboro, which can't really advertise in F1 is largely pointless now as you don't see their logos... the deal also ends this season.

McLaren - The team are selling their new car, but again it's a tiny fraction of the UK population who can afford them.
Vodafone - It's not going to make you switch your provider, instead what they do is try to offer benefits to customers, which they advertise. For example, early availability of tickets for fans of F1, fashion, festivals etc.

It's only really if viewing figures really drop that we will see sponsors start pulling out and right now that's far too early to say. While F1 is also undoubtedly very important in this country, we aren't the only one who gets F1 exposure.
 
stockhausen said:
I suspect that Marlboro & Vodafone have a pretty fair idea as to what their target audience is and believe that it is better covered by BSkyB than by BBC1, yes. They may be wrong, but I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Of course Marlboro and Vodafone understand their target markets. I fail to see how this bares any relevance to this topic? These 2 sponsors would not have played apart in the negotatiations.

It was the BBC who brought SKY into negotatiations with Bernie Ecclestone in the first place.

stockhausen said:
As RichL suggested, many people who insist on watching F1 on a free platform are not going to be of interest to Marlboro, Vodafone or most of the other F1 advertisers.
Click to expand...

I would be interested to find out how you got this information. Statistics? Wait, none exist - as F1 has never been on PPV.

Whilst it may not be a fare comparison, if we look at Television broadcasts in the past that have been aired live simultaneously on Sky and the BBC, the BBC has usually hit higher figures because it was free-to-air.

I find it somewhat amusing to suggest others would believe a lower target audience would attract greater interest from any sponser.
 
Rich_L said:
Football doesn't seem to be doing badly out of going to Sky only, I'm sure F1 will continue to do just as well - if you are too poor or tight to afford Sky Sports you're probably too poor or tight to be of interest to the advertisers anyway. :p
Click to expand...

and this is exactly the future that bernie and the teams see for F1.

One with stack loads of cash like football has.


Now that bernie has let sky in, and the premise has been set that we don't need to have F1 shown on Free To Air TV, its game over and we'll never go back. We can protest all we like IMO, free F1 coverage is dead :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom