BBC vs Sky

[snoop1050]

2. Georgie. I believe she is there for the same reason the sun has page 3. She adds nothing to the show and like Simon is pretty clueless. She seems nice enough but i will never forget her first interview with JB where she turned up looking like she was going to interview Max in her leather romper suit

i dont get why shes there at all...

shes not even good looking doesnt have a good boy and isnt interested in f1 and doesnt seem to want to learn about f1 even if it would help her career........

[f1316]

At least he's more informed than all the Sky presenters (bar brundle) put together.

I don't want the presenter to give me opinions - that's for the experts, and I think Hill, Herbert and Ted Kravitz are all very well informed. The presenter should limit his role to segues and introducing - presenting, if you will - the action. Not giving me his, in my view, extremely ill-informed opinion.

I don't want it taken seriously, I want real information, and a bit of fun – it is after all meant to be a way of enjoying my weekend.

I do want it taken seriously, so we'll have to agree to differ. Of course you're right that there's nothing wrong with a bit of fun, but their idea of fun seems to be to focus on pushing their own "personalities", presuming that we all share their affinity for their strange little group dynamic. The problem is that they're neither witty nor entertaining people.

And the worst thing is when the keep telling us what we want - "the fans want this", "the fans want to see overtaking" - which correlates precisely with the BBC's current trend of treating their audience like they don't have the brains to assimilate anything beyond the pretty fast cars and the loud noises...

[beelsebob]

At least he's more informed than all the Sky presenters (bar brundle) put together.

I don't want the presenter to give me opinions - that's for the experts

Luckily, Coulthard and Jordan are experts on driving and running teams.

Sky regular experts: Herbert, Kravitz, Brundle.
Sky regular uninformed idiots: Main presenter (I forget his name he's so boring), Georgie, Simon, Steve.
BBC regular experts: Coulthard, Edwards, Jordan, Anderson, Allen.
BBC regular uninformed idiots: Humphrey (who actually knows a reasonable amount about it now).

It's pretty clear which team here has more valid information coming out of it.

and I think Hill, Herbert and Ted Kravitz are all very well informed.

I would agree re Ted, if you read up, you'll see I'd like to keep Ted and Martin from the Sky coverage... Hill is just a guest presenter, and certainly does a better job than Villeneuve, Herberd is just boring.

The presenter should limit his role to segues and introducing - presenting, if you will - the action. Not giving me his, in my view, extremely ill-informed opinion.

If that's the case, why do we need 1 and a half hours of build up with nothing in it, if not to have an interesting discussion about what's going on, and various different opinions of it.

And the worst thing is when the keep telling us what we want - "the fans want this", "the fans want to see overtaking" - which correlates precisely with the BBC's current trend of treating their audience like they don't have the brains to assimilate anything beyond the pretty fast cars and the loud noises...

Actually, it's a fairly well established fact – viewer numbers for F1 increase as overtaking increases and decrease as overtaking decreases.

[mx_tifoso]

...
Actually, it's a fairly well established fact – viewer numbers for F1 increase as overtaking increases and decrease as overtaking decreases.

Let's see those facts.

[beelsebob]

...
Actually, it's a fairly well established fact – viewer numbers for F1 increase as overtaking increases and decrease as overtaking decreases.

Let's see those facts.

Troughs on one graph create troughs on the other, and vice versa.

Of course, correlation ≠ causation, but there's some pretty strong evidence there.

[raymondu999]

Sky regular experts: Herbert, Kravitz, Brundle.
Sky regular uninformed idiots: Main presenter (I forget his name he's so boring), Georgie, Simon, Steve.
BBC regular experts: Coulthard, Edwards, Jordan, Anderson, Allen.
BBC regular uninformed idiots: Humphrey (who actually knows a reasonable amount about it now).

Who's Allen? And I don't think it's fair that you count Edwards if I'm honest - Edwards used to race but his racing career ended centuries ago. And why discount Davidson?

I'm not saying the premise you're fighting for is wrong - I'm just questioning your name choice there.

EDIT: Got it now. JAMES Allen.

[beelsebob]

Sky regular experts: Herbert, Kravitz, Brundle.
Sky regular uninformed idiots: Main presenter (I forget his name he's so boring), Georgie, Simon, Steve.
BBC regular experts: Coulthard, Edwards, Jordan, Anderson, Allen.
BBC regular uninformed idiots: Humphrey (who actually knows a reasonable amount about it now).

Who's Allen? And I don't think it's fair that you count Edwards if I'm honest - Edwards used to race but his racing career ended centuries ago. And why discount Davidson?

I'm not saying the premise you're fighting for is wrong - I'm just questioning your name choice there.

Allen is James Allen, he's always been a broadcaster, but he's *always* done motorsport, and he's done it for various F1 teams.
Ben Edwards is indeed a borderline case, but he's certainly much more informed than any of the sky idiots.
Fair point re Davidson – he should be added to Sky's list of experts.

