Briatore to work on F1's popularity!

[sectionate]

F1 is run by a bunch of old guys that haven't figured out the internet quite yet. Any attempt to revive the old TV business model is doomed to fail in the long run. For the life of me, I can't figure out why there is no official F1 livestream. I'd happily pay $5 per race or $100 for the season, with unlimited replays and all the data/telemetry etc. freely accessible all the time.

The next generation is not gonna watch F1 any other way, if at all.


As for Briatore, he has a pretty decent track record of reviving businesses in trouble, so I wouldn't discount his ability to do this beforehand. He is thoroughbred salesman.

Some sort of F1 Netflix type hookup. It would be great if you could follow specific drivers, not just the FOM feed. There is huge scope to innovate on how they deliver their content to us users.

[FW17]

Internet sounds good!

Assuming there is an internet audience of 8 million viewers per race paying $2.5 for the race and advertisers paying another $2.5 per viewer FOM can make $800 million just from internet telecast. hey could add another $0.5 for recording, onboard etc.

But that is based on 8 million viewers, that looks like quiet a high number.


Besides the point, F1 does need Briatore!

[Moxie]

I though Briatore had a life time ban from crashgate?

He does...or did anyway. That is why this maneuver is so gut churning, on many different levels.

Briatore has proven himself to be a man with a very low regard for the safety and well being of his own drivers and the other drivers on track. Furthermore, his complete lack of respect for the rules can only be described as legendary.


Consider: Rules define the game...any game! How do you compete in a professional sport where the rules change in middle of the season? Where the rules are applied in an inconsistent manner? Where the people in charge of the rules have no respect for the rules? How do you play poker if it is announced after the betting has occurred that deuces are wild? Even in a sport as conceptually simple as football(soccer); what would happen if mid game it was announced that the team with more points on the board must play with two fewer players?

The decision to include Briatore is the harbinger of death for F1! FOM has announced to the world that they don't give a damn about their own rules, not even a lifetime ban fo a man who unnecessarily placed the lives of other in danger.

[SunsAnvil]

He was banned from running a team but is still managing drivers such as Alonso.
As such it isn't a surprise that he should have found his way back into F1.
Regardless of your views on the man, he was always likely to reappear in some capacity or other.

[Pierce89]

I though Briatore had a life time ban from crashgate?

He does...or did anyway. That is why this maneuver is so gut churning, on many different levels.

Briatore has proven himself to be a man with a very low regard for the safety and well being of his own drivers and the other drivers on track. Furthermore, his complete lack of respect for the rules can only be described as legendary.


Consider: Rules define the game...any game! How do you compete in a professional sport where the rules change in middle of the season? Where the rules are applied in an inconsistent manner? Where the people in charge of the rules have no respect for the rules? How do you play poker if it is announced after the betting has occurred that deuces are wild? Even in a sport as conceptually simple as football(soccer); what would happen if mid game it was announced that the team with more points on the board must play with two fewer players?

The decision to include Briatore is the harbinger of death for F1! FOM has announced to the world that they don't give a damn about their own rules, not even a lifetime ban fo a man who unnecessarily placed the lives of other in danger.

Don't claim rashgate risked lives. If that's the case, doing donuts risks lives. As far as a lifetime ban, the French courts said that was a kangaroo court and overturned the lifeime ban.

[flyboy2160]

I suspect that one of the problems the Fearless Leaders have with any kind of direct inet offering to individuals (either for the season or race-by-race) is that the income isn't guaranteed like it is with selling the exclusive TV rights for a season to a national broadcaster.

Once the TV contract is signed and the Leaders get their money, why would they care if the TV ratings are low? - except as a precedent for the next year or the next contract renewal. Once they get their money, the TV networks and their advertisers are the ones taking the bath, not the Gnome and his cohorts.

If they sell online, especially race-by-race, they run the risk of - heaven forbidden anathema to them - individuals voting immediately with their money. If they let this happen, then you'd really see them worrying about ratings. For now, they're somewhat insulated.

[zeph]

They could do both.

[langwadt]

They could do both.

but if they do the TV contracts are worth less money. They are doing the same as the music/TV/movie industry, fighting to keep their old business model instead of evolving and in the process losing it all

[monsi]

So what is so hard about tendering a whole set of TV / internet packages next time around, all package combinations that seem sensible right now, and perhaps a wild card one for everything else. There are plenty of multi-channel operators around now who would bid.

