2021 Azerbaijan Grand Prix - Baku, June 04 - 06

[marvin78]

But they are funded by British viewers' Sky subscriptions. Their primary duty is to cater for a British audience that pays their wages and get more British viewers watching to increase their revenue. So of course they say what British people probably want to hear and concentrate on the British drivers. It's basically incidental and happenstance that their commentary is used elsewhere.

As mentioned, you might as well in the same breath moan at Dutch or Italian broadcasters for hardly being neutral. They are doing just the same job as Sky but for different audiences. It's not Sky's fault that most of the world understands English and not Dutch or Italian.

As I said, I don't moan. I actually don't even care. I only care about the difference, which is there. Do you even read the text or are there just trigger words for you?

Yes I did, because you said 'They know that they cover a lot more than a british audience. They COULD do it in another way.' and I made the point that don't feel they should have to do things in a different way or adapt things, just because other people also receive their coverage second hand.

By that logic, the Italians shouldn't at all talk more about Ferrari, just in case there's a load of Italian speaking non nationals listening somewhere.

I wrote they COULD and not they SHOULD. And again: There is a difference. They really could do it in another way, because they know, they are not only covering british audience. That's what a user wanted to point out. And he is right. So what es the problem here? For me they can do what they want. Sports broadcast is never really objective. That's fine. It does not bother me because I know that it is not possible to be totally objective.

[nzjrs]

Yes I did, because you said 'They know that they cover a lot more than a british audience. They COULD do it in another way.' and I made the point that don't feel they should have to do things in a different way or adapt things, just because other people also receive their coverage second hand.

By that logic, the Italians shouldn't at all talk more about Ferrari, just in case there's a load of Italian speaking non nationals listening somewhere.

Its on a scale though. At some point F1TV English-speaking audience will be greater than the Sky UK audience and I'd bet that we still get served the same coverage with the same 'excuses' of 'its British TV, what do you expect'.

Another data point - I was in NZ last month and the F1 coverage there is also the Sky Feed (or is it the F1 feed with Sky commentary?).

My point is that its probably not far from being true that Sky UK viewers make up the minority of the people that hear whatever comes out of David Crofts mouth.

It's a genuine question - at what point do you believe neutrality should be emphasized as a stronger priority for Crofty, Ted and Martin etc?

[DarthPlagueisTheVise]

Who got the fastest lap?
Why Lewis finished the race, considering he was last. I'm asking because of gearbox. Is his gearbox due for replacement anyway?

This is the 6th race so yeah his gearbox will be allowed to change at France

[El Scorchio]

As I said, I don't moan. I actually don't even care. I only care about the difference, which is there. Do you even read the text or are there just trigger words for you?

Yes I did, because you said 'They know that they cover a lot more than a british audience. They COULD do it in another way.' and I made the point that don't feel they should have to do things in a different way or adapt things, just because other people also receive their coverage second hand.

By that logic, the Italians shouldn't at all talk more about Ferrari, just in case there's a load of Italian speaking non nationals listening somewhere.

I wrote they COULD and not they SHOULD. And again: There is a difference. They really could do it in another way, because they know, they are not only covering british audience. That's what a user wanted to point out. And he is right. So what es the problem here? For me they can do what they want. Sports broadcast is never really objective. That's fine. It does not bother me because I know that it is not possible to be totally objective.

Yes, they can do what they want. As they are doing. Which is catering for the British audience, so that's that really. I think people misunderstand their obligations, just because their coverage is also used elsewhere.

You are indeed saying 'could' but with your recurring comment other people are watching and they should be mindful actually makes it sound like a 'should' instead. Maybe that's why there appears to be a disconnect.

[RZS10]

They are FAR from being as bad as the ntv, SRF or RTL guys ... they would literally go on about "he's easily in the lead but maybe his engine could explode, not that we want to talk this into happening, but technical issues can happen" and it was clear they were hoping for it ... they kept getting the very basic facts wrong, sometimes obviously had no clue what they were talking about, with Surer and Danner at least having _some_ clue.

[El Scorchio]

Yes I did, because you said 'They know that they cover a lot more than a british audience. They COULD do it in another way.' and I made the point that don't feel they should have to do things in a different way or adapt things, just because other people also receive their coverage second hand.

By that logic, the Italians shouldn't at all talk more about Ferrari, just in case there's a load of Italian speaking non nationals listening somewhere.

Its on a scale though. At some point F1TV English-speaking audience will be greater than the Sky UK audience and I'd bet that we still get served the same coverage with the same 'excuses' of 'its British TV, what do you expect'.

Another data point - I was in NZ last month and the F1 coverage there is also the Sky Feed (or is it the F1 feed with Sky commentary?).

My point is that its probably not far from being true that Sky UK viewers make up the minority of the people that hear whatever comes out of David Crofts mouth.

It's a genuine question - at what point do you believe neutrality should be emphasized as a stronger priority for Crofty, Ted and Martin etc?

