|
sleepwalkers posted:The NBC Sports Live Extra app had PIP race alongside the ads. Did the TV feed not do that? I downloaded the sky coverage and watched that because I wanted to avoid the commercials and I didn't stay up to watch the race live. Last season NBC only did the picture in picture on half of the commercial breaks, and did full screen commercials for the others. Qualifying is even worse with 2 as breaks during q1 and 1 during q2. And those were always full screen. If they've improved that situation this season I'll be happy. GutBomb fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Mar 25, 2016 |
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:55 |
|
|
Unlike some i'm not interested in some kind of f1 digital package. There is no way they release that for anything less than $800 a year, just to make it expensive for the sake of being expensive. Like a f1 podcast i listen to says: "Are you NEW to formula 1?" Hell, i could see it being $1000 with a $5000 "paddock pass" that is just second screen functionality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
too many of you are assuming FOM is incompetent when in reality they only care about money and, at present, they are able to maximize their earnings in a way that isn't good for most people. if and when they decide to release a streaming-only package, they are not going to release it a price point that immediately excludes all people who would actually consider purchasing it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Cant afford the paddock pass? The sky sports package is only $100 a month 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Unlike some i'm not interested in some kind of f1 digital package. There is no way they release that for anything less than $800 a year, just to make it expensive for the sake of being expensive. Like a f1 podcast i listen to says: "Are you NEW to formula 1?" Hell, i could see it being $1000 with a $5000 "paddock pass" that is just second screen functionality. who would pay for this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
be nice wicka posted:who would pay for this? Someone who buys a rolex.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:Someone who buys a rolex. no they wouldn't. they would just have cable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
be nice wicka posted:no they wouldn't. they would just have cable. I suppose they would just have a $10 Casio that keeps better time instead of the rolex as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
you guys make it exceedingly difficult to not get probated out of this thread
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
I mean I'm half joking but off the top of my head I know four or five people that would gladly blow $5k on some "premium F1 streaming package". They'd be dumb to do so but that really isn't my problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
regardless, the fact of the matter is that FOM only cares about money, they are not going to release a streaming package (remember, this is a thing that primarily appeals to cord cutters i.e. people who care about saving money) for $800. they're just not going to do that. it makes zero sense.
wicka fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
be nice wicka posted:regardless, the fact of the matter is that FOM only cares about money, they are not going to release a streaming package (remember, this is a thing that primarily appeals to cord cutters i.e. people who care about saving money) for $800. they're just not going to do that. it makes zero sense. I'm not saying there is any rational economic model that would say pricing it at $800 versus $100 is a good idea. What I am saying is there people out there in the world dumb enough to pay that much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Like a f1 podcast i listen to says: "Are you NEW to formula 1?" Thank you for quoting this pithy point from an F1 podcast you listen to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:Someone who buys a rolex. Exactly! So i dont get probated for a one word post, i'd like to ask a question about the new radio regulations. Mercades made a lot of noise this week about how nico wasnt allowed to be told about his brake overheating situation, are they allowed to convey this information via pit board? How hard/illegal would it have been to make "P1 ROS BRKHEAT" HAM +.9 L45" and display it? MattD1zzl3 fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Mar 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:I'm not saying there is any rational economic model that would say pricing it at $800 versus $100 is a good idea. What I am saying is there people out there in the world dumb enough to pay that much. but the point is that FOM operates on rational economic models
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Exactly! I don't think they are allowed to. I looked into it way back when they first started banning radio stuff thinking it was an easy loophole, but I think it extends to pit board stuff as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Mercades made a lot of noise this week about how nico wasnt allowed to be told about his brake overheating situation, are they allowed to convey this information via pit board? The restrictions apply to all team-to-driver communication, not just radio.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
So I'm working my way through 2006 and watch the Australian Grand Prix now, holy poo poo was Schumacher pretty crap by that point. It's a helluva contrast to '97 where he was absolutely relentless, but he's just driving like a jackass by 2006.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
be nice wicka posted:you guys make it exceedingly difficult to not get probated out of this thread https://www.change.org/getwickasmomanaccount
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
son, did you notice how Kimi tiene ganas de helado jaja
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 08:02
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Exactly! I'm pretty certain they said they opted to not tell him, not that they couldn't. They are allowed to radio stuff in the name of safety, they just chose not to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 09:11
