F1 Viewing Figures

[go_Rubens]

Not sure if this needs its own topic, but...

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/112399

Well, this is certainly some interesting stats regarding viewing figures, in terms of cause and effect.

[Ferrim]

Viewing figures also dropped between 2011 and 2012, in spite of 2011 being a VETTELWINSLOL and 2012 a closely fought contest. With one more race in 2012, you cannot even say that the drop was bigger in 2013 than in 2012. So, Bernie is looking for arguments to support his stupid double points idea where there aren't.

As usual, Saward has a good take at it: http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2014/02/ ... v-numbers/ (Saward is great at getting the overall picture; where he fails is when he tries to assess particular deals or events as if he knew everything about them)

[Collieafc]

I think it is a combination of factors, and not just one in particular. My first hunch was "A-ha! its the Vettel steamroller to blame!" but upon reading it, its not (just) that. I noticed a mention for most of the declining markets that the majority of them have switched to sky/pay per view this season, which Saward himself (who Ferrim has cited) also picks up on this and also gives extra detail into the UK which although increased viewership, this was mainly only on BBC races and as soon as its Sky-only it drops. It seems that affordability is very much an issue here (Indeed I mentioned in the BBC thread http://f1rejects.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4736#wrap that the cost for UK viewers to watch a full F1 season more than quadrupled when Sky took it on) and the same thing has now spread to other markets. Problem is, Ecclestones lot see PPV and tight control on broadcast content as an easy way to put a quantifiable income to the balance sheet, as opposed to a general rule of more viewership equalling an undefined uncrease in merchandising, tickets etc. But, as we all know, with living costs go up, luxuries go first, and Sky is a luxury I and many others certainly cannot afford.

Secondly, I think there is a bit of blame on the VETTELWINSLOL to be given, but its more than simply just him winning. He may be seen by Red Bull to be marketable but hes not very entertaining - the fact that Germany is seeing a drop despite a German winning is a good example - they just havent taken to him like they did to Schumacher. But its more than just that. F1 is by and large dull and predictable. We have all bemoaned lack of unreliability here, and as one poster (I think Mario) once said on this forum, even backmarker teams now, while we chortle sometimes at their antics, would be highly organised outfits if they were around 20 years ago. Drivers make far fewer mistakes now. And any random chance now feels artificial, with all these gimmicks (DRS, KERS etc). This season was the first season that I have never watched a full race as its just too predictable. Before you would have "Hamilton chases Alonso, will he pass, he goes for it on the corner..." and it may or may not come off, and this could go on lap after lap. Now its "Hamilton catches Alonso, he will pass on the next DRS zone and open a gap" every bloody time (And thats before we go into the whole tyres and pits arguement). And the last thing viewers need/want is more gimmicks (Most are still not aware of the new points structure and its values). The more I read them, the more Jamie and Enoch are right with their articles about the way F1 is heading and its current state.

To put my stance above in to perspective, I have been watching the races I run on the F1 manager series I am running, using GP2. I have actually enjoyed watching these races in full, even though they are ultimately not real, and in the case of the San Marino one (the last one at the time of this post) I havent been so out of my seat since Canada 2011. And ironically even though it was all virtual, it seemed more human and real than F1 today. Maybe part of the problem is that for a lot of long time viewers, the F1 that we have grown up and fallen in love with is not the same F1 as we watch today?

Rant/long post over.

[DanielPT]

There is an episode of Family Guy (bear with me guys) that addresses an interesting concept. That viewers don't really know what they want or the consequences of what they are asking. Peter Griffin receives at home a box to measure audiences and finds out that he can blackmail local networks into doing what he thinks he want to see. In order to influence national networks he steals all the boxes and did end up influencing everything and ruining the TV in general. It is a good episode. This extreme example serves to explain what I think it is happening to F1. People in charge care too much about maintaining audiences and as such, try to improve Formula 1 as much as possible to attract viewers by looking at things the audience thinks they want to see. This is consequently used as excuse for ill-thought rules or the introduction of gimmicks that artificially improve the show. This is, I think, the core reason that makes people stop watching F1 (besides moving to pay-per-view). The fact that they took a race that was really good thanks to unexpected chaos and tried to replicate that for all the races in the calendar, turning the unexpected into expected, made all the difference. This is why I think there is too much talk about viewing figures and why F1 risks of becoming something like Wrestling, which is bad for most people.

