Group: rec.autos.sport.f1.moderated
Discussion of Formula One racing. (Moderated)
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
5 Reasons ITV Lost F1
5 Reasons ITV Lost F1
1. The mid-race ads;
Whilst Johnny Foreigner was always winning it didn't matter much, but
LH was the chance to see just how many UK viewers COULD be made to
tune in - and the answer was NOT enough - the ads being a BIG factor.
2. The "Boca Juniors" nature of the coverage compared to ALL other TV
sports;
ANYONE at Sky Sports saying a sport ON Sky Sports was "boring" during
the broadcasts of it or who kept slagging off the one superstar in it
would be out the door quicker than their Murdoch-shilling taking feet
could touch.
Yet ITV somehow revelled in making F1 the ONLY sport on TV where that
always occurred - WHY would viewers watch if YOU yourself broadcasting
it are forever saying it's boring?
(In Belgium last year the FIRST thing the ITV pit-reporter Ted Kravitz
said afterwards was how boring the race was).
Bernie's patience was only ever going to be so much.
(Compare ITV F1 to the Sky Sports fawning coverage of the RoC at
Wembley - once Bernie saw that surely it was curtains for ITV F1).
Even the BBC never universally called F1 boring when they had it
before.
(Imagine ITV after 1986 buying the entire back-catalogue of Boca
Juniors football games JUST so people could boo Maradonna more - sad
beyond belief).
3. ITV can't do sitcoms, can't do sport either;
For about 30 years ITV tried to con people it could do half-hour
sitcoms, eventually it abandoned the WHOLE idea (still the position)
but not until after endless rubbish attempts.
The BBC gleefully looked on - led by Michael Grade.
Michael Grade is NOW at ITV so KNOWS their are certain things it CAN'T
do but just tries to con that it can.
So OUT went F1 - forced out by the unconnable Grade.
4. Simon Cowell is Mr ITV now;
ITV is on the slide anyway and faces stark choices like this - spend
100 million on a sport watched by 5 million, or line 1000 unpaid
people up in front of Simon Cowell and whittle them down to one over
50 weeks with ITV coining the resulting huge phone-vote revenues.
F1 was always going to be 2nd best in that competition - it was the
weakest link, goodbye.
5. Lewis Hamilton - the Michael Portillo of F1;
Tory leadership races, ITV F1 coverage - a parallel universe.
The Tories eventually threw up David Cameron - but via Major, Hague,
IDS and Howard.
ITV's F1 editorial policy over the years;
Support Montoya,
no support Jacques Villeneuve instead,
no H-HF,
no Hakkinen,
no the other Schumacher instead of all those,
no Kimi (except when he's trying to beat one of ours)
..... ok D.C. definitely since he's British - final answer
... no hold on a minute Button instead of him
....... no that Spanish one since he's beating that nasty Schumacher
now and Button isn't winning again
... no everyone hate that Spanish one now instead of everything we've
ever told you before ever.
i.e. support ANYONE but the one superstar in it no matter how hopeless
those others are or how shortlived their success.
It's hard to explain exactly but people get stuck in "headlights"
about what the correct path is and how to get there - ITV F1 is
forever stuck in the Amazon it looks like.
In fact it's like Carry On Up The Jungle ("Forget ALL those other ones
from before - now we have a REAL one to support").
Except that won't last long with ITV about - since it NEVER does.
i.e.
David Cameron is about 500 points in the lead in polls but SOME in the
Tory Party are STILL ranting at him saying they want IDS back etc even
though he used to be about 500 points behind.
Bernie sees ITV eventually doing THAT to Lewis Hamilton (and Kimi)
having done it to MS and FA etc - and knows the BBC now won't IF he
makes that a condition of giving it to them, now knowing TV companies
can be made to have fawning unquestioning coverage of motorsport
nowadays (see Sky's RoC coverage above).
1. The mid-race ads;
Whilst Johnny Foreigner was always winning it didn't matter much, but
LH was the chance to see just how many UK viewers COULD be made to
tune in - and the answer was NOT enough - the ads being a BIG factor.
