Site logo

Look back in Anger

FEATURE BY MAX NOBLE
15/04/2015

Apparently we had a full F1 GP weekend in China ending in another display of Mercedes formation flying on Sunday afternoon.

After the joy, hoopla, and general merry making in Australia around "our boy" Daniel over the Melbourne weekend you'd be forgiven if you live in Australian free-to-air TV land for thinking it was the only race so far this year. Why? Because to give the ending away... Our one-hour highlight show, approximately fifty minutes of action allowing for adverts, that has been our late evening delayed free-to-air coverage is a shocking way to showcase our global sport.

Clearly people qualified, since they lined-up on the grid in an order they all knew. As it is tradition one assumes they spoke after the race. Again in free-to-air land you'd never know.

And no doubt post-race Christian Horner is sulking about something, Renault is playing the "share the blame" card, Lewis and Nico are fighting about the bitter pain of which one of them comes second, and Alonso is continuing his Zen march to transcendental enlightenment. Thankfully the internet is available in Australia (even free to air if you hang out in airport lounges, or respectable coffee houses...) so my personal desire to have a small clue as to what is going on can be sated post-race, in print and still pictures. Rather like returning to cycle racing coverage in the 1960s.

So rather than an eccentric, quaint, or irritating round up of results (depending on your view of my writing style), this short week, until we get real coverage of a race again (praise be) I'll lay forth my opinion on the pay TV free-to-air issue.

Actually I cannot resist a small round-up: Lewis and Nico only have themselves to fight. Vettel is born anew. Kimi likewise. Daniel is going to need to work on smiling under frustrating pressure for a few races yet. And Max V, bless him, really does appear to be a very fine driver. His classy over-takes in China (the brief angles I saw in the highlights show) were so sweet and clean each was a delight to watch. And Alonso is one week closer to Zen Mastery.

Now. Please share some back-story with me here for context... Not too long I promise...

Boxing has been around a long time. Since we evolved fingers and opposing thumbs this grand sport has presented minimal barriers to participation, and even fewer to spectating. Muhammad Ali remains a leading icon of the 20th century, and boxing matches such as "the rumble in the jungle", or the Tyson ear biting mess are as much cultural landmarks as they are boxing moments.

There was a time from the early days of the 20th century until the last few days of that questionable century, when most people could name the leading boxers, refer to one of the boxing 'cultural moments', or indeed had a clear and frequently informed view on fighters and up-coming fights.

Ask a general sporty type to name a few boxers, a couple of recent champions, or the current state of title fights, most likely you'll get a blank look. Ask a true die-hard boxing fan and they will know. And many of them will bet. And most of them use pay-per-view to see anything other than Olympic boxing once every four years.

The up-coming Mayweather, Pacquiao bout on 2nd May is finally generating headlines that are making it out to the general public. This is a long-awaited mainstream revival. Leading into the mid-1990s Boxing was frequently on the cover of Sports Illustrated. Easy to understand, dramatic to watch, a timeless gladiatorial combat. Since the start of this century I believe the cover count is one. The grip on the general interest viewer/follower fading during the long, dark, pay-per-view years.

Consider these figures; the largest pay-per-view global (note, global) audience for a boxing match was Mayweather vs. Oscar De la Hoya in 2007. A total of 2.5 million watched. 2.5 million out of the five or six billion of us that can access free to air TV in some manner. That's a viewing percentage around 0.042% of the total possible global audience. You reading this CVC? That's not a good return on eyeballs for marketing dollars.

The fight on 2nd May is anticipated to generate around $250m (US) You could run Ferrari for several months on that! Oh, and they are looking to charge around $100 (US) in America to watch the fight, and around $50 (US) in the UK. Do you want to pay that per Grand Prix...? Would you still care at $100 per race? Or would you read it all on the Internet for free a day or so later? And after a few years, just may-be, you'd stop doing even that.

My point? Free to air TV, supported by print newspapers reporting is what fascinated people and gave Boxing a huge global following. It made it a global sport, with a massive casual following, plus many loyal fans, and many fanatical fans. All bound together via the joy of free-access televised coverage.

Boxing got so big, those chasing the dollar wanted to convert to pay-TV in the very early days of such mechanisms. And lo, since that decision was made, those in control have made a massive amount of money, while boxing as a sport has faded considerably from general cultural awareness.

