The Sunday Times in England is claiming that the BBC has decided to drop its Formula 1 coverage after the 2013 season. The story quotes an unidentified source saying that the corporation will not bid to extend the current deal as it aims to trim its budgets.
The BBC took over F1 from ITV in 2009 and its F1coverage is beamed all over the world and has around 50 million viewers, globally. However there is no question that the annual cost of the deal with Formula One Management is expensive for the public service broadcaster and current domestic viewing figures are around the six million mark, which is slightly up from last year.
It should perhaps be noted that The Sunday Times is a newspaper owned by News Corporation, which is bidding to buy the global commercial rights of F1 from CVC Capital Partners. Clearly the loss of the BBC will impact on the price of such a deal.
joeblogsf1 
I would’ve thought 6.1 million viewers was pretty good…
The viewing figures are higher on the BBC than on ITV
errr, I’m not sure what to say really, you do realise the viewing figures for f1 on the bbc are amazingly good?
getting over 6m for a race puts f1 behind only football as the most watched sporting event in the uk. and its getting these viewing figures 20 times a season, apart from football no other sport can say that.
ALSO in a historical context f1 is being watched by more people than at any point since the mid 90s, really disappointed you’ve talked down f1 on the bbc when actually it is doing so incredibly well, do your research properly next time please !
Joe, your last para is an understatement – “It should perhaps be noted . . .” It might perhaps be true that no arm of News Corp has been above cynical manipulation of the ‘facts’ to further the corporate cause in the past.
Have the BBC said that they are disappointed with figures? The F1 team regularly report how pleased they are with the ‘huge’ numbers (I know, they would of course). The numbers for the very early morning (in the UK) races certainly sounded pretty impressive to me.
I assume that is 6.1 million viewers? Which in todays TV audience numbers is pretty good for a sports event.
As for the BBC influence – it would be interesting to know how many other countries take the BBC programming and what value that returns.
I can well see that it is an expensive commodity to have F1 but if the BBC is to remain an organisation with any stature it has to televise these type of events. I would have thought that the cost per hour of broadcast weren’t excessive?
I can only say that if the BBC don’t renew the contract it can only go for pay per view, as ITV coverage was so poor with advertising breaks and duff presenters.
Joe, you say Monaco ‘only’ attracted 6.1m but what are the figures for a non-GP Sunday lunchtime on BBC1? I don’t know but 6.1 doesn’t seem too bad to me for that time.
I think you’ll find Joe that 6.1 million is actually very good for a race.
The article is really not very good – badly slanted and inaccurate in several places. The F1 coverage on the BBC has met or exceeded all its targets for viewer numbers and reach, as well as cost per hour, according to the BBC Trust here (p4, I think): http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/vfm/sports_rights.pdf
Lily,
So why are thy axing it?
6.1 sounds pretty good, i read that more people watched Canada (8m) than any other channel despite the long delay.
“The recent Monaco Grand Prix attracted a maximum of only 6.1 viewers in the UK.”
Thing is, most TV shows would kill for those figures. Considering how painfully low the viewing figures were during most of the ITV-era (thank you Mr Schumacher), the BBC do appear to be doing rather well.
Whether it is worth the reported monies that is being paid is a possibly a sticking point.
That the Sunday Times is a News Corporation paper is also a point of consideration.
Disappointing audience figures? This year the average thus far is the highest since 1998 – (and higher than *any* BBC year, too.) – and 1998 was back in the dark ages before zillions of channels and widespread internet usage – I’d have thought the BBC would be *very* happy indeed with the audience figures and if they aren’t they are being pretty unrealistic.
6.1 viewers really is disappointing.
BBC has a fantastic coverage with a great team and they don’t interrupt races with advertising.
