For What It's Worth

I've just heard that the Formula 1 coverage is headed to Sky Sports as of 2012. Well not entirely. Apparently the BBC still get half the races too - but full coverage will be on Sky.

My first reaction is obviously a bit of disappointment. I don't own a Sky Sports subscription, the wife and I aren't that big sports fans. But since the BBC's coverage began a few years ago, we've been hooked. They have built something really good. The team is great. Knowledgeable, informative, entertaining and connected. Jake Humphrey's anchor adds a slight naive-professionalism which is countered by his experienced cohorts (Jordan and Coulthard). Brundle's 'never fail to entertain' grid walks are one of the true highlights as is his witty and engaging commentary - particularly entertaining during the inevitable pauses (Canada, this year springs to mind).

I particularly like the 'out and about' format; wandering the paddock and borrowing teams facilities not only makes the viewer feel part of the experience but no doubt saves the BBC money and logistical head aches. The whole package makes the coverage very special. The programmes make as much of a drama out of what goes on off the track as well as on. I just can't help but feel this is now all going to go to waste.

Barney Francis, Sky Sports' MD said they'd "give F1 the full Sky Sports treatment". Does that mean bright studios overlooking the track while guys in suits sit round a glass coffee table yabbering? I'm sure it also means adverts. I've never really understood this on a subscription platform. I hope the races won't be interupted with ads, like it used to be on ITV. But can Sky go that long without a commercial? They don't interrupt footie matches, do they? The films don't have ads during them. Maybe we'll be lucky.

I said to my wife this morning "if I were the Sky producers, I'd be straight on the phone to the BBC presenting teams' agents and poach them all". I imagine they'd come too. Especially if they're in it for the sport. I just can't get my head around the BBC having half - but Sky having it all. Surely if you have (or can get) a Sky Sports subscription and follow one program format for the duration then why wouldn't you? I can't see the sense in paying £12.95+ to Sky for a subscription and watching it every week except when the BBC have a race. I guess Sky are banking on this.

I read a few weeks ago that the BBC were considering walking away from F1 (or pulling a channel) to save money. I guess the writing was on the wall then.

I don't think my concerns are about the money, £12.95+ a month to Sky isn't the end of the world. I feel sorry for the BBC and their team because they've built something great that won't really have the opportunity to move forward and grow. If the team stay as they are surely they'll feel like what they're doing is 'half baked' and will find it hard to find maintained enthusiasm?

By the way, I don't view Sky Sports as a baddy in all this. They will no doubt do a grand job on a platform that is tried, tested and proven to deliver ground breaking sports coverage.

So... in conclusion this is my ideal scenario. The BBC team 'as is' migrates to Sky. It will provide continuity and help maintain the massive audience figures that have been amassed (highest in 10 years apparently). Sky can still mix things up and bring in their shiny, glass-tabled studio if they want but the BBC can start afresh. Perhaps come up with a formula that merges their radio and TV operations (I think 5 Live will still broadcast every race). This way the new fans can move forward with the formula that won them over, Sky get their money, F1 get their money and the BBC get to... trundle along, still trying valiantly.

Now. I'm going to need a Sky subscription. Oh, Rupert!

For What It's Worth

Friday, 29 July 2011

F1 going to Sky, eh? I never thought I'd own a Sky Sports subscription

Thursday, 28 July 2011

So here we are