END OF THE FUCKING WORLD AS WE KNOW IT? HA, nah, what you are about to read is as you suspect an incomprehensible unstructured rant about media dicks and I apologise for my rambling in advance...
_____________________________
I have recently been surprised by the level of my reaction to the recent news that BBC are getting into bed with the BSKYB corporation to continue their ongoing coverage of Formula 1 Racing.
There have been several slightly condescending and actually rather insulting releases from members of the BBC sport managerial team, suggesting that the arrangements coming into effect from next year are in any way of benefit to the general viewing public. I am also not the only one it seems. In days when it is hard to motivate people to get behind any kind of cause, the fact that a blog post by the BBCs Ben Gallop managed to accrue in excess of 6000 comments, yes, comments not just views or re-tweets or whatever new-fangled technological ways of showing your approval/disapproval are these days, but actual whole paragraphs in real english almost emphatically stating how as full paid up members of the license fee community we feel terrifically let down by the negotiations that have taken place in regards to this programming.
Going back to the start a bit, there's a bit of history.
Depending on what information you read it has been reported that the cost to the BBC of covering the F1 season is anything from 45 million to 200 million a year. Now, yes, this is a lot of money, but in the grand scheme of things when the show is consistently bringing in some of the highest viewing figures that the BBC sees all weekend, I am not sure what their main goal is as a company apart from market share - which due to the F1 coverage, they are excelling at.
The license fee is not optional. Whether you want to watch BBC or not, you have to pay for one or risk hefty fines if found to be watching TV 'illegally'. If you buy a TV off Amazon, you actually get sent a letter saying that you need to buy a TV licence, even if you have one already assigned to your address.
So, how, when a forceably public funded TV channel gives up half of its coverage of its highest rated, BAFTA awarded coverage of a global event which has been running since the 1940s to an international conglomerate who will then 'allow' the BBC to screen half of the races from the season while it charges a yearly subscription and also pay per view to anyone wanting to watch the races, and this is sold as something which is beneficial to the UK viewing public, I beg to ask the question that is on everyones lips - in that WHO is this really benefitting?
The first major point is the existing BBC contract for F1. Yes, existing. Their current contract gives them rights to air until 2013. Two more seasons worth of sole airing. How has this been allowed to be broken?
The second major point is that within the concorde agreement, in major territories, coverage HAS to be available on free to air TV in some way shape or form. Unless a team is privately funded by some rich looney their main source of financial income is the money provided by sponsors. These sponsors buy into the premise that every race they have direct access to millions of happy viewers who watch their turbo charged advertising hoardings scream around a track for 2-3 hours. This means that had none of the UK terrestrial TV channels entertained the prospects of getting into bed with SKY, that no matter how much money they could have thrown at the FIA to win airing rights, their deal would not have been able to go through. This would have then left things in the hands of the likes of BBC/C4/C5 to fight it out between them.
We keep hearing lots of "the good news is that F1 is staying with the BBC till 2018!!" but to me this is not good news. I whole heartedly LOVE the BBC coverage of the F1. Year on year it has been getting better and better in terms of its quality and content. However, ask pretty much any F1 fan and they will say the same thing, give me live coverage of all the races on any network over me being able to see half the races live or have to pay in excess of 600 quid a year for the privilege of doing so.
While everyone loves jumping on the BSKYB slag off bandwagon, I think the BBC has to own up to its responsibility in this agreement. Their reasons for doing this deal site cost as the main factor. They can no longer afford to cover an entire F1 season. While this is understandable as the cost of producing almost a years worth of content is not trivial, when put alongside other BBC outgoings of late it seems rather a low blow to deal to their viewing public. Once again we are being blamed for their exiting their current contract as they have had to put a freeze on the licence fee amount. But, note, this is a freeze. This is not a reduction in price. We are still paying the same as we have done over previous years, years where they have provided the same level of F1 coverage presumably in their budget. If their idea was to pay massively for the rights to F1 to secure it, give us a couple of years worth of outstanding coverage then hike up the licence fee cost to allow that to continue, then I am afraid that it is their own budgeting plans which have backfired on them.
Unfortunately the resounding impression that most of us get, be it wrong or right, is that the BBC have overstretched themselves and now we have to bare the brunt of that regardless. How can they not afford to honour the existing 2 years of their F1 broadcasting contract, but they can afford to relocate in a 900 million pound move to Salford where in a recent article on the new BBC media city (sorry the daily mail was the first one I could find), it was revealed that the total cost of 'relocation, recruitment, training and redundancy' alone will cost them in excess of 85 million quid.
Now, I am not saying that the BBC should not be looking to the future to improve conditions or make the working environment better for people, or even spending huge amounts of money in seeking out new talent. By all means do all that stuff. I welcome it. I do wonder how they are going to find young talented enthusiastic people who are going to be willing to move to an area of the country which is not renowned for its creative vigour, but if they think they can make that plan stick then go for it. However, arent all these plans supposed to be in place to IMPROVE the quality content which they are able to broadcast? Not, as we see at the moment, being a direct detrimental effect on what us, the end viewer is left being able to access?
To put it basically, I as a license payer and essentially paying your wages, really don't care what kind of chair it is that you get to sit in when you have meetings, unless that chair means that I get really good fucking television to watch when I get home from work.
What the fans want and what the BBC wants will always be in contrast and so its never going to be easy to please everyone. The BBC obviously wants to keep coverage of F1 on their channel as it is such a leader in its field. There is no disputing that. But what the fans want is to see all the races live as they happen. If we have to have slightly less inspiring coverage to get this, then yeah, well take that. Sorry BBC. But at the same time, those truly dedicated viewers who HAVE to see all the races live will get SKY and pay a premium for it. And if you've bought SKY you're not going to just waste money and watch half the season on the BBC. So, in one foul swoop their have pissed their current viewers off but also guaranteed that they will be getting a much reduced audience from next year. My question now is how they can not see why people will be puzzled by their decision.
Lest not we forget the general state of BSKYB/News International/Skynet and their reputation in this and other countries. As timing goes, it's probably one of Bernie Eccelstone's most awkward fuck ups but ultimately it is all his making. If it weren't for him pushing up the cost of rights to ludicrous amounts so that he can make as much money back as possible, we wouldn't really be in this situation now. He is famously quoted as only a week or two ago saying how F1 will not be sold SKY. I can't help but wonder what Max Mosley is making of this deal, with the FIA selling themselves out to the very group which he took to court and won his case against for the infringements they made upon his personal privacy. I doubt Rupert Murdoch is on his Christmas list.
There is a nice piece written by a blogger Callum Jones called "As Murdoch's Sky empire grows, so does the scale of his hypocrisy" online. Theres no point in me repeating what he says as he is much more eloquent and articulate than I am, but to paraphrase, "Sky - they're a bunch of shits and these are bad times for F1"
Ultimately for me it gives me more than cause for concern of the long term future of F1. Sure BBC have part coverage till 2018, however, if viewer figures trail off because of the inconsistent coverage, it only paves the way for Bernie and his rabble to put in places the changes within the FIA, team and sponsor agreements which remove the need for free to air TV in its entirety leaving the way for SKY to take on sole rights to air and then, as they seem to do with everything, get them immediately onto their pay per view channels, inflicting not only the equipment and installation costs onto anyone who wants to watch the races, but also then the monthly sky sports package subscription along with whatever they want to charge the viewer to actually watch each race.
F1 as a spectator sport could suffer massively at this kind of treatment. I can't help but feel like I am stood on a cliff edge, looking down into the deep ravine of F1's future fall from grace. I hope I'm making a mountain out of a molehill.
