Indy 500 ratings down 13% from 2008

[NickFalzone]

USA Today says down 13%, and lowest ratings since 1986:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/colum...indy-500_N.htm

(Moderator´s note) MDF asked me to change the name of the thread and to replace the original post with the numbers from USA Today.

[ChicagocrewIRL]

ABC Sports' live broadcast of the 93rd Indianapolis 500 on May 24 drew a national rating nearly 60 percent higher than the 2004 race and the highest rating for the "Greatest Spectacle in Racing" since 1996, according to figures released May 26.
The coverage delivered a national household rating of 6.5/18 share, a 59 percent increase from last year's 4.7/11. The rating peaked at 8.6/23 from 4-4:14 p.m., when eventual winner Helio Castroneves and Danica Patrick dueled for the lead in the last 15 laps of the race.

Edit: Some of the numbers above don't match up with zap2it tv ratings, they may be higher than actual overnights.


whoever wrote that copy is dopey.... Patrick was no where near Castroneves and was in no position to duel with the leader. She was close to overtaking Wheldon a few times though. <gag>

[Lee Roy]

http://sportsmediawatch.blogspot.com/2009/05/indy-500-overnight-down-18.html

An unvarnished report.


Indy 500 overnight down 18%.

In a year when NASCAR appears to be shedding viewers, and on a day when the rival Coca Cola 600 was rained out, ratings still declined for the crown jewel of the Indy Racing League.

The 2009 Indianapolis 500 drew a 4.2 overnight rating on ABC Sunday afternoon, down 18% from a 5.1 last year, and down 13% from a 4.8 for the rain-soaked 2007 race. The 4.2 overnight is the lowest for the Indy 500 since at least 1995, and likely marks the lowest overnight ever for the race.

In each of the past two years, final ratings for the Indy 500 fell 10% from the overnight, putting this year's race on pace for a 3.8 final rating. The Indy 500 has never drawn a final rating below 4.1.

[NickFalzone]

USA Today says down 13%, and lowest ratings since 1986:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/hiestand-tv/2009-05-26-indy-500_N.htm

[Jag_Warrior]

Well one of these reports is clearly a FUBAR. My guess is it's the one that had Danica dueling with Castroneves for the lead. I was about to get upset that I missed her going for the lead, but it sounds like whoever wrote that first report just made that up - so I'm guessing they can't read basic stats either. When I tuned in, Danica was about as close to the 2nd place car as the 4th place car was to her.

But if the Sports Media Watch report is the correct one, this is not a good sign. In the No Spin Zone, that'll be hard to rationalize.

[nigelred5]

I notice the report that says ratings were UP was comparing to 2004 ratings. :rolleyes:

[Jag_Warrior]

ABC Sports' live broadcast of the 93rd Indianapolis 500 on May 24 drew a national rating nearly 60 percent higher than the 2004 race and the highest rating for the "Greatest Spectacle in Racing" since 1996, according to figures released May 26.

The coverage delivered a national household rating of 6.5/18 share, a 59 percent increase from last year's 4.7/11. The rating peaked at 8.6/23 from 4-4:14 p.m., when eventual winner Helio Castroneves and Danica Patrick dueled for the lead in the last 15 laps of the race.

Edit: Some of the numbers above don't match up with zap2it tv ratings, they may be higher than actual overnights.


That data and the original version of the report came from 2005, not 2009. The "89th" was changed to "93rd". And "Dan Wheldon" was replaced with "Helio Castroneves".

Whoever wrote that is a plagiarist. :mad:

This is what was posted on Indy500.com:


By Paul Kelly
indy500.com
Friday, June 3, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ABC Sports' live broadcast of the 89th Indianapolis 500 on May 29 drew a national rating nearly 60 percent higher than the 2004 race and the highest rating for the "Greatest Spectacle in Racing" since 1996, according to figures released June 3.

