Bernie Ecclestone indicted

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Bononi

Well, I'm not sure how it will happen and how the TV networks around the world would accept it. Right now much of F1 coverage is already in pay channels here, with only qualifying and the race on open TV, but I'm pretty sure that the broadcasting deal is up until 2017.

Also it is a global trend to move to satellite TV and ppv channels.

How to make a mass media sport small - put it on pay TV!

F1 is making a huge mistake allowing itself to be captured on pay TV.

F1 is particularly good for mass marketing and brand awareness due to its ready availability on free to air TV, and it provides this market with and exposure to high tech cutting edge glamour.

It has been a brilliant vehicle for building high profile international brands.

Take it off free to air and it becomes a niche elitest sport with a rapidly falling spectator/fan base, no longer attractive to mass market branding, and there goes the money!

[Adam43]

Hurrah niche sport, it was better when it was a niche sport

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Hurrah niche sport, it was better when it was a niche sport

Probably only the case for a few short years in the 60s after the manufacturers had pulled out and before sponsorships came in.

Even then it was probably a mass sport, just never a mass participation sport, and there doesn't seem any danger of that changing anytime soon!

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Hurrah niche sport, it was better when it was a niche sport

Corrr-rect.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

wouldnt the opposite happen?

the sports bundle is already the pay bundle (and using myself as an example) is only available if you buy all the basic and mandatory channels first. basically 120 a month (of 150/mos) goes to the crap that i dont want in order for me to spend a 20 on what i do want.

so i feel that the 'sports audience' is underwriting the bad channels and if the sports channels got all my money (more than 20 but less then 150 i hope but i would still spend 150...thats my price point) instead of having to share it with the crap then wont the sports channels have more money to spend on sports? i have no numbers to back this up though so would be interested in reading more about how my cable subscription money gets split up and spent.

the problem with an F1 pay channel is that it doesnt really offer much so who would pay for it? compare it to the NFL Network (brilliant and highly recommend it if you have a chance to subscribe to it) is 24 hour smorgasbord of commentary, highlights, analysis, documentaries, classic games, as well as about 15 or so live games a year. they have a feature where they pick the game of the week and break it down with player and coach commentary over the plays giving you an incredible amount of insight into a teams playbook and mentality. it costs me $3.00 extra a month for it.

the F1 channel barely even lets you into their archives and really doesnt represent much value compared to what else is out there.

maybe some more competition will make them better or maybe an F1 post BE will have someone at the helm more in tune with the needs of the TV audience and aware of the existence of the internet.

"The sports bundle is already the pay bundle....".
If it is unbundled, which is what is likely to happen, it will not be a bundle. PPV will be the sole basis for financing the coverage and if there aren't enough people to make it viable it will not be covered by the providers because it will not be economic..

Many sports draw far more money than their viewing figures would indicate viable and if not a sport as a whole certainly some teams within say baseball or NFL or basketball that have low viewing figures pull down far more money than is a realistic return based on the viewing figures. Those teams and those sports will see drastic revisions in their financial operations and F1 will not be any different.
If the only people watching a GP on television are those who choose to pay $15-$30 to watch the thing on television then the world wide viewing figures will take a dramatic tumble.

I wouldn't pay for it like that. No way. And there will only be a narrow group that will pay like that for a full season, race by race.
The figures that are touted now for viewing will tumble. Sponsorship will fall away and CVC will watch the profit shrivel away to a fraction of what it pulls now.

Believing that things will always be the way they have been and will continue to be that way is sticking your head in the sand. The world is changing faster than you can throw a stick at it, an international economics is changing just as fast. Everything is up for grabs and the 'golden age' is over. Its gone and we will not come back to it. Not for a number of reasons.
F1 will have to change or it will shrink and shrivel too.