[LeytonHouse]

Hi. I’m new here. I’ve been watching F1 since I was 6 years old (in 1991).

I agree with a lot of what’s already been said. Pay per view (Sky) and Vettel domination are surely two massive factors when it comes to dwindling audience figures, probably the two biggest.

I believe Die hard F1 fans will follow the sport no matter what. Even though F1 can sometimes bore us to death or make us bang our heads against the wall, we still tune in every fortnight and we still get that sense of excitement pre-season. With that said you could say audience fluctuations might depend more on the casual F1 fan.

Because F1 has such a broad appeal, the Casual F1 fan may be attracted to a number of elements:
- F1 being the pinnacle of motorsport, the top tier, the most professional
- The actual racing itself, excitement on track, driving aspect
- The engineering/technical side
- The glamour, how the cars look/sound, the danger element, overall show
- A particular driver affinity (e.g. Alonso in Spain)
- A particular team affinity (e.g. Ferrari in Italy)
- Much more

Every era does certain elements better than others. I don’t think there’s ever been a perfect era, although we all have our favourites! (e.g. some races in the 80’s were pure economy runs, the 70’s were stupidly dangerous, Williams active suspension dominated 1992 and 1993, etc…).

Having said all of the above, the single most worrying aspect for me is the fact F1 is trying to go green/become more "road relevant". I truly believe this has nothing to do with the essence of Formula 1. I do worry that one day a rival Motorsport organisation will come along and say “hey world, we’re called GP1, we have an unrestricted engine formula, we race round classic European circuits, our cars are faster than F1, they look beautiful, handle like beasts, and we don’t have any gimmicks or overcomplicated rules”. Of course in this economy it’s unlikely to happen in the immediate future, if ever… My point is if F1 continues down this path it might paint itself into a corner and lose the raw appeal of what makes it so great.

[SgtPepper]

Hi. I’m new here. I’ve been watching F1 since I was 6 years old (in 1991).

I agree with a lot of what’s already been said. Pay per view (Sky) and Vettel domination are surely two massive factors when it comes to dwindling audience figures, probably the two biggest.

I believe Die hard F1 fans will follow the sport no matter what. Even though F1 can sometimes bore us to death or make us bang our heads against the wall, we still tune in every fortnight and we still get that sense of excitement pre-season. With that said you could say audience fluctuations might depend more on the casual F1 fan.

Because F1 has such a broad appeal, the Casual F1 fan may be attracted to a number of elements:
- F1 being the pinnacle of motorsport, the top tier, the most professional
- The actual racing itself, excitement on track, driving aspect
- The engineering/technical side
- The glamour, how the cars look/sound, the danger element, overall show
- A particular driver affinity (e.g. Alonso in Spain)
- A particular team affinity (e.g. Ferrari in Italy)
- Much more

Every era does certain elements better than others. I don’t think there’s ever been a perfect era, although we all have our favourites! (e.g. some races in the 80’s were pure economy runs, the 70’s were stupidly dangerous, Williams active suspension dominated 1992 and 1993, etc…).

Having said all of the above, the single most worrying aspect for me is the fact F1 is trying to go green/become more "road relevant". I truly believe this has nothing to do with the essence of Formula 1. I do worry that one day a rival Motorsport organisation will come along and say “hey world, we’re called GP1, we have an unrestricted engine formula, we race round classic European circuits, our cars are faster than F1, they look beautiful, handle like beasts, and we don’t have any gimmicks or overcomplicated rules”. Of course in this economy it’s unlikely to happen in the immediate future, if ever… My point is if F1 continues down this path it might paint itself into a corner and lose the raw appeal of what makes it so great.