The coverage delivered a national household rating of 6.5/18 share, a 59 percent increase from last year's 4.7/11. The rating peaked at 8.6/23 from 4-4:14 p.m., when eventual winner Dan Wheldon and rookie sensation Danica Patrick dueled for the lead in the last 15 laps of the race.

Bad. Very, very bad.

[DBell]

Great catch Jag.


When I read the first post I thought this is a pleasant surprise. Then seeing the actual numbers were a little lower than I thought they would be is a drag.

[call_me_andrew]

Wow, this is the most depressing thread I've ever read.

[Jag_Warrior]

Oh, MDF... just to be clear, in no way at all am I suggesting that you knowingly posted that fake report. It was just there and you put it up. All of us do that, all the time - no way for you to know.

[NickFalzone]

Down ~15% from last year is significant, but I have a hard time believing this is due to VS. The first couple of races last season leading into the 500 got very low ratings. I also saw a lot of ads on ESPN leading into this 500. The major complaint I heard from others that watched the race was that there were to many commercials, particularly in the last 50 laps. The other reality here is that maybe car racing is just dropping in popularity in general. Is there any racing series that's doing equal or better than last year? Across the board ratings seem to be down. I don't know why that is, but a general lack of interest in car racing could be a big part of this. Every sport has its ups and downs, and racing could be in a low point right now.

[jarrambide]

Down ~15% from last year is significant, but I have a hard time believing this is due to VS. The first couple of races last season leading into the 500 got very low ratings. I also saw a lot of ads on ESPN leading into this 500. The major complaint I heard from others that watched the race was that there were to many commercials, particularly in the last 50 laps. The other reality here is that maybe car racing is just dropping in popularity in general. Is there any racing series that's doing equal or better than last year? Across the board ratings seem to be down. I don't know why that is, but a general lack of interest in car racing could be a big part of this. Every sport has its ups and downs, and racing could be in a low point right now.
F1?, but since I´m refering to worldwide ratings and not US ratings, the answer is no.

Isn´t this happening to baseball and the NBA this year also?

[ChicagocrewIRL]

To quote Kosuke Matsuura " This is ****ing disappointing "

[Dr. Krogshöj]

Non-existent ratings during the build-up + an all-time low of 11 American drivers starting the race = 15% drop in American ratings.

Somebody should do a research on international ratings as well. I have a feeling that they are up, though I haven't seen any figures. I bet they soared in Brazil though. Here in Hungary the race was televised live for the first time since... ever. On the torrent sites you could find Dutch, Russian etc. telecasts as well.

[beachbum]

Down ~15% from last year is significant, but I have a hard time believing this is due to VS. The first couple of races last season leading into the 500 got very low ratings. I also saw a lot of ads on ESPN leading into this 500. The major complaint I heard from others that watched the race was that there were to many commercials, particularly in the last 50 laps. The other reality here is that maybe car racing is just dropping in popularity in general. Is there any racing series that's doing equal or better than last year? Across the board ratings seem to be down. I don't know why that is, but a general lack of interest in car racing could be a big part of this. Every sport has its ups and downs, and racing could be in a low point right now.
The main competitor for racing ratings,N-Car, is also seeing much lower ratings this year, to the point they seem to be having a minor panic. So it may be a general tailing off of interest in motor racing. That has been predicted for years as people view cars with less reverence and often think of them as appliances.

But perhaps in a perverse sort of way, Versus may have had a minor impact on lower ratings. After watching the Versus coverage, the ABC coverage seemed particularly crappy and hard to watch. If I wasn't a big race fan, I probably would have turned it off (it was on mute for much of the race). In past years all we had was ABC and the poor quality was noticeable, but I think race fans developed a type of numbness and just accepted that it was better than nothing. I used to watch N-Car with some regularity, but the coverage with FOX is now so bad, I often turn it off. ABC almost did the same for me at Indy.