The current ratings are record braking, not disappointing! I really hope News Corp doesn’t get into F1, their approach reminds me a lot to Bernie’s, a little cheaky cheating methods. They certainly aren’t afraid to get into bed with questionable characters or to use questionable methods…
Another far q from the good ole BBC!!!! Wanting to “trim its budgets” at its own viewers expense!!! This hopeless and useless “corporation” treats its viewers with contempt at every occasion, but with its sole purpose being just another cash-cow for the government, what do we really expect? So it looks like F1 with adverts once again! What ps me off the most is the amount of money the beeb does actually waste on loads of other sh!te, and how the fak golf ever got to be a spectator sport that gets days of coverage Ill never know!!! So is this all pointing to a Murdoch takeover in the near future Joe, and the BBC have already been told something is in the air? Im suprised the viewing figures were so low tho, only 6.1………….still, with all the gizmos and crap tyres this year F1 racing has become nothing short of a lottery. All the “artificial” overtaking might be good for the newer fans of F1, but seriously, apart from Sebs consistency at the front everyone else seem to be all over the place as far as results go. Im finding it difficult to keep taking “F1 RACING” as a serious competition with all the interference from the FIA. And drastic technical changes from 1 season to the next are not conducive to progression I would guess! Its “all about the show” now in this safety conscious fish-bowl; its like a “watered down” version of REAL racing, although everyone is still allowed to drive their hearts out! #:)
oh no 😥
Can’t see how I will keep following the sport if I can’t watch it live for free.
6.1m for a monaco gp is pretty healthy. In fact so far this year it is gaining the strongest viewing figures in the uk since 1998.
I don’t believe that the bbc think this is either a weak or a failing product, they just think it is expensive.
The bidding has begun, that is all that is to see here.
And who was the 0.1 of a viewer ?
I have always been baffled why BBC bid to show Formula One when ITV decided they didn’t want to continue broadcasting it. Bernie Ecclestone has always made it clear that F1 needs to be shown by a free-to-air television company. Knowing that, what would he do if all the terrestial companies chose not to bid for it? If ever there was a time for the broadcasters to stick together and tell Ecclestone they are not prepared to bid this would be it. They would for once have the power in the negotiations. I guess Sky might bid for it but Formula One would then lose a big part of its audience – and thus advertisers – plus would it not be in Sky’s interest to also play hardball with Formula One? I strongly suspect F1 needs television a whole lot more than TV actually needs Grand Prix racing. I mean – I’m a former racing driver get me out of here would be a lot cheaper to make!!
Joe,
Is F1 not one of the “crown jewel” sports that must remain terrestrial – such as the Challenge Cup, Wimbledon etc?
I can’t see this being true, particularly given the awarded they have picked up. Mischief making by Sky methinks.
This if true, which is very far from likely, could be the middle of the end. The beginning of the end will come with the next Concorde agreement or whatever replaces it. The end of the end will be when the media rights no longer support Bernie’s lifestyle.
If we see Bernie deciding to bow out, then it’s time to run for the hills. (it is quite possible we will have given up watching Formula H&S by then anyway.)
Let’s face it the only other free to air contender is ITV, a company not exactly renown for its’s commercial success, nor flush with cash. I would imagine that it’s entire projected profit for 2012 would hardly cover the FOM media fee. This unless Sky relent and put it on Sky3 back on freeview, it became “Pick tv” After moaning initially, we all got used to the ad breaks when ITV had F1 before. We would miss Crofty and various co’s radio commentary, which is what I prefer to listen to online, whist watching on tv with subtitles on. Note: The online bbc video stream runs 5 seconds behind the live tv.
I am watching the BTCC atm on ITV4, it’s ok but not as good as it used to be when on ITV1 with more resources. Now why can’t F1 allow what Matt Jackson just did to reach a brilliant 2nd, wets on front and slick on rear (or vice versa) (My man Plato soundly beaten into 4th) Ooh the Ginetta junior demolition derby is about to start.
6.1 viewers? 🙂
I assumed this would happen sooner or later given the political pressures on the BBC. It’ll be a shame because the coverage has been far superior to ITV’s efforts.
Hi Joe,
I geuss i would be closer to 6.1 million viewers. It would be a shame if the BBC drop F1. I would very much miss Martin Brundles commentary.
is 6.1 million not good? it’s 10% of all the whole country, certainly doesn’t feel like that if you mention F1 at work or in the pub though…
I know that Monaco can be boring but only 6.1 viewers is the .1 a dog?
Only joking, you should see how many mistakes I have in my essays and I have plenty of time to write them.
As an Aussie who stayed in the UK for four months last year, I’m aware of more than just Martin and DCs commentary, it would be a huge shame if this is true, the entire show from pre to post race is first class, it is run with the kind of professionalism that anyone would struggle to find anywhere else. If only Australia took on the BBC feed from the very beginning of the coverage.
Of course, if News Ltd acquires the rights, it would certainly send Australia’s coverage off FTA (One HD/Ten) to Foxtel’s Speed. I understand the reasons associated with the Beeb’s thinking, in today’s conditions, but they should seriously try their hardest to somehow keep it, that is if they haven’t committed to dumping it already, it really would be blow to the sport and the BBC itself, more profound than it sounds on paper. Until then, at least there’s 2 1/2 seasons of quality coverage to enjoy!
