bbc/sky conversations

[beelsebob]

F1 was never free to watch in the UK. We still all had to pay a license fee to get the BBC feed.

And now you have to pay a license fee, plus a sky subscription. No one claimed it was free, only that it's not bloody expensive.

I've watched both this year, and I pretty quickly realised that the BBC coverage is terrible compared to Sky's. You just needed to watch the Red Button "forum" at Silverstone to see this: a terrible live stage show where proper race reflection should've been.

I completely disagree about the quality. While the BBC may spend a decent amount of time acting like jackasses, at least they're informative jackasses. The sky presenters by comparison, are just uninformed, and boring.

The coverage is very similar in style to what BBC do, yes. But the way I see it is that they took everything that made the BBC coverage so much better than ITV's (the style, the ability to watch FP with commentary, and some of the personnel) and left out everything that made it rubbish (ie, Eddie Jordan, DC, and a sense of toning down to pander to casual fans).

Eddie and DC added something extremely important – they present the extremes of opposing viewpoints, and stimulate informed discussion. I see no issue with being entertaining at the same time, as long as you're informative – which the BBC is, much more so than Sky.

[FoxHound]

The sky presenters by comparison, are just uninformed, and boring.

Soulless and paid to be there I thought. They didnt have any real love for what they where talking about. However they did play a masterstroke in getting Anthony Davidson, him and Brundle save it from being mediocre.

[beelsebob]

The sky presenters by comparison, are just uninformed, and boring.

Soulless and paid to be there I thought. They didnt have any real love for what they where talking about. However they did play a masterstroke in getting Anthony Davidson, him and Brundle save it from being mediocre.

Agreed, Ant Davidson, Brundle, and Kravits are the 3 good things about the Sky coverage. Unfortunately, all but Ant Davidson were part of the old BBC coverage, and DC + EJ combined added much more.

[GrizzleBoy]

For all the raving I did about Sky F1 on the previous page, Lazenby kills my F1 boner lol.

And Georgie just looks "wrong" to me......something about the shape of her body, her head and the way her lipstick colour choice makes it look like she has no mouth just looks wrong......oh, and she knows zip about F1. Her rehearsed lines with Ant are painful.

[astracrazy]

To give her credit she is getting better. She was clueless at the start. She'll be better next season. Sky seem to match up little and large. Ted towers over her like Crofty over Ant. Does make me laugh.

I enjoy the F1 show, one of the best things about the F1 coverage.

Brundle, Ant and Ted are major for Sky. Herbert is good as well, i'd like to seem him alongside Eddie Jordan (replacing Damon Hill. He always looks so awkward)

the fact the support races are all on the F1 channel is good too. You get some cracking races there

I do wish sky at the end of the races would do something like the forum, the sort of sit down and relax after the grand prix. They sort of don't know where to go after.

[N12ck]

The sky presenters by comparison, are just uninformed, and boring.

Soulless and paid to be there I thought. They didnt have any real love for what they where talking about. However they did play a masterstroke in getting Anthony Davidson, him and Brundle save it from being mediocre.

Agreed, Ant Davidson, Brundle, and Kravits are the 3 good things about the Sky coverage. Unfortunately, all but Ant Davidson were part of the old BBC coverage, and DC + EJ combined added much more.

Anthony Davidson did BBC F1 5 Live

[Glyn]

I unfortunately have only bbc and cant afford sky. It annoys me that i pay a 155 pound a year for tv license.
Have sky's viewing figures dropped? since some people like myself cant afford or on principle dont have sky

Figures released have indeed confirmed that viewing figures for live venues on Sky are far lower than for the BBC in 2011.
This was to be expected.

But, overall figures have declined too!


