The Myth of Free-To-Air TV Being the Key to Sport Coverage Success

... and why IKEA demonstrates this.

One of the most common reasons given for a motorsport championships’ lack of popularity is that it is not shown on free-to-air TV. Occasionally, someone will even suggest that it should be free on YouTube. I see this a lot and often shake my head, because reality rarely demonstrates that this is an effective strategy.

Consider this: if being free to watch were the key to generating an audience and achieving success, then karting would be the most popular form of motorsport in the world. I cannot recall the exact date, but karting, from club level right up to the major championships, has enjoyed free streaming in one form or another for what must be a decade or more. Yet it remains the least popular form of motorsport with FIA World Championship status competition. The highest number of concurrent viewers I have seen was around 7,000. Once you deduct the parents, family and community of karting enthusiasts, you are not left with much.

Formula E has bounced around every free-to-air channel in the UK in search of an audience, only to find itself buried somewhere on the ITV App now. I am not a fan of it, but it remains notoriously difficult to follow. Clearly, being free-to-air has not been the magic pill many once believed.

Then there is F1, which continues to march forward with almost complete dominance in the UK when it comes to those who care about motorsport. Yet following F1 live costs hundreds of pounds per year. I think the cheapest option is probably NowTV, which runs at around £30 a month – roughly £300 a year in total.

I am more interested in what people do rather than what they say. These two things are often not correlated. Of course, people claim they want free things, but human nature does not work that way. We are creatures driven by perception, and if ‘free’ comes to be seen as ‘worthless’, then nothing could be further from the truth. In a world of big-spending, subscription-based streamers and broadcasters, nothing screams “this isn’t worth my time” more than free-to-air sport. It is, figuratively speaking, the last person to be picked for the team.

Once upon a time, free-to-air was an entirely different proposition. There were only a limited number of channels and a limited amount of content to broadcast. In the 1980s, finding yourself on BBC or ITV was a route to literally millions of people - a blitzkrieg of exposure, for want of a better phrase.

The value proposition was slightly different then compared to today. Markets evolve and perceptions change. If you can take that audience and get them to pay a significant sum for coverage, as F1 has done, you alter perception in one fell swoop. Much to the distress of millions, Sky and FOM played a masterstroke in the UK. Many thought subscription-based F1 would be a disaster and cause a decline in viewing figures. We may have seen a decrease in live viewers, but in terms of perception, F1’s value has risen.

You might be inclined to say “well, F1 is still free-to-air because it has highlights”. You would be right, but that is the complementary strategy a dominant sport can adopt. You can increase perceived value by making the sport expensive to follow live, while maintaining a presence in the public’s mind. In doing so, in the case of motorsport, you elevate F1 above every other series and diminish the perception of every other form of the sport. The Premier League has Match of Day Highlights, but the FA Cup? That’s broadcast live on BBC and its value has dropped undeniably.

BTCC is buried on ITV4 and, in my view, has never been as poor as it is now. BTCC faces a number of issues, many rooted in declining car culture within society, and its relevance within that culture is more confused than ever. With drivers struggling to fund seats and teams departing due to commercial realities, it is clear that free-to-air is not the be-all and end-all. It still has residual value, partly due to its rich and extensive history, but it’s not getting easier for them.

It is a complex challenge for any motorsport series trying to garner an audience. They often fall for the notion that providing free coverage will reach more people, but is that really what you want? Many businesses introduce difficulties and hurdles into their products to take advantage of the fickle nature of human psychology. If you can make people put in a measure of effort before buying a product, done correctly, you can maintain their interest and commitment at a higher level than would otherwise be the case. If you wish to learn more, look up the IKEA Effect.

Just ask yourself – have you ever watched a karting stream? OK, I know my audience is karting-based, but the point still stands. How compelling is it? I like what Kart Chaser has done with members-only live events. He is trying a business model that few have the courage to attempt, and I wish Xander the best of luck. His approach clearly allows him to try things that others might struggle to do.

Most motorsport championships are already familiar with the ideas I am putting forth here; hence their experiments with various streaming apps and packages to encourage viewership. In some respects, what F1 has done is essentially stolen a march, leaving everyone else flailing about, wondering what on earth they are supposed to do. I do feel somewhat sympathetic towards them.

But free-to-air is not the magic saviour to end all ills. The free-to-air channels are now less influential than they once were. In fact, they can often garner higher ratings with repeats of programmes like Homes Under the Hammer, which cost almost nothing to show, than by paying a motorsport championship a fortune for broadcast rights. As a result, you end up having to offer them rights for free at enormous cost.

Not ideal.