SPOILER attendance and broadcast rant SPOILER

[jarrambide]

My first rant is not really a rant because I´m pretty sure I´m wrong, but it is about the decision many tracks make of only opening a portion of the stands, like today, yes, when the cameras are pointing that way (and specially when you take the picture of the end of the race) it looks very impressive, but then you get to see half (or more) of the stands completely empty.

What would be better? or what would look better on TV?, doing it this way to get that impressive completely full picture for a few seconds of every lap? or selling every part of the track so to avoid completely empty parts but not having that impressive picture?

My second rant is a real rant, what´s with the commentators?, don´t over drive it?, you have to be patient?, come on, the guy got the groove and was on fire for a few laps, he is a racer he is racing, he is passing other cars, getting his sponsor on TV, producing exciting racing, what´s wrong with that?, yes, he lost a lot of places after that, but the guy was racing well for a couple of laps, is that so wrong?

ALthough we have lost to many cars, I have to say that after lap 50 I was thinking to myself that the fact that we had 22 cars on the leader lap was something I couldn´t remember outside of Indy since I was a little boy.

Now, if we could only get more than 5 laps of racing time this could probably be an interesting race (for an oval), hopefully this yellow fest will go away in the second half of the race.

[jarrambide]

and what about Manning?, someone tell the guy he is not Schumacher (and since I dislike Schumacher I would also complain a lot about him for something like this) to be calling almost everyone stupid and amateurs.

I got mad when Danica did it, now I´m mad with Manning, again, when you say stuff like that you are painting the series as amateurish at best, if you are giving the series a chance would you watch it again after hearing it is full of stupid amateur drivers?

[mlittle]

Good rant...........I keep thinking it'd be a good race if there weren't so many cautions so early; at this rate, there won't be many cars left. :eek:

As to the seats, someone asked that over on the 'Richmond Weekend' thread; IIRC, Richmond only opens up the frontstretch seating btwn. the exit of 4 around to about where 1 starts, so it ain't surprising to see lots of empty seating. Unless I'm mistaken, when Northern Lights was a series sponsor, didn't they put up on-screen banners over parts of tracks during the year to cover empty grandstands or something like that back in 2000 or 2001?

[jarrambide]

Good rant...........I keep thinking it'd be a good race if there weren't so many cautions so early; at this rate, there won't be many cars left. :eek:

As to the seats, someone asked that over on the 'Richmond Weekend' thread; IIRC, Richmond only opens up the frontstretch seating btwn. the exit of 4 around to about where 1 starts, so it ain't surprising to see lots of empty seating. Unless I'm mistaken, when Northern Lights was a series sponsor, didn't they put up on-screen banners over parts of tracks during the year to cover empty grandstands or something like that back in 2000 or 2001?
I know they only open a few stands, and that is very normal in many tracks, but my question is what would look better on TV, a pack 40% of the stands and a completely empty 60% of the stands or having people in all the track but maybe just a feeling of lots of fans at the finish line? I´m asking, I don´t know if opening the stands would be better for PR when people watch on TV.

[mlittle]

I know they only open a few stands, and that is very normal in many tracks, but my question is what would look better on TV, a pack 40% of the stands and a completely empty 60% of the stands or having people in all the track but maybe just a feeling of lots of fans at the finish line? I´m asking, I don´t know if opening the stands would be better for PR when people watch on TV.


Good point; I'd hadn't thought of that......I'm not sure which would look better from a PR standing but watching the TV coverage, it seems as though the stands are packed, so maybe in their opinion, opening part of the stands isn't such a bad thing. In this day and age, who really knows what track officials think at times? :eek: :eek:

[tbyars]

Jose, don't forget there is a significant cost factor involved in opening those other stands. I know it costs some speedways about 40% more to open those back straight stands than it does for just the main grandstands. Opening the back stands only pays if there is significant additional incremental revenue associated with it.

In at least one case I know of, TV is NOT the #1 consideration here. Cost containment is. It's not even an IRL call. The track promoter makes that call.

[Alexamateo]

The announcers on TV said there were 60,000 in attendance. The track has 112,000 seats. I am pretty sure it's a promoters call to only open half the grandstands if you're only going to sell half the seats. There's the expense of electricity, water, and sewer, the extra security and first aid stations, extra personnel for souveneirs and concessions, and the cost to pay all the people to clean it up the next day. It's just like a restaurant closing a section of seats if there's not a full crowd.

Also to answer your question, I think it's better to race in front of a packed grandstand instead of a bunch of partially filled ones.