Training a world-class fighter (once one has slimed it down to realistic possibles) is not an expensive exercise. You need good food, a good gym, and a young fighter who can soak-up damage with indifference while maintaining a calm mind of iron. Add a coach, training buddies, and manager as required. A lawyer is optional until the contracts get bigger. So, even allowing for some ineffective hires, a team of less than twenty could run a class-leading boxer.

Where does this lead? Well boxing, approximately twenty-five years after entering pay-per-view land, is starting to spread back into mainstream media. Boxing needs to revive cultural awareness or its value as a moneymaking entertainment is going to slide off the radar totally. Even those in charge can see that no audience will eventually lead to no income at all.

So back to F1. Couple a growing loss of engagement due to pay only access with the general level of engagement with cars (as I argued in my piece Goodbye Horseless Carriage) and you've just over-fed the golden goose, produced just enough foie gras to make everyone feel uncomfortable, and then buried the body in an unmarked grave. But those enjoying the foie gras did have fun for a while, and grew very rich on it...

RELATED ARTICLES

LATEST FEATURES

more features >

LATEST IMAGES

galleries >

  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images
  • Pitpass.com latest F1/Formula 1 images

POST A COMMENT

or Register for a Pitpass ID to have your say

Please note that all posts are reactively moderated and must adhere to the site's posting rules and etiquette.

Post your comment

READERS COMMENTS

 

1. Posted by Max Noble, 24/04/2015 7:15

"@Hondawho? - Like Cricketpo you're highlighting that progress comes regardless of if we want it or not...

I think this discussion is moving toward something along the lines of "User pays is all ok, as long as the provider is making a sensible profit, and the client feels they are receiving value for money."

Like a slow-motion train crash I cannot look away from the up-coming Mayweather-Pacquiao fight. Along with remarkable pay-to-view costs around $100, the BBC is reporting seat tickets are currently changing hands for as much as $141,000US (94,000 pounds stirling). Suddenly F1 tickets look like a bargain... but then if it was six years between races we'd all be following lawn bowls by now...

At rock bottom it is the finance model that is broken, not the sport or the broadcasters.

"

Rating: Neutral (0)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

2. Posted by Hondawho?, 22/04/2015 16:58

"IMHO there are several issues here.

The first is that we in the UK have all been spoiled by the BBC, apart from paying for the TV licence all was it seemed free and NO adverts.

Like anything good it all comes to an end, the BBC, because it must take into account ALL its views and not just individual sports.

Maybe where it went wrong is that separate channels for the BBC should have been allowed to charge, they were not, so those that could, SKY BBC (new) charge could offer more money to the sport promoters.

Assuming we would all be happy to pay something for what we would like to watch is fair enough BUT the issue, as I am now seeing is the greed from the Pay to view TV companies who now have found a way to get more money out of us for adding our packages to areas of their broadcasts we do not want.

For example I only have sky basic which as you know included F1, BUT today i received a notice saying my package is going up £10%, just you have more facilities so we will charge you more.

I do not receive those extras as I have a communal dish and only one channel and not allowed to add another dish to the system but I still have to pay.

So I am not sure Pay to view itself will kill the sport but the broadcasters that run it might!

We also ow have BT and they are going the same way. I watch MotoGP and although at this moment BT are NOT being greedy, you can see the writing on the wall.

The only solution I guess is to use the idea BE had in the first place and that he controls the TV and we pay him per race as we can do for MotoGP. As this method it seems did not pay Bernie Vison was scrapped I understand? Maybe to far ahead of its time perhaps?

Will I pay per view? Not used to it and don't like it but progress is progress. Its a shame the BBC did not take over TV companies in every country of the world, they would have been quids in but as in most "ideas in the UK" it was possibly not developed or shelved as being too difficult perhaps?"

Rating: Positive (1)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

3. Posted by AlbertoDietz, 18/04/2015 8:47

"10. Since when a motorsports tradition started at least with Gurney's LeMans win has become"Hamilton's shameful display on the podium"?"

Rating: Neutral (0)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

4. Posted by nnails, 17/04/2015 10:49

"There was one other thing i forgot to post. Sponsor allso suffer negative reaction.

I remember watch race at san marino and alonso was trying to over take ferrari 5 laps from the end and itv put and an advert in. The advert was sponsored by 'texico' From that day i did go in texico garage for around 10 years.