BBC 2011 Sky + BBC = 2012 Difference
Italy 4.2m 0.6 + 3.6 = 4.2m 0.0m
Belgium 3.7m 0.3 + 2.8 = 3.1m -0.6m
Hungary 4.7m 0.7 + 3.6 = 4.3m -0.4m
Germany 4.3m 0.9 + 1.9 = 2.8m -1.5m
Britain 4.9m 0.5 + 3.2 = 3.7m -1.2m
Valencia 3.9m 0.5 + 3.8 = 4.3m +0.4m
Canada 6.3m 0.9 + 2.3 = 3.2m -3.1m
Monaco 5.2m 0.6 + 3.1 = 3.7m -1.5m
Spain 4.8m 0.5 + 3.5 = 4.0m -0.8m
Bahrain 4.8m 0.7 + 3.7 = 4.3m -0.5m
China 3.3m 0.5 + 2.9 = 3.4m +0.1m
Malaysia 4.5m 0.9 + 2.7 = 3.6m -0.9m
Australia 4.2m 0.5 + 2.7 = 3.2m -1.0m

An average of over 1.5M down per venue when you add both the BBC+Sky figures for 2012 in comparison to Vettel's runaway borefest in 2011. The 2 seasons couldnt be more different, yet the figures are well below what anyone expected.
Yet more evidence if any where required that Sky is not the place for F1.

Lovely, nice to see compelling evidence that putting F1 on sky was a cock up.

Accordig to Steve Rider,

Channel 4 put in an offer for F1 which was the same as sky's offer, but no-one knows why channel 4 was rejected.

[GrizzleBoy]

Sky has many more ways to reach and interact with its audience as evidenced in my screenshot on the previous page.

[wesley123]

Sky has many more ways to reach and interact with its audience as evidenced in my screenshot on the previous page.

I dont think so. I think it was simply just a money biz. They maybe made the same offer, but possibly F1 and the teams get more money per subscriptions, and then that one suddenly becomes more interresting.

[Just_a_fan]

Accordig to Steve Rider,

Channel 4 put in an offer for F1 which was the same as sky's offer, but no-one knows why channel 4 was rejected.

Oh that's easy. The BBC didn't want a UK terrestrial channel to take over from them after they made such a song-and-dance about taking over from ITV.

The Beeb shafted the UK audience, its own audience, rather than let C4 take the reins. Disgraceful.

[beelsebob]

Sky has many more ways to reach and interact with its audience as evidenced in my screenshot on the previous page.

Hmmm? The screenshot on the previous page shows Sky's equivalent of 4OD – so Channel 4... have exactly the same ways to reach them.

[CMSMJ1]

I already had Sky HD and F1 was "free" with that. I probably would have paid for it though..

BBC was great - Their decision to relinquish the rights, partially, is what annoyed me. If they had nothing then great, I see they have saved some money.

Sky footage is good and to be fair..it can only get better as SImon Lazenby and Georgie get a feel for it. Right now..they get a 5/10

[adam2003]

What time is the race on this weekend on bbc? its not afternoon is it?

Also when i watch on radio 5 when its not live sometimes the cricket or other stuff comes on half way though or doesn't start on time so annoying

[f1316]

I realised recently that Humphrey, Jordan and Coulthard are trying to be like the Top Gear presenters, which is why they have these transparent "situations" they find themselves in - e.g. Eddie Jordan arranging accommodation, sleeping in the same bed etc.

Taking aside that I personally find Jordan and, particularly, Humphrey really annoying, the problem with this idea is that it is not a pure light-entertainment show - they're actually supposed to be presenting sports coverage.

If there needs to be a whole hour of build-up to a race - and frankly, on both channels there's a lot of filler - I'd rather it concerned what was going on at the track or in the race, rather than some made-up hijinks.

[beelsebob]

I realised recently that Humphrey, Jordan and Coulthard are trying to be like the Top Gear presenters, which is why they have these transparent "situations" they find themselves in - e.g. Eddie Jordan arranging accommodation, sleeping in the same bed etc.

Taking aside that I personally find Jordan and, particularly, Humphrey really annoying, the problem with this idea is that it is not a pure light-entertainment show - they're actually supposed to be presenting sports coverage.

If there needs to be a whole hour of build-up to a race - and frankly, on both channels there's a lot of filler - I'd rather it concerned what was going on at the track or in the race, rather than some made-up hijinks.

I'd agree on the most part. The issue is that the filler on the BBC is silly, entertaining filler that you can take or leave, the filler on sky is disguised as content, but is actually empty of anything. The result is that it's much easier to watch the BBC, because it's very clear when they're doing their filler bit, and very clear when they're doing their actual real content bit. On sky however you spend all your time having to pay attention, usually to useless drivel.