What you say about the NFL channel is revealing because that is what F1 is going to have to do but that costs money and CVC is not in it to invest in the sport. It is here for its own ends.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Many sports draw far more money than their viewing figures would indicate viable and if not a sport as a whole certainly some teams within say baseball or NFL or basketball that have low viewing figures pull down far more money than is a realistic return based on the viewing figures. Those teams and those sports will see drastic revisions in their financial operations and F1 will not be any different.
If the only people watching a GP on television are those who choose to pay $15-$30 to watch the thing on television then the world wide viewing figures will take a dramatic tumble.

this is neither here nor there but the NFL doesnt work that way. all the teams share revenue which means that they all get an equal split of traditional TV and pay TV revenue and also share profits from the sale of merchandise and team apparel. the result is that the small market teams are capable of competing both on the field and financially with the big market teams.

and as the NFL has moved towards a pay model (Sunday Ticket) their viewership numbers continue to grow year after year. admittedly they are the exception and a very different model then what F1 is.

Originally Posted by Teretonga

I wouldn't pay for it like that. No way. And there will only be a narrow group that will pay like that for a full season, race by race.
The figures that are touted now for viewing will tumble. Sponsorship will fall away and CVC will watch the profit shrivel away to a fraction of what it pulls now.

sponsorship is falling for sure. in addition to dropping viewers i think that advertisers have more effective, cheaper, and more direct ways to reach potential customers. Vodofone's reasons for leaving is an example of that. in fairness i dont know how much of that decision came as the result of moving away from FTA.

but speaking of phones, i dont think its a narrow group thats willing to pay for an 'a la carte' system of ordering. i think thats the new norm for people, particularly young people.

if F1 can sever its ties to traditional TV contracts, start selling PPV both directly to people, probably through their mobiles as in app purchases (which you can then stream to a TV or computer if you choose) then i think you are selling a product to people in the way they are becoming more comfortable with. getting people to spend a couple of dollars at a time is the new paradigm imo. they would have the potential of reaching more viewers then traditional TV ever could. instead of one cable bill per household they have found a way to monetize each person in that household.

pay per view and mobile purchases has the potential of both making more money for the sport and reaching more people (and the right demographic) if the sport is marketed in the right way. for example the UFC and MMA are some of the fastest growing sports leagues in N.America and thats primarily through the PPV model, online presence, and a phenomenal marketing strategy.

anyways the logic for this move is there (well to me anyways) but obviously that is no guarantee that F1 can make it work for them and us.

Originally Posted by Teretonga

What you say about the NFL channel is revealing because that is what F1 is going to have to do but that costs money and CVC is not in it to invest in the sport. It is here for its own ends.

totally agree with that. i also dont have much faith that CVC are willing to make the investment into doing things differently. the NFL is essentially owned by the NFL so it is a very different situation.

[davyboy]

Just as a matter of interest, if F1 did go PPV, which is a distinct possibility, what percentage of the current viewing audience do you think would pay £10.00/weekend to see the coverage ? As a straw poll, how many people on here would pay it ?

[Bononi]

Well, I would... I do it already for the training sessions and other stuff.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by davyboy

Just as a matter of interest, if F1 did go PPV, which is a distinct possibility, what percentage of the current viewing audience do you think would pay £10.00/weekend to see the coverage ? As a straw poll, how many people on here would pay it ?

Nope. I would not bite. I'd just give up watching it.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by davyboy

Just as a matter of interest, if F1 did go PPV, which is a distinct possibility, what percentage of the current viewing audience do you think would pay £10.00/weekend to see the coverage ? As a straw poll, how many people on here would pay it ?

thats over Can$300 a year so not really a competitive price compared to other sports here. although i think Moto GP comes in at around that price of £10.00/weekend so maybe there is precedent.

Can$150-200 a year would be a no brainer for me and i would spend more if the channel(s) offered more in the way of content and if my subscription worked on other platforms.

as for a percentage, i would think if you can get even 10-15% of the current audience to pay £10.00/weekend that would be way way over what the current TV contacts add up too but what the smaller audience would mean for sponsors is another story.

dont have exact numbers but i think the global tv audience is around 500mil a year and F1 generates something like £300mill in tv revenue so even just 5mil people*£10.00/weekend*20 races is 1billion...with that teams wouldnt even need sponsors anymore.

