F1 TV

F1 TV

ITV in the UK pays @US$60M for the right to telecast all the F1 races.
They get @3.5M viewers, but Brazil in 2007 attracted @10.5M viewers
(wow).
That made that telecast the most watched program in 7 years and earnt
them a woping US$10M in revenue.
They recover that $60M quite easily with US$100k per ad plus naming
rights of US$10M.

Compare the US$60M for F1 to Ruby US$80M, or Cricket US$100M, or
Soccer US$1.3B and it's bloody cheap. I'd say Hamilton will force up
the cost considerably at the next negotiations.

btw, how long is one ad during the telecast?
Do the ads run for about 4 mins? (I'd guess at that and I know it's
quite long and annoying).

beers,
build

Re: F1 TV

"build" <buildy@gmail,com > wrote:

> btw, how long is one ad during the telecast?
> Do the ads run for about 4 mins? (I'd guess at that and I know it's
> quite long and annoying).

UK/ITV 1 ad breaks DURING the race last around 2m 20s. During pre- and
post-race segments they can be longer (or sometimes shorter). Normally
there are five breaks during the race (~11m 40s), plus two before the
start and two after the flag.

Re: F1 TV

"Brian Lawrence" <Brian_W_LawrenceREMTHIS@msn,com > wrote in
news:612hvpF1s9lnjU1@mid.individual,net :

> "build" <buildy@gmail,com > wrote:
>
>> btw, how long is one ad during the telecast?
>> Do the ads run for about 4 mins? (I'd guess at that and I know it's
>> quite long and annoying).
>
> UK/ITV 1 ad breaks DURING the race last around 2m 20s. During pre- and
> post-race segments they can be longer (or sometimes shorter). Normally
> there are five breaks during the race (~11m 40s), plus two before the
> start and two after the flag.
>
Geez, you people get it easy: The US broadcast they have two minutes of
adds and then 8-10 of the race. And it's that way for the whole broadcast
That's why I watch the Canadian broadcast whenever possible. They just don't
carry everything like SPEED does - no practices on the Canadian.

Re: F1 TV

build wrote:
> ITV in the UK pays @US$60M for the right to telecast all the F1 races.
> They get @3.5M viewers, but Brazil in 2007 attracted @10.5M viewers
> (wow).
> That made that telecast the most watched program in 7 years and earnt
> them a woping US$10M in revenue.
> They recover that $60M quite easily with US$100k per ad plus naming
> rights of US$10M.
>
> Compare the US$60M for F1 to Ruby US$80M, or Cricket US$100M, or
> Soccer US$1.3B and it's bloody cheap. I'd say Hamilton will force up
> the cost considerably at the next negotiations.

How did you get the figures for rugby and cricket? Per hour, I reckon
that probably makes F1 quite expensive. They provide probably 3 to 3.5
hours every race weekend, 17-19 races per season, whereas rugby provides
lots of games every weekend from october through to april, plus
internationals - and football has a far larger audience than rugby.
Remember that to ITV, Bernie is selling advertising space - if they
can't make money they won't pay the price. And if Bernie wants a big
audience in the UK he'll have to sell it to one of the terrestrial channels.

--
Phil

http :// www .flickr,com /photos/tmc1979/

Re: F1 TV

On Feb 9, 2:15 am, Phil Newnham <pnewn...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> build wrote:
> > ITV in the UK pays @US$60M for the right to telecast all the F1 races.
> > They get @3.5M viewers, but Brazil in 2007 attracted @10.5M viewers
> > (wow).
> > That made that telecast the most watched program in 7 years and earnt
> > them a woping US$10M in revenue.
> > They recover that $60M quite easily with US$100k per ad plus naming
> > rights of US$10M.
>
> > Compare the US$60M for F1 to Ruby US$80M, or Cricket US$100M, or
> > Soccer US$1.3B and it's bloody cheap. I'd say Hamilton will force up
> > the cost considerably at the next negotiations.
>
> How did you get the figures for rugby and cricket? Per hour, I reckon
> that probably makes F1 quite expensive. They provide probably 3 to 3.5
> hours every race weekend, 17-19 races per season, whereas rugby provides
> lots of games every weekend from october through to april, plus
> internationals - and football has a far larger audience than rugby.
> Remember that to ITV, Bernie is selling advertising space - if they
> can't make money they won't pay the price. And if Bernie wants a big
> audience in the UK he'll have to sell it to one of the terrestrial channels.
>
> --
> Phil
>
> http :// www .flickr,com /photos/tmc1979/