How is a year-on-year increase of viewing figures compared to ITV disappointing? The BBC’s flagship football program Match of the Day gets about 5 million viewers at most (if there’s a lot of decent matches on – it’s closer to 3 million for most weekends). As you say, Monaco GP drew 6.1 million and the Canadian GP drew in a peak of 8 million.
Joe
6.1 million is probably the highest viewing figures for anything on the BBC in the UK, so I’d be surprised and disappointed if they dropped it. If it goes to pay TV I’ll not watch it any more as we get ripped off in this country for pay TV.
I didn’t know Antiques Roadshow fans could be so vindictive! 🙂
But with ITV barely afloat, and C4 and Five unlikely homes, even if they had the money (the latter is too similar to putting Flavio in charge for my tastes ) how exactly does this play into the free to air requirement the FIA insists?
We can all chime in now, as to what the BBC should axe instead, i guess. I say they axe anything on the multichannel which even looks like what others are doing. Not Their Mandate. Goodbye BBC3, for starters. Put the childrens’ programmes back onto early morning One and Two, save us from property propoganda and cooking back to back, and mothers fighting over the remote control i imagine also (what nutcase so devalues their flagship channels?). News 24 is a scratched record. Either patch them in with BBC Monitoring which provides actual news, or, – my preferred amusement – merge it with Al Jazeera and Russia Today, creating some whacked out competition for Sky and Fox . . only using that Monitoring fact checking team. Heck, since it’s my fantasy, buy Janes’ whilst at it, and get the guys from ZeroHedge out of their anonymity. What i mean really, is actually fill the channel with news. That really would sell i think. Also, it’s under Worldwide, so free to get going.
(telly hasn’t really changed in 15 years, has it? 🙂 )
Actually, i would play it this way (in my dreams) because non English viewers i have armtwisted to get watching the sport without fail comment on the British dominance in F1 life, it’s so important and the first thing i get is requested explanations of every word and term so it’s not a thing they want to hear translated . . bid on other country distribution as well. Might not work everywhere, but there is no reason not to cut other national presenters into the Jake slot, the pre roll etc. I’d certainly bid for the option, what with iPlayer supposedly going worldwide. I think Brundle would make them their money back. The distribution would be awesome, and local PPV channels could still earn well on HD broadcast, assuming high def would be burdensome to get across the net initially. Maybe the HD side of F1 should take the internet “freemium” model. I just re-watched Canada on a time shifted 720p feed, and though i don’t know how to price something like that, i somehow think that there aren’t many casual F1 fans, the whole following is pretty serious.
What worries me, is this is coming out on Chris Patten’s watch. He is about the only politician i think is downright decent to a fault, and got the brains to get good out of fiendishly difficult situations. If you’ve not read his books, they’re to my mind almost thrillers. “Page turners” if you didn’t have to go off and yell and groan so frequently at all he nonsense he had to deal with. His EU Comissioner transcripts are top value, too. Anyhow, he dealt very well with being constantly undermined when Governor in HK. I think something like that is the origin of the story here, not just Rupert having a crack, though i never think Ruper is not having a crack . .
– j
“The recent Monaco Grand Prix attracted a maximum of only 6.1 viewers in the UK.”
6.1 viewers? Is that 6 men and a cat?
Joe, are we sure the story is accurate? It seems as though News Corp may have a hidden agenda……
Phillip J
Yes, I think it is correct.
I have often wondered how the BBC could justify the cost of F1? Now we know, they can’t! Such a shame as the quality is extreamly good, I get to see the broadcast whem I’m in Canada and it makes the US “Speed” coverage look decidedly 5th rate.
Ex drivers and ex team owners with knowledge of what is going on, compaired to the “wanna bes” that Speed dishes up, oh except for David Hobbs, who despite his advancing years, continues to keep on top of most of what is happening. As you point out, News Corp will clearly take into account the difference in revenue when they own it, did you point that out? never mind, its what will happen, part of the Murdoch way of dealing with the grinch of Queensgate.
I wonder which team will give Bernie a pass when he comes to visit a GP?
Joe, I’d be interested in hearing your opinion on why you think the viewing figures are “disappointing” when they’re the highest in years.