[indycool]

Think you called it Alex. The announcers said 60,000 people. Richmond has built attendance steadily in small gains each year and got a larger gain this year if that's true, and from what you can gather on TV, it probably is.

There were many shots that showed packed grandstands. It's the old story. If you have 20,000 seats at a street race and they're packed, or 112,000 seats at an oval and 60,000 in 'em, which race had more people attend?

[anthonyvop]

There were many shots that showed packed grandstands. It's the old story. If you have 20,000 seats at a street race and they're packed, or 112,000 seats at an oval and 60,000 in 'em, which race had more people attend?

The real question is
Who has more disposable income? 20K at a street race or 60K(more like 45K) at a Short Oval Track?

[indycool]

So you say, 45,000. Link?

And how would anybody ever know about the disposable income of any ticket buyer at each kind of race? That's an unprovable, and rather condescending without any stitch of validity, statement belittling oval track fans.

[jarrambide]

Think you called it Alex. The announcers said 60,000 people. Richmond has built attendance steadily in small gains each year and got a larger gain this year if that's true, and from what you can gather on TV, it probably is.

There were many shots that showed packed grandstands. It's the old story. If you have 20,000 seats at a street race and they're packed, or 112,000 seats at an oval and 60,000 in 'em, which race had more people attend?
That´s why my question was how would those 60,000 fans look better on TV, opening a little less than half of the stands or opening all sections, my question was exclusively a PR or marketing question, regardless of the economic reality of racing, I know that opening a few sections makes more sense for the owner if they are not going to have a sell out.


By the way, no one mad at Manning?, I know that if those words came from Danica (which for the record I dislike) she would be called so many names from so many members, Manning gets a get out of jail free for being a man?

[indycool]

Good point on Manning, Jose.

Answer to your question is, at least in my way of thinking, crowd shots showing a bunch of people together look better than the people all spread out, but I 'spect YMMV.

[tbyars]

The real question is
Who has more disposable income? 20K at a street race or 60K(more like 45K) at a Short Oval Track?

I don't know, Tony. Who?

Please support your answer with linked data.

[jarrambide]

Good point on Manning, Jose.

Answer to your question is, at least in my way of thinking, crowd shots showing a bunch of people together look better than the people all spread out, but I 'spect YMMV.
Don´t what to look ignorant, but since it os a little to late for that, what is YMMV?

[indycool]

"Your mileage may vary."

And I don't even know what MY disposable income is. Anybody?: Annually, to the nearest 100 bucks. Sheesh?

[AntiSpeed]

And I don't even know what MY disposable income is. Anybody?: Annually, to the nearest 100 bucks. Sheesh?

Maybe you can't measure disposable income, but you can gather data on household income.

[indycool]

So, A) That wasn't the question, B) How many people out there nowadays are stupid enough to answer that question for anybody?, and C) What relationship would that have to the topic at hand?

[jarrambide]

"Your mileage may vary."

And I don't even know what MY disposable income is. Anybody?: Annually, to the nearest 100 bucks. Sheesh?

Can it be to the nearest 10?, don´t want my answer to be $0.00

[disko]

and what was open, was packed. There was also tremendous heat. It was 93 at race time (8pm) and a heat index of 104. The indy cars had troubles with grip beacause of the crown cars that ran before them. A lot of people were frustrated with the yellows.

Believe it or not, may sought refuse under the grandstands until the sun went down.

What was interesting is that the new torque club at richmond was insanely high. It was higher than any rollercoaster I have ever seen. Just looked ominous to even get up to those seats, and it was full.

Marco had the best car last night. he just caught the green flag fuel stop wrong, (was that the first one this year?) and TK capitolized.

Hats off to Camera, he ran up front and was impressive before he stuffed it.
Also to Helio for backing out of in in two. All the action was out of 4 or in 2.

I want to thrilled abou the the 7 buck beer or 4 dollar water.

Where were all the vendors? Smallest I have seen at any event, ever.

[Miatanut]

Believe it or not, may sought refuse under the grandstands until the sun went down.

There's always a lot of refuse under a grandstand, but I don't know why anyone would seek it. :D

[anthonyvop]

I don't know, Tony. Who?

Please support your answer with linked data.

Ok
ALMS (Road racing fans.
http://www.autospies.com/news/Nielson-Study-Shows-ALMS-Attracts-Upscale-Elite-Demographics-8072/
"Nielsen Media Research studied American Le Mans Series race fans who attended races last year. That study revealed that nearly half (48.3 percent) of American Le Mans Series fans earned more than $90,000 annually compared to only 20.4 percent nationally. In separate studies from national US phone surveys, Nielsen Media Research concluded that fans of the major sports leagues and other motorsports series who earned more than $90,000 ranged from 23.7 percent to 34 percent.