But the vast majority of the funding for their coverage comes from the UK viewers and that is rightly or wrongly far more important and therefore where their primary responsibility/priority lies. If British Sky viewers aren't happy, they cancel their subs and Sky lose revenue, and then the shareholders aren't happy. It's bad business- and that's what it is. Business. As mentioned, it's not Sky's 'fault' that FOM prefers to piggyback on their production rather than doing their own 'neutral' version.

They have no obligation to prioritise things any differently than they currently do and nor should they, in the same way Ziggo or Sky Italia don't. They are domestic pay TV companies run under the same principles. British viewers who pay the bills want to hear about Hamilton, Norris and Russell, just like Dutch viewers who pay the bills want to hear about Verstappen, Italian viewers Ferrari, and Finnish viewers Raikkonen and Bottas.

[marvin78]

Yes I did, because you said 'They know that they cover a lot more than a british audience. They COULD do it in another way.' and I made the point that don't feel they should have to do things in a different way or adapt things, just because other people also receive their coverage second hand.

By that logic, the Italians shouldn't at all talk more about Ferrari, just in case there's a load of Italian speaking non nationals listening somewhere.

I wrote they COULD and not they SHOULD. And again: There is a difference. They really could do it in another way, because they know, they are not only covering british audience. That's what a user wanted to point out. And he is right. So what es the problem here? For me they can do what they want. Sports broadcast is never really objective. That's fine. It does not bother me because I know that it is not possible to be totally objective.

Yes, they can do what they want. As they are doing. Which is catering for the British audience, so that's that really. I think people misunderstand their obligations, just because their coverage is also used elsewhere.

You are indeed saying 'could' but with your recurring comment other people are watching and they should be mindful actually makes it sound like a 'should' instead. Maybe that's why there appears to be a disconnect.

Ok. I let this one go. You just don't understand it. It feels like trolling now.

[El Scorchio]

I wrote they COULD and not they SHOULD. And again: There is a difference. They really could do it in another way, because they know, they are not only covering british audience. That's what a user wanted to point out. And he is right. So what es the problem here? For me they can do what they want. Sports broadcast is never really objective. That's fine. It does not bother me because I know that it is not possible to be totally objective.

Yes, they can do what they want. As they are doing. Which is catering for the British audience, so that's that really. I think people misunderstand their obligations, just because their coverage is also used elsewhere.

You are indeed saying 'could' but with your recurring comment other people are watching and they should be mindful actually makes it sound like a 'should' instead. Maybe that's why there appears to be a disconnect.

Ok. I let this one go. You just don't understand it. It feels like trolling now.

No, it's just a simple difference of opinion. But yes, let's leave it as we are clearly not going to agree.

[nzjrs]

But the vast majority of the funding for their coverage comes from the UK viewers and that is rightly or wrongly far more important and therefore where their primary responsibility/priority lies. If British Sky viewers aren't happy, they cancel their subs and Sky lose revenue, and then the shareholders aren't happy. It's bad business- and that's what it is. Business. As mentioned, it's not Sky's 'fault' that FOM prefers to piggyback on their production rather than doing their own 'neutral' version.

They have no obligation to prioritise things any differently than they currently do and nor should they, in the same way Ziggo or Sky Italia don't. They are domestic pay TV companies run under the same principles. British viewers who pay the bills want to hear about Hamilton, Norris and Russell, just like Dutch viewers who pay the bills want to hear about Verstappen, Italian viewers Ferrari, and Finnish viewers Raikkonen and Bottas.

(I'll grant that 'vast majority' is likely a true assumption)

But that's a bit missing my point isn't it? They obviously get some money from FOM for the package, and they will continue to get decreasing amounts of money from their domestic audience - both as a proportion of the total and in absolute terms - as fewer people in UK watch Formula 1. Free-ish market says the funding should reasonable track the demand - which has moved to be more outside the UK, and that trend will continue as the world is larger than UK.

So the change is in some ways already underway and all I'm asking is what would be a good time for them to be less UK biased? A simple majority/minority budget threshold? I'll take that I guess, I would expect that to be flipped in a couple of years anyway.

edit: it's a problem that e.g. finnish coverage doesnt have, which is I guess marvin78's point.

[_cerber1]

[sosic2121]

Who got the fastest lap?
Why Lewis finished the race, considering he was last. I'm asking because of gearbox. Is his gearbox due for replacement anyway?

This is the 6th race so yeah his gearbox will be allowed to change at France

Thanks

[El Scorchio]

But the vast majority of the funding for their coverage comes from the UK viewers and that is rightly or wrongly far more important and therefore where their primary responsibility/priority lies. If British Sky viewers aren't happy, they cancel their subs and Sky lose revenue, and then the shareholders aren't happy. It's bad business- and that's what it is. Business. As mentioned, it's not Sky's 'fault' that FOM prefers to piggyback on their production rather than doing their own 'neutral' version.

