F1 Media Business
build
http://formulaone.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/the-media-business-of-formula-one/
The last paragraph of comment from Gerard Lopez the founding investor
in Skype reads:
<quote>
“Current broadcasting contracts are based on the ways people watched
television 20 years ago,” said Lopez. “We’re really interested in
something we call ‘Freemium’. This stands for free and premium. You
give free content, via the internet, to as many people as possible and
you make it important to them to buy additional content. The challenge
is not figuring out what you can give away for free but what value you
can provide on top of that. That is the challenge for today’s rights-
holders.”
</quote>
Who hasn't helped fill Lopez's pockets ... not many so worth reading.
the key words being "value you can provide on top of that"
Who watches the live timing? I wonder if free live timing may become
added value? or just the additional data limited to the teams at this
time? Perhaps the teams radio?
News
> An interesting piece:
> http://formulaone.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/the-media-business-of-formula-one/
>
> The last paragraph of comment from Gerard Lopez the founding investor
> in Skype reads:
> <quote>
> television 20 years ago,� said Lopez. �We�re really interested in
> something we call �Freemium�. This stands for free and premium. You
> give free content, via the internet, to as many people as possible and
> you make it important to them to buy additional content. The challenge
> is not figuring out what you can give away for free but what value you
> holders.�
> </quote>
>
> Who hasn't helped fill Lopez's pockets ... not many so worth reading.
> the key words being "value you can provide on top of that"
>
> Who watches the live timing? I wonder if free live timing may become
> added value? or just the additional data limited to the teams at this
> time? Perhaps the teams radio?
>
More like who hasn't used Skype for free?
Other than eBay paying a giga-premium for a "freemium service", where's
the revenue?
APLer
news:dc8e2a58-9dd4-42b6...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> An interesting piece:
> http://formulaone.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/the-media-business-of-fo
> rmula-one/
>
> The last paragraph of comment from Gerard Lopez the founding investor
> in Skype reads:
> <quote>
> �Current broadcasting contracts are based on the ways people watched
> television 20 years ago,� said Lopez. �We�re really interested in
> something we call �Freemium�. This stands for free and premium. You
> give free content, via the internet, to as many people as possible and
> you make it important to them to buy additional content. The challenge
> is not figuring out what you can give away for free but what value you
> can provide on top of that. That is the challenge for today�s rights-
> holders.�
> </quote>
>
> Who hasn't helped fill Lopez's pockets ... not many so worth reading.
> the key words being "value you can provide on top of that"
>
> Who watches the live timing? I wonder if free live timing may become
> added value? or just the additional data limited to the teams at this
> time? Perhaps the teams radio?
>
A couple years back the Official F1 website had a questionaire that I
took. one of the questions was asking about paying for it's content. My
reply was less than agreeable to put it mildly. If they're closely
associated by or even run by Bernie, I see no reason that they should
get money from me for what amounts to a fraction of the data they could
be providing - multimedia and otherwise. In any case I got the distinct
impression that live timing - which was their most bandwidth intensive
part at the time was the first thing they'd charge for. They didn't.
There's plenty of websites going "commercial" all the time and unless
they have something that's a monopoly, they're not going to make money
at it IMHO. There's far too many choices already. If the F1 website
provided even an archive of races more than a year old for download, I'd
consider it, but it would have to be something as good. Radio itself -
no matter what the content just doesn't do it either IMHO.
Chad
> A couple years back the Official F1 website had a questionaire that I
> took. one of the questions was asking about paying for it's content.
> My reply was less than agreeable to put it mildly. If they're closely
> associated by or even run by Bernie, I see no reason that they should
> get money from me for what amounts to a fraction of the data they
> could be providing - multimedia and otherwise. In any case I got the
> distinct impression that live timing - which was their most bandwidth
> intensive part at the time was the first thing they'd charge for.
> They didn't. There's plenty of websites going "commercial" all the
> time and unless they have something that's a monopoly, they're not
> going to make money at it IMHO. There's far too many choices already.
> If the F1 website provided even an archive of races more than a year
> old for download, I'd consider it, but it would have to be something
> as good. Radio itself - no matter what the content just doesn't do it
> either IMHO.
I wonder why they don't charge for API access to the live timing data. I bet
third party developers could come up with some awesome apps from it.
--
Chad
AC
"build" <bui...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dc8e2a58-9dd4-42b6...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
An interesting piece:
http://formulaone.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/the-media-business-of-formula-one/
The last paragraph of comment from Gerard Lopez the founding investor
in Skype reads:
<quote>
�Current broadcasting contracts are based on the ways people watched
television 20 years ago,� said Lopez. �We�re really interested in
something we call �Freemium�. This stands for free and premium. You
give free content, via the internet, to as many people as possible and
you make it important to them to buy additional content. The challenge
is not figuring out what you can give away for free but what value you
can provide on top of that. That is the challenge for today�s rights-
holders.�
</quote>
Who hasn't helped fill Lopez's pockets ... not many so worth reading.
the key words being "value you can provide on top of that"
Who watches the live timing? I wonder if free live timing may become
added value? or just the additional data limited to the teams at this
time? Perhaps the teams radio?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Brits might remember Sky having a pay per view GP TV thingy with driver cam
options and extras like that. I paid for it once out of curiosity. While
technically it was OK, I found it all got in the way of watching the actual
race. Spent a few mins pissing about with the driver cam and what not, and I
lost touch with the actual race. Nower days I have one screen with the usual
live broadcast, and the live timing on another. Don't really look at the
timing much, it usually too delayed and the TV is well up on what going on
anyway. So I can do with out that too.