In addition, 20 percent of American Le Mans Series fans earned more than $150,000 and 10 percent earned more than $200,000. Furthering the affluence of the American Le Mans Series fans, the Nielsen Media Research study results documented that 13 percent had a net worth greater than $1 million and nearly a quarter (22.3 percent) had a net worth greater than $500,000.

American Le Mans Series fans love their cars and do not hesitate to purchase them or pay a higher tab for them, either. More than 40 percent of Series fans purchased new vehicles in the past year, and 39 percent own three cars or more while 27 percent spend more than $30,000 on a new car purchase."

IndyCar fans

http://indysponsor.com/series_demographics.html

<$50,000: 49%
$50,000-$74,999: 20%
$75,000-$99,999: 15%
$100,000+: 16%

[indycool]

So, they're richer. They only count as one body each. And your statement was "DISPOSABLE" income. How one person spends his "disposable" income may differ from how another guy does.

[Hoss Ghoul]

Ok
ALMS (Road racing fans.
http://www.autospies.com/news/Nielson-Study-Shows-ALMS-Attracts-Upscale-Elite-Demographics-8072/
"Nielsen Media Research studied American Le Mans Series race fans who attended races last year. That study revealed that nearly half (48.3 percent) of American Le Mans Series fans earned more than $90,000 annually compared to only 20.4 percent nationally. In separate studies from national US phone surveys, Nielsen Media Research concluded that fans of the major sports leagues and other motorsports series who earned more than $90,000 ranged from 23.7 percent to 34 percent.

In addition, 20 percent of American Le Mans Series fans earned more than $150,000 and 10 percent earned more than $200,000. Furthering the affluence of the American Le Mans Series fans, the Nielsen Media Research study results documented that 13 percent had a net worth greater than $1 million and nearly a quarter (22.3 percent) had a net worth greater than $500,000.

American Le Mans Series fans love their cars and do not hesitate to purchase them or pay a higher tab for them, either. More than 40 percent of Series fans purchased new vehicles in the past year, and 39 percent own three cars or more while 27 percent spend more than $30,000 on a new car purchase."

IndyCar fans

http://indysponsor.com/series_demographics.html

<$50,000: 49%
$50,000-$74,999: 20%
$75,000-$99,999: 15%
$100,000+: 16%

Ahhh, a money grubbing elitist piece of . Now we know what you're all about.

[indycool]

I might add that a guy who makes $100,000 a year pays $50 for a race ticket, same as the last hobo out of the boxcar.....or $4 for a beer, etc. And he counts as ONE watching TV, same as the hobo. So, as far as spending at the track or on TV goes, it's the same, regardless of income.

Same thinkin' that came out of Pook's mouth when he was in charge at CART and said, "Our fans don't drink Budweiser, smoke Winstons or drive pickup trucks." (I'll never forget the forum post on that one from a guy who said, "I drive a $48,000 pickup truck.")

If the ALMS is looking for a country club audience, looks like it has one. But I think the Indycar folks would be shooting for more like baseball, NASCAR, football, etc., guy and gal fans who they can sell Cheerios and Budweiser and Alltel and Sunoco gas and Firestone tires and stuff like that to -- you know, us low-brow oval trackers.

[tbyars]

Tony, doesn't even come close to addressing the comment you made. You said NOTHING about ALMS in your original post; you specifically compared disposable income for 20,000 at a street race (any street race) vs. 45,000 at a short oval.

You clearly implied that those who go to street races have more disposable income than those who go to short oval races....a general statement without regard to a specific series.

And I saw nothing in the article you quoted that even addresses fans at an ALMS street circuit, and that was your original claim. What do the demographics look like at an ALMS street race vs. an ALMS road course race?

In other words, the ALMS article you quoted is absolutely worthless vis a vis the original claim you made.

Back it up or quit throwing out the stale, prejudiced, nose-in-the-air crap that road racers and their fans are somehow inherently better people than oval racers and their fans.

That should be WAY beyond anyone who calls himself a journalist unless they can back it up.

[AntiSpeed]

So, A) That wasn't the question, B) How many people out there nowadays are stupid enough to answer that question for anybody?, and C) What relationship would that have to the topic at hand?

A) no, but one of your responses to anthony's asserting was asking how they collect data on disposable income. They don't, but, data on household income is readily available and gives a general impression of disposable income.

B) Every demographics report I've ever seen has had data on household income.