The announcement that sky was going to be showing f1 resulted in me closing my santander bank account and moving and yes i did tell the bank why. 'Cant watch f1 you sponsor f1 your boycott list' and yes the lady at desk did type it in to her computer screen.

As a soon to be ex f1 fan the quickest way for me to NOT buy something is to put logo on f1. Congrats F1
"

Rating: Neutral (0)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

5. Posted by FormulaFun, 17/04/2015 8:01

"'Wowzers' Maximus! Oath to all that you said there, the pay-per-view bull dust is a joke. I completely concur with the reality of hardcore training involved with boxing compared to F1 training.
All in all, all these blooming, money grabbing folk are a bunch of pricks.
Well written maxie (hope you don't mind me calling you Maxie)
-FormulaFun"

Rating: Positive (2)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

6. Posted by Yeyox02, 16/04/2015 22:05

"Altough I had the money I would never pay to watch F1 or any other pro sport. Are we paying to watch advertisements? No kidding. It is a fraud."

Rating: Positive (3)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

7. Posted by RP, 16/04/2015 16:11

"Some comments from the US are very correct. I have followed and watch F1 since they raced in Watkins Glen. I also have to pay for a different level package on cable along with a lot of channels which NEVER get selected. Unfortunately, the banter between David Hobbs, Steve Machette et al is deteriorated over the years to 3 guys watching tv and talking to each other, not the audience. As previously mentioned, they don't even pay much attention. Presumably, they do have other data available. Always amusing when Hobbs will say how slow a Ferrari or McLaren is down the straight and then won't mention the speed or a differential then it may show on the screen and is one or two kph. They have become pitiful. The only reason not to mute them is the possibility of hearing a transmission between driver and team.
I certainly will not pay anything more to endure the agony they cause. I made it through the years before F1 was available on TV and will most certainly make it through however many I have left if it disappears. Perhaps NBC could ask them to pay attention to the actual race before making comments."

Rating: Positive (1)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

8. Posted by alfsboy, 16/04/2015 16:11

"Its even worse than this .Quite a few people I know who have access via Murdoch 's stolen viewing dont bother to watch F1 any more .One friend I know asked me who won and then said dont bother it was Mercedes wasnt it .No I said it was Ferrari ..He just grunted they bloody well should do all the money they take out of the sport .My daughters family ,heavily involved in the sport at a professional level never watch it anymore even though sky is available .I watch Euroseries F3 now ."

Rating: Positive (1)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

9. Posted by Max Noble, 16/04/2015 15:19

"@PeterJ42 - Every sport has its fixing scandals from time-to-time. Most sports and governing bodies try to stamp these issues out as fast as possible. As fans if we did not believe this no sport would be worth watching. I agree cars are far less characterful and different these days. When a blink of an eye and a sideways glance can confuse a Mercedes CLS with a Hyundai i45 sedan something is wrong.

@"in general" - appears pay-per-view does not have a legion of existing die-hard "I love it and pay for it" fans...?"

Rating: Neutral (0)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

10. Posted by fastfreddy, 16/04/2015 14:18

"I note with interest about pay for view when it was live on BBC for all the races Monday morning everybody would talk about the race now I am the only one with sky the topic never comes up to cap it all just had a letter from sky telling my fees have gone up 8% so even I am thinking about cancelling this. out of interest one of my engineers has just looked at a bit torrent site and they have all the practice and full race you can download so if you are happy to wait one day you can get it all for free."

Rating: Positive (2)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

11. Posted by Steve W, 16/04/2015 10:32

"Here in the USA, I get to see F1 live on NBC Sports, mostly, and I'm generally happy with the coverage. It isn't exactly "free" as my U-Verse TV package costs me $100/month but that's OK.

If the USA ever switches to pay-per-view, I'll most certainly decline and simply not watch F1 anymore. I'll have to "read all about it" later. Now the funny thing is - looking at it right now - is that if pay-per-view ever does become the only option here, I don't think I'll miss watching F1. I'll fall out of the habit. It just won't be worth it and I've followed F1 since the late 1960s."

