The argument from Sky I guess would be 'Buy Sky Sports with a single channel' = £18/month - that would be the cheapest way at the moment of getting the F1 channel = £162 for the 9 months - so there's no real incentive to beat that other than perhaps bumping up subscription numbers.
Problem is, it's not just £18/month - You've then got the base sky package you HAVE to take (Around £22) and then your TV License on top (£13/month). Considering I'm one of the growing many that doesn't watch normal TV, or have an interest in doing so; that works out at £53/month Just to watch about 6 hours of one channel a month! £8.83 per hour - that's triple the rate you'd pay to watch a film in most cinemas.
I really hope that Liberty Media are putting pressure on Sky to increase their viewing figures, as Liberty have done an amazing job with getting all the action on social media and really getting a lot more people interested in the sport. It just seems inaccessible to many without offers like the one NowTV offer. But, if that goes up to a similar "one-off payment of £230 (Based on last years price rise) most people won't see the value... Especially when you see the value you get out of paying Amazon or Netflix a much smaller fee for a lot more content
Personally, I think Liberty should cancel their distribution contracts around the world, acquire the Sky production and hosts and make F1 TV a global subscription business.
Bernie sold the rights to TV stations because back in the day there were no easy ways to distribute content on that scale, But tech has moved on and live steamed platforms are relatively easy to build. I take it that F1's instagram followers are just a percentage of what they have, but let's take those 8.7m for example and say they subscribe directly to F1 TV for £10/month... that's over £1bn/$1.3bn in yearly subscription revenue!
That trumps the $0.15bn Sky are paying them for the rights each year and it sounds like that's one of the biggest payers for the rights. F1 could then utilise the extra cashflow to put on more events, shows and races out-of-season to keep people subscribing all year (imagine a rally stage in December, open to all F1 drivers and filmed in the same way - I'd certainly keep subscribing) vs the constant race replays and short documentaries that are constantly repeated.
Dug around and they're already doing it in the US for $79:
Watch F1 on demand*
Just need to ditch Sky now
Apologies all for thread invasion, I do not watch F1, or much sport. I do follow Hearts who are hardly on TV, mainly because in general Scottish football has sh!t coverage compared to the EPL.
What really gets me is how Sky can offer their TV customers individual channels for £18 each or the full whack at £23 (albeit both with offers on). Source link below.
Whereas the idea of individual passes was mooted a couple years ago in a survey along with sport catch up. Both have come to nothing.
the idea of individual passes was mooted a couple years ago in a survey along with sport catch up. Both have come to nothing.
Individual channel passes are highly unlikely. There are already 4 sports passes and they seem to cause enough confusion. Multiply that by 5 and you end up with weird and wonderful combos.
The sports catch up is a glaring omission. A 7 day catch up of all live events along with 30 minute highlights as appropriate would be superb. Pretty much all the other programmes could be on demand. It could only be there for monthly subscribers to prevent day passes being used post weekend. Premier Sports has a 7 day catch up on basic subscription and for £2 extra a season catch up.
So, in the interest of making a solution which everyone is happy with what about offering a 'bundle of day passes' e.g. 20 day passes for £100 - I'd consider something like that - or a bundle of weekend passes for a bit more? Day/week/month already exist - can't be much more hassle to add a 48 hour one?
You can stockpile day passes on an account off the sticks, but otherwise this causes problems. You currently can’t have more than one day or week or month pass on the same account. So if there is a really good month offer like last year’s £9.99/month offer you would be forced to watch the day pass to get it. Worse still, if you had a week pass, you couldn’t take it up as it would not be available after watching for the week.
The week pass is effectively a 25/48/72/96/120 hour pass. The day pass is £10, the week pass £15 and the month pass £20. There aren’t any sensible price points inbetween. Golf tournaments take 4 days, Cricket matches 5 days, so the week covers it all.
... F1 only day pass at about a fiver that would be fairer
Fairer for just F1? I suspect that most people who but a one day pass do it because there is just one thing they want to watch as a one off. Might be they support a team that isn’t one of the so called big six, or like me want to watch a GAA game in the summer. Now sports passes seem to cause enough queries without making it fairer. Whatever fairer is. In fact with a few Grand Prix on Sky one as part of entertainment and one on channel 4, it’s pretty unfair for those who would like similar for their team and/or sport. Can’t imagine the boxing PPV will be very fair next weekend. £25 seems pretty unfair.
And it is totally unfair that I have to pay £10 for a streamed Orient away game with just one camera and ropey commentary . And even more totally unfair that I can’t even do that if they play on Saturday at 3pm.
The coverage of F1 on Sky is great, £10 for a live race, extensive coverage and over 100 cameras on the whole thing with some in the cars. And all on one devoted channel so you don’t get run overs that mean you miss the start of something or cut offs meaning you miss the end of something.