Double Points Confirmed

[F1fanaticBD]

As for the sport dying without advertising... if F1 really is popular, then I don't see a problem with fans funding the sport directly.  It works for movies, live theatre, comedians, musicians, boxing and MMA.  Why not Formula One?

I wish I had the answers - I would be a much richer man.
Looking at the other (lesser?) classes of motor sport where the sponsorship and TV rights are not available I think we can conclude that the maths of fans funding the sport simply doesn't work.
Without TV coverage there is no hope; if we say an average of 50,000 spectators paid for entrance to every F1 race and the average entrance fee was $100 the total annual income would only be $95million - this wouldn't cover the costs of the tracks let alone the teams and drivers. Top class motor sport needs advertisers and advertisers need a global TV coverage. 

The numbers I'm finding online say that 450 million people watched F1 last season.

If everyone paid $10 to watch, then the sport would have made 4.5 billion dollars without selling a ticket, a t-shirt or a billboard.

Of course, not everyone is willing to shell out $10 for 40+ hours of entertainment.  But that seems like a pretty low price point to me.  However, they're probably not going to buy a Ferrari, a Red Bull or use Vodaphone either.

I have a feeling Jeri that these number are a bit flawed, in a way that they count each individual per race, so if you are a regular fan of F1, you will be counted as 19 for the last season, 20 for the season before. And we the bunch here will make about 200 people as because we watch the sports pretty regularly. So if we have to pay $10 for a spectator, I have a feeling that you may have to end up paying $190 yourself, which is quite a lot. (This is my assumption as I have failed to get any information how this 450 million viewer is calculated, if anybody has details please post it)

[lkjohnson1950]

Audience numbers are calculated several ways. If you are watching on cable, the cable company knows what channel you are watching through their addressable cable box. Then there are the ratings companies Neilson etc, who use surveys to extrapolate audience numbers. If you buy a package deal, the company knows how many they sold whether you actually watched or not. Advertisers look at two things, total number of viewers and viewers in demographic groups. For F1 they generally want males aged 18 to 40 or so, as they feel these are the people who spend money and can be influenced by an ad. They can't know if you buy the peoduct because of their ad, but they can tell if sales go up or down according to where they place their ads. It's all really estimates and assumptions. The 450 million figure is total viewers for all F1 races, and includes a large drop in China where the broadcasts were changed from national to regional companies.

[Monty]

Wow we have gone massively off topic!
The actual truth is somewhere amongst all of these posts. I think it is generally accepted that the figures of around 450million represent total views (not consistent viewings) and certainly cannot be assumed to be spectators prepared to pay.
My point was that the sport needs a global TV coverage and the only way the TV companies will provide the fees for the coverage is if they can assure their advertisers that the correct demographics will be watching. No advertisers = no F1.
The pay per view model simply doesn't work. Companies like Sky need the regular monthly subscriptions to survive. The pay per view specials create additional revenue and work for very popular soccer games, the odd big fight but would almost certainly not get a large enough audience for an annual series like F1.

[Scott]

I would give traditional TV only a few more years before it is passed by internet viewing, either tablet, computers or 'Smart TV'.  People want to control their own TV, and even the ability to record your shows and watch them when you want hardly holds a wick to the way kids today are viewing their media.

How times have changed.  I would be pleased if my kids sat down and watched an hour or two of TV.  The only way we can get them to do that is to get a kid-friendly movie (just enough violence and risky scenes for 12 & 14yr olds...days of the romantic comedies or animated movies is now over) and practically force them to watch it with us.  This of course means taking away their ipods and in my son's case, his phone.

They both would spend their entire lives either in front of a game console or on the internet (instagram or some other stupid app) if allowed.  We have had to institute a couple of 'Electronic Free' days per week and make them hand over the gadgets after certain times, including mealtimes and bed time.

My point is, watch the kids.  They are going to rule where the advertisers and broadcasters go to get their revenue.  And if I am paying attention correctly, TV's won't be plugged into anything but the internet in the near future. 