In the end, I don't see what would be worth having over and above the bloody
good BBC coverage. Extras during the race seem to distract from it.
As for content like a comprehensive library of old races, documentaries,
etc, if they cost something trivial like �1 to view, I might be interested.
Here's an evil thought. They give you the pictures with all the natural
audio from the race, but you pay for all the on screen info and commentary.
Or you get James Allen, but have to pay for Martin Brundle!!!!!!!
AC
Frank Adam
>Brits might remember Sky having a pay per view GP TV thingy with driver cam
>options and extras like that. I paid for it once out of curiosity. While
>technically it was OK, I found it all got in the way of watching the actual
>race. Spent a few mins pissing about with the driver cam and what not, and I
>lost touch with the actual race. Nower days I have one screen with the usual
>live broadcast, and the live timing on another. Don't really look at the
>timing much, it usually too delayed and the TV is well up on what going on
>anyway. So I can do with out that too.
>
>In the end, I don't see what would be worth having over and above the bloody
>good BBC coverage. Extras during the race seem to distract from it.
>
Options.
It would be nice to be able to switch to team radios, to stat/fact
sheets, various cams and mics. Just as with most of the gadgets on our
remote controls, it may be used only once or twice, but it would be
there to be used. If driver X was slowing down, most of us would
switch to that car to listen to the engine or the team chat, because
frankly, waiting until the driver gets back to the pits is just too
long to find out what's wrong with that car. :)
>As for content like a comprehensive library of old races, documentaries,
>etc, if they cost something trivial like �1 to view, I might be interested.
>
Yep. Unfortunately the price would soon be set to the usual 'what the
market will bear' rate.
>Here's an evil thought. They give you the pictures with all the natural
>audio from the race, but you pay for all the on screen info and commentary.
>Or you get James Allen, but have to pay for Martin Brundle!!!!!!!
>
Don't give them ideas.
--
Regards, Frank
AC
"Frank Adam" <fa...@notthis.optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:ip0bi55iqitug6681...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:18:15 -0000, "AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
>>Brits might remember Sky having a pay per view GP TV thingy with driver
>>cam
>>options and extras like that. I paid for it once out of curiosity. While
>>technically it was OK, I found it all got in the way of watching the
>>actual
>>race. Spent a few mins pissing about with the driver cam and what not, and
>>I
>>lost touch with the actual race. Nower days I have one screen with the
>>usual
>>live broadcast, and the live timing on another. Don't really look at the
>>timing much, it usually too delayed and the TV is well up on what going on
>>anyway. So I can do with out that too.
>>
>>In the end, I don't see what would be worth having over and above the
>>bloody
>>good BBC coverage. Extras during the race seem to distract from it.
>>
> Options.
> It would be nice to be able to switch to team radios, to stat/fact
> sheets, various cams and mics. Just as with most of the gadgets on our
> remote controls, it may be used only once or twice, but it would be
> there to be used. If driver X was slowing down, most of us would
> switch to that car to listen to the engine or the team chat, because
> frankly, waiting until the driver gets back to the pits is just too
> long to find out what's wrong with that car. :)
Have you actually tried it? I ask because when the Sky thing was first
touted I thought the same as you. IIRC, there was not the variety you
suggest, and even then it was a complete distraction, IMHO.
My memory of it is vague as it was several years ago, so one of the problems
might have been to do with waiting for bits an bobs to load. It might work
better if these things were available on line, so the regular TV feed is on
constantly, and you use a computer to mess about with the extras with out
interfering with the main race.
>
>>As for content like a comprehensive library of old races, documentaries,
>>etc, if they cost something trivial like �1 to view, I might be
>>interested.
>>
> Yep. Unfortunately the price would soon be set to the usual 'what the
> market will bear' rate.
Hm. I know..... :(
If Satan exists, that phrase is from his holy book.
>
>>Here's an evil thought. They give you the pictures with all the natural
>>audio from the race, but you pay for all the on screen info and
>>commentary.
>>Or you get James Allen, but have to pay for Martin Brundle!!!!!!!
>>
> Don't give them ideas.
If they are reading my drivel for ideas, F1 is truly fecked.
AC
Frank Adam
No, we get nothing like that.
It is just now starting to take shape here. We have the simple stupid
red button stuff on the news and weather channels. Also occasional
polls and viewer choice on sports, but that's about it. No camera
picking or anything too smart. Come to think, some cricket and footy
telecasts have live stats.