[SarahFan]

Down ~15% from last year is significant, but I have a hard time believing this is due to VS..

catch 22... or maybe a double edged sword... not sure what...but

I believe Versus is doing there part... Living up to there end of the contract...

problem is they simply will never attract enough eyeballs to grow the sport...


imo (I'll throw the IMO in to make folks happy, but IC and I have discussed it for years) the lead-in three races on versus being down in ratings directly resulted in a drop in ratings for the 500.....

[SarahFan]

forum scuttlebutt is the final is 3.9

the lowest rated I500 since it began being televised live

[Mark in Oshawa]

With TV ratings down for almost everything, I will just say I think the silver lining is that international viewers may be coming back, and that if everyone is losing ratings (NASCAR is down), then maybe, just maybe the advertisers wont necessarily see this in the same way we do.

[woody2goody]

Wouldn't you think that now the IRL and CCWS have merged, the ratings would be higher? Strange really I don't know what to make of it.

[MDS]

Wouldn't you think that now the IRL and CCWS have merged, the ratings would be higher? Strange really I don't know what to make of it.

What I make of it is that it's too little, too late. I've said before the merger should have happened at the beginning of 2002 at the latest, and in the five years that passed both sports got progressively weaker.

Also during that five years we saw NASCAR continue to rise and a proliferation of new sports like MMA. Add to that this new generation has more entertainment options then ever before and open wheel racing was never more than a niche sport in this country that couldn't possibly support a twin peaks of racing and you have a recipe for disaster.

Our culture is in a state of flux the likes of which it hasn't seen before. Newspapers are passing away, soon to be followed by local TV news and magazines. The internet is changing everything, and perhaps sports like open wheel racing in America will pass away as well as this new generation finds its own way and its own entertainment and sports.

[jarrambide]

Wouldn't you think that now the IRL and CCWS have merged, the ratings would be higher? Strange really I don't know what to make of it.
Why?, aside from a couple of internet fundamentalists on both sides, everyone was watching both series, many will not admit it, but it was true, many of us used to watch IRL, CCWS, F1, GP2, A1GP and every other series we could find on TV.

With the merger, you have the same number of OW hard core fans, just fewer races, even tough you have the same number of loyal fans, many don´t have VS, which gives you the lower ratings, and since casual fans don´t have VS either, it is very difficult to reach new fans, specially in the 400 channels era.

[Lousada]

imo (I'll throw the IMO in to make folks happy, but IC and I have discussed it for years) the lead-in three races on versus being down in ratings directly resulted in a drop in ratings for the 500.....

Wasn't the lead-in the last couple of years on ESPN(2)? And that was including Motegi. The Indy500 ratings are in a freefall for a few years now, it has little to do with Versus imo.

[DBell]

Wasn't the lead-in the last couple of years on ESPN(2)? And that was including Motegi. The Indy500 ratings are in a freefall for a few years now, it has little to do with Versus imo.

That's what I believe also.

[SarahFan]

Wasn't the lead-in the last couple of years on ESPN(2)? And that was including Motegi. The Indy500 ratings are in a freefall for a few years now, it has little to do with Versus imo.


yes they have been...

as the lead-ins have gotten worse and worse so have the ratings...

I've discussed it this board the last 1/2 decade or so...

Versus will never garner strong ratings and it's going to effect the 500 and the season long ratings....

this years average rating is going to end up right around a .65..<and thats with INDY

the lowest in AOWR history

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ken..you keep blaming this on VS. I think this must be personal. Also, you are great at saying the ratings suck, but I think you have never ONCE said what the IRL should have done. Right now, you just look like the smart@ss in the corner going "I told you so" without ever telling us so. Shut up already.....

[SarahFan]

Shut up already.....

not going to happen

burying your head will get you nothing more than sand in your eye


theres always the ignore button though

[garyshell]

I've discussed it this board the last 1/2 decade or so...

We know. We know. How could we not? But I want to quibble the semantics of your sentence a bit. You said "discuss", I have yet to see you discuss the situation. As Mark point out all you ever do is say "the ratings suck". I'd hardly call that "discussion".