[f1316]

graphs and such (to save quoting them)

Looks to me as if 1996 was a particularly poor year for overtaking but a particularly good one for ratings

As you say yourself, one does not necessarily create the other - you could also argue that tv ratings have increased relative to the number of world champions in the field, and therefore competitiveness of the drivers, and that low points correlated with one team/driver domination rather than anything specifically to do with overtaking.

Nevertheless, I take your point. What I was specifically objecting to were the blanket statements they often make on the BBC that "the fans think x". For example, "the fans don't like team orders" was something they often said after Germany 2010. I think the fans have a slightly more nuanced understanding of the sport than they're given credit for.

Here's another of stating my preference for Sky over the BBC: I find the BBC's coverage more partial, less journalistic; it's like watching a bunch of fans presenting a programme, as opposed to a group of unbiased observers. I'm sure a lot of people would much prefer the former to the latter, and neither is 100% one or the other, but since I don't support the English drivers or team (tifoso ) I'd prefer an analytical approach to an impassioned one.

[beelsebob]

graphs and such (to save quoting them)

Looks to me as if 1996 was a particularly poor year for overtaking but a particularly good one for ratings

But was immeditely followed by a decline in viewership... Remember, viewers can't predict how many overtakes there'll be in a race, they generally go on the evidence of the previous year.

[mx_tifoso]

Thank you for the graphs. Although it is strange to see the low viewer numbers for 2006 and 2006, despite the change in events where Ferrari were beaten by Renault and McLaren.

[f1316]

graphs and such (to save quoting them)

Looks to me as if 1996 was a particularly poor year for overtaking but a particularly good one for ratings

But was immeditely followed by a decline in viewership... Remember, viewers can't predict how many overtakes there'll be in a race, they generally go on the evidence of the previous year.

And 1996 had the leading British driver in the top car, whereas the next year he was in an Arrows - that's likely to turn off the casual UK viewer.

Still, I don't dispute the idea that, up to a point, more overtaking will draw higher ratings, only that there are a sufficient number of other factors to make this far from a conclusive "fact"

Also, like I said, "the fans want to see overtaking" was just an example of being told what the fans think

[jamsbong]

Just a side thought, back in the 90s, it was the unmistakable voice of murray walker and martin brundle. Murray is always entertaining with his over enthusiastic voice that is able to lift even the most boring race. Brundle was/is the guy with the info. I think James Allen was the pit area guy. It was such a simple system then and hardly comparable to todays coverage.

In other words, todays coverage are better than ever! Yet we all still want more... Lol

[JayeOFarrell]

I was very conscious of the Sky show to start with because I really appreciated the BBC team and just how good a job they had done instead of ITV where is was simply terrible! But the clincher for me was Brundle, for me he is the voice of Formula 1, I grew up listening to him, so I could put up with a bad show for his commentary "Hug the apex like its your favorite Granny". Only Brundle

But looking at it subjectively to start with I really didn't like the Sky show but I will agree now that now they have pulled their socks up and it is much better, how ever I think there only draw back is Simon Lazenby. Jake had such flair, I accept he didn't always ask the relevant question but he brought out a human quality in the team members and drivers you rarely see on camera and he also had such good banter with Eddie, the sky anchor team has yet to make me laugh and BBC use to do that regularly.

If Jack and Eddie cross over to Sky for next year along side Johnny Herbert then that would do just fine thank you very much

[beelsebob]

Just a side thought, back in the 90s, it was the unmistakable voice of murray walker and martin brundle. Murray is always entertaining with his over enthusiastic voice that is able to lift even the most boring race. Brundle was/is the guy with the info. I think James Allen was the pit area guy. It was such a simple system then and hardly comparable to todays coverage.

In other words, todays coverage are better than ever! Yet we all still want more... Lol

Well the problem really is that it's not better than ever – the BBC team, where Kravitz and Brundle joined the other informed people was the best we've had really.

[Speedster]

I do want it taken seriously, so we'll have to agree to differ. Of course you're right that there's nothing wrong with a bit of fun, but their idea of fun seems to be to focus on pushing their own "personalities", presuming that we all share their affinity for their strange little group dynamic. The problem is that they're neither witty nor entertaining people.

And the worst thing is when the keep telling us what we want - "the fans want this", "the fans want to see overtaking" - which correlates precisely with the BBC's current trend of treating their audience like they don't have the brains to assimilate anything beyond the pretty fast cars and the loud noises...

I agree with this 100%. I know by now that Eddie Jordan wears colorful shirts, and I don't think it is particularly funny. I do think Eddie Jordan is a fascinating personality and I wouldn't mind seeing him on Sky for a bit, but on the BBC the trio is quite useless, only focusing on having a laugh basically.

There was a race where they met some guy that was critical of the tyres, a few races ago. He was cut off, Humphrey and Jordan agreed he was cynical and unworthy, without caring about what he actually had to say. Compare that with the Sky coverage of last week where there was ample time and room for an interesting discussion about Formula 1 2012 with views from either sides and the middle (Andretti, Villeuneve and Herbert). The BBC is deciding what we should like, Sky allowed us to form our own opinion. That comparison really made it clear for me that I will stick with Sky for the rest of the year.