There's an interesting parallel between paywall TV viewership in F1 (or sports in general) and the pharmaceutical industry. We all believe that drugs should be affordable and be accessible to everyone regardless of an illness or ailment, the same goes for F1 TV viewers... we all believe that it should be open access to all and at no or little cost.
Perhaps we're looking at the situation the wrong way around. Maybe viewer numbers isn't the metric Liberty wants, same as Bernie. The parallel between the two is that hiking drug prices reduces the overall number of patients served but massively increases revenues. Some people will stop using the drugs, but those who still want / need it will continue to pay the increased fees. Scandalous and yet not illegal.
Tl;dr, it's not about overall viewer numbers, it's about increasing revenues.
kals wrote:Is there any way to measure numbers of viewers by streaming? I don’t think there is but I could be wrong
I could say something about for someone who works in the industry blah blah, but I won't, even the most basic servers can log how many individual views there has been of an item, whether it be a file, stream, picture etc. I'd imagine Liberty would use Akamhi (or however you spell it) for their streaming system same as WEC and IMSA so the data can be collected, yes.
I am very sorry if you find my posts long and boring, I like to type and often go off on a tangent.
If this is the case, you may click here to solve the problem, or alternatively here too.
If Liberty is going for revenue over viewership, that would be disastrous for the sport, especially the teams, if all F1 events went behind a paywall, team sponsors will abandon F1 as quickly as their contracts allow, cutting a large part of team budgets, which, in turn, will force teams to leave the sport. F1 doesn't have the popularity, especially, not right now, to pull people into paywalled channels like soccer/football has done. I, personally have no issue paying for F1, as long as it's reasonable and available on demand after the fact.
myownalias • The Englishman in Kansas • Twitter: @myownalias • Formula 1 Articles
myownalias wrote: ↑6 years ago
If Liberty is going for revenue over viewership, that would be disastrous for the sport, especially the teams, if all F1 events went behind a paywall, team sponsors will abandon F1 as quickly as their contracts allow, cutting a large part of team budgets, which, in turn, will force teams to leave the sport. F1 doesn't have the popularity, especially, not right now, to pull people into paywalled channels like soccer/football has done. I, personally have no issue paying for F1, as long as it's reasonable and available on demand after the fact.
It all depends on what sponsors find important and what audience they're trying to reach. Additionally, traditional sponsorship is largely a thing of the past. Higher revenues could mean additional revenue distribution for teams as well as more money for Liberty to invest back into the sport (something they've were doing in 2017).
myownalias wrote: ↑6 years ago
If Liberty is going for revenue over viewership, that would be disastrous for the sport, especially the teams, if all F1 events went behind a paywall, team sponsors will abandon F1 as quickly as their contracts allow, cutting a large part of team budgets, which, in turn, will force teams to leave the sport. F1 doesn't have the popularity, especially, not right now, to pull people into paywalled channels like soccer/football has done. I, personally have no issue paying for F1, as long as it's reasonable and available on demand after the fact.
It all depends on what sponsors find important and what audience they're trying to reach. Additionally, traditional sponsorship is largely a thing of the past. Higher revenues could mean additional revenue distribution for teams as well as more money for Liberty to invest back into the sport (something they've were doing in 2017).
Guess we'll find out in the next few years, what I would like to see happen is, for F1 to go the same way as the WWE, with it's streaming network, $10/mo, or even a season pass, for say $100, which includes all race weekends, and on demand access after the race, plus an archive of previous races going back through the years and indepth documentaries on how F1 works. If there has to be a paywall, I think a streaming media paywall is the direction to go, traditional TV media is a dying breed.
myownalias • The Englishman in Kansas • Twitter: @myownalias • Formula 1 Articles
myownalias wrote: ↑6 years ago
If Liberty is going for revenue over viewership, that would be disastrous for the sport, especially the teams, if all F1 events went behind a paywall, team sponsors will abandon F1 as quickly as their contracts allow, cutting a large part of team budgets, which, in turn, will force teams to leave the sport. F1 doesn't have the popularity, especially, not right now, to pull people into paywalled channels like soccer/football has done. I, personally have no issue paying for F1, as long as it's reasonable and available on demand after the fact.
It all depends on what sponsors find important and what audience they're trying to reach. Additionally, traditional sponsorship is largely a thing of the past. Higher revenues could mean additional revenue distribution for teams as well as more money for Liberty to invest back into the sport (something they've were doing in 2017).
Guess we'll find out in the next few years, what I would like to see happen is, for F1 to go the same way as the WWE, with it's streaming network, $10/mo, or even a season pass, for say $100, which includes all race weekends, and on demand access after the race, plus an archive of previous races going back through the years and indepth documentaries on how F1 works. If there has to be a paywall, I think a streaming media paywall is the direction to go, traditional TV media is a dying breed.
I also think that's the way it will go. It makes sense. The same is available for NHL, NBA, MLB, NFL, even MotoGP. Plus some (maybe all) offer additional content beyond the current races, including behind the scenes and historic content. That's very attractive at a reasonable rate. I subscribe to NHL already, for $150'ish per year it's good value for money.
To finish our point, let's remind ourselves that we know NBCSN refused a new deal because they didn't like the fact that Liberty would be offering a competing online product in the future.
A number of factors contributed to the loss, not least the absence of the German Grand Prix, then there was the loss of sponsors Allianz and UBS, neither of which Liberty has managed to find a replacement for.
The fewer eyeballs there are (in person at the track, or on TV), the less advertising you get. The teams have been pinched already on that front, maybe it's F1's turn.
Oscar Piastri in F1! Catch the fever! Vettel Hate Club. Life membership.
A number of factors contributed to the loss, not least the absence of the German Grand Prix, then there was the loss of sponsors Allianz and UBS, neither of which Liberty has managed to find a replacement for.
The fewer eyeballs there are (in person at the track, or on TV), the less advertising you get. The teams have been pinched already on that front, maybe it's F1's turn.
I won't dispute the facts because a 1% decline in revenues is a decline. In business terms though that's fairly acceptable. However 2017 revenues through to September cannot be attributed to Liberty because they assumed what CVC and Bernie had built. What Liberty did do in 2017 was increase spending on marketing and other activities to promote the sport, the net result of those spending increases meant team's received less revenues.
Now while we can agree that logically less eyes on the sport = less revenues, that may not actually be true.
kals wrote: ↑6 years ago
There's an interesting parallel between paywall TV viewership in F1 (or sports in general) and the pharmaceutical industry. We all believe that drugs should be affordable and be accessible to everyone regardless of an illness or ailment, the same goes for F1 TV viewers... we all believe that it should be open access to all and at no or little cost.
Perhaps we're looking at the situation the wrong way around. Maybe viewer numbers isn't the metric Liberty wants, same as Bernie. The parallel between the two is that hiking drug prices reduces the overall number of patients served but massively increases revenues. Some people will stop using the drugs, but those who still want / need it will continue to pay the increased fees. Scandalous and yet not illegal.
Sometimes less does equal more even if logic dictates otherwise.
I'm not putting it down to Liberty. I'm just saying it points to wider problems. Sponsorship issues go back to the GFC.
But since then audience numbers have plummeted, so while companies have recovered, they haven't come back or if they have, they have lower investment because it's not worth the return. And that will only get worse.
Will pay TV cover all the shortfall? Maybe in the short term, but in long term the sport's direction is screwed.
Oscar Piastri in F1! Catch the fever! Vettel Hate Club. Life membership.
