- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
F1 TV coverage threadFormula 1
- Thread starter DwightSchrute12
- 1,294 comments
- 130,528 views
- 10,373
- Manchester
- Ardius_
While obviously the global audience is obviously bigger than just the UK, its not exactly clever to potentially lose audience - F1 wants to expand their audience. (although there is the obvious argument that the potential for growth is lower in the UK than newer countries to F1 though)
I think its fair to question whether this is really going to encourage the growth in recent UK viewing figures or bring it down again. There are good reasons why this current deal and why the old/current BBC coverage are better for this than each other.
Without a doubt the live viewing figures for the Sky-only races are going to drop. And considering they weren't particularly high already (presuming its races like Japan at 4am in the morning), thats quite a significant drop too. The peak time races will probably be just as high if not higher.
I also wonder if we will see the affects of this more than just from a live coverage perspective but also the advertising of coverage and reminders placed throughout the network. Currently the BBC mention the F1 and place reminders and do quite a lot of news pieces, documentaries, etc on F1 throughout their network of programming. Are they still going to put these efforts in too? Even something so small and short as a brief mention of weather forecasts for Grand Prix in the news is enough to tempt new viewers to watch F1.
Thats not to say Sky won't put commercials in their pre and post race shows though.
Last edited:
Robin
Premium
- 16,799
- United Kingdom
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
You know, I don't think that's really a problem. If the races are broadcast live and uninterrupted, but Sky puts ads into their pre-race show and people complain about it ... well, I think that would just be extraordinarily selfish of the complainers considering that Australia has had to put up with regular mid-race commercial breaks for years (consider yourselves lucky that you will never have to hear the phrase "The race is just getting interesting, so we'll take a commercial break!"). Why is it such a big deal if you get ads during the pre-race show? You might miss out on fifteen minutes of analysis. The British fans seem to expect us to have bleeding hearts for them and the massive loss that they're about to experience, but the coverage they get in 2012 will still be better than anything the rest of the world gets, so it's hard to summon up anything for the complainers except revulsion. Some of us would gladly trade the coverage that we currently get for the standard BBC coverage that Britain is going to get next year because we know it will be better, even if it's only half as good as what the BBC shows now.
I'll tell you want: I'll swap places with you for the British Grand Prix next year. I'll watch the live, uninterrupted broadcast from the BBC anywhere in Britain. Practice, qualifying, the pre-race show and post race analysis with expert commentary from some of the most knowledgable men in the Formula 1 community. You, on the other hand, can come to regional Australia and take my place, with no coverage of practice, no coverage of qualifying, no pre-race show or post-race analysis, on a delayed broadcast (usually after The Devil Wears Prada) two hours after the race has finished (on a netowrk with a habit of reporting the race result before the broadcast), with regular commercial breaks, "expert" commentary from some of the most unlikeable commentators in the country, and all on a standard-definition television.
So, does anybody want to take me up on this offer? Does anybody still think they've got the short end of the stick? No? Well, if not, then why the word-that-will-be-auto-censored are you complaining about it?
- 2,938
- Shrewsbury
- pezzarinho17
I see what is being argued, and I do realise that we could have things a lot worse than Sky. F1 coverage has some way to progress not only in Australia but elsewhere too. Coverage in Britain is amazing right now, every session available both live, afterwards and repeated for good measure. Extra's thrown in too like the classic grand prix feature, it has come a long way since joining BBC from ITV. ITV was bad, but again still not as bad as what you are saying.
This idea that watching it on the BBC is free is a mistake too since everyone has to pay for a TV license which is not cheap. If you want Sky you then have to pay EXTRA on top of that, and for coverage which will have regressed as well.
So if I offered you worse coverage then what you are already getting for roughly £20 a race, would you be jumping at the opportunity? I guess not, so therefore the offering that you usually watch will be downgraded by half... You'll still have to pay to watch your TV, then pay me extra, and will be rewarded with worse coverage than you had this time a year ago.