2. The "Boca Juniors" nature of the coverage compared to ALL other TV
sports;
ANYONE at Sky Sports saying a sport ON Sky Sports was "boring" during
the broadcasts of it or who kept slagging off the one superstar in it
would be out the door quicker than their Murdoch-shilling taking feet
could touch.
Yet ITV somehow revelled in making F1 the ONLY sport on TV where that
always occurred - WHY would viewers watch if YOU yourself broadcasting
it are forever saying it's boring?
(In Belgium last year the FIRST thing the ITV pit-reporter Ted Kravitz
said afterwards was how boring the race was).
Bernie's patience was only ever going to be so much.
(Compare ITV F1 to the Sky Sports fawning coverage of the RoC at
Wembley - once Bernie saw that surely it was curtains for ITV F1).
Even the BBC never universally called F1 boring when they had it
before.
(Imagine ITV after 1986 buying the entire back-catalogue of Boca
Juniors football games JUST so people could boo Maradonna more - sad
beyond belief).
3. ITV can't do sitcoms, can't do sport either;
For about 30 years ITV tried to con people it could do half-hour
sitcoms, eventually it abandoned the WHOLE idea (still the position)
but not until after endless rubbish attempts.
The BBC gleefully looked on - led by Michael Grade.
Michael Grade is NOW at ITV so KNOWS their are certain things it CAN'T
do but just tries to con that it can.
So OUT went F1 - forced out by the unconnable Grade.
4. Simon Cowell is Mr ITV now;
ITV is on the slide anyway and faces stark choices like this - spend
100 million on a sport watched by 5 million, or line 1000 unpaid
people up in front of Simon Cowell and whittle them down to one over
50 weeks with ITV coining the resulting huge phone-vote revenues.
F1 was always going to be 2nd best in that competition - it was the
weakest link, goodbye.
5. Lewis Hamilton - the Michael Portillo of F1;
Tory leadership races, ITV F1 coverage - a parallel universe.
The Tories eventually threw up David Cameron - but via Major, Hague,
IDS and Howard.
ITV's F1 editorial policy over the years;
Support Montoya,
no support Jacques Villeneuve instead,
no H-HF,
no Hakkinen,
no the other Schumacher instead of all those,
no Kimi (except when he's trying to beat one of ours)
..... ok D.C. definitely since he's British - final answer
... no hold on a minute Button instead of him
....... no that Spanish one since he's beating that nasty Schumacher
now and Button isn't winning again
... no everyone hate that Spanish one now instead of everything we've
ever told you before ever.
i.e. support ANYONE but the one superstar in it no matter how hopeless
those others are or how shortlived their success.
It's hard to explain exactly but people get stuck in "headlights"
about what the correct path is and how to get there - ITV F1 is
forever stuck in the Amazon it looks like.
In fact it's like Carry On Up The Jungle ("Forget ALL those other ones
from before - now we have a REAL one to support").
Except that won't last long with ITV about - since it NEVER does.
i.e.
David Cameron is about 500 points in the lead in polls but SOME in the
Tory Party are STILL ranting at him saying they want IDS back etc even
though he used to be about 500 points behind.
Bernie sees ITV eventually doing THAT to Lewis Hamilton (and Kimi)
having done it to MS and FA etc - and knows the BBC now won't IF he
makes that a condition of giving it to them, now knowing TV companies
can be made to have fawning unquestioning coverage of motorsport
nowadays (see Sky's RoC coverage above).
Re: 5 Reasons ITV Lost F1
gobrien wrote:
This is Bernie we are talking about.
He does not care how many people watch, or how much the TV company makes
or loses - all he cares about it how much F1, or do I mean Bernie, makes.
After all most viewers have to put up with adverts.
So the real 5 reasons are
1 BBC bid more
2 BBC bid more
3 ITV could not be bothered to bid
4 BBC said it would drop F1 from R5 unless it won the TV bid
5 BBC were prepared to pay for fully interactive coverage to boost their
web site.
Marcus
gobrien wrote:
This is Bernie we are talking about.