Dave,
Success is based on expectation. You can be disappointed with 10 million if you expect 15 million
Nooooo, Im too used to ad free free races and their coverage is a gajillion times better than itv coverage. Lets hope its just newscorp playing dirty and or else that the beeb saves money by cutting other things
It really would be a great loss if the BBC did drop their coverage as the content and quality has vastly improved since they took over broadcasting it. I know it has definitely made more people watch than was maybe the case before.
“The recent Monaco Grand Prix attracted a maximum of only 6.1 viewers in the UK.”
That’s 1 in 10 of the population. How many viewers do you think it’d get on Sky pay-per-view?
how much did the beeb pay for 3 years ?
heaven forgive that we should go back to the ITV coverage
I’m sure more than 6.1 people watched the Monaco GP… 😉
“6.1 viewers” (sic) is quite poor really! 😉
If interest in the UK is so poor, I wonder what’s in this for Sky – they normally take really popular stuff off terrestrial after the initial risk has been taken. Back to ITV we go?..
Probably worth reading this: http://twitter.com/jakehumphreyf1/status/82466671503216641
I read somewhere that the Monaco GP had something like 45% viewing share, which is pretty impressive, seems like certain media corporations might be trying to stir it up in the hope of getting a sniff at the contract.
Moohcowh,
I am not sure that Jake will the first to be told…
“current domestic viewing figures have been disappointing”
What?
The average viewing figures are up almost 2 million.
The Canadian GP got 8.5 million, making it the best viewed Canadian GP since 2001, it had the highest viewers for its transmission slot even beating BBC1s new heavily trailed drama, and also the qualifying was the most watched Canadian GP qualifying since 1996, and it beat all programmes shown on ITV and was the BBC’s 3rd most viewed programme on Saturday.
And the BBCs own report shows that F1 is …
F1 Cost per Viewer Hour = Hit
F1 Cost per Viewer = Hit
F1 Actual Reach 54% = Hit
F1 Actual Live Rating = Hit
All in all it’s the BBCs top sports programme, it would not be axed due to costs as most other sports in the report come out as …
Euro 2008 Cost per Viewer Hour = Miss
Euro 2008 Actual Reach 35.2% = N/A
Olympics 2008 Cost per Viewer Hour = Miss
Olympics 2008 Actual Reach 42% = Miss
Olympics 2008 live Rating = Miss
Open Golf 2009 Cost per Viewer Hour = Miss
Open Golf 2009 live Rating = Miss
Snooker 2009 Cost per Viewer Hour = Miss
Snooker 2009 live Rating = Miss
It would be axed due to individuals within the corporation protecting sports they personally prefer over F1, or maybe to fund the BBCs X-factor rival ‘The Voice’ … Just what we need another karaoke show.
Karen,
OK, it’s a hit – and it has been dropped.
Although:
@jakehumphreyf1
Lots of ‘Sunday Times’ questions. SO MANY inaccuracies in that article. F1 does incredible business on the BBC-it’s spiritual home! #bbcf1
I’ve no inside info on it’s future…but I know little else gets the audience share and the millions that we do. #bbcf1 is a huge success.
The papers/my followers are welcome to report this… “the past 3 F1 races have each had viewing figures at a 10 year high”. #bbcf1
@LeeMcKenzieF1
Sunday Times claims BBC is to axe F1.The inaccuracies in the article hint that the journalist knows as much as the rest of us! Not much!
All we can ask is that you keep watching and enjoying #BBCF1 and keep our viewing figures soaring! They are growing every race!
Robin,
I believe that the BBC will cut F1.
6 million is surely a pretty good level of viewing on a Sunday afternoon? I can’t see many football matches getting much more than that. ITV did add a level to F1 coverage, and the herb has further improved it, with some great coverage across tv, web and red button. I hope they keep it, but if not I just hope whoever gets it at least keeps the quality this high.
nottsandderbywalks
Six million is a decent figure, but it costs too much.
I appreciate you’re just reporting the existence of the story in a neutral tone, but I’m surprised you haven’t taken a more sceptical tone on it.
Jake Humphrey and others have said today that lots of the figures and assertions are incorrect and, while it’s not their decision whether the BBC bids for the 2014 contract, it’s generally accepted that the coverage has been, and continues to be, a huge success for the BBC.
Simon Y
There is no need to be sceptical. It is true.
The BBC is definitely dropping F1. the only things that could change this decision are 1) the broadcasting fees coming down significantly and 2) F1 definitely going to a Murdoch sky pay per view. This is solely because of the bbcs outright hatred of sky ( which I concur with). Though I don’t think the BBC will be able to afford it. The bbc budget is already crashing down with the 2012 olympics.