Gary

[chuck34]

Ken again, please tell us, oh great one, what should be done to make the TV ratings go up.

My thought is that Vs is the way forward. It will take time, but as more and more people tune in/figure out they have Vs/pester their cable guys into getting it, the ratings will slowly but surely rise.

Had they stayed on ABC or any other "national" network that didn't care about the series, the ratings would have slowly but surely fallen off, with NO posibility of comming back up.

Bottom line is (my opinion only) is that I will take low ratings for now, if I see a chance of them comming up over sliding ratings with no chance of ever comming back.

Obviously you have some other opinion, but despite the repeated requests from EVERYONE here you ain't sharing. Why is that? Would your rather just bitch on into eternity?

[NickFalzone]

There's actually a precedent for comparison, the NHL. It's very easy to see the progress that the NHL has made in the 3-4 years of being on VS. It also started with very small ratings, worse than IndyCar's, but has steadily built up a fanbase to where the finals are now getting some of the best NHL ratings in a long time. And these are actual viewer ratings as opposed to something like ESPN that could put up a test pattern and due to all the bars etc that have it on nonstop would still get a .2 or .3 with no one actually watching.

[Bob Riebe]

I see no serious relation between the strength of Indy and TV ratings.

Rating will go up and down AFTER Indy gets weaker and stronger, there is NO INSTANT correlation.

[SarahFan]

There's actually a precedent for comparison, the NHL. It's very easy to see the progress that the NHL has made in the 3-4 years of being on VS. It also started with very small ratings, worse than IndyCar's, but has steadily built up a fanbase to where the finals are now getting some of the best NHL ratings in a long time. And these are actual viewer ratings as opposed to something like ESPN that could put up a test pattern and due to all the bars etc that have it on nonstop would still get a .2 or .3 with no one actually watching.

did you know the NHL players union wants to the NHL for being on Vs?

[SarahFan]

We know. We know. How could we not? But I want to quibble the semantics of your sentence a bit. You said "discuss", I have yet to see you discuss the situation. As Mark point out all you ever do is say "the ratings suck". I'd hardly call that "discussion".

Gary


it's all going to be ok... or... give it time... or who cares doesn't change my enjoyment isnt discussion


it's funny... but I seem to be the only one who really DOES want to discuss it

[SarahFan]

I see no serious relation between the strength of Indy and TV ratings.

Rating will go up and down AFTER Indy gets weaker and stronger, there is NO INSTANT correlation.

not sure what your point is...

but reality is that the weaker the lead-in to Indy (venues and station/eyeball watching) has directly resulted in ratings decline for the 500...

[Jag_Warrior]

I see no serious relation between the strength of Indy and TV ratings.

Rating will go up and down AFTER Indy gets weaker and stronger, there is NO INSTANT correlation.

Bob, when you say "the strength of Indy", I'm not sure what you mean. Nielsen ratings are just the measurement system for TV viewership. You wouldn't say that viewership is an indicator of Indy's strength?

You may be including financial results, car count, purse size, sponsored cars, etc. If that's the case, then I agree: there are additional measures one could use to assess Indy's strength. But TV ratings/viewership, I believe, would also be one of the key metrics - just not the only metric.

[Jag_Warrior]

Ken again, please tell us, oh great one, what should be done to make the TV ratings go up.

My thought is that Vs is the way forward. It will take time, but as more and more people tune in/figure out they have Vs/pester their cable guys into getting it, the ratings will slowly but surely rise.

Had they stayed on ABC or any other "national" network that didn't care about the series, the ratings would have slowly but surely fallen off, with NO posibility of comming back up.

Bottom line is (my opinion only) is that I will take low ratings for now, if I see a chance of them comming up over sliding ratings with no chance of ever comming back.

Obviously you have some other opinion, but despite the repeated requests from EVERYONE here you ain't sharing. Why is that? Would your rather just bitch on into eternity?