He does not care how many people watch, or how much the TV company makes
or loses - all he cares about it how much F1, or do I mean Bernie, makes.
After all most viewers have to put up with adverts.
So the real 5 reasons are
1 BBC bid more
2 BBC bid more
3 ITV could not be bothered to bid
4 BBC said it would drop F1 from R5 unless it won the TV bid
5 BBC were prepared to pay for fully interactive coverage to boost their
web site.
Marcus
Re: 5 Reasons ITV Lost F1
"Marcus Streets" <mjgs@eightflames.org> wrote:
> gobrien wrote:
>
> This is Bernie we are talking about.
>
> He does not care how many people watch, or how much the TV company makes
> or loses - all he cares about it how much F1, or do I mean Bernie, makes.
>
> After all most viewers have to put up with adverts.
>
> So the real 5 reasons are
>
> 1 BBC bid more
> 2 BBC bid more
> 3 ITV could not be bothered to bid
> 4 BBC said it would drop F1 from R5 unless it won the TV bid
> 5 BBC were prepared to pay for fully interactive coverage to boost their
> web site.
The real reason is that ITV pulled the plug because they cannot justify
spending the money. I believe they still had a contract for 2009-10. It
wasn't due for renegotiation yet.
"Marcus Streets" <mjgs@eightflames.org> wrote:
> gobrien wrote:
>
> This is Bernie we are talking about.
>
> He does not care how many people watch, or how much the TV company makes
> or loses - all he cares about it how much F1, or do I mean Bernie, makes.
>
> After all most viewers have to put up with adverts.
>
> So the real 5 reasons are
>
> 1 BBC bid more
> 2 BBC bid more
> 3 ITV could not be bothered to bid
> 4 BBC said it would drop F1 from R5 unless it won the TV bid
> 5 BBC were prepared to pay for fully interactive coverage to boost their
> web site.
The real reason is that ITV pulled the plug because they cannot justify
spending the money. I believe they still had a contract for 2009-10. It
wasn't due for renegotiation yet.
Re: 5 Reasons ITV Lost F1
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:25:05 +0000, "Brian Lawrence"
<Brian_W_LawrenceREMTHIS@msn,com > wrote:
>"Marcus Streets" <mjgs@eightflames.org> wrote:
>The real reason is that ITV pulled the plug because they cannot justify
>spending the money. I believe they still had a contract for 2009-10. It
>wasn't due for renegotiation yet.
Yup, with more and more morning races, they can't command a big enough
advertising rate card to justify the costs of bidding for F1, plus
with more and more night races being added to the calendar it means
less money per race, and more races where they have to do a full
re-run not just a highlights.
--
Stephen M Baines
http :// www .kitschcamppalace.org.uk
http :// www .alledal.nu
http :// www .alledal.se
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:25:05 +0000, "Brian Lawrence"
<Brian_W_LawrenceREMTHIS@msn,com > wrote:
>"Marcus Streets" <mjgs@eightflames.org> wrote:
>The real reason is that ITV pulled the plug because they cannot justify
>spending the money. I believe they still had a contract for 2009-10. It
>wasn't due for renegotiation yet.
Yup, with more and more morning races, they can't command a big enough
advertising rate card to justify the costs of bidding for F1, plus
with more and more night races being added to the calendar it means
less money per race, and more races where they have to do a full
re-run not just a highlights.
--
Stephen M Baines
http :// www .kitschcamppalace.org.uk
http :// www .alledal.nu
http :// www .alledal.se
Re: 5 Reasons ITV Lost F1
On Mar 21, 7:00 pm, Stephen M Baines
<use...@localhost.kitschcamppalace.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:25:05 +0000, "Brian Lawrence"
>
> <Brian W LawrenceREMT...@msn,com > wrote:
> >"Marcus Streets" <m...@eightflames.org> wrote:
> >The real reason is that ITV pulled the plug because they cannot justify
> >spending the money. I believe they still had a contract for 2009-10. It
> >wasn't due for renegotiation yet.