C)I'm simply countering your argument that they can't collect data on disposable income. They can't tell exactly how much each person in the circuit spends on leisure activities to the penny, but by learning attendee's household income it adds a piece to the picture of what kinds of people are showing up at races, and that's really all it needs to do.

Anyways, Anthony, I don't think it matters what income differences are between each circuit. And it doesn't even really matter how wealthy your fans are, as long as you find sponsors and companies to support you who fit those demographics.

[indycool]

Anti-,

A. You could've stopped with "no."

B. They have income reports in them but I doubt I'm the only person who writes "none of your business" beside them, answers them phony, or doesn't answer them at all.

C. Household income has absolutely NO reflection on disposable income. You could make $200,000 a year and owe $20 million on your yacht or airplane. So what's "disposable income?"

[JSH]

I don't care which grandstands are open/closed, etc... I'm watching the racing.

[anthonyvop]

It is amazing how everybody here is such a marketing genius yet they have no clue what Disposable income is.

F.Y.I.
Disposable income is The amount of income left to an individual after taxes have been paid, available for spending and saving.

Now that you know. Explain to me how 45K spectators in which almost 1/2 make $50K or less is better than 20K spectators which almost 1/2 make over $90K

I used ALMS Demographics instead of Champ Cars because the Champ Car # are proprietary and I do not have permission to publish them. The ALMS were provided by a private company and released to the public and IRL numbers are public record. I can say that the Champ Car # Mirrored those of the ALMS.

[jarrambide]

It is amazing how everybody here is such a marketing genius yet they have no clue what Disposable income is.

F.Y.I.
Disposable income is The amount of income left to an individual after taxes have been paid, available for spending and saving.

Now that you know. Explain to me how 45K spectators in which almost 1/2 make $50K or less is better than 20K spectators which almost 1/2 make over $90K

I used ALMS Demographics instead of Champ Cars because the Champ Car # are proprietary and I do not have permission to publish them. The ALMS were provided by a private company and released to the public and IRL numbers are public record. I can say that the Champ Car # Mirrored those of the ALMS.
Didn´t help us much (just like your tone doesn´t help your point), it didn´t help us because CC needed fans watching on TV a lot more than fans with high income attending, ALMS may be successful with high income fans on the stands, CC then and IRL need fans watching on TV, and yes, fans attending, but if you are the owner of the track and staging an IRL race, and you have to choose between 20,000 guys that may or may not buy lots of crap and 60,000 that will not buy lots of crap, I guess they would choose 60,000, just my guess, those 20,000 affluent fans will have to buy tons, and tons of crap to equal the extra 40,000 ticket sales and all the crap those 60,000 fans buy.

[indycool]

jarrambide, that makes too much sense.

So, one guy in the stands has a Ferrari parked out front and three guys own Buicks. 3 to 1 ticket sales, 3 to 1 beer drinking, 3 to 1 hot-dog eating, 3 to 1 program buying, etc. Same on TV.

The elitist 'tude is one thing that hurt both CART and CC. They equated rich people as more than the masses.

[garyshell]

It is amazing how everybody here is such a marketing genius yet they have no clue what Disposable income is.

F.Y.I.
Disposable income is The amount of income left to an individual after taxes have been paid, available for spending and saving.

Now that you know. Explain to me how 45K spectators in which almost 1/2 make $50K or less is better than 20K spectators which almost 1/2 make over $90K

I used ALMS Demographics instead of Champ Cars because the Champ Car # are proprietary and I do not have permission to publish them. The ALMS were provided by a private company and released to the public and IRL numbers are public record. I can say that the Champ Car # Mirrored those of the ALMS.

It is even more amazing that anyone would use "disposable income" as any sort of measure in such discussions. The only figure that has any real relevance to this subject is "discretionary income". Disposable income doesn't tell you a damn thing about what someone might spend on a given race weekend.

Gary

[anthonyvop]

It is even more amazing that anyone would use "disposable income" as any sort of measure in such discussions. The only figure that has any real relevance to this subject is "discretionary income". Disposable income doesn't tell you a damn thing about what someone might spend on a given race weekend.

Gary
Disposable income is the baseline you go by. Discretionary income, while a better market indicator, relies on a huge amount of factors that takes volumes of statistics.

A simple example. 2 families, One in NYC and one in Indy with an disposable income of $100K. The family in Indy would likely have a greater discretionary income than the one in NYC.
But there will be vastly more with $100K+ disposable incomes in NYC than in Indy.

[garyshell]

Disposable income is the baseline you go by. Discretionary income, while a better market indicator, relies on a huge amount of factors that takes volumes of statistics.