First of all, welcome to the forum. I also agree Red Bull domination, and Pay Per View have been the two core reasons behind the reduction in viewing figures, but I would disagree with your final point about going green. In today's environmental and economical situation, the only way for F1 to remain the pinaccle of motorsport, 'relevant' if you will, is to continue to push the envelope in this direction now. However, I would also agree that your 'GP1' model would be excellent alongside this green aspect - if the new regulations were to drastically further reduce the downforce avaliable (though my techincal knowledge is too lacking to say precisely how), perhaps a more powerful electric motor, increased reliance on mechanical grip, and banning of DRS, F1 could both retain its relevance, and also become far more entertaining. Also, as a side note, you could also use the green aspect to justify returning to the proper European tracks, as these dire Tilke-dromes are generally built in countries with either appalling ecological, or human right's records. Win-win.

[FMecha]

^Implying that F1 should only race in countries with good human rights records (re: your remark that Tilke-dromes are mostly in countries with abusive HR record)

[girry]

Pay-per-view has somewhat halved Finnish viewership as well, that wasn't listed. 10 years ago, simultaneous (peak) viewer amounts used to be at almost 2 million during the best races (which is kind of an achievement in a country with 5 million people total), but after live F1 was moved a payperview channel - only highlights are shown free - it can be considered rare that total peak viewership would hit even 800k.

----

Ok, Bernie gets some short term profit from payperview. But F1 tv money is mostly shared to teams that are already rich and successful; small teams only get little of that TV money increase, and losing way more money in the form of lost sponsors, who don't like to sponsor anymore because casual fans don't watch anymore, either.

This development is one of the biggest causes that F1 becomes more and more elitist.

[pasta_maldonado]

^Implying that F1 should only race in countries with good human rights records (re: your remark that Tilke-dromes are mostly in countries with abusive HR record)

Are you saying that Formula One should actively seek out to race in countries with poor human rights records?

[go_Rubens]

Hi. I’m new here. I’ve been watching F1 since I was 6 years old (in 1991).

I agree with a lot of what’s already been said. Pay per view (Sky) and Vettel domination are surely two massive factors when it comes to dwindling audience figures, probably the two biggest.

I believe Die hard F1 fans will follow the sport no matter what. Even though F1 can sometimes bore us to death or make us bang our heads against the wall, we still tune in every fortnight and we still get that sense of excitement pre-season. With that said you could say audience fluctuations might depend more on the casual F1 fan.

Because F1 has such a broad appeal, the Casual F1 fan may be attracted to a number of elements:
- F1 being the pinnacle of motorsport, the top tier, the most professional
- The actual racing itself, excitement on track, driving aspect
- The engineering/technical side
- The glamour, how the cars look/sound, the danger element, overall show
- A particular driver affinity (e.g. Alonso in Spain)
- A particular team affinity (e.g. Ferrari in Italy)
- Much more

Every era does certain elements better than others. I don’t think there’s ever been a perfect era, although we all have our favourites! (e.g. some races in the 80’s were pure economy runs, the 70’s were stupidly dangerous, Williams active suspension dominated 1992 and 1993, etc…).

Having said all of the above, the single most worrying aspect for me is the fact F1 is trying to go green/become more "road relevant". I truly believe this has nothing to do with the essence of Formula 1. I do worry that one day a rival Motorsport organisation will come along and say “hey world, we’re called GP1, we have an unrestricted engine formula, we race round classic European circuits, our cars are faster than F1, they look beautiful, handle like beasts, and we don’t have any gimmicks or overcomplicated rules”. Of course in this economy it’s unlikely to happen in the immediate future, if ever… My point is if F1 continues down this path it might paint itself into a corner and lose the raw appeal of what makes it so great.

First of all, welcome to the forum. I also agree Red Bull domination, and Pay Per View have been the two core reasons behind the reduction in viewing figures, but I would disagree with your final point about going green. In today's environmental and economical situation, the only way for F1 to remain the pinaccle of motorsport, 'relevant' if you will, is to continue to push the envelope in this direction now. However, I would also agree that your 'GP1' model would be excellent alongside this green aspect - if the new regulations were to drastically further reduce the downforce avaliable (though my techincal knowledge is too lacking to say precisely how), perhaps a more powerful electric motor, increased reliance on mechanical grip, and banning of DRS, F1 could both retain its relevance, and also become far more entertaining. Also, as a side note, you could also use the green aspect to justify returning to the proper European tracks, as these dire Tilke-dromes are generally built in countries with either appalling ecological, or human right's records. Win-win.