[ASCII Man]

We used to pay a little more per race with Canal+ Digital back in the day, but we got a lot more out of it too (pitlane channel, onboard channel, interviews, standings/stats, etc.).
Too bad that's gone now, I'd go back to that in a heartbeat.

[bella]

Originally Posted by davyboy

Just as a matter of interest, if F1 did go PPV, which is a distinct possibility, what percentage of the current viewing audience do you think would pay £10.00/weekend to see the coverage ? As a straw poll, how many people on here would pay it ?

maybe for a couple of races, the big ones like the first race of the season, the last one and monaco. but that would be on the condition of my £10 allowing me a downloadable copy of the race to keep.

[Sodemo]

Originally Posted by bella

maybe for a couple of races, the big ones like the first race of the season, the last one and monaco. but that would be on the condition of my £10 allowing me a downloadable copy of the race to keep.

The thing is that if no one bought it, they wouldn't continue with it. People are stupid. Its the same with the boxing (another sport I used to love). 10 years ago or more it turned from a sport you either paid sky sports for, or it was shown free on ITV. Then the PPV model turned up and like sheep, the paying public just "accepted it". If people had used their brains and actually made a stand against it, you can bet the PPV model would have died overnight.

[bella]

i don't know if it's sheeping per se, it's more really really badly wanting to watch the thing you love being more important than making a stand against whats wrong.

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

"The sports bundle is already the pay bundle....".
If it is unbundled, which is what is likely to happen, it will not be a bundle. PPV will be the sole basis for financing the coverage and if there aren't enough people to make it viable it will not be covered by the providers because it will not be economic..

Many sports draw far more money than their viewing figures would indicate viable and if not a sport as a whole certainly some teams within say baseball or NFL or basketball that have low viewing figures pull down far more money than is a realistic return based on the viewing figures. Those teams and those sports will see drastic revisions in their financial operations and F1 will not be any different.
If the only people watching a GP on television are those who choose to pay $15-$30 to watch the thing on television then the world wide viewing figures will take a dramatic tumble.

I wouldn't pay for it like that. No way. And there will only be a narrow group that will pay like that for a full season, race by race.
The figures that are touted now for viewing will tumble. Sponsorship will fall away and CVC will watch the profit shrivel away to a fraction of what it pulls now.

Believing that things will always be the way they have been and will continue to be that way is sticking your head in the sand. The world is changing faster than you can throw a stick at it, an international economics is changing just as fast. Everything is up for grabs and the 'golden age' is over. Its gone and we will not come back to it. Not for a number of reasons.
F1 will have to change or it will shrink and shrivel too.

What you say about the NFL channel is revealing because that is what F1 is going to have to do but that costs money and CVC is not in it to invest in the sport. It is here for its own ends.

In the UK I doubt F1 will go PPV. Sky TV have used that model for one off big title boxing fights or for renting movies, but I think in the UK it will be used an incentive tool bundled in to either keep you on a certain package, upgrade to another, or perhaps with the BT Vision competition take another Sky service e.g. broadband/phone.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

In the UK I doubt F1 will go PPV. Sky TV have used that model for one off big title boxing fights or for renting movies, but I think in the UK it will be used an incentive tool bundled in to either keep you on a certain package, upgrade to another, or perhaps with the BT Vision competition take another Sky service e.g. broadband/phone.

I'm not so sure about that. I think the continuous rolling broadcast 'service' viewed on a piece of living room furniture is on its way out. People are viewing things in different ways [piecemeal] and on different devices.

I can see a myriad of options and combinations such as PPV race live, PPV weekend live and PPV 'after event' highlights etc... The subscription packages would be just quantity bundles of the above e.g. all the events in a season, for the blue riband events, all the events in post race highlight etc...

