Post by Sir Tim Post by Bobster Post by ~misfit~ Post by Sir Tim
Interesting (confirms my suspicions of too much aero in new formula) and
thought provoking (US ownership and possible changes), thanks.
(Though it is part of F1 journo circle-jerk, quoting an Italian blog but not
providing a link to it. I don't know how the ethics of this type of
They bought that article from a bureau. A common practice in all fields of journalism. The trouble is the particular bureau they bought from, and that they are reduced to the cheaper option of buying from a bureau.
It's not unethical - they declare the source. However, any time any paper runs an article that was not generated in house they are running an article that they cannot verify.
It costs time and money to run media sites. If we keep on insisting on free stuff with no advertising, we will drive up the price for those that do pay and/or make things unsustainable for the providers.
Not all F1 journalism is operating on this basis at the moment, but the amount of reliable reporting is shrinking. Soon we will each have a choice of paying for something reliable or free rumours.
Joe Saward often gets po-faced about this - understandably, as he is a
professional journalist who himself attends every race.
Yes, he's got it in for GMM, but there's a bit more to it than his own finances. GMM is not a reliable source, and that's not good for anybody. Except for GMM.
Post by Sir Tim
I find it interesting that many people, myself included, who would never
have expected to get a newspaper for free are very reluctant to pay for
This is partly the fault of the press itself which, like the music and
publishing businesses before it, has been resistant to the idea of
digital media and has sought to hamper it rather than exploit its
I think the traditional media are not doing well. Newer organisations with a different history and a different business model may do better. There are some sites doing well and doing a good job. The ESPN stable provides a good service and provide jobs for good journalists - especially the Cricinfo site. This is the potential counter to my negative vision.
Cricinfo shows what can be done - near real time, ball by ball live scores for all international matches. Their statistical database is so good they provide services to some of the radio and TV teams.
But for every Cricinfo there's a small team who thought that it must be easy and cheap. Which it can be, but being easy and cheap and worth while is another matter.
Wilson and Alroy's Record Reviews provided a very good service, but they didn't make any money, and the site is just an archive now with very occasional updates.
Post by Sir Tim
I read the Sunday Times and am happy to pay 2.50 UKP for it. When in
Nevada, where it is not available, I used to download the digital
version (which was excellent incidentally) and was happy to pay for it.
Indeed I used to download *2* copies so that Lady Tim and I could read
it independently on our iPads. On my last visit however I found that the
only way I could get the ST was by taking a fortnight's subscription to
the (daily) Times and, to add insult to injury, then pay extra for the
Sunday version on top. Needless to say I was able to forego my usual
Sunday morning enjoyment for a few weeks!
I suspect that F1 will face similar problems over streaming. I am
fortunate in having a subscription to SkyF1, which came as part of an
incentive to go over to HD and remains in force. The coverage is
brilliant but I doubt I would continue with it if, as I think is now the
case, I had to take the full Sky sports package.
Where I live, you get F1 as part of the higher level packages. Some folks, notably Ferrari fans, go down to sports cafes to watch the races. But it's nowhere near as big a deal as soccer, rugby or cricket. Or, probably, horse racing.
Indeed, I wonder if F1 is the biggest or second biggest sport in any territory that it operates in.
Post by Sir Tim
There must be plenty of people who are prepared to part with, say, ten
quid for the occasional weekend's F1 viewing but are not prepared to
commit to the full Sky package.
Maybe. I think there must be a way to get more viewers with a streamed service that requires a specialised app for watching the broadcast. If you control the app, you can sell some advertising space on that too. Make that pay per view.
Post by Sir Tim
No doubt Liberty will be addressing this issue although I suspect that
its hands are tied for the time being.
As regards TV, I'd think so. But if Bernie was smart he'd have retained the digital rights, even if he didn't know what to do with them. In fact FOM have done trials with a high speed HD speed from tracks at various locations to their offices in London.
I think they have to play a long game, and they have to find a way of killing pirate feeds.