SgtPepper, it's also worthy to mention that the Tilkedromes are built in countries with tons of moolah. Tey probably moved the season finale to Abu Dhabi and instated the double points rule just to get more of the UAE's money. So, if the scenario you and I want with that win-win situation would likely not happen with the FOM so greedy and selfish over money.

On the topic of Tilkedromes, I wish that FOM would stop moving the calendar to countries where you have to build an entirely new track to actually host a race there. This would actually help with the green part of F1 by not wasting more land on a race track that will likely be used for the typical 7 year contract and never run at again. Look at Buddh International Circuit. The track was built on land that used to be the land of farmers who had only farming to live by. That already made me sick of FOM pushing boundries beyond repair as there could have been much better places for a race track near New Delhi or move the venue to another wealthy Indian city with not as much smog and farmland to destroy. If Buddh deserved to be in existence in my opinion, the track should be used, but it isn't. Yeah, it isn't on that 7 year contract now. So, I oppose the Indian track not only for boring as hell racing, but the fact that there were much better and greener places to actually put a racetrack in India, as I'm sure there are other wealthy cities in India that are smaller and not as crowded outside the city.

I suppose with the actual viewing figures of F1 at the moment, I agree with most points made above. But I also think that these multiple causes are Bernie's excuse to using the double points rule. Well, what are tou going to do about Sky? It's not like people who no longer watch F1 because their TV channel went down and Sky is the only option now are going to pay the money to actually watch Sky Sports F1. The TV viewing figures I wouldn't be concerned too much about really. Isn't the viewing figures still relatively healthy?

[SgtPepper]

^Implying that F1 should only race in countries with good human rights records (re: your remark that Tilke-dromes are mostly in countries with abusive HR record)

>Implying Malaysia, Bahrain, China, Russia, Abu Dhabi (and India) don't have either shocking human rights records, or ecological ones.
>Implying I wasn't just saying it should be used as an excuse to return to using proper F1 tracks, as F1 is already a little too in the pockets of some undesirable characters already.

lrn2 lingual subtlety and international politics.

[go_Rubens]

^Implying that F1 should only race in countries with good human rights records (re: your remark that Tilke-dromes are mostly in countries with abusive HR record)

>Implying Malaysia, Bahrain, China, Russia, Abu Dhabi (and India) don't have either shocking human rights records, or ecological ones.
>Implying I wasn't just saying it should be used as an excuse to return to using proper F1 tracks, as F1 is already a little too in the pockets of some undesirable characters already.

This. This is very spot on. I seriously couldn't give too much if F1 moved around the world, but going to countries with bad human rights records or bad ecological records seems to set a bad example against FOM, does it not?

[watka]

I think that FOM and FIA should take the same approach that FIFA did with the USA when awarding it the 1994 World Cup.

No country in the world at the time was better prepared to host a World Cup in terms of facilities, there are hundreds of fairly substantial sports stadia across the USA. However, the USA obviously had no real history in soccer. So as part of the arrangement, the USA had to set up a professional league (the MLS) in order to be allowed hosting rights. OK, so the MLS isn't the greatest league in the world, but they have provided the Premiership with at least a crumb of talent over the years (Donovan, Dempsey, Holden, Friedel, McBride, Howard) and it has certainly helped them become a last-16 level team in terms of the World Cup itself.

As such, any country hosting an Formula 1 should mandatorily have at least a decent Formula 3 category racing series and a GT/touring car series in the country or the larger region (e.g. Arabia, covering Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar). These tracks need to be used more than just once a year and there should be a genuine attempt to build a motorsport history in these countries rather than just dumping a circuit onto them. Not only might it develop drivers, but also might encourage local businessmen to pump money into running their own teams, thus creating not just more public interest in the sport, but also commercial and industry interest. The FIA themselves should also be looking at increasing its activities (having a separate department if they don't already) in helping to develop motorsport in these countries and help run the series. Quite why they instead choose to focus on road safety campaigns so much (this is irrelevant to them and should really be the responsibility of the government) I don't quite understand.

[mario]

I think that FOM and FIA should take the same approach that FIFA did with the USA when awarding it the 1994 World Cup.

