Double Points Confirmed

[F1fanaticBD]

Forget the points, pay the winners cash.  Half for the driver, half for the team. 

Interesting... so the teams and drivers are racing for some sort of Big Prize?

Of course, since the FIA is French so they might need to translate it.  Anyone know what French for 'Big Prize' is?   

 

[John S]

If someone is on a winning streak too much bring back drop scores for the season. Not just drop 4 from whole season make it one dropped from each five races - or part for last races.   

Any individual wins where the score is dropped still count in the record books, but the WDC should stay more closed up.   

 

[Irisado]

If audiences are falling because of free to air television losing the rights, then Ecclestone should stop asking television companies to pay so much to screen them.  Whichever way you cut, it's his responsibility.

[Jericoke]

If audiences are falling because of free to air television losing the rights, then Ecclestone should stop asking television companies to pay so much to screen them.  Whichever way you cut, it's his responsibility.

An interesting question.  How much is a fan who won't pay to watch the sport 'worth'?  If you're not willing to spend $2 to watch a race (what it works out to in Canada), then are you really going to go out and buy a Red Bull just because Vettel won a race?

The sponsors are trying to set themselves up as 'premium' brands, which means they need fans willing to pay a 'premium'.

Marketting is not my area of expertise, but I do know that marketting only works if people are willing to pay.  Viewing numbers have fallen, but that doesn't tell the story that Bernie wants to hear.  He wants to know how many people watching are willing to spend money on the sponsors.  If that number is up, then is there a problem?

[Ian]

That's good value Jeri, in the UK if you don't have the sky sports package sky charge you £10 for sky F1  for 24 hours, that's not good value if you only want to watch the race.

[Jericoke]

That's good value Jeri, in the UK if you don't have the sky sports package sky charge you £10 for sky F1  for 24 hours, that's not good value if you only want to watch the race.

TV in the USA (and by extension Canada) has become almost the opposite.

Big ticket live sports are available for free, through over the air broadcasting.  Any 'critically acclaimed' shows are only available by subscribing to premium TV channels.

I can watch all 82 Toronto Maple Leafs games plus all the NHL playoffs, all 162 Toronto Blue Jays Games, plus all baseball playoffs, my choice of approximately 6 NFL games a week, plus all playoffs, including the Super Bowl, and every NASCAR race, including the Chase for the Whatever it's called this month Cup (this isn't the place for any comment on racing 'playoffs')... all in high definition... with my $30/month basic cable.  If $30 is too steep, I can still see the Leafs once a week for free, along with Football and NASCAR at no cost beyond acquiring a TV and paying for electricity.

The point is... in our culture sports are the only thing that TV networks like to put on TV at low cost, because it's the only thing that sponsors are interested in paying for.  The NFL makes more money than all of F1 just from TV rights... and they let you watch the games for free.

[Monty]

I think you are missing the point. The money from spectators (at the venue or watching on TV) is irrelevant. It is numbers of spectators seeing the advertising that is important. The sponsors (on the cars and all around the track) will only stump up tens of millions of marketing dollars if the selected demographic are watching, the TV companies will only pay the fees if the sport attracts enough viewers to keep the TV advertisers happy to place adverts in the breaks. Without advertising the sport dies.

[Jericoke]

I think you are missing the point. The money from spectators (at the venue or watching on TV) is irrelevant. It is numbers of spectators seeing the advertising that is important. The sponsors (on the cars and all around the track) will only stump up tens of millions of marketing dollars if the selected demographic are watching, the TV companies will only pay the fees if the sport attracts enough viewers to keep the TV advertisers happy to place adverts in the breaks. Without advertising the sport dies.

It's not the number of spectators who watch that's important.

It's the number of people willing to spend money on advertisers' products that's important.  if 9 out 10 F1 fans don't drink Red Bull, won't use Shell gas and don't use Vodaphone, why would sponsors pay for those 9 people?

[Monty]

Marketeers (as they call themselves) will select a channel (TV, radio, magazine, etc.) that they believe will be seen by their selected demographic and then saturate that channel.
In marketing terms it is a 'targeted blunderbuss'. They know that their message will be seen by 3 groups; existing customers (the message is then 'positive reinforcement'); undecided customers (positive encouragement); and non-customers (brand recognition).
A lot of advertising is about creating subliminal stimuli and requires the largest audience possible - so as long as the advertiser believes they have access to the correct demographic it is all about the number of spectators. The end result remains..... without advertising, the sport dies.

[Jericoke]

Marketeers (as they call themselves) will select a channel (TV, radio, magazine, etc.) that they believe will be seen by their selected demographic and then saturate that channel.
In marketing terms it is a 'targeted blunderbuss'. They know that their message will be seen by 3 groups; existing customers (the message is then 'positive reinforcement'); undecided customers (positive encouragement); and non-customers (brand recognition).
A lot of advertising is about creating subliminal stimuli and requires the largest audience possible - so as long as the advertiser believes they have access to the correct demographic it is all about the number of spectators. The end result remains..... without advertising, the sport dies.

Agreed.

But if the advertisers know that the people they can get to are watching F1 pay per view, then they won't be bothered that there are fewer people watching who they aren't getting through to anyway.

As stated earlier, I'm not an expert on this.  I agree that having the most people watch as possible seems like a good idea.  But I also think that eating doughnuts for breakfast is a good idea.  (Well, I don't think it's a good idea, but I do it anyway...)  The people in charge aren't making decisions on a whim.  They believe they know what they're doing.

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?

[Monty]

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. 

[vintly]

Top class motor sport needs advertisers and advertisers need a global TV coverage. 

Not if everyone's paying to watch online, or on TV. I don't have any answers on this either but I think that's what Jeri was getting at. Like in boxing, every big fight is pay per view, at least in the UK.

Anyway, don't worry, it'll be alright. Bernie will die and things will change. Some for the worse, some for the better. The problem isn't Bernie anyway, it's the fear of lawsuits after a driver hurts a nail during a crash, making for super-safe 'racing'. If racing was more dangerous then more people would watch. What's the most common complaint by non-F1 fans? They say 'It's boring.'

Crashes aren't boring.

[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.

[Ian]

Jeri, if it was $10(or the equivalent) in the UK to watch the weekend of F1 I would pay it, but it ain't.

[John S]

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;

I'm sure TV rights are available and negotiable for any motorsport out there, even grass track banger racing.    The stumbling block is not how much the TV will pay for these lesser series, most will grant rights for free to get on the box, it's whether the cost of filming and broadcasting can be covered by sufficient audience numbers to attract the ads.

You are right to say it all comes down to the right audience for TV at least for free to air, however pay to view like SKY and others have a much more sophisticated model and can show some sports with less on air ads.

F1's issues with global TV audience is more about the sponsors that teams rely on rather than the direct income for FOM. Pay TV channels with smaller but more dedicated audiences tend to increase FOM/CVC revenues, the team sponsors however find this less acceptable. Perhaps this explains the drop in stand alone big money sponsors for F1 teams, leading to a rise in sponsor backed drivers?