[Jericoke]

As for the sport dying without advertising... if F1 really is popular, then I don't see a problem with fans funding the sport directly.  It works for movies, live theatre, comedians, musicians, boxing and MMA.  Why not Formula One?

I wish I had the answers - I would be a much richer man.
Looking at the other (lesser?) classes of motor sport where the sponsorship and TV rights are not available I think we can conclude that the maths of fans funding the sport simply doesn't work.
Without TV coverage there is no hope; if we say an average of 50,000 spectators paid for entrance to every F1 race and the average entrance fee was $100 the total annual income would only be $95million - this wouldn't cover the costs of the tracks let alone the teams and drivers. Top class motor sport needs advertisers and advertisers need a global TV coverage. 

The numbers I'm finding online say that 450 million people watched F1 last season.

If everyone paid $10 to watch, then the sport would have made 4.5 billion dollars without selling a ticket, a t-shirt or a billboard.

Of course, not everyone is willing to shell out $10 for 40+ hours of entertainment.  But that seems like a pretty low price point to me.  However, they're probably not going to buy a Ferrari, a Red Bull or use Vodaphone either.

I have a feeling Jeri that these number are a bit flawed, in a way that they count each individual per race, so if you are a regular fan of F1, you will be counted as 19 for the last season, 20 for the season before. And we the bunch here will make about 200 people as because we watch the sports pretty regularly. So if we have to pay $10 for a spectator, I have a feeling that you may have to end up paying $190 yourself, which is quite a lot. (This is my assumption as I have failed to get any information how this 450 million viewer is calculated, if anybody has details please post it)

That's what I was thinking, but if you do the math, that means the GLOBAL TV audience for F1 is 23 million people per race.  That doesn't sound right at all.  Or is all of this put on so that Santander and Vodaphone can get their message out to 23 million people, at least half of which can't use Santander or Vodaphone?

[F1fanaticBD]

As for the sport dying without advertising... if F1 really is popular, then I don't see a problem with fans funding the sport directly.  It works for movies, live theatre, comedians, musicians, boxing and MMA.  Why not Formula One?

I wish I had the answers - I would be a much richer man.
Looking at the other (lesser?) classes of motor sport where the sponsorship and TV rights are not available I think we can conclude that the maths of fans funding the sport simply doesn't work.
Without TV coverage there is no hope; if we say an average of 50,000 spectators paid for entrance to every F1 race and the average entrance fee was $100 the total annual income would only be $95million - this wouldn't cover the costs of the tracks let alone the teams and drivers. Top class motor sport needs advertisers and advertisers need a global TV coverage. 

The numbers I'm finding online say that 450 million people watched F1 last season.

If everyone paid $10 to watch, then the sport would have made 4.5 billion dollars without selling a ticket, a t-shirt or a billboard.

Of course, not everyone is willing to shell out $10 for 40+ hours of entertainment.  But that seems like a pretty low price point to me.  However, they're probably not going to buy a Ferrari, a Red Bull or use Vodaphone either.

I have a feeling Jeri that these number are a bit flawed, in a way that they count each individual per race, so if you are a regular fan of F1, you will be counted as 19 for the last season, 20 for the season before. And we the bunch here will make about 200 people as because we watch the sports pretty regularly. So if we have to pay $10 for a spectator, I have a feeling that you may have to end up paying $190 yourself, which is quite a lot. (This is my assumption as I have failed to get any information how this 450 million viewer is calculated, if anybody has details please post it)

That's what I was thinking, but if you do the math, that means the GLOBAL TV audience for F1 is 23 million people per race.  That doesn't sound right at all.  Or is all of this put on so that Santander and Vodaphone can get their message out to 23 million people, at least half of which can't use Santander or Vodaphone?

Now if 450 Million is total count for the whole season, then in simple calculation they missed out around 23 million as 2013 had one race less than 2012.

I think companies like Vodafone or Santander may not be available in all the region, but I have a feeling if they are willing to go to those region .Like it or not F1 is going to the places of emerging economies so these companies will definitely like to wet their beak hence their initial brand recognition through F1.

[Scott]

Newey has weighed in on the DU rule (as if you didn't already know, he doesn't like it).