- 29,376
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
My two cents - while I enjoy all the extra stuff, I would gladly trade most of it for uninterrupted race/quali coverage - so whether the pre- and post- race content is peppered with ad breaks is not my first concern.
Ironically, the BBC enjoys ad-free F1 coverage because of the 'unique way' that the BBC is funded - but this unique funding model is also the reason why the BBC can no longer compete with the likes of Sky for many of the best sporting events.
Ironically, the BBC enjoys ad-free F1 coverage because of the 'unique way' that the BBC is funded - but this unique funding model is also the reason why the BBC can no longer compete with the likes of Sky for many of the best sporting events.
What channel are you watching it on? I know that where I live you can get the qualifying and race live (depending on the time zones, I can't get any races that start around 3pm on television) on ONE.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
I watch it on Channel Ten. I know full well that I can see everything on One, but I don't have One. I certainly intend to, but I cannot say when I would get it.
- 19,013
- Jersey V.1.0
- axletramp
I agree. As most of the races fall around lunchtime on Sunday I tend to Sky+ the race as I'm usually out somewhere for lunch with friends or family. As soon as I get home I fast forward until about 5 minutes before the start. I wouldn't really miss first 45 minutes.
However, I would miss the BBC's online coverage of the practice sessions (which I have on in the background at work) and the qualifying on Saturday - which I presume won't go to Sky under the new deal.
Ah, you're missing out on alot 👍 The ad breaks aren't that bad IMO on ONE.
- 2,938
- Shrewsbury
- pezzarinho17
- 5,379
- Yokohama
- F1fan1
Christian_C
Premium
- 1,499
- Stoke, UK
- GTP_Christian_C
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/93615
Why should we be 'more supportive' of the sport when they're making it less accessible to us?
Why should we be 'more supportive' of the sport when they're making it less accessible to us?
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
They made it less accessible to the fans because the demands of the fans made it unsustainable. The fans want live, uninterrupted coverage of all races in prime-time slots.http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/93615
Why should we be 'more supportive' of the sport when they're making it less accessible to us?
- 19,013
- Jersey V.1.0
- axletramp
beeb fees are worth paying for Top Gear if you ask me.
as for the f1... not worth watching since all the propper racers (mansell, prost, burger, senna) have gone. The last half entertaining races were hill/shumi. who cares now though anyway? If you must watch it then just streem it for free online.
as for the f1... not worth watching since all the propper racers (mansell, prost, burger, senna) have gone. The last half entertaining races were hill/shumi. who cares now though anyway? If you must watch it then just streem it for free online.
- 5,379
- Yokohama
- F1fan1
Where to start?
Firstly, there won't be legal streaming sites unless you've paid for the service. Any other type of streaming is illegal and is against the aup you agreed to when you signed up at gtplanet.
Also, there are a lot of people who care. Evidence of this can be found on forums like these and in the comments section on news sites. Plus there have been many entertaining races. Why did you even bother to sign up if you are just going to criticize? If "nobody cares" then why are you even posting here in the first place?
- 2,938
- Shrewsbury
- pezzarinho17
Firstly, welcome!
Moving on, yes Top Gear is on but too irregularly, and F1 has come a long way since the 80's and 90's. 2007 really sparked F1's reputation, which has grown massively since then to the point where every race this year has been very good for a number of different reasons. Give it another shot! Gone are the years of 2 driver rivalries, we now have 3 TEAMS at the top and 5 drivers battling (you can't count Massa unless his radio stops working...)
- 15,494
- UK
Indeed, it's just a completely out-dated system and there are some people who need to get out of the view that having a license fee somehow protects the BBC, when we have consistently seen it do the opposite.
If we actually had a say in how it was run, then I wouldn't mind, but we don't. Not to mention the fee funding great ideas like the Digital turnover!