Phil,
The important thing is viewers not hours. OK more hours mean more
viewers but then the advertiser also needs more ads, etc, etc. F1 is
still clearly the most viewed sport in the world and from memory in UK
too. I was mainly pointing out the huge sums of money involved and
that advertisers see fit to spend that much to get to F1 viewers.

btw, the Ruby, Cricket and Soccer are local stuff only i.e. Premier
League.

Brian,
Again thanks for the info but I wanted to know how many slots are in
an ad break? As a slot is worth US$100k. I'd guess they are 20 or 30
second slots?

tia
build

Re: F1 TV

"build" <buildy@gmail,com > wrote:

> Brian,
> Again thanks for the info but I wanted to know how many slots are in
> an ad break? As a slot is worth US$100k. I'd guess they are 20 or 30
> second slots?

They vary from 15s to 30+ I'd guess, probably about 4 or 5 per break.
It seems to me that the same ones are repeated several times during a
broadcast, but it also depends on the time of day. Early morning
(Australia, Malaysia, Japan, China) is normally a lot cheaper than the
more usual Sunday afternoon slot. The occasional Sunday eve (Brazil)
is more expensive.

There seem to be few ads targeted at the F1 audience but there are
one or two. The programs are also sponsored (Honda most recently) and
the first/last few seconds of each break is used by the identifying
ads.

Re: F1 TV

build wrote:
> Phil,
> The important thing is viewers not hours. OK more hours mean more
> viewers but then the advertiser also needs more ads, etc, etc. F1 is
> still clearly the most viewed sport in the world and from memory in UK
> too. I was mainly pointing out the huge sums of money involved and
> that advertisers see fit to spend that much to get to F1 viewers.

Ok, sure, but even then F1 loses out. For example, Coronation Street
regularly pulls audiences of around 11m viewers for half an hour, which
is more than F1 ever gets. Match of the Day gets 5-6m viewers every
Saturday night (but of course, no ads at all). Last week, Grand Designs
on Wednesday night pulled over 4m viewers - more than F1s average
audience according to your numbers. When they say that F1 is the most
viewed sport in the world, by the way, they include the number of people
who saw a 30s clip on the news the day after the race - many of whom
have no interest in F1.

Football is by far the most viewed sport in the UK by that measure -
around a million people watched each of the two Carling Cup games and
one FA cup game on Sky Sports 1 this week, and they will watch game
after game after game this season, giving Sky plenty of chances to sell
advertising space over and over and over. That's what I mean about time
- you can only sell to those 1m or so people but you can sell to them 3
times a week for the duration of the football season, as opposed to
around 18 times per year for F1.

> btw, the Ruby, Cricket and Soccer are local stuff only i.e. Premier
> League.

Ok, then you should bear in mind that not only are the people who watch
those sports watching ads, they are also paying what amount to quite
large subscription fees - I know a number of people who pay 30 quid a
month to Sky, compared to 11 quid for the TV license that not only pays
for all the BBC's TV channels but also national and local radio
stations. Their higher buying power allows them to speculate but narrows
the audience for the sport, and Bernie doesn't just want money, he wants
to win the popularity stakes too.

If F1 went to Sky for a vast amount of money, something would take its
place on ITV on a Sunday afternoon - MotoGP, or ALMS, or something else
that isn't motorsport at all, and the non-serious fans would stop
watching. It simply doesn't inspire the fanaticism that football does in
enough people to make it worth Sky's while in the long term, and the
risk would be that people would prefer what replaces it and Sky wouldn't
want to renew their subscription at a price Bernie would be happy with.

--
Phil

http :// www .flickr,com /photos/tmc1979/