They have no obligation to prioritise things any differently than they currently do and nor should they, in the same way Ziggo or Sky Italia don't. They are domestic pay TV companies run under the same principles. British viewers who pay the bills want to hear about Hamilton, Norris and Russell, just like Dutch viewers who pay the bills want to hear about Verstappen, Italian viewers Ferrari, and Finnish viewers Raikkonen and Bottas.

(I'll grant that 'vast majority' is likely a true assumption)

But that's a bit missing my point isn't it? They obviously get some money from FOM for the package, and they will continue to get decreasing amounts of money from their domestic audience - both as a proportion of the total and in absolute terms - as fewer people in UK watch Formula 1. Free-ish market says the funding should reasonable track the demand - which has moved to be more outside the UK, and that trend will continue as the world is larger than UK.

So the change is in some ways already underway and all I'm asking is what would be a good time for them to be less UK biased? A simple majority/minority budget threshold? I'll take that I guess, I would expect that to be flipped in a couple of years anyway.

I'd imagine if they ever get to a point where FOM is paying them more than the UK public is paying them. But I don't think that's ever even remotely likely to happen. To contextualise, Sky has nine million customers (at a conservative estimate) in the UK, all paying probably between 30-80 GBP per month. If you assume everyone is ONLY paying 30, that's 270,000,000 GBP income from UK viewers. That doesn't even account for anyone buying sports or movie packages. If you just take 50 GBP as an average to account for sport subscribers, that's 450,000,000 or almost half a billion GBP. You'd then have to add in all the NOW TV customers as well which inflates it more.

Even if FOM gave them 10 million a year for taking their commentary which is realistically probably many times more than they actually do, then it's absolutely DWARFED by the UK revenue. Realistically FOM probably pays them very little, but provides them the best access to all the teams and staff and facilities.

[Marty_Y]

Who got the fastest lap?
Why Lewis finished the race, considering he was last. I'm asking because of gearbox. Is his gearbox due for replacement anyway?

Max set the fastest lap but didn't finish in the top ten so wasn't awarded the point afaik.

[nzjrs]

I'd imagine if they ever get to a point where FOM is paying them more than the UK public is paying them. But I don't think that's ever even remotely likely to happen. To contextualise, Sky has nine million customers (at a conservative estimate) in the UK, all paying probably between 30-80 GBP per month. If you assume everyone is ONLY paying 30, that's 270,000,000 GBP income from UK viewers. That doesn't even account for anyone buying sports or movie packages. If you just take 50 GBP as an average to account for sport subscribers, that's 450,000,000 or almost half a billion GBP. You'd then have to add in all the NOW TV customers as well which inflates it more.

Even if FOM gave them 10 million a year for taking their commentary which is realistically probably many times more than they actually do, then it's absolutely DWARFED by the UK revenue. Realistically FOM probably pays them very little, but provides them the best access to all the teams and staff and facilities.

Wait, people pay that much per month for just the F1 in the UK? Jesus, for only $8 you can use the F1 app and get the same commentary team!

Or less snide, how much is the UK public paying them to do F1, compared with just paying for Sky because Sky?

But yes, if I was Sky I'd be looking to offload the commentary team to FOM and buy it back, I guess not all the Sky customers watch F1, so they could sell it back to them as a sports package, like they do in other countries.

Anyway, that's more or less all I wanted to say. I hope F1TV pit lane channel returns to some sense of professionalism next race.

[Just_a_fan]

I'd imagine if they ever get to a point where FOM is paying them more than the UK public is paying them. But I don't think that's ever even remotely likely to happen. To contextualise, Sky has nine million customers (at a conservative estimate) in the UK, all paying probably between 30-80 GBP per month. If you assume everyone is ONLY paying 30, that's 270,000,000 GBP income from UK viewers. That doesn't even account for anyone buying sports or movie packages. If you just take 50 GBP as an average to account for sport subscribers, that's 450,000,000 or almost half a billion GBP. You'd then have to add in all the NOW TV customers as well which inflates it more.

Even if FOM gave them 10 million a year for taking their commentary which is realistically probably many times more than they actually do, then it's absolutely DWARFED by the UK revenue. Realistically FOM probably pays them very little, but provides them the best access to all the teams and staff and facilities.

Wait, people pay that much per month for just the F1 in the UK? Jesus, for only $8 you can use the F1 app and get the same commentary team!

Or less snide, how much is the UK public paying them to do F1, compared with just paying for Sky because Sky?

But yes, if I was Sky I'd be looking to offload the commentary team to FOM and buy it back, I guess not all the Sky customers watch F1, so they could sell it back to them as a sports package, like they do in other countries.

Anyway, that's more or less all I wanted to say. I hope F1TV pit lane channel returns to some sense of professionalism next race.

The UK doesn't get access to the F1 app thanks to Sky's broadcast deal. So if you want to watch F1 in the UK, you either pay Sky for the privilege or you find a foreign stream on the web and watch it that way.

Sky doesn't want to help anyone other than Sky, so they're not going to do anything that doesn't make them money.