Rating: Positive (4)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

12. Posted by PeterJ42, 16/04/2015 8:08

"There is a much stronger comparison. We used to believe Boxing was a Sport. Then we began to realise that it was hyped beyond the true entertainment value. And, more importantly, that it was fixed. Once that became obvious, there was no point watching any more.
I've watched F1 since 1970. Maybe I'm slow. I suspected it in the Schumacher era.
But Williams' meteoric rise, once part owned by Toto Wolff (and with his wife as test driver) was to me the moment when F1 jumped the shark.
Once you see it, you see it everywhere. What bits does everyone else see as a "fix"?

There is another factor. I grew up, as I know Chris did, as a petrolhead. Cars were different from eachother and those differences were important to us. Now cars are as exciting as washing machines and other white goods. Going faster and enjoying the thrill of controlling something at speed is not an option for most of us. While we relate to people going along in a safe environment, saving their tyres, it isn't edge of your seat stuff we would pay to watch. And knowing people make it to F1 only because their Dad did or because their Dad owns a big company is hardly the ladder of talent we bought into either."

Rating: Neutral (0)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

13. Posted by flashpete, 16/04/2015 7:13

"In fact, the Shanghai race was shown live on Australia's Ch10 (or was it One?) when the film "A Few Good Men" was scheduled. I sat down to watch the movie, and there was Tom Clarkson with his lips moving. I thought it was a channel promo, but Lo, it was the entire race, less Hamilton's shameful display on the podium. An accident or the actions of a vengeful technician at the TV station?"

Rating: Negative (-1)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

14. Posted by Max Noble, 16/04/2015 4:56

"@cricketpo - you raise a good second side to the argument. "Revenue streams" are surely the business driver behind this. And yes, companies need to make a consistent profit to remain viable. My confusion/horror ('anger' as I termed it in the article) is the brutal and seemingly expensive manner in which revised revenue streams have been created and enforced by the content providers (FOM, Bernie, CVC) and the delivery channel (was free-to-air, now increasingly your national cable provider). Currently the new model is flawed and needs revision to maintain the health of the sport, via the maintenance of high viewing numbers. In your football example it is amusing that an inability to obtain a sensible media package actually made it cheaper (and I hope highly enjoyable) for you to simply attend the match in person. I'm sure the owners of the European F1 circuits would love to see that happen on a regular basis!"

Rating: Positive (1)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

15. Posted by cricketpo, 16/04/2015 2:07

"I would like to suggest that the author is slightly living in the past with his attachment to free to air TV. The business model for free to air is not as compelling as it once was. Take the UK - until 1983 there were only 3 TV channels. At any given moment the entire population of 50 million people could only make 3 choices. So viewing figures were high. An advertiser could rely on the fact that their product would arrive into the front rooms of almost a third of the population in one fell swoop. TV advertising costs reflected this monopoly. This partly explains why boxing was so well covered. There often wasn't much of an alternative on. Bring it up to date and on free view terrestrial TV there are at least 70 channels and if that wasn1t bad enough there is also this thing called the internet. There are so many ways we can digest our information. Manufacterers of our consumables can not only be more choosy about who they reach they can also be picky about how they do it. Back in the day we could switch on our TV to watch our favoured sport (for the sake of argument lets say F1) and all these handy moments arrived so that we could walk away from our TV's, go to the bathroom, put the kettle on, get another can etc. Then wait for the fun to start again. It meant we could consume our chosen sport without actually contributing to it in any meaningful way. So as the channels increased and thus audiences dwindles (with subsequent loss of income from advertising) broadcasters have had to get clever with the way they earn their crust. The revenue "streams" I believe they call it. In a world of diverging TV interests I am rather afraid that if we want rich content we are going to have to fork out for it.
However I do get the feeling with PPV in the UK that I am getting fleeced. I once wanted to watch a PPV soccer match involving my beloved team of Portsmouth. I live too far away to make the journey to see the game practicable, or so I thought. I rang the offending cable channel lets call them SKY because it was. I couldn't just get the one game. I had to subscribe to the sports channel for a minimum of six months and they bundled in a whole bunch of stuff I couldn't give a badgers eyeball about, for a layout of £90 + the one off cost of the PPV I wanted to see, all in all it came to £110. I got on a plane and went to the match and saved myself £15"

Rating: Positive (1)     Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

Share this page

X

Copyright © Pitpass 2002 - 2024. All rights reserved.

about us  |  advertise  |  contact  |  privacy & security  |  rss  |  terms