>
> Yup, with more and more morning races, they can't command a big enough
> advertising rate card to justify the costs of bidding for F1, plus
> with more and more night races being added to the calendar it means
> less money per race, and more races where they have to do a full
> re-run not just a highlights.
> --
> Stephen M Baines http :// www .kitschcamppalace.org.uk http :// www .alledal.nu http :// www .alledal.se
Hi Stephen,
I'm not sure that is correct as ITV's rate for F1 was the most
expensive rate for any sport per minute. Add minutes and you add
dollars and as they pay per annum for the rights not per minute so the
more GP's the more revenue. I'd reckon they'd be keen for more GP's. I
do know other networks are very keen to compete for F1 so maybe they
are not selling it well, especially considering the *huge* jump in
British viewers. I can only assume they are looking for low cost low
return but higher mark up content probably content they can tag to
existing contracts which would attract a slightly lower advert fee
than the main event but have a larger mark up. (i.e. a football panel
show after a match). Whatever it does seem a strange move as F1
audiences are huge in anybodies language.
beers,
build
On Mar 21, 7:00 pm, Stephen M Baines
<use...@localhost.kitschcamppalace.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:25:05 +0000, "Brian Lawrence"
>
> <Brian W LawrenceREMT...@msn,com > wrote:
> >"Marcus Streets" <m...@eightflames.org> wrote:
> >The real reason is that ITV pulled the plug because they cannot justify
> >spending the money. I believe they still had a contract for 2009-10. It
> >wasn't due for renegotiation yet.
>
> Yup, with more and more morning races, they can't command a big enough
> advertising rate card to justify the costs of bidding for F1, plus
> with more and more night races being added to the calendar it means
> less money per race, and more races where they have to do a full
> re-run not just a highlights.
> --
> Stephen M Baines http :// www .kitschcamppalace.org.uk http :// www .alledal.nu http :// www .alledal.se
Hi Stephen,
I'm not sure that is correct as ITV's rate for F1 was the most
expensive rate for any sport per minute. Add minutes and you add
dollars and as they pay per annum for the rights not per minute so the
more GP's the more revenue. I'd reckon they'd be keen for more GP's. I
do know other networks are very keen to compete for F1 so maybe they
are not selling it well, especially considering the *huge* jump in
British viewers. I can only assume they are looking for low cost low
return but higher mark up content probably content they can tag to
existing contracts which would attract a slightly lower advert fee
than the main event but have a larger mark up. (i.e. a football panel
show after a match). Whatever it does seem a strange move as F1
audiences are huge in anybodies language.
beers,
build
Re: 5 Reasons ITV Lost F1
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:10:05 +0000, build <buildy@gmail,com > wrote:
>Hi Stephen,
>I'm not sure that is correct as ITV's rate for F1 was the most
>expensive rate for any sport per minute. Add minutes and you add
>dollars and as they pay per annum for the rights not per minute so the
>more GP's the more revenue.
But they are also banded, and 3-4 million viewers split over two
showings is more expensive for ITV than 4 million in a single showing,
as they'd get for football inside Europe. As far as ITV is concerned,
a load of the races are now 1-2 million viewers and twice a day!
That's too expensive. The ad revenue is halved per hour at least,
before banding. A Bond film or whatever is cheaper to screen for a
larger audience in the slot.
>I'd reckon they'd be keen for more GP's. I
>do know other networks are very keen to compete for F1 so maybe they
>are not selling it well, especially considering the *huge* jump in
>British viewers.
ITV has a huge problem, though, due to the restrictions put on them by
the Office of Fair Traiding when Granada and Carlton were merged to
form ITV. They were deemed to have too large a share of the
advertising market, and so certain restrictions were made. Part of
which is that advertising rates are booked up to a year in advance, so
if ratings go up, ITV can't charge any more for them, yet they have to
reduce them if they go down. It's a bizarre situation for them -
advertising slots for this year were sold to the ad agencies last
summer.
>I can only assume they are looking for low cost low
>return but higher mark up content probably content they can tag to
>existing contracts which would attract a slightly lower advert fee
>than the main event but have a larger mark up. (i.e. a football panel
>show after a match). Whatever it does seem a strange move as F1
>audiences are huge in anybodies language.