It’s sad the excellent BBC coverage will be lost. I see a lot of complaints about it’s supposed bias and failings from rather pathetic posters on some sites but when the coverage goes to sky expect a re-evaluation. The digital coverage will probably improve slightly (though BBC iplayer catchup won’t be available to non subscribers to sky packages) but the actual chance of a forum and the improving commentary will be lost. Sky sport is a bit of an odd maverick operation with a tendency towards rough and ready coverage despite their pretty hefty budget.
The BBC gets some things wrong but it’s not going to be an improvement to see f1 run on sky sports (note this is not a rant about pay per view – this is simply about the sky sports versus BBC sports culture, pay per view is technically a whole different argument).
Clearly the parent company has nothing to gain from a public outcry at the cost of F1 to the licence payers…
This is a perfect example of why the company is already too influential.
Of course, just the other day I thought to myself: I am currently experiencing the best formula 1 season since I started watching sixteen years ago, coupled with the best presentation, commentating team, etc by the BBC.
All I can say is three words: Nooooooooooooooooo, please, noooooooooooooooooooo.
It will be a real shame if the BBC drop F1 as we will be back to commercial TV, adverts and all. We would probably also lose the practice sessions coverage.
Surely Red Bull could quietly subsidise the fees, it’s not like they are paying for the wall to wall advertising that the BBC give them currently.
Apparently there are other teams in F1 too but to watch the BBC race coverage you would barely know!
Feels to me like Murdoch medalling again.
The BBC would be incredibly stupid to drop f1 coverage. Although if they are willing to pay mid 6 figure salaries for newsreaders then they’ve obviously lost it already.
Another reason to campaign against the license fee. They waste millions every year on one thing and another.
Andy c,
The whole problem has been caused by the license fee. The BBC does not have enough money and has chosen to cut F1 rather than its other programming. The message is one that F1 should listen to.
It would be a real shame, their coverage is easily the best in the world.
Our beloved sport currently appears to exist purely to make ver rich people very much more rich. I may switch my allegiances to Wrestling, It is so much more honest.
Sounds like (or should that be smells like?) horse s#!t to me. Murdoch starting rumours?
P Johnson-Ross,
It is real and will happen, possibly this year…
I sure hope not – the BBC’s coverage has been outstanding upon it’s return in 2009
You don’t think this is a shot across Bernie’s bows now that QPR are in the premiership? Don’t mess with my TV rights and I won’t mess with yours sort of thing.
The whole QPR thing is interesting is it a hobby, in fact does BCE even do hobbies?
Hi Joe
Do you really believe that News Corp IS making a bid to buy for the commercial rights to F1 from CVC?
I dont claim to know much about high finance & big business – but i know a bit about media… So if the BBC (Widely aclaimed as the best F1 coverage technically as well as presentation) is losing viewers in the F1 heartland of the UK ..so much so that they wont bid in 2013….and Global viewing figures show a similar trend (I know they do in Australia) then CVC selling the rights to a PAY TV broadcaster would only KILL the sport completely. Less than 9% of the Australian population choose to have PAY TV in their home.. Of that 9% i can not see any more than 1% having more than a passing interest in F1 – making it a poor pay per view candidate here at least.
No viewers – No Sponsors – No Sport.
However – It COULD be a trigger for FOTA to actually stand up and form their own series.
Teams being signed to a concord agreement that has a PAY TV network as main broadcast partner would make me – as a sponsor – VERY nervous… and i would prefer my sponsorship $ went on a sport that is actually seen by the widest audience possible…and would encourage the team i sponsor to race in a series that has that audience – or risk losing the money
It might be possible for News Corp to buy the rights and then on sell them to commercial TV networks as well as air them on their Pay services.. but this has proven unprofitable in the past as well as annoying for viewers…due to limitations placed on the Free to Air broadcaster by the Pay Tv provider
Try as i may – i cant see CVC selling to News Corp…When keeping it allows them to keep reaping the cream from their investment.
The cream will sour if they sell – especially to a Pay TV provider.
Hi Joe,
As you probably know, in Australia we listen to the BBC feed directly. I suppose it is the same in other English speaking countries. How do those audience numbers compare to the domestic 6M number?
The BBC coverage is by far the best I have had a chance to see. It would be a great loss to see them go.