Interesting bit at the bottom...Vettel would have clinched the title in India with DU rule or not. 

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/112556

[Irisado]

Which only goes to show how risible it is .  I just don't understand why, in the face of so much disquiet from the teams and the fans, Ecclestone doesn't withdraw this idea.  I've never seen a rule change which has caused quite so much irritation.

[Scott]

I just don't understand why...Ecclestone doesn't withdraw this idea.

Gee, and I always thought the FIA made up the rules. 

[Jericoke]

I just don't understand why...Ecclestone doesn't withdraw this idea.

Gee, and I always thought the FIA made up the rules. 

Exactly!  If it were up to Bernie, then we'd be stuck with medals.  I mean who on Earth would watch a competition where the athletes win medals?  The Winter Olympics only have 1.8 billion viewers.  Can't imagine anyone wanting a part of that

http://www.olympic.org/documents/ioc_marketing/broadcasting/vancouver2010olympicwintergames-broadcastcoverageaudienceoverview.pdf

[John S]

I just don't understand why...Ecclestone doesn't withdraw this idea.

Gee, and I always thought the FIA made up the rules. 

To get more money from FOM in the new Concorde some small power has shifted from FIA to the new technical working group, it was Bernie's idea of double up for the last three races in that working group that started all this.

The working group which is made up of bigger and selected teams, FOM & FIA delegates, diluted the 3 races to one in a vote. Some of the recommendations of the group are now automatically adopted without further voting within the FIA it seems.





 

[Irisado]

Gee, and I always thought the FIA made up the rules. 

Apparently not these days .

Exactly!  If it were up to Bernie, then we'd be stuck with medals.  I mean who on Earth would watch a competition where the athletes win medals?  The Winter Olympics only have 1.8 billion viewers.  Can't imagine anyone wanting a part of that.

Winning the world championship on the basis of how many gold medals you have is not sound practice for Formula 1.  It's very different for athletics style events.  The two are not comparable.

[vintly]

Medals does not an Olympics make.

One major difference between F1 and most other sports is that other sports don't change very much. Big changes in hi-tech motor-sport are  natural enough ANYWAY, without having the comedy of double-points added as a desperate lunge for 'bolted-on excitement'.

I imagine that if you're a huge fan of curling, you always will be. I don't think the same can be said for F1. How often do we read a fellow member's post about maybe having had enough of F1?? It happens. F1 needs more stability and less senility.

[Jericoke]

Medals does not an Olympics make.

One major difference between F1 and most other sports is that other sports don't change very much. Big changes in hi-tech motor-sport are  natural enough ANYWAY, without having the comedy of double-points added as a desperate lunge for 'bolted-on excitement'.

I imagine that if you're a huge fan of curling, you always will be. I don't think the same can be said for F1. How often do we read a fellow member's post about maybe having had enough of F1?? It happens. F1 needs more stability and less senility.

Too many people are involved in F1 for 'stability'.  If everything stays the same, then what's the point of FIA, FOM or FOTA?

If you want stability, then hand the reigns to one person.  Otherwise everyone is going to fight to get their ideas in the sport:  everyone gets something, no one gets everything.

[vintly]

Medals does not an Olympics make.

One major difference between F1 and most other sports is that other sports don't change very much. Big changes in hi-tech motor-sport are  natural enough ANYWAY, without having the comedy of double-points added as a desperate lunge for 'bolted-on excitement'.

I imagine that if you're a huge fan of curling, you always will be. I don't think the same can be said for F1. How often do we read a fellow member's post about maybe having had enough of F1?? It happens. F1 needs more stability and less senility.

Too many people are involved in F1 for 'stability'.  If everything stays the same, then what's the point of FIA, FOM or FOTA?

If you want stability, then hand the reigns to one person.  Otherwise everyone is going to fight to get their ideas in the sport:  everyone gets something, no one gets everything.

Not stay the same, just more stability than we have now. Double points and unnecessary tinkering makes for a fair-weather fan-base. I agree about handing the reins to one person - I'm not against that or Bernie per se, just double-points and desperate measures.

In fact, I love Bernie, don't tell anyone though.