But not audiences they can easily sell to. The quality of F1 audiences
is higher than that of football, but football has lots of available
advertisers. With a possible recession around the corner, the
commercial stations are wary of being able to sell "expensive" slots.
--
Stephen M Baines
http :// www .alledal.nu
http :// www .alledal.se
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:10:05 +0000, build <buildy@gmail,com > wrote:
>Hi Stephen,
>I'm not sure that is correct as ITV's rate for F1 was the most
>expensive rate for any sport per minute. Add minutes and you add
>dollars and as they pay per annum for the rights not per minute so the
>more GP's the more revenue.
But they are also banded, and 3-4 million viewers split over two
showings is more expensive for ITV than 4 million in a single showing,
as they'd get for football inside Europe. As far as ITV is concerned,
a load of the races are now 1-2 million viewers and twice a day!
That's too expensive. The ad revenue is halved per hour at least,
before banding. A Bond film or whatever is cheaper to screen for a
larger audience in the slot.
>I'd reckon they'd be keen for more GP's. I
>do know other networks are very keen to compete for F1 so maybe they
>are not selling it well, especially considering the *huge* jump in
>British viewers.
ITV has a huge problem, though, due to the restrictions put on them by
the Office of Fair Traiding when Granada and Carlton were merged to
form ITV. They were deemed to have too large a share of the
advertising market, and so certain restrictions were made. Part of
which is that advertising rates are booked up to a year in advance, so
if ratings go up, ITV can't charge any more for them, yet they have to
reduce them if they go down. It's a bizarre situation for them -
advertising slots for this year were sold to the ad agencies last
summer.
>I can only assume they are looking for low cost low
>return but higher mark up content probably content they can tag to
>existing contracts which would attract a slightly lower advert fee
>than the main event but have a larger mark up. (i.e. a football panel
>show after a match). Whatever it does seem a strange move as F1
>audiences are huge in anybodies language.
But not audiences they can easily sell to. The quality of F1 audiences
is higher than that of football, but football has lots of available
advertisers. With a possible recession around the corner, the
commercial stations are wary of being able to sell "expensive" slots.
--
Stephen M Baines
http :// www .alledal.nu
http :// www .alledal.se
Re: 5 Reasons ITV Lost F1
Stephen M Baines wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:10:05 +0000, build <buildy@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> But not audiences they can easily sell to. The quality of F1 audiences
> is higher than that of football, but football has lots of available
> advertisers. With a possible recession around the corner, the
> commercial stations are wary of being able to sell "expensive" slots.
What do you mean by the "quality of F1 audiences"? I suspect that F1 has
quite a high ABC1 share, not an advertiser's dream. ABs don't buy
anything much and C1s aren't known for responding to advertising.
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 080324-0, 24/03/2008
Tested on: 3/24/2008 18:15:32
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2008 ALWIL Software.
http :// www .avast,com
Stephen M Baines wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:10:05 +0000, build <buildy@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> But not audiences they can easily sell to. The quality of F1 audiences
> is higher than that of football, but football has lots of available
> advertisers. With a possible recession around the corner, the
> commercial stations are wary of being able to sell "expensive" slots.
What do you mean by the "quality of F1 audiences"? I suspect that F1 has
quite a high ABC1 share, not an advertiser's dream. ABs don't buy
anything much and C1s aren't known for responding to advertising.
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 080324-0, 24/03/2008
Tested on: 3/24/2008 18:15:32
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2008 ALWIL Software.
http :// www .avast,com
Re: 5 Reasons ITV Lost F1
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:35:04 +0000, mower man <nospam@f2s,com > wrote:
>Stephen M Baines wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:10:05 +0000, build <buildy@gmail,com > wrote:
>
>>
>> But not audiences they can easily sell to. The quality of F1 audiences
>> is higher than that of football, but football has lots of available
>> advertisers. With a possible recession around the corner, the
>> commercial stations are wary of being able to sell "expensive" slots.