BTW I am in China at the moment and there is no F1 coverage here, FTA or even in my father-in-law’s cable provider. China is infested by luxury brands, but there is no sign of any F1 commercial presence, and the F1 brand is ripped off at many places around town. I think that does not speak highly of FOM.
This is rather tangential to concerns at the BBC (unless you substitute line managers for PR execs, maybe) but i don’t want to harp more directly on the subject, whilst i haven’t yet seen the flow of comments:
http://www.propublica.org/article/pr-industry-fills-vacuum-left-by-shrinking-newsrooms/single
which bluntly says “PR budgets up, ad revenue down, journalists out on their ear”. To my view, in the blink of an eye (stats quoted 2000 – 2009).
I won’t expand, but because of poor business modelling (in arcane ways that take a sit down, and don’t get discussed openly) i think it has been print and television which led the charge into mixing it too rich with streams of PR* just when it looks like the morass of internet amateurism should take the blame. The amateurs have an excuse, of sorts – they cannot afford proper function separation and controls, or lack the embedded compass of experience. It is possible, to produce some good kinds of media for free offering, based on adverts, but you need your ducks carefully aligned and big hitting sales function. But bluntly, you need subscribers to pay for the printing (include production, if electronic, and those controls) and advertising to generate profit to survive rainy days. Not yet seen it work otherwise (you get a very close look, sometimes, trading ad slots). I have yet to see a straight, non – PR “led”, website who have managed this, discounting the vast mesh of private data pirates**. Somewhere in all this, this PR trend has devalued straight advertising (excepting certain isolated fields) to the point where big production demands, or symbiotic with, crass commercialisation. That’s the worry i have for F1 broadcasting, because by association it could drag down sponsor revenue, and even if there are very plain looking cars this year, TL have shown that when you bag a good one, it’s more than a lifeline, it enthuses and encourages fans.
Obviously i am in the dark as to even fairly recent apprehension of their workings, but my charge were I in BBC trying to sustain coverage, would be looking to hybrid model. Data gained from commercial other territories relay i imagine would be very useful generally.
– j
**many of who ex- ad sales, i sense. Why slug sales, if you are a slugger, when life in PR offers so many perks, your skill with big customer execs surely makes ladder climbing easier, and to boot, often an effective commission rate on column inches “inserted”? What i am saying here is the big guns got turned about and trained on their former editorial departments. Of all places, F1 is the last which can afford that.
**here’s a partial display of who is involved chasing you around the web (very partial, tip of iceberg each and every logo, there) in infographic: http://www.adexchanger.com/venture-capital/luma-partners-ad-tech-ecosystem-map-the-december-2010-update/ (almost readable version if you click the inline graphic)
I read this article with dismay. Apparently the BBC is trying to save BBC4, a digital channel that has no viewers, because it broadcasts stuff no-one wants to watch. But is seen to be culturally more important than a world wide audience for a major sport.
They also want to safeguard Wimbledon, 2 weeks of torture watched by a few deluded people who think Andy Murray is actually any good.
There is more chance of Paul De Resta becoming World Champion than Murray winninf Wimbledon!!!!
Joe
It never fails to amaze me how chaotic and connected the world is. I read these stories over the weekend and your perspective suddenly put it into place for me. Although I have to say I was reading it with a pinch of salt after all it is 18 months away.
I guess this is why I am a daily visitor to your site!
Remember that days when an editor had some control over the content of his newspaper?
Steve Dalby,
It may happen at the end of this year, but ITV will bid for the deal. The price, however, will come down…
How do you see this one Joe? Is it a smoke and mirrors story, or do you see F1 moving to pay TV? personally, I reckon that would kill teh sport for many.
This is where i so think we should all get forward planned budgets for the Olympics coverage.
I cannot believe for a minute that that event has not forced the UK Gov to demand slash and burn remedies. Being host broadcaster may carry all sorts of burdensome subsidy to others.
This is interesting in another way, Whitmarsh last week was promoting just the kind of distribution which would knock about Bernie’s cosy, but presently effective for viewers, model. Today, he comes out strongly for the status quo.
With that last thing in mind, i just thought, as a hypothetical buyer, “Hmm, I’m paying hansomely for F1, doing a great job, giving massive exposure freely to advertisers (aka sponsors, which is in theory not what I should be doing) and here they are saying what I do isn’t enough, or plain not right.”
So suddenly i give some credo to the BBC pulling out. If this is a result of Bernie’s “decline”, lots of types end running and second guessing, you have to imagine what a good balancing game he was playing, and wonder who can step up.