A simple example. 2 families, One in NYC and one in Indy with an disposable income of $100K. The family in Indy would likely have a greater discretionary income than the one in NYC.
But there will be vastly more with $100K+ disposable incomes in NYC than in Indy.


Yes, and only discretionary income is a factor in discretionary spending like the spending associated with motorsports. Disposable income is useless in predicting what folks might be able to spend. It is a total red herring. It is a baseline used only by those wishing to inflate their numbers or without the means or inclination to get to the real number.

Gary

[indycool]

What? You hafta be kidding.

Disposable, at least to me, means anything you can throw around. Discretionary means the amount one judges to use specifically.

Again, I don't know ANYONE who could tell what their disposable income is and I imagine disposable is different to different people. Is the stock market disposable income? To some, it's an investment recognizing that you can gain or you can lose. To a day trader, you hafta win.

In any case, a large general audience -- on site or TV -- means more over the long haul than a rich audience. If you try to place your product where it's too hard to reach, then fewer people have the resources to buy into it.

[garyshell]

What? You hafta be kidding.

Disposable, at least to me, means anything you can throw around. Discretionary means the amount one judges to use specifically.

Again, I don't know ANYONE who could tell what their disposable income is and I imagine disposable is different to different people. Is the stock market disposable income? To some, it's an investment recognizing that you can gain or you can lose. To a day trader, you hafta win.

In any case, a large general audience -- on site or TV -- means more over the long haul than a rich audience. If you try to place your product where it's too hard to reach, then fewer people have the resources to buy into it.

Actually anthony's definitions are correct, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_income

But the usage is ridiculous. Any sanctioning body that uses disposable income as a measure of their audience is cooking the books. It comes down to the old adage, there are three types of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics.

Gary

[anthonyvop]

Yes, and only discretionary income is a factor in discretionary spending like the spending associated with motorsports. Disposable income is useless in predicting what folks might be able to spend. It is a total red herring.

Gary
Disposable income is a huge asset in predicting how and on what people will spend.
Do you think the average person with $100K of Disposable income shops at the same place a person with $30K does? Do they buy the same things? Do they have the same likes?

There are exceptions(Always are) but in general NO!

[indycool]

Okay on the definitions, Gary, but I certainly agree with you on the latter. And I have no idea how anyone would determine EITHER disposable or discretionary income, let alone apply it to something like an event.

Companies have target demographics for their products but they certainly don't exclude anyone automatically from buying them. Maybe the 20,000 rich guys buy one more beer apiece than the 60,000 poorboys but that ain't gonna be what floats the boat.

[anthonyvop]

In any case, a large general audience -- on site or TV -- means more over the long haul than a rich audience. If you try to place your product where it's too hard to reach, then fewer people have the resources to buy into it.
While a large TV audience is always beneficial you have to factor in the type of audience.
Advertisers and sponsors look at that.

All I am trying to do is point out the IndyCar has it's work cut out for them and has to target and audience. But before they do that they have to figue out what that audience is.

[anthonyvop]

Okay on the definitions, Gary, but I certainly agree with you on the latter. And I have no idea how anyone would determine EITHER disposable or discretionary income, let alone apply it to something like an event.

Companies have target demographics for their products but they certainly don't exclude anyone automatically from buying them. Maybe the 20,000 rich guys buy one more beer apiece than the 60,000 poorboys but that ain't gonna be what floats the boat.
No but 20,000 rich guys are more likely to buy an Audi or Lexus than 60,000 "Poorboys"(your term). There is more to marketing and sales than just PBR's.



Look at Penske racing. Who are their Major Sponsors?
NASCAR: Miller Lite, Mobile 1, Alltel.
Indycar: Marlboro
ALMS: DHL

All different Demos. All different Disposable incomes.

[indycool]

Well sure a guy with lots of money can buy a bigger car. Duh. So, maybe that's why Audi's in ALMS.

Penske Racing, as shown by you, does NOT seem to be "all different demos." For NASCAR and Indycar, they're all retail products. Smoking and drinking beer go together in a lot of ways. Mobil One is for car guys. Alltel is for anyone who wants a cell phone.

[anthonyvop]

Well sure a guy with lots of money can buy a bigger car. Duh. So, maybe that's why Audi's in ALMS.

Penske Racing, as shown by you, does NOT seem to be "all different demos." For NASCAR and Indycar, they're all retail products. Smoking and drinking beer go together in a lot of ways. Mobil One is for car guys. Alltel is for anyone who wants a cell phone.
You think it is that simple?