No country in the world at the time was better prepared to host a World Cup in terms of facilities, there are hundreds of fairly substantial sports stadia across the USA. However, the USA obviously had no real history in soccer. So as part of the arrangement, the USA had to set up a professional league (the MLS) in order to be allowed hosting rights. OK, so the MLS isn't the greatest league in the world, but they have provided the Premiership with at least a crumb of talent over the years (Donovan, Dempsey, Holden, Friedel, McBride, Howard) and it has certainly helped them become a last-16 level team in terms of the World Cup itself.

As such, any country hosting an Formula 1 should mandatorily have at least a decent Formula 3 category racing series and a GT/touring car series in the country or the larger region (e.g. Arabia, covering Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar). These tracks need to be used more than just once a year and there should be a genuine attempt to build a motorsport history in these countries rather than just dumping a circuit onto them. Not only might it develop drivers, but also might encourage local businessmen to pump money into running their own teams, thus creating not just more public interest in the sport, but also commercial and industry interest. The FIA themselves should also be looking at increasing its activities (having a separate department if they don't already) in helping to develop motorsport in these countries and help run the series. Quite why they instead choose to focus on road safety campaigns so much (this is irrelevant to them and should really be the responsibility of the government) I don't quite understand.

To be fair to some of those circuits, some of them do attempt to do that - Bahrain, by the looks of things, does have a local touring car championship that uses that venue, and they have tried to broaden the range of events that are held there (they currently host the World Endurance Championship, and they used to hold the FIA GT series (until the GT1 category fell apart), the Australian V8 series and select Formula BMW events (until BMW killed off that series)).

[go_Rubens]

I think that FOM and FIA should take the same approach that FIFA did with the USA when awarding it the 1994 World Cup.

No country in the world at the time was better prepared to host a World Cup in terms of facilities, there are hundreds of fairly substantial sports stadia across the USA. However, the USA obviously had no real history in soccer. So as part of the arrangement, the USA had to set up a professional league (the MLS) in order to be allowed hosting rights. OK, so the MLS isn't the greatest league in the world, but they have provided the Premiership with at least a crumb of talent over the years (Donovan, Dempsey, Holden, Friedel, McBride, Howard) and it has certainly helped them become a last-16 level team in terms of the World Cup itself.

As such, any country hosting an Formula 1 should mandatorily have at least a decent Formula 3 category racing series and a GT/touring car series in the country or the larger region (e.g. Arabia, covering Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar). These tracks need to be used more than just once a year and there should be a genuine attempt to build a motorsport history in these countries rather than just dumping a circuit onto them. Not only might it develop drivers, but also might encourage local businessmen to pump money into running their own teams, thus creating not just more public interest in the sport, but also commercial and industry interest. The FIA themselves should also be looking at increasing its activities (having a separate department if they don't already) in helping to develop motorsport in these countries and help run the series. Quite why they instead choose to focus on road safety campaigns so much (this is irrelevant to them and should really be the responsibility of the government) I don't quite understand.

I actually like this idea. What I read here is an idea that would actually enhance the essence of motor racing in countries that don't have much of one. This I think would be a great idea for F1.

[watka]

I think that FOM and FIA should take the same approach that FIFA did with the USA when awarding it the 1994 World Cup.

No country in the world at the time was better prepared to host a World Cup in terms of facilities, there are hundreds of fairly substantial sports stadia across the USA. However, the USA obviously had no real history in soccer. So as part of the arrangement, the USA had to set up a professional league (the MLS) in order to be allowed hosting rights. OK, so the MLS isn't the greatest league in the world, but they have provided the Premiership with at least a crumb of talent over the years (Donovan, Dempsey, Holden, Friedel, McBride, Howard) and it has certainly helped them become a last-16 level team in terms of the World Cup itself.

As such, any country hosting an Formula 1 should mandatorily have at least a decent Formula 3 category racing series and a GT/touring car series in the country or the larger region (e.g. Arabia, covering Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar). These tracks need to be used more than just once a year and there should be a genuine attempt to build a motorsport history in these countries rather than just dumping a circuit onto them. Not only might it develop drivers, but also might encourage local businessmen to pump money into running their own teams, thus creating not just more public interest in the sport, but also commercial and industry interest. The FIA themselves should also be looking at increasing its activities (having a separate department if they don't already) in helping to develop motorsport in these countries and help run the series. Quite why they instead choose to focus on road safety campaigns so much (this is irrelevant to them and should really be the responsibility of the government) I don't quite understand.

