- This topic has 47 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I still think it’s bad for racing having both RUK and ATR. As I’ve said before, I’d pay for one but can’t afford to pay for both and not prepared to pay for something that doesn’t cover all the races. Couldn’t they have some sort of reciprocal agreement [the way The National Trust and English Heritage have]? Don’t feel that competition in this case is the best thing for the sport.
Don’t know, Drone, the piece didn’t specify. "…. a subscription channel with only 40,000 signed up", is the exact wording.
Matthew Imi, ATR’s chief, describes RUK’s business model as "pedestrian".
I wouldn’t be surprised if there was little growth in the customer base though. Innovation on that channel has been almost zero for years. It has a going through the motions feel to it a lot of the time.
If I was at home, I wouldn’t be paying for it.
RUK should be doing a lot better, look at yesterday as an example. Only one meeting covered Salisbury in the afternoon but nothing of the horses in the paddock and very little of the horses going to post.
In between races it was primarily Epsom highlights combined with a bit of waffle from the presenters and they only turned to the next race at Salisbury 5 mins before the off.
That’s poor presentation of the sport in my view for a supposed specialist channel. They may as well have all the British racing if that’s how they want to present it to make the subscription worthwhile.
I think 40,000 subscribers is a hell of a good figure.
Some of the channels I subscribe to –
Red Hot Mums, The XXX Channel, Hooterama
etc – would die for that number.
And they even show 15 minutes of free-view every night. Mind, that’s about how long it takes nowadays…
Mike
Sarah Horbery of Newbury claiming ATR told them to "sign up for 10 years for nothing or we will sue you"
That is incredible. Makes the SIS/AT lot sound almost like a band of gangsters. But I guess when you are a longstanding monopoly you become intensely arrogant. I heard rumours that as late as 2008 when Turf TV emerged the arrogance pervading SIS had not dimmed and they were "confident" of getting all the big racecourses back on board when the existing contracts came back up for tender because the Turf TV staff were "kids" that didn’t know how to operate channels or form betting markets. How wrong they were.
Then, laughably, they end up losing rather than gaining. They haven’t re-acquired one of the contracts lost to RUK and later Turf TV.
Sadly the RUK model requires a subscription which I can understand a lot of people don’t feel they can afford. It would be good if RUK were able to go free to air at some stage – I guess if they had won the Irish racing contract that may have been the time to do it. As I understand it ATR pulled out all the stops to keep HRI on board though it was a close run thing – but SIS/ATR knew they would be finished if they lost that so they probably finally changed their attitude in those negotiations.
The level of professionalism displayed by RUK/Turf TV really does leave ATR/SIS miles behind which is unfortunate given the majority of racing viewers only watch the latter.
Was very surprised to read in todays Times (Alan Lee) that RUK only have 40000 subscribers.
Jesus, that’s woeful.
From the Guardian 2006:
The station started charging a £20 per month subscription fee, or £200 for a year payable in advance, in October 2004, with the aim of reaching 20,000 subscribers within 18 months. It signed up 10,000 customers within a week, and has now reached a total of 37,000 paying subscribers, almost twice the figure that was originally anticipated
So from that heady beginning it would appear the number more or less stabilised there, though whether it peaked higher and has declined I don’t know
I wonder if the figure of 40,000 excludes online-only subs, which must surely have grown in popularity, and was the way I went several years ago
RUK talk on their site of 50,000 subscribers – Alan Lee reducing this by 20% is quite a significant drop. Alan Lee, it should be recalled, works for ATR on a regular basis. Draw your own conclusions as to his motivation.
An income of £12.6m on subscription fees alone sounds good to me, but you have to add to that advertising revenue plus whatever Turf TV and GBI raise. RUK is part of a Group of companies and I am sure its financial model is a good fit in RMG’s eyes otherwise they would have gone out of business years ago. Rather than that they have continued to acquire tracks culminating in the jewel in the crown, Ascot. ATR on the other hand have gone backwards with no apparent prospect of getting back any of the top tracks. I also recalled that their production partner SIS lost the big BBC outside broadcasting contract this year so that must have hit them financially so the future looks anything but secure for ATR/SIS.
Sarah Horbery of Newbury claiming ATR told them to "sign up for 10 years for nothing or we will sue you"
That is incredible. Makes the SIS/AT lot sound almost like a band of gangsters. But I guess when you are a longstanding monopoly you become intensely arrogant. I heard rumours that as late as 2008 when Turf TV emerged the arrogance pervading SIS had not dimmed and they were "confident" of getting all the big racecourses back on board when the existing contracts came back up for tender because the Turf TV staff were "kids" that didn’t know how to operate channels or form betting markets. How wrong they were.
Then, laughably, they end up losing rather than gaining. They haven’t re-acquired one of the contracts lost to RUK and later Turf TV.
Sadly the RUK model requires a subscription which I can understand a lot of people don’t feel they can afford. It would be good if RUK were able to go free to air at some stage – I guess if they had won the Irish racing contract that may have been the time to do it. As I understand it ATR pulled out all the stops to keep HRI on board though it was a close run thing – but SIS/ATR knew they would be finished if they lost that so they probably finally changed their attitude in those negotiations.
The level of professionalism displayed by RUK/Turf TV really does leave ATR/SIS miles behind which is unfortunate given the majority of racing viewers only watch the latter.
ATR took Doncaster from RUK when ARC bought the track and revamped it
Ascot rights official transferred yesterday and RUK have wasted no time in making it known.
http://www.racinguk.com/news/article/28 … oyal-ascotThey have even paid for a 30 second advert to brag about it
http://www.prolificnorth.co.uk/2014/06/ … -ascot-ad/
RUK are to launch a new Sunday show called Racing Breakfast
No ATR would surely mean no Irish racing coverage. RUK would perceive little value in the day-to-day meetings and wouldn’t want them cluttering up already expanded coverage.
They would just cherry-pick top races.
Mike
If ATR closed the Irish courses would launch their own subscription channel. It is a proviso of the Irish contract that all meetings are shown, you can’t cherry pick the top races. Only Punchestown have ever shown interest in joining Racing UK and as the Irish rights are centrally contracted it was never really a runner.
On their long awaited debut at the royal meeting on Tuesday ruk will interrupt ascot to show bags racing from thirsk!
Wouldn’t it be better if they didn’t show the away meetings on big days until the racing review?On their long awaited debut at the royal meeting on Tuesday ruk will interrupt ascot to show bags racing from thirsk!
Wouldn’t it be better if they didn’t show the away meetings on big days until the racing review?Those courses will love that won’t they silly thing to say, why should Thirsk suffer because of Royal Ascot. Seriously just do away with grass roots racecourses then
They sign up to Racing UK to have their course televised.
RUK are to launch a new Sunday show called Racing Breakfast
Hardly new its been there for the past year
On their long awaited debut at the royal meeting on Tuesday ruk will interrupt ascot to show bags racing from thirsk!
Wouldn’t it be better if they didn’t show the away meetings on big days until the racing review?No it wouldn’t, you can’t have been listening to the so called "expert" pundits in the studio both yesterday and today if you’d prefer to listen to them rather than live action. They’ve been absolutely diabolical.
I think that both channels are DAMNED GOOD, but I prefer ATR. Less formal, better graphics/info, more interesting features.
I always thought we should have just one racing channel, but, as others have observed, perhaps with so many meetings it does make sense to have two. ATR is evidently the value one. Why RUK has to cost three times as much I cannot fathom.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.