It's time for the BBC to be moved out of the 20th century and in to the 21st. It's an awful business model and they would do well to learn from those big bad guys at Sky.
- 3,236
- England
- GTP_Owen
Not really, F1 is a very British sport. Although all sponsors may not be it's still an important audience.
Sky costs much more than the license fee and you don't get nearly the quality in news or online services and their TV is 25% ads. It's just the public out raged at the idea of the price going up slightly, so now the BBC has lost alot of talent and decent programming.
Last edited:
- 15,494
- UK
Yes, the BBC are known for their completely sane and unbiased news service! Also, I really don't care about ads, if I'm watching from Sky+ I just skip them, if I'm watching it live I just ignore it/go and do something else. You don't miss anything with their ads, it's just irrelevant.
It does indeed cost more, but you get a whole lot more for your money. For many it's not the idea of the price going up a bit, it's the idea of the thing existing in the first place. It's outdated and doesn't benefit anyone, us or the BBC.
It does indeed cost more, but you get a whole lot more for your money. For many it's not the idea of the price going up a bit, it's the idea of the thing existing in the first place. It's outdated and doesn't benefit anyone, us or the BBC.
- 15,494
- UK
No, it is irrelevant because advertising revenue would replace the fee and then some. I was also being serious on the quality of BBC programming, yes, they do some good stuff, like anything with Attenborough and the F1 coverage and the Snooker is okay. But their news service is laughable, ranging from the stupid, to the biased to the flat out lies, their website is even worse.
There is some quality programming on the Beeb, but it's a sliding scale and it's not going the right way.
There is some quality programming on the Beeb, but it's a sliding scale and it's not going the right way.
- 10,373
- Manchester
- Ardius_
I think the benefit of the TV license is that it ensures there is always a high-quality TV network broadcasting. The BBC isn't (in theory) affected by the economy in the same way that a private broadcaster is, the amount of money the BBC have to play with is always constant and therefore the BBC can throw bigger budgets into their programming.
A program that is on ITV relies on the advertising revenue to dictate its level of quality, whereas the BBC for the most part can maintain a level of quality at all times.
Though quite obviously the BBC can change its outlook and can cancel programmes or alter the budget as we are talking about here for the F1.
Whether what the BBC produce is what you consider high quality is obviously subjective, but personally I think they do a good job of providing us with a good range of different programmes for different tastes to a very good quality.
So I don't agree that it "doesn't benefit" anyone, its certainly not a fact in any case.
I can see why people don't like the idea of the TV license, but I can also see it has advantages.
On a different note, I also don't believe people that claim they simply do other things while adverts are on or that they always remember to fast-forward the adverts. Lets face it, adverts are a nuisance that its nice to be able to watch something without having to mess about like that. Sure, its not a major issue, but it is an issue.
I hate everything turning into a constant fight to ignore adverts, they are everywhere. Youtube now almost always forces you to constantly click to ignore adverts, we constantly have to "press to skip" almost everywhere now, its a small amount of singular efffort but it adds up to being very annoying. It would be great if I could live advert free, sadly this is impossible. And its not that I can't ignore it all, its just such a breath of fresh air when you finally experience something without any commercial advertising.
Last edited:
Robin
Premium
- 16,799
- United Kingdom
Yes but the problem is the cost of everything has increased whilst the license fee has stayed relatively the same. The wages, electricity, equipment, petrol etc have all increased which are costs the BBC has to absorb that actually reduces what they have to spend on programming year on year.
So either they increase the license fee (which no one wants) or they expand private ventures such as selling more programmes abroad, more merchandise or maybe launch a private ad funded channel. Or cut stuff.... which is what they are doing.
As for the BBC quality, I would say its real hit and miss. There's lots of things the BBC put money into that most have no interest in but they do so to keep their programming varied because they are providing a public service and are literally obligated please everyone even if that group is small hence why they have so many TV and radio channels.
Similar threads