You're right though, at the moment, apart from the delay in starting
the services, the other feature is a soon to be crashing and rebooting
box.
Still i'm thinking if they were to introduce such features with all
channels, it would be interesting to give it a go and i suppose
eventually it would all get better, but only if you and I pay for the
development.
And with your negative attitude young man, that will never happen !
It's your fault. ;-)
--
Regards, Frank
Chad
I remember Bill Gates saying something like "by the 21st century interactive
tv will allow us to pause shows like Seinfeld, get information about most of
the items on screen, like clothes and music and funiture, and order it
directly on screen."
Then again, Bill used say that 64k was more base memory than any competent
programmer would ever need too. :)
--
Chad
Frank Adam
wrote:
>> Still i'm thinking if they were to introduce such features with all
>> channels, it would be interesting to give it a go and i suppose
>> eventually it would all get better, but only if you and I pay for the
>> development.
>> And with your negative attitude young man, that will never happen !
>> It's your fault. ;-)
>
>I remember Bill Gates saying something like "by the 21st century interactive
>tv will allow us to pause shows like Seinfeld, get information about most of
>the items on screen, like clothes and music and funiture, and order it
>directly on screen."
>
Anything is possible, as long as we don't get hunted down and killed
by the climate change before that. :)
I did hear that sort of talk too and there is some possibility that it
could happen. Not sure if Seinfeld's show will ever get that
treatement, but it is a matter of mapping the objects used in the
scenes and adding some text/urls to it. When you press the pause
button, the PC(note, not TV as we know it), would highlight all
usable(read: advertised) objects. You click on one and it takes you to
a page where the information is shown just to the left of the shopping
trolley icon with your neighbour skimming your credit card details
through the wireless. Ok, maybe not every neighbour. :)
To use the famous last words, in theory it is dead simple to do. Just
a step from what we have now on the internet, it just means that
movies and series will command a higher expense to make and TVs have
to become big PCs..
>Then again, Bill used say that 64k was more base memory than any competent
>programmer would ever need too. :)
>
Hm, was that before or after he "stole" DOS ? By the time he nicked
the mouse and the GUI ideas from Jobs, i'm sure he knew that the 64K
was bollocks. ;)
--
Regards, Frank
Chad
I agree, it should be possible, but it is another example of Bill not really
being visionary when it comes to predicting what people will want or how
fast things evolve.
>> Then again, Bill used say that 64k was more base memory than any
>> competent programmer would ever need too. :)
>>
> Hm, was that before or after he "stole" DOS ? By the time he nicked
> the mouse and the GUI ideas from Jobs, i'm sure he knew that the 64K
> was bollocks. ;)
Although Bill denies he ever said it today, I can clearly recall it being
repeated adinfinitum for years, as gospel, around IBM during the mid 80's...
undisputed. And reading more than a few quotes from him during the late 80's
where he was 'apologetic' about his error of judgement in how low long that
physical limit might be adequate.
(although I now realise it was 640k not 64, so maybe my memory isnt as good
as I think)
--
Chad
Bigbird
Perhaps you were thinking of the demoscene. Boy, that takes me back.
--
Bigbird
#
You'll be laughing when I'm dead!
Chad
Ha! Now you've given yourself away as a real old school geek. :D
An *amazing* guy I worked with back then was the graphics expert for an
Amiga crackers group in Melbourne, I felt like I knew nothing next to him,
so that's about as close as I got to it.
When I got into computers, as an IBM dealer technician in 1983, it was
solely for capitalist reasons. I thought the keyboard was the computer, the
monitor was called a TV and had no idea what the box it sat on top of was
all about my first day on the job. Lucky for me hardly anyone else that was
applying for those jobs at the time knew much either. :)
--
Chad
Frank Adam
wrote:
Heh, i started learning Cobol about that time with a rip off mob. I
was already quite capable in C, and wasn't happy with the drawn out
progress and after 6 months of learning about punch cards, ticker
tapes and other semi-useless stuff(and not a single line of coding
done), i've got out of it. A few years later senior C programmers were
getting a whopping 40-50Ks with analysts reaching 70 or so, while
Cobol programmers could just about set their own price well past
100Ks. Crrrrrap !!
It stayed a hobby and probably just as well. I'd probably hate
programming by now if i did it for a living.
--
Regards, Frank
Chad
My brother in law got "stuck" in a Cobol job with VAX based ATM stuff for
years after he thought it was a dead end. His laziness in moving on paid off
well in the end!
--
Chad
Ian Rawlings
> Hm, was that before or after he "stole" DOS ? By the time he nicked
> the mouse and the GUI ideas from Jobs, i'm sure he knew that the 64K
> was bollocks. ;)
Well, Jobs stole the WIMP metaphor from Xerox, and actually had the balls
to sue Digital Research for GEM..
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
http://youtube.com/tarcus69
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/