To be fair to some of those circuits, some of them do attempt to do that - Bahrain, by the looks of things, does have a local touring car championship that uses that venue, and they have tried to broaden the range of events that are held there (they currently host the World Endurance Championship, and they used to hold the FIA GT series (until the GT1 category fell apart), the Australian V8 series and select Formula BMW events (until BMW killed off that series)).

I agree that places like Bahrain and Abu Dhabi have actually done a half decent job and the tracks get some genuine use. However, the same can't be said for places like Turkey, Korea and India. What doesn't help motorsports development is the trend of new circuits being street circuits which can't be used the rest of the year. Valencia suffered for it, Sochi properly will too and Singapore's success lies in its night race status.

[mario]

I think that FOM and FIA should take the same approach that FIFA did with the USA when awarding it the 1994 World Cup.

No country in the world at the time was better prepared to host a World Cup in terms of facilities, there are hundreds of fairly substantial sports stadia across the USA. However, the USA obviously had no real history in soccer. So as part of the arrangement, the USA had to set up a professional league (the MLS) in order to be allowed hosting rights. OK, so the MLS isn't the greatest league in the world, but they have provided the Premiership with at least a crumb of talent over the years (Donovan, Dempsey, Holden, Friedel, McBride, Howard) and it has certainly helped them become a last-16 level team in terms of the World Cup itself.

As such, any country hosting an Formula 1 should mandatorily have at least a decent Formula 3 category racing series and a GT/touring car series in the country or the larger region (e.g. Arabia, covering Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar). These tracks need to be used more than just once a year and there should be a genuine attempt to build a motorsport history in these countries rather than just dumping a circuit onto them. Not only might it develop drivers, but also might encourage local businessmen to pump money into running their own teams, thus creating not just more public interest in the sport, but also commercial and industry interest. The FIA themselves should also be looking at increasing its activities (having a separate department if they don't already) in helping to develop motorsport in these countries and help run the series. Quite why they instead choose to focus on road safety campaigns so much (this is irrelevant to them and should really be the responsibility of the government) I don't quite understand.

To be fair to some of those circuits, some of them do attempt to do that - Bahrain, by the looks of things, does have a local touring car championship that uses that venue, and they have tried to broaden the range of events that are held there (they currently host the World Endurance Championship, and they used to hold the FIA GT series (until the GT1 category fell apart), the Australian V8 series and select Formula BMW events (until BMW killed off that series)).

I agree that places like Bahrain and Abu Dhabi have actually done a half decent job and the tracks get some genuine use. However, the same can't be said for places like Turkey, Korea and India. What doesn't help motorsports development is the trend of new circuits being street circuits which can't be used the rest of the year. Valencia suffered for it, Sochi properly will too and Singapore's success lies in its night race status.

The problem with Turkey seems to be that the cost of racing there was prohibitively expensive, preventing any real grass roots movement from taking off (perhaps not exactly surprising given that Bernie owns the circuit). As for Korea, to be honest the entire project - let us not forget, the circuit was supposed to be a feature within a substantial industrial, commercial and residential development - has been a monumental failure, which seems to stem as much from a failure of the regional government as inadequate planning from the developers.
The Indian GP, meanwhile, seems to be dying a slow death amidst persistent complaints of regional politics (the former governor being for the event, the governor that replaced him being against the venue and wanting to kill it off) and complaints about abuses of power and corruption (reclassification of motor races from sport to entertainment in order to levy much heavier taxes on the sport).

I suppose that part of the problem with Valencia wasn't just that it was a street circuit, but that the venue was caught up in regional Spanish politics too - the event was effectively being used as a way of getting more cash from the central government for regeneration projects that the Valencian authorities has been trying to kickstart for years, plus an element of jealousy over the rival Circuit de Catalunya.
As for Sochi, that event seems to have been something of an afterthought - it certainly wasn't incorporated into the original plans for the venues, and it kind of smacks of a desperate attempt to give the venue some purpose beyond being Putin's stage to the world. I'd be surprised if it stays on the calendar for that long given that there seem to be no real long term plans for the site.