[VIVA GT]

I'm really to old to get my head around all of this latest technology, I'm certainly far too short-sighted (in the literal sense) to consider watching F1 Races on my mobile 'phone, I need a minimum screensize of two feet across in order to see anything nowadays!
I'm also a bit of a stick-in-the-mud in as much as I still expect to be able to see the races on FPV even if they're not live (as we have now with the BBC coverage in the UK).
I suppose what may suit me most, and I might be prepared to pay per race for this would be the ability to download the race coverage (including commentary and all of the stuff I'm used to) to watch at my convenience (as long as I could avoid hearing the result in the mean-time). Although I enjoy watching the whole race, from a family point of view it's not always convenient for me to do so just whenever certain races are broadcast. I have already used i-player to do what I've outlined above, but there's often a delay after the original transmission before the races become available, which can also be an inconvenience.

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by davyboy

I'm not so sure about that. I think the continuous rolling broadcast 'service' viewed on a piece of living room furniture is on its way out. People are viewing things in different ways [piecemeal] and on different devices.

I can see a myriad of options and combinations such as PPV race live, PPV weekend live and PPV 'after event' highlights etc... The subscription packages would be just quantity bundles of the above e.g. all the events in a season, for the blue riband events, all the events in post race highlight etc...

Problem is that I think the PPV market (partic in the UK) is going to be so small that it won't be viable as a standalone product. I agree multi platform devices and different ways of viewing are going to be popular, but again using Sky as an example, this is bundled in with your overall subscription as 'added value'.

Personally I would rather (and do) pay a higher monthly subscription for all my TV channels and packages and broadband as a bundle than faff about buying a PPV per race.

But then again being of the slightly older demographic, if I want to watch a race it is on a TV not on a phone or my ipad. I accept that younger viewers will be more open to this but will they really buy a pass per race to view it?

If of course you just want to know who topped each session, who is on pole and who the winners are, you can get that info for free in a multitude of places, which is another difficulty for PPV as they don't have any exclusive rights to the results.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

Problem is that I think the PPV market (partic in the UK) is going to be so small that it won't be viable as a standalone product. I agree multi platform devices and different ways of viewing are going to be popular, but again using Sky as an example, this is bundled in with your overall subscription as 'added value'.

Personally I would rather (and do) pay a higher monthly subscription for all my TV channels and packages and broadband as a bundle than faff about buying a PPV per race.

But then again being of the slightly older demographic, if I want to watch a race it is on a TV not on a phone or my ipad. I accept that younger viewers will be more open to this but will they really buy a pass per race to view it?

If of course you just want to know who topped each session, who is on pole and who the winners are, you can get that info for free in a multitude of places, which is another difficulty for PPV as they don't have any exclusive rights to the results.

The younger gen may want to watch per race on their iDevices, but the problem will be finding enough money to pay for it....lots of small payments add up (and certainly it wont just be F1), and money is pretty thin on the ground for the majority nowadays. It will need to be cheap per race, and I doubt that is what the providers have in mind.

I'm a fan, and I won't be paying to watch F1. Just not worth it to me.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Bernie made 'corrupt' agreement in attempt to stay in charge.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24728686

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Bernie made 'corrupt' agreement in attempt to stay in charge.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24728686

To be clear, this is an allegation, there has so far been no proof of guilt. Need to be careful how we write things.

[wnut]

Looks like Bernie is doing quite well in the civil trial

http://www.pitpass.com/50394/Ecclest...gh-Court-trial

[littleman]

Think Bernie will walk away from this one in intact.

Attempting to prove the value of a company, which is entirely unique in nature, is virtually impossible. Three different financial experts, for example,could quite easily arrive at three completely different valuations and who's to say who is right? This is an extremely grey area with no right or wrong answer.

Like anything, be it a house or a car, it's ultimately down to what someone is prepared to pay for it. Anything else is purely conjecture.

[mikuni]

I had a little bit of a laugh at this bit: "Mr Justice Newey"

[spider]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/24831606 - erm...