'T-lo' is crossdressing now? :confused: Say it ain't so! :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Printable View
'T-lo' is crossdressing now? :confused: Say it ain't so! :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Giacomo Rappaccini
How many Identities is that now? :cool:
No need to worry about Sky.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
The beauty is that Sky only need relatively few subscribers to make it worth their while.
Also there's the knock-on effect that if they more or less monopolise live-sport on TV there will be less competition on Saturday/Sunday afternoon.
Better stop hoping and start saving because those who want to see live top sports in future will have to pay
I find the build up and post race stuff on Sky rather dull with far too much filler to pass the time between vital adverts. Why does a pay service that robs you of so much money a month use so many advert breaks? Of course its for the money and is why they post record profits year in year out. Lazenby asks questions on behalf of casual viewers yet they haven't realised by now that casual viewers are not their audience. You could understand it when Jake did it on the Beeb because they were attracting channel hoppers and new fans perhaps with limited knowledge, hence the increase in viewer-ship post 2009. Sky offer a lot more in terms of time on air but in terms of content I have to disagree that they bring more to the viewer. Just my opinion of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
I think the really telling stat is when the races are on both channels live. Sky experience a drop of nearly a third! They claim to have expected this but I can't believe they would be happy to lose viewers when they claim to offer a better service. Seeing fans run to the opposition suggests they are not as attractive an an overall package IMO.
Will the sponsors who plug millions into the sport think its a 'beauty' if the teams are being paid more but their products are reaching less people though? If anything the sponsors rely on casual viewers who stay on the channel long enough to see Santander in the background before they flick over to BBC 2 for Countryfile on a Sunday. Unless you are a serious fan you are not going to scroll through the sports channels on Sky to stumble upon the F1 channel. The beauty of it being on FTA was that any serious fan can watch the channel and others not interested will watch it for a few minutes after accidentally turning the channel on etc etc. Bernie used to say we didn't need a British GP because the real revenue was made by the sheer amount of people watching at home, now its suddenly unimportant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalie.S
Sky simply can't compete with other services in terms of offering value for money. I get so much advertising through the post trying to tempt me with deals but I would have to pay over £60 a month to get what I get now on Talk Talk. I pay less than half that, but of course that doesn't come with the F1 channel. I can upgrade for 30 day periods for £30 but I don't think Sky offer a good enough experience to warrant the price. There's only so much 'Your home of F1' preview shows I can watch to be honest when races are not on. If it completely goes off FTA I will either find an illegal way of viewing it or find another form of motorsport to invest my interests in. If Sky were not bothered about my custom they wouldn't post me marketing waffle or ring me occasionally to try and get me to subscribe. Unfortunately I don't claim benefits and live in a council house with several children. If I did I'd be able to get the tax payer to help me out on this lol. They need to be realistic about pricing and then they will have a chance of monopolising British television. They are a long way off as it stands and its no wonder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalie.S
Just an FYI to all, Lewis Hamilton will be on Top Gear tonight :) Can't wait to see what he does with the reasonably priced car in the dry this time :)
Forgot to record it, I will iplayer it tomorrow lol.
Teams care about the bottom line, if the pay TV option is more profitable then they will simply opt for different, perhaps less paying, sponsors if the current ones are not satisfied. Also sponsors don't care if you see their logos live or in highlights.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
Also the demographic of people who pay to watch sports is quite interesting.
No point to advertise a Rolex to folk who even can't afford a few tenners a month to watch F1.
Sky does not have to compete, if you want to see everything F1 live, in full and in HD there's only Sky :)Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
Indeed tamb which is why the sponsors we see on the cars and at races today are more in line with the high street rather than the luxury brands of some years ago. Sponsors may not care if you see their brands live or on highlights, but they do care when a million less viewers overall are tuning in. That will always be a cause for concern by basic logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalie.S
If you look at the demographic of Sky customers in the UK who pay to watch sports, its more in-line with the middle to lower class. They aren't all the high earners at all. For some priorities are very different and you'd be surprised how many people come to citizens advice and think their TV subscription is as necessary as their gas bill. If you think by slapping F1 on pay TV is suddenly going to weed out the poorer demographic of viewer and appeal to Rolex worthy customers, then I can't share that enthusiasm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalie.S
I believe they do have to compete otherwise they wouldn't send out so many mailings around the country and cold call people into subscribing. Yesterday they were at a stand on the entrance to my local ASDA store stopping people as they go in and out. Everybody has heard of Sky in the UK so for a company that doesn't have to compete, you have to wonder why so much is spent on marketing? One thing Sky are doing very well at is attracting people to their broadband packages. TV subscriptions may have been down on the expected in 2012 but the broadband side of the company has enjoyed an increase. The downside of that is they don't have the infrastructure to deal with it. Hence why they offer unlimited packages at a premium and cap the standard packages unlike their rivals. Sky have squeezed their rivals when others have wanted to offer their TV packages so these rivals through BT are squeezing Sky for fibre optic and cable rental with their broadband. Sky do have the trump card over many because they offer sports, but it comes at a premium and many like myself don't think its worth the price they ask. I'm annoyed I can't watch the F1 fully any more like most, but in the long run it'll be their loss not mine. The drop off will be a concern in future no doubt like it was in the past. Sports don't survive without interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalie.S
The domestic market is pretty inconsequential for major sponsors. Even the EU is a nice to have. Sponsors like Boss, Jonny Walker etc are creaming their pants about China, Russia and India. Strangely, three of the most recent races ;)
A couple of hundred thousand turning off in the UK vs giving the teams more revenue from PPV is a small trade off for the emerging markets.
Follow the money...
Its not a couple of hundred thousand though is it? As it stands its a million down on 2011 with only a minority choosing to watch on Sky. The BBC is still the primary channel for F1 in the UK and you take it off there then the figures for viewers in the UK looks very bleak indeed. If it really has got to the point where F1 really only cares about selling its sponsors products in the East rather than what is going on on the track, then I think you lot are mugs for paying for it. We're pushing the sport away and there seems to be plenty of support whether they know it or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on