Mobile one if marketed for those who change their oil or maintain their cars themselves. Distinctly "Blue collar"
Alltel is strictly a exposure exercise.

Marlboro is a long term commitment dependent on various factors and certain board members. If you notice, Marlboro does no active advertising. It is all direct mail.

DHL is target to a different Demo. Distinctly "white Collar".

[garyshell]

Disposable income is a huge asset in predicting how and on what people will spend.
Do you think the average person with $100K of Disposable income shops at the same place a person with $30K does? Do they buy the same things? Do they have the same likes?

There are exceptions(Always are) but in general NO!

Bull! It is USELESS at such predictions when it comes to their discretionary spending and spending on motorsports is a textbook example of discretionary spending.

But let's go back to your disposable income example, I will give you odds that BOTH of the families are shopping at WalMart if their remaining disposable income after mortgage and insurance payments is equivalent. So what does the disposable income tell you about shopping demographics, absolutely nothing.

Like I said before, anyone who is using disposable income as a metric for their audience in a sponsor pitch is cooking the books and the sponsor will see thorugh that smoke screen in a heart beat.

Gary

[indycool]

Why is DHL so white collar? And Marlboro CAN'T advertise.

[jarrambide]

No but 20,000 rich guys are more likely to buy an Audi or Lexus than 60,000 "Poorboys"(your term). There is more to marketing and sales than just PBR's.
.

And that works perfectly for AMLS, in my previous post I posted that the model works for ALMS but it didn´t for CC and it will not work for the IRL.

ALMS has a niche, their fans are not many but a lot of them are either very affluent or at least have an income higher than the average of the country.

Their sponsors will prefer to be there than in other more popular series or sports, we get that, those sponsors prefer quality than quantity, it makes sense, their product is not for everyone.

The same model also works great for specialized magazines, I´m a subscriber of Cigar Aficionado, not because I have the money to live that life style, but because I love cigars and to me is an aspirational magazine, I like to see how others spend their millions, but many of their subscribers are affluent, that is why their ads are not only for cigars, they have ads for expensive watches, jets, luxury cars, etc, etc, etc., for those subscribers, it makes more sense to advertise in CA instead of a magazine with a whole lot more subscribers and readers, like Cosmopolitan.

The thing is that CA doesn´t charge for an ad as much as Cosmo, yes, CA charges far more than other magazines with the same circulation because of ther demographics, but certainly they can´t charge what magazines with a lot higher circulation can charge main stream companies.

While this model works great for ALMS and CA, for a series like CART, CC and IRL it doesn´t work, they need main stream sponsors because they need lots of money, they don´t need as much as F1 teams, but they need a lot of money that luxury brands will not be willing to pay for a niche, they need a main stream appeal, they need the TV ratings, they need the beer drinking, burger eating, now have a 4 cylinder car because of gas prices damn you my new pick up truck fans.

You said it yourself, different models, CC proved the ALMS model will not work for open wheel racing, it doesn´t work for the series, doesn´t work for the teams (because of the high operating costs), doesn´t work for the organizers regardless of the kind of venue, oval,natural track, street course.

[anthonyvop]

But let's go back to your disposable income example, I will give you odds that BOTH of the families are shopping at WalMart if their remaining disposable income after mortgage and insurance payments is equivalent.

What odds will you give me?


Like I said before, anyone who is using disposable income as a metric for their audience in a sponsor pitch is cooking the books and the sponsor will see thorugh that smoke screen in a heart beat.
Gary
So I guess all those studies, surveys and programs were all just wasted money. Did Madison Ave get that memo?

[anthonyvop]

You said it yourself, different models, CC proved the ALMS model will not work for open wheel racing, it doesn´t work for the series, doesn´t work for the teams (because of the high operating costs), doesn´t work for the organizers regardless of the kind of venue, oval,natural track, street course.
And the IRL's is working?
Neither series could have been called a success. IRL's # are down in the dumper where Champ Car's were and there are no signs that it will improve. So what is IndyCars Demo? Do they go after the same demo as NASCAR? That one seems sewn up and saturated!

[anthonyvop]

Why is DHL so white collar? And Marlboro CAN'T advertise.
DHL is an overnight packaging and shipping biz. Their target customer is corporate America.

Marlboro can't advertise because.........Really? You don't know?

[indycool]

Of course I know.

And DHL's target may well be corporate America. But a guy walking in to send a Christmas present to his mother, DHL will take his money, too.

NASCAR targets the masses, has largely retail sponsors involved, rather than B2B, and is largely successful. The 60,000 does that, 300 percent more than than the 20,000 does.