[Moxie]

Don't claim rashgate risked lives. If that's the case, doing donuts risks lives.

Any crash and it's resulting debris field are certainly life threatening to the drivers who pass through the crash zone and debris field. A spring, a wayward tire, a sharp piece of carbon fiber; all of this could cause catastrophic failure of a following car. If the crash is unintentional then it would properly be considered a risk normally associated with racing. But to intentionally crash, and throw debris into the path of other cars; of course this unnecessarily risked lives. Unacceptable!!!

So the Briatore ban was overturned in a French court. I don't claim to be an expert in French law, but does this really mean that F1 must put him in charge of anything, or even hire him at all??? The FIA banned him. The FIA appealed to keep the ban in place, then FOM flopped right over and put him in charge of popularity...gimme a break!

[zeph]

I pretty much agree with all of this:

http://willthef1journo.wordpress.com/20 ... /new-coke/

Thanks to Graham Keilloh for linking to this on his blog.

[SectorOne]

but if they do the TV contracts are worth less money. They are doing the same as the music/TV/movie industry, fighting to keep their old business model instead of evolving and in the process losing it all

No the Music industry has a foot in both camps. Online and physical copies.
And even the physical bit is dying.

As of April 2008, the largest online music store is the iTunes Store, with around 80% of the market.[5] On 3 April 2008, the iTunes Store surpassed Wal-Mart as the biggest music retailer in the United States, a milestone in the music industry as it was the first time in history that an online music retailer exceeded those of physical music formats.

(this was four years ago!)

There´s an online market for Formula 1, they could possibly make more money then they can through TV but they are put simply, dinosaurs.

Edit: also, comparing radio, TV and the internet:

It took radio broadcasters 38 years to reach an audience of 50 million, television 13 years,
and the Internet just four.

http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/briefi ... y/tech.pdf

[iotar__]

http://willthef1journo.wordpress.com/20 ... /new-coke/

British journalist loves 2014 and managed to avoid 99% of controversial issues related to it. Hamilton is winning and that's all that matters, it's his his bread and butter so the rest can be ignored. It's not dissimilar if you compare issue of not pushing 100% and straightforward propaganda connected to it by the likes of Brundle and Sky in 2012-2013. Everything was because of tyres every lock up in practice etc., fear mongering about most drivers not running in Q3 and then silence when 9 ran. Then remarkable disappearance of the subject in 2014, everything is wonderful now.

That's why public opinion is almost meaningless in F1 because it's shaped through omissions and one-direction interpretations by media pampering driver fanatics and local demography. They can count in both cases and know people want to hear only what they like, it's usually not reality. Yes, subjects die without media buzz, tyres subject kept on going because journalist and lobbying Red Bull kept feeding populist lines every week about not pushing 100%, the same 100% not pushing that is present now.

What about lifting and coasting, what about changing gear patterns in the middle of the race to save fuel instead of racing, what about marginal competitiveness? Not only Merc team dominance but everything behind it. Even RB is not competing with Williams (it's either with an advantage) and Alonso is there by accident. What about drivers weight as a substitute for talent? What about marketing and $ deciding driver choices? What about huge advantage of engine manufacturers and their negative influencing other teams? Marko: "said preparing "a different version" of the Renault V6 for Lotus "tied up too many resources at Renault and distracted from the development"." Horner: "The whole focus will then be on Red Bull Racing,", "and then a customer engine supplied to TR. Of course that makes a difference.""
Yes, it is about RACING he praises so much and it won't be much different for others. He talks about 100% rain and safety cars influenced Hungary as a proof of a brilliant sport?! He doesn't even see the connection between competitive racing and commercial side. BTW if you're worried about Briatore ban Symonds from F1 (I'm not advocating it, on the contrary).

[Gaz.]

One thing to consider is the different levels of internet access people have across the globe. I only have 6m/s copper wire broadband and cannot watch a live race on Sky-Go or a standard definition broadcast on the BBC i-player. Yes the internet is the future but it should not be instead of TV.

[SectorOne]

Yes the internet is the future but it should not be instead of TV.

Unfortunately that is what it will be.
You might still have a screen in the living room but it´s going to be a computer and not a TV.
It can be seen already today how TV´s transition to Smart-TV´s and how channels go to on-demand type channels.

On top of that you have Wifi. The equivalent of a satellite dish i suppose.
A tiny dongle vs a massive dish you stick on a wall it´s pretty easy to see which of the two will go extinct.