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:So I'm working my way through 2006 and watch the Australian Grand Prix now, holy poo poo was Schumacher pretty crap by that point. It's a helluva contrast to '97 where he was absolutely relentless, but he's just driving like a jackass by 2006. you should probably watch more of 2006
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 10:18
|
|
|
yeah, like monaco qualifying
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 10:21
|
|
|
poty posted:son, did you notice how Kimi tiene ganas de helado jaja él fue tomando una mierda jajaja
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 12:01
|
|
|
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2016/03/analysis-the-numbers-show-why-formula-1-took-the-exclusive-sky-deal/quote:Now consider that Sky has been paying £45m a year for its rights, during this time of shared rights. With the Channel 4 fee on top that has meant a yield from the UK for F1 of £70m a year. This is roughly twice what ITV was paying 10 years ago and about 80% more than the 2009 BBC exclusive deal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
be nice wicka posted:http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2016/03/analysis-the-numbers-show-why-formula-1-took-the-exclusive-sky-deal/ £1 billion for F1 over 6 years is a loving rip-off. That's about £8,000,000 a race before the cost of actually hosting it airing it, producing it etc. ........but it sort of adds up. 1 million viewers at approx £15 per race would seemingly give a clear profit before ad revenue is added in. It's a shocking rip off, but you can see how Sky are raking it in, even with relatively lovely viewing figures compared to the BBC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Theres no way sky are getting 1 million viewers a race. I'd be surprised if they clear 100,000.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
viewership doesn't matter. it's like hbo or netflix. they don't care about ratings, they care about subscribers. if subscriptions increase due to them having F1, what difference does it make if those people actually watch the races? they've already got their money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
pretty certain sponsors care quite a lot about the size of the audience they are getting
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Theres no way sky are getting 1 million viewers a race. I'd be surprised if they clear 100,000. I'm pretty sure they were peaking at around 1 - 1.5 million last season compared to BBC's average of 2-3 million. I'd google it, but I can't be bothered. But as wicka said, if sky gets another 250,000 subscribers because of the loss of free-to-air, that's another £78million or so a year, so what do they care if only 40% of them watch all the races.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Triple A posted:pretty certain sponsors care quite a lot about the size of the audience they are getting which sponsors?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
be nice wicka posted:which sponsors? This Is A Cool Spot and ForzaJules are my favourite on-car sponsors.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
Brainwrong posted:I'm pretty sure they were peaking at around 1 - 1.5 million last season compared to BBC's average of 2-3 million. I'd google it, but I can't be bothered. I dont think that makes much difference either. Most households had sky before they got the rights, which is exactly why they put the F1 channel on their standard packages where you didn't need sky sports for it. I really, really doubt they hoovered up many new subscriptions. Sky was pretty much at saturation point years ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
UK Sky got 360k average across sky sports 1 and sky F1 from 3:30am to 9am with a peak of 423k. This does not include the figures form sky italia or sky Germany. It's hardly fair to be looking at these figures given that it does not include repeats at a reasonable hour. It's a bit no poo poo Sherlock the figures were down compared to the last race which was broadcast in the afternoon and not at stupid o clock in the morning. The biggest mystery here is why in god's green earth when the vast majority of your viewers are on euro time, would you have the first race of the year in the early hours of the morning.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
be nice wicka posted:which sponsors? pretty much everyone who have an interest in using the cars/tracks/adverts as an advertising platform for their company
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Triple A posted:pretty much everyone who have an interest in using the cars/tracks/adverts as an advertising platform for their company sky doesn't answer to them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Triple A posted:pretty much everyone who have an interest in using the cars/tracks/adverts as an advertising platform for their company I'm sure the very second that Ferrari has any sort of financial difficulty due to dwindling viewers, then we'll see action. Until that time though, Bernie's response to teams facing sponsorship difficulties will be "Tough, not my problem."
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Brainwrong posted:I'm sure the very second that Ferrari has any sort of financial difficulty due to dwindling viewers, then we'll see action. Until that time though, Bernie's response to teams facing sponsorship difficulties will be "Tough, not my problem." and by that point, the problem will be well beyond terminal
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Triple A posted:and by that point, the problem will be well beyond terminal right, the people who have proven themselves time and time and time again to be able to squeeze the most money out of F1 are incapable of seeing "OK, viewership and revenues are dwindling, let's change things" and instead will gently caress up their investment for the first time in like 40 years
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:55 |
|
|
F1 isn't going anywhere. it makes a lot of money for people who are good at making a lot of money. the fact that they are currently doing so in a way that inconveniences you says quite literally nothing about the health of the sport.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2016 16:32
|
|