[jarrambide]

And the IRL's is working?
Neither series could have been called a success. IRL's # are down in the dumper where Champ Car's were and there are no signs that it will improve. So what is IndyCars Demo? Do they go after the same demo as NASCAR? That one seems sewn up and saturated!

Using your logic they should close the IRL and we should all forget about open wheel racing in the US, after all, IRL´s strategy is not working and CC´s niche strategy was a complete failure.

What you are forgetting is that even tough CC proved the niche strategy didn´t work, CART proved that the main stream strategy works well for OWR.

Those days are gone, OWR will never have those numbers, trying to beat NASCAR would e stupid, but the affluent niche is not the answer, IRL should try to be as main stream as possible, it will never be NASCAR or the NFL or the NBA, but they can be main stream, at least they should die trying, that is their only real shot.

Look at MLS, before coming to ths country I was 100% sure soccer would never make it in this country, I laughed at MLS, didn´t give them more than 6 years, now I´m a proud Dynamo fan, attend a lot of MLS games and have seen the league go from paying to get their games on TV to receiving money for their games from tv stations that broadcast in English and Spanish, from having to rent stadiums to half of the teams have their own stadiums, from no ratings to good enough ratings to have many teams being sponsored, heck DC United has Volkswagen money.

They knew and still know that their league will never be NFL or MLB, but they know that being a niche will not work, they are going to be as main stream as they can, it has take them lots of years, and that is what the IRL should be doing, to get those fans that right now don´t know anything about OWR, you never know, look at my team mates, white suburban American beer drinking guys, they had no idea what soccer was a few years ago, now they attend games and play soccer, everyone said those guys would never be soccer fans, but they are now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlClYQq_5ms

[anthonyvop]

ff

[anthonyvop]

Using your logic they should close the IRL and we should all forget about open wheel racing in the US, after all, IRL´s strategy is not working and CC´s niche strategy was a complete failure.

Actually Champ Car's strategy worked quite well. Better than the IRL's. It was the ownership that let Champ Car down.
Champ Car spent 1/8 the amount on Marketing that the IRL does yet the TV numbers were almost identical and race attendance was significantly better than Indycars.

[anthonyvop]

Of course I know.

And DHL's target may well be corporate America. But a guy walking in to send a Christmas present to his mother, DHL will take his money, too.

NASCAR targets the masses, has largely retail sponsors involved, rather than B2B, and is largely successful. The 60,000 does that, 300 percent more than than the 20,000 does.
And that is why you are not the head of marketing of the IRL!

[jarrambide]

Actually Champ Car's strategy worked quite well. Better than the IRL's. It was the ownership that let Champ Car down.
Champ Car spent 1/8 the amount on Marketing that the IRL does yet the TV numbers were almost identical and race attendance was significantly better than Indycars.

Wait, wait, so your definition of success, your definition of "worked quite well" is that someone spent less on marketing, because you are telling me the TV numbers were almost identical, which not to be rude to IRL or the extinct CC, but those numbers were "poop".

So the TV numbers were horrible, but because they were spending less money on PR it worked quite well?

By the way, are you taking into consideration the money spent on getting those races on TV as part of that marketing strategy?, last time I checked, having to pay to get your product on TV is quite the contrary of proof of a working strategy, I don´t care if it was working better or worst than the IRL strategy, I care that it wasn´t working, I care that the number of TV viewers and track attendants were less and less every year, I care that sponsors were becoming a thing of the past after a few years, it wasn´t working, even if they weren´t paying a lot for PR, a series that was losing fans, sponsors, viewers and paying to get their races on TV is not a series with a working strategy.

You will have troubles finding more than half a dozen hard core fans of CART and then CC in these forums as passionate as CART/CC as I was, I loved CC, but not even I can defend the failed strategy, the horrible ratings (and even though they are almost identical, they were horrible and the spike races were almost always lower than the IRL ESPN races, I know, I know, both numbers were incredibly low), the absence of recognition of the series, something tells me your point of view comes more from the fact you hated CC ending than wanting to find a real solution.

CC marketing strategy was not working (unless we use a strange definition like yours, come on, they were spending less?, so what, it wasn´t working), as I said, CART strategy was a good strategy, IRL only chance is to somehow go to something between CC and CART, and I think it has to be something between because those CART days are gone forever.

Indycool, not to be a "a hoofed mammal of the horse family with a braying call", but 60,000 is not 300% than 20,000, even though 60,000 is in fact 300% of 20,000, it is only 200% more than 20,000. :D :D

[indycool]

Okay, Jose, I'll watch my math better.