I have another thought too: the minute you have team bosses banging on about revenues, i think quite a bit of the mythos of F1 is sullied. They got their sponsors and baccy ads on major non commercial channels, way before football did, based i think on that elusivity and exoticism. Hardball the channels (and by that dint, fans too “we have better, just you wait, but you can’t have what you have now, but we’re not telling you what or how”) and you’ll get treated on a level with every other commercial *advertiser*, the cars being suddenly just billboards. If you think narrowly that way, the Bernie and Max smokescreen had very considerable benefits.
BBC4 is a strange animal. Last time i tuned in, they were putting on whole evenings about single artists, composers, bands. Well, i was impressed. I’d cut something else first.
– j
Profoundly sad news. Not only for the loss of F1 coverage but in the wider sense of what seems to be happening to the BBC.
Also, i omitted this, on another drift:
ITV had anchor sponsor deals for coverage. The rest of revenue is numbers based (since when did the BBC use comparative metrics like this, right outside their field, to decide what they do?) and so never getting Coronation Street (or Antiques Roadshow?) volume. This is Karen’s métier, but my guess is this (show branding) competes hard with much needed big deals for teams. Hmm, GE are not unknown to be involved in a little big time media . . . my thinking is ITV would have floundered, without a main sponsor, and one of the biggest brands in the world is looking about, and that could swing things.
– j
Joe you seem to have gone from saying “there’s a report from an unnamed source by a paper with a conflict of interests” to “it will be dropped”.
What has changed since you originally wrote the article?
Martin,UK,
Other sources.
I watch the races on ‘WIN’ television which is all we get in the bottom left hand corner of Western Australia. The Beeb on-sells the coverage ‘per minute’ but we lose 25% of the race here, to advertising breaks. It is promoted as ‘live’ but never is, so we have to set the alarm for the wee hours of the morning and sleep on Sunday afternoons. Apart from the Melbourne race, they never broadcast the Saturday qualifying, except 24 hours later as a summary. If we watch on HD1, via computer, there are glitches and long commercial breaks there too. The current commentary team is much better this year as Jonathan Legard didn’t really know even as much as the average fan.
Would be a shame to lose such great coverage, I wonder how much the BBC gets for selling the package to other countries. It could be a bit of Murdoch BBC bashing, or maybe a negotiating tactic from the BBC themselves, or could be true of course.
BBC Sport are at the mercy of the governors. BBC4 is desperately angling for it’s survival given non-existent viewing figures but outside pressure is on the BBC to retain it’s commitment to arts programming and not spending it’s mass budget on BBC Sport retention. Viewing figures don’t really matter here. This is all internal wrangling under Patten overview, who has stated the BBC must return to arts and minority programming as part of the Tory wish to hem the BBC in as much as possible.
Sadly, the quality of the BBC F1 output, the viewing figures and even vocal support from Bernie and FOTA won’t mean much in the end. This is beyond rescue as it’s down to politics now. The Tory government is supported by News Corp, it doesn’t like the BBC at all and that’s the end of the story.
I doubt, a wrong decision will be made. Let’s wait and see. Up to now BBC is doing the job great. Anyone of you remember the plans about 2012? We expect the first 3D F1 race next year. Well, I’m sure BBC will be great again.
I think the next broadcasting television should be at least on the same level of quality.
This smells very much like a NewsCorp rustling of the feathers. It is a profitable sport with all their adverts and current viewing figures.
But watch the hawks jump on the BBC. #f1 #stickwiththebbc
Joe, I don’t know why they would drop it, I was merely pointing out that some of the ST’s claims were demonstrably inaccurate. I’m a fan, not an insider, I don’t have sources, just public information. Of course, the ST’s arts correspondent who wrote the original piece had access to the same information but chose not to use it. That rather seems to be his ‘thing’ as he doesn’t have a great record on predictions, and this one handily fits in with his company’s agenda.
Obviously as your readers we can only hope that your new sources are more accurate, but it would still be terribly disappointing for F1 to leave the BBC, and there is something of a gloating tone to many of the articles which leaves a bad taste for those of us who are fans of the sport and supporters of the BBC at the same time. Almost as though if it’s repeated often and loudly, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Well you have quite an exclusive here Joe, maybe you should start a new blog with that “information” rather than hiding it away in the comments?