>
>What do you mean by the "quality of F1 audiences"? I suspect that F1 has
>quite a high ABC1 share, not an advertiser's dream. ABs don't buy
>anything much and C1s aren't known for responding to advertising.
Exactly. They are high-status people, but not what advertisers are
able to sell to. In more reports today it said that ITV were unable to
sell the "sponsored by" slot for anything near to a good price.
--
Stephen M Baines
http :// www .kitschcamppalace.org.uk
http :// www .alledal.nu
http :// www .alledal.se
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:35:04 +0000, mower man <nospam@f2s,com > wrote:
>Stephen M Baines wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:10:05 +0000, build <buildy@gmail,com > wrote:
>
>>
>> But not audiences they can easily sell to. The quality of F1 audiences
>> is higher than that of football, but football has lots of available
>> advertisers. With a possible recession around the corner, the
>> commercial stations are wary of being able to sell "expensive" slots.
>
>What do you mean by the "quality of F1 audiences"? I suspect that F1 has
>quite a high ABC1 share, not an advertiser's dream. ABs don't buy
>anything much and C1s aren't known for responding to advertising.
Exactly. They are high-status people, but not what advertisers are
able to sell to. In more reports today it said that ITV were unable to
sell the "sponsored by" slot for anything near to a good price.
--
Stephen M Baines
http :// www .kitschcamppalace.org.uk
http :// www .alledal.nu
http :// www .alledal.se
Re: 5 Reasons ITV Lost F1
"Stephen M Baines" <usenet@localhost.kitschcamppalace.org.uk> wrote in
message news:h66hu3lks8d6q29p3744oknogb3tcqm1b0@4ax,com ...
> Exactly. They are high-status people, but not what advertisers are
> able to sell to. In more reports today it said that ITV were unable to
> sell the "sponsored by" slot for anything near to a good price.
Ah, so that's why we get Sony and _Can I Play With Madness_
Paul
"Stephen M Baines" <usenet@localhost.kitschcamppalace.org.uk> wrote in
message news:h66hu3lks8d6q29p3744oknogb3tcqm1b0@4ax,com ...
> Exactly. They are high-status people, but not what advertisers are
> able to sell to. In more reports today it said that ITV were unable to
> sell the "sponsored by" slot for anything near to a good price.
Ah, so that's why we get Sony and _Can I Play With Madness_
Paul
Re: 5 Reasons ITV Lost F1
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:45:15 +0000, "Paul Ian Harman"
<chatterbox@doctorwhowebguide,net > wrote:
>"Stephen M Baines" <usenet@localhost.kitschcamppalace.org.uk> wrote in
>message news:h66hu3lks8d6q29p3744oknogb3tcqm1b0@4ax,com ...
>> Exactly. They are high-status people, but not what advertisers are
>> able to sell to. In more reports today it said that ITV were unable to
>> sell the "sponsored by" slot for anything near to a good price.
>
>
>Ah, so that's why we get Sony and _Can I Play With Madness_
And why The Telegraph managed it a couple of years ago. It ended up
bargain basement, and Sony snapped it up at the last minute.
--
Stephen M Baines
http :// www .kitschcamppalace.org.uk
http :// www .alledal.nu
http :// www .alledal.se
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:45:15 +0000, "Paul Ian Harman"
<chatterbox@doctorwhowebguide,net > wrote:
>"Stephen M Baines" <usenet@localhost.kitschcamppalace.org.uk> wrote in
>message news:h66hu3lks8d6q29p3744oknogb3tcqm1b0@4ax,com ...
>> Exactly. They are high-status people, but not what advertisers are
>> able to sell to. In more reports today it said that ITV were unable to
>> sell the "sponsored by" slot for anything near to a good price.
>
>
>Ah, so that's why we get Sony and _Can I Play With Madness_
And why The Telegraph managed it a couple of years ago. It ended up
bargain basement, and Sony snapped it up at the last minute.
--
Stephen M Baines
http :// www .kitschcamppalace.org.uk
http :// www .alledal.nu
http :// www .alledal.se