Anthony, I'm not head of marketing of the IRL for a whole BUNCH of reasons, like I already have a job, etc., to start with, but I'm not using inaccuracies in my posts.

1. The TV numbers between IRL and CC were NOT close to the same, if for no other reason that the Indianapolis 500's numbers were close to twice as many as the whole CC season.....each year.

2. CC race attendance was NOT significantly better than the ICS as is slowly coming out. Witness the recent Edmonton Sun column and the bits and pieces that have come to the surface about the outright CC attendance lies. And the manner in which CC "marketed" to get people to run races, like promising 150,000 supposed tourists, as it did in San Jose and Las Vegas.

3. The IRL's marketing efforts and co-opped projects with entities such as Honda, Firestone, Ethanol, ABC/ESPN, Bombardier and others would suggest that the IRL's marketing effort is NOT a failure but a growing work in progress. As a team, last I heard AGR had 28 sponsors and associate sponsors of various levels of activity and when it embarked on a street race in St. Pete, it had Honda and 7-11, among others, already lined up to sustain the thing....unlike CC's scramble just to find places to race and signing anybody for one try.

Embellishing or relying on past inaccuracies about CC does little to allow it to go away in peace. I've heard of no complaints about "blendification" from the paddock or the sponsors. Of course there are going to be those who don't like it, and you qualify as one, but bring better arguments to the party if you want us to believe some of 'em.

[jarrambide]

Okay, Jose, I'll watch my math better.

Anthony, I'm not head of marketing of the IRL for a whole BUNCH of reasons, like I already have a job, etc., to start with, but I'm not using inaccuracies in my posts.

1. The TV numbers between IRL and CC were NOT close to the same, if for no other reason that the Indianapolis 500's numbers were close to twice as many as the whole CC season.....each year.

2. CC race attendance was NOT significantly better than the ICS as is slowly coming out. Witness the recent Edmonton Sun column and the bits and pieces that have come to the surface about the outright CC attendance lies. And the manner in which CC "marketed" to get people to run races, like promising 150,000 supposed tourists, as it did in San Jose and Las Vegas.

3. The IRL's marketing efforts and co-opped projects with entities such as Honda, Firestone, Ethanol, ABC/ESPN, Bombardier and others would suggest that the IRL's marketing effort is NOT a failure but a growing work in progress. As a team, last I heard AGR had 28 sponsors and associate sponsors of various levels of activity and when it embarked on a street race in St. Pete, it had Honda and 7-11, among others, already lined up to sustain the thing....unlike CC's scramble just to find places to race and signing anybody for one try.

Embellishing or relying on past inaccuracies about CC does little to allow it to go away in peace. I've heard of no complaints about "blendification" from the paddock or the sponsors. Of course there are going to be those who don't like it, and you qualify as one, but bring better arguments to the party if you want us to believe some of 'em.

Indycool, yes, the 500 is a huge race, not what it used to be but still a huge monster, but if the series keeps relying on the 500 to keep afloat it will never be more than it is now, the series needs to grow the series as a whole, to make the whole package a sweet deal for sponsors and the 500 as the huge cherry on the cake, as something that it is there every year to sweeten the package even more.

I want to believe that the people on top want to improve TV ratings, attendance and recognition of individual races, I know some peopel like you and surely Tony G. want the 500 to be something very different from the rest of the races, but surely even him inderstands that if the series doesn´t turn itself into a better package, then having only one series will mean nothing.

Now, about AGR, great for them, but I also hope that every team in the future will have lots of sponsors paying for every bill, I understand that some teams will have more sponsors and/or more money from sponsors, but even now that we have very healthy grids, many teams are still on thin ice, that has to change, change to the times in which even the not so successful teams had sponsors footing every bill.

[indycool]

Jose, attendance has been up, or at least certainly looked like it, at every venue this year, INCLUDING Indy. This is not a fight between the series and the "500." TG owns 'em both,. TG would logically want both to do well. No drama there.

[jarrambide]

Jose, attendance has been up, or at least certainly looked like it, at every venue this year, INCLUDING Indy. This is not a fight between the series and the "500." TG owns 'em both,. TG would logically want both to do well. No drama there.
I wasn´t saying that, if it sounded that way I apologize, I just wanted to state that the series has still a very long way to go.

[garyshell]

So I guess all those studies, surveys and programs were all just wasted money. Did Madison Ave get that memo?

If they were based on disposable income instead of discretionary income then yes, they were wasted money. Madison Ave didn't need any memo, they saw right through any such studies.

Gary