A few years ago, in New Zealand, a "sports" channel won the rights to broadcast New Zealand cricket, but then the company filed for bankruptcy, one of the problems was that getting the rights, on the hope of selling subscriptions did not work, TVNZ and other local broadcasters could not afford the rights from Sky New Zealand.. The problem is the costs of obtaining rights means only a very few broadcasters can afford to buy, but to buy means increasing subscriptions, and this forces subscribers to either want to pay or leave, and once they leave, it is nigh impossible to get them back...
So the whole system is on the verge of collapse, at some point, the bubble will burst, something will have to happen, who knows in what form, but the move from FTA [free to air] public broadcasters, BBC, SABC here in South Africa, and other local national broadcasters, means fewer viewers per event..
So the rights owner, FOM, have not made it easy.. I would pay R30, and it has to be fair in all countries, to pay $100 is more than the subscription for a month to the local private network here, DSTV, for the premium channel, to pay $5 per Sunday makes sense for local South African viewers, the US would maybe afford a bit more than $5, even $5 is steep locally..
But here is the thing that perplexes me... Sky and other broadcasters, exist to broadcast the event live, in real time, now... So if you delay broadcast 2 hours, for Free to Air, but the time the Free to Air goes live, the event itself has lost all value to Sky, to FOM, to the FIA, it is like you go to a restaurant, you pay for a meal, it is served, once you have had your meal, leftovers are usually thrown away, but to the homeless, someone hungry, a half meal, cold, is better, and the restaurant does not loose any thing from the sharing.. A bit of goodwill gained..
So that is what perplexes me, Sky for example, buys the rights for say $10 000 a weekend, has say for example 10 000 viewers, so it costs $1 per viewer.. Why not sell the rights to BBC for say 30c, on the understanding that the BBC delays by 2 hours.. Both benefit, and Sky make a profit... Keeps the subscription rates affordable...
What everyone and the family budgie has lost sight of, F1 is about branding, it is about getting as many people to see the names of the brands, which is why all circuits, have branding along the entire track, from airlines, to pot and pans, to oil, to back in the day, coffin nails, cars have branding, sponsors want as many people to see..
If you have say in the UK, only 10 000 [as example] you can only charge x for ad rates etc, but if you can prove that on a Sunday between 2pm and 7pm, you have 25 000 watching, then ad rates can go up... Win all round..
Not sure if the brains in F1 business are all that smart, I seem to get the impression, they cannot see the wood for the trees, and keep wondering why they have bruised shins from walking into trees..
F1 was from day one all about marketing, selling tat on Monday, oil, gloves, tyres, petrol, car brands, technology, some block survives a season, wins, and spends the next few months flogging everything from toothpaste to headache tablets, to fags and booze.. Rinse repeat..
So if you limit viewership to private only networks, this affects the whole system, F1 to karts.. Everyone looses.. The whole Andretti debacle, why? You have 3 events, maybe 4 US events, if you alternate Spa and Zandvoort, you want a 30 car grid, like F2/F3..
But the few in the system, don't want to share.. A problem.. tail wagging the dog here? Who owns F1, Toto, Horner, or???
A crash of the system will happen, the current system cannot be sustained.. Mark my words, or not, really.. I love F1, a huge passion, and I miss the days of real racing.. The system is broken... Not sure anyone wants to fix it..