To be honest I think you’re getting a little confused here, it is far too late now for the BBC to ditch coverage for next season, rest assured any break clauses will have passed by now. What happens this autumn is that the BBC Trust meet to decide on the future of the BBC budget and where it is spent, this is NOT the same as the BBC deciding in the autumn to drop F1 immediately, and you should know this.
Dan Smith,
I don’t think I am confused at all. Contracts in F1 are simply the opening point in any negotiation… No-one in F1 ever seems to look beyond the boundaries of the sport. There is a big world out there and the big world is broke…
“joesaward
Karen,
OK, it’s a hit – and it has been dropped.”
So you agree that it would not be dropped for any mythical financial reason, as at 11p per viewer (not the silly £1 as the newspaper article said), it’s the BBC’s most cost effective high viewer-ship sport, as detailed in the BBCs own review of their sports rights.
So we have to assume some people within the BBC would be willing to drop their (in the corporations own words), “most cost effective sport”, but why? It can only be to satisfy their own sports interests. Football highlights cost over £10 million more than F1, and get on average 2.5 million less viewers, surely that should go.
Karen,
Read the latest story
The Arts mafia in the UK have a much stronger influence on the board of the BBC than Top Gear Dads.
Unless the price went down a lot F1 v BBC4 will always be decided in BBC4’s favour
joe, you should maybe put up another post if you have more info. i was convinced it was a news corp ruse until i caught up on these comments 😦
Surely the BBC recoups a significant chunk of the outlay for distributing its coverage to other international English language broadcasters around the world?
I am already boycotting watching ALL athletics events on tv, no matter what channel, due to the Olympic Park Legacy Commissions “decision” to award West Ham the Olympic Stadium after the 2012 Games! Whilst West Ham were already struggling to maintain their Premiership status, and on the promise of a £40 mill taxpayers money “loan” from their local council, and stating they would be keeping the running track around the arena for public use, (now available for only 20 days per year!!), they were “awarded” this brand new stadium over and above a team who stated from the outset that they would rebuild the stadium purely as a football venue, AND then rebuild the traditional HOME of British Athletics at Crystal Palace!! Also they dont need public money to fund any of this, they were more than ready to stump up the whole cost and more in the future!!!! So, there is 1 ludicrous example of a decision being made in the hands of the British hierarchy!!! These are supposed top be intelligent people making decisions on behalf of us. Now you know why we are all fu&&ed! Whatever bullsh!t excuse these a55holes can come up with to extract that little bit more from your wallet or purse they will find it!!!! Now weve all bought super high definition tvs to watch more bull sh!t and pay more fees!!! Cant have a £1000 tv set and not use it can ya? Im, still waiting for Murrays analysis of this before i say anything! #:)
sorry guys…..quick edit…..after Crystal Palace….insert……(AVAILABLE 365 days per year!!!) #:)
vodka an 0range,
I look over this, from my window.
The parks are gone. Building sites. You got sit down, after a walk, and stare at 20′ high green fences. They have these explanations on them “funded by blah blah”, you’d think, as a meek citizen, you might get a description of what they are doing, which Ronson is required to do in the still Independant City Of London, or a circular, as they did when they planned to replace the longest straight road in London, all the way to Dunsinane.
Thankfully, i have a high view, as far as the North Downs. But there are ugly edifices being erected which probably will need demolishing. They cut trees, my father fought four times in different decades to save a park bequeathed by a very well known earlier landowner, from such patheticism, that’s why a certain tournament still exists. These parks were similarly bequeathed. Instead, they are hocked. This is very very different from bringing up another city, Beijing, which was brown field site, and their stadium allowed people to walk about it, not be sniffed by dogs handled by private security firms wearing brown coats.
– j
Personally I hate F1. No matter how much they jack it up, zooming around a track 200 times is utterly boring and when you think of the money involved (spent on advertising and fuel), the fuel used and the pompous nature of it all (more hype than substance) I feel that as a human race we could do without it, fullstop. In fact I can’t believe so many watch it – really who cares about a who can go faster around a track 200 times? On a humanitarian level we need to get over monotonous, vain, resource wasting tripe like this.
If it weren’t for the rich the sport wouldn’t exist.
Sean,
You are reading the wrong website. You should go and find something that suits you better. Might I suggest http://www.utopia.com, where high-minded people go to get incensed.
I’ve often wondered – on YouTube there is some wonderful music, and I am am absolutely baffled that there are people who make the effort to go to a song and then click on “Dislike”. What kind of person does this? Perhaps Sean can give some insight?