To be fair, I think before anyone (Ken or anyone else) can rationally discuss what to do to make the ratings go up, someone needs to ask some other questions first:

1) what are some of the things that have made the ratings go down over time (likely more than one factor)?

2) what do viewers want that they're not currently getting?


Root cause is a basic first step before getting to any proposed solution. It's nearly impossible to fix something (and keep it fixed) if you have no idea what caused it to break. Argree?

[jarrambide]

2) what do viewers want that they're not currently getting?



The actual channel on their cable or satellite package?

[NickFalzone]

I would point out that almost every NASCAR race has also been down 10-13% this year. That Indy was down that percentage from last year, which itself was down from the year before, does not at all suggest to me that VS is the problem. There's no evidence that VS hurt the ABC ratings, or is responsible for a 13% drop. If you look at it realistically, maybe Indy would have been down 8-10% from last year, and being on VS for the first couple races dropped it another point or two, but it sure looks like less people are interested in this 500 this year, and the year before that, VS has very little to do with it.

[NickFalzone]

To be fair, I think before anyone (Ken or anyone else) can rationally discuss what to do to make the ratings go up, someone needs to ask some other questions first:

1) what are some of the things that have made the ratings go down over time (likely more than one factor)?

2) what do viewers want that they're not currently getting?


Root cause is a basic first step before getting to any proposed solution. It's nearly impossible to fix something (and keep it fixed) if you have no idea what caused it to break. Argree?

What you're asking is why are less and less people watching the Indy 500, and I think the answer is that each year you offer a disappointing product. At first you're losing the most casual fans, and each year you're starting to eat into your more devoted fans. At a 3.9 you're down a fairly niche group of people that are into the 500. I believe there is a point where you keep putting on a bad show (ABC, and on track) and the devoted will still watch. That number may be somewhere in the 2's. Basically, unless things improve both on the quality of the broadcast and on the track, erosion will continue until they're left with the hardcore audience and little else.

[garyshell]

it's all going to be ok... or... give it time... or who cares doesn't change my enjoyment isnt discussion


it's funny... but I seem to be the only one who really DOES want to discuss it


So what "discussion" have you done, other than to continue to parrot a single line: "the ratings suck"? Oh wait I know there was one other line "the worst ratings ever". Am I forgetting any others?

Gary

[SarahFan]

So what "discussion" have you done, other than to continue to parrot a single line: "the ratings suck"? Oh wait I know there was one other line "the worst ratings ever". Am I forgetting any others?

Gary

you really do have trouble staying focused don't you?


the discussion has been ongoing for almost a decade

[garyshell]

you really do have trouble staying focused don't you?


the discussion has been ongoing for almost a decade


Nope, not at all. The "discussion", as you call it, may have droned on for almost a decode, but I have still yet to see anything more than "the ratings suck" repeated ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I guess our definitions of the word discuss are a bit different.

Gary

[Jag_Warrior]

What you're asking is why are less and less people watching the Indy 500, and I think the answer is that each year you offer a disappointing product.

OK. So from there... disappointing in what way?




Basically, unless things improve both on the quality of the broadcast and on the track, erosion will continue until they're left with the hardcore audience and little else.

Quality of the broadcast, as in commentators, picture quality or lack thereof, etc.? On track, as in not enough side by side action, not enough passing on the track, too much passing in the pits, etc.?

I think you're absolutely on the right track. I mean, I don't know what the reasons are. But if IMS wants the ratings to stop falling like a stone, I think they should ask people who used to watch, why they no longer do. I think that if 1000 former viewers were asked why they no longer watch the race, there would be maybe 3-5 things that would rise to the top of the Pareto. And they could (maybe) use that information to relaunch the Indy Car brand, or work to correct the issues that turn people off the most.

[garyshell]

OK. So from there... disappointing in what way?




Quality of the broadcast, as in commentators, picture quality or lack thereof, etc.? On track, as in not enough side by side action, not enough passing on the track, too much passing in the pits, etc.?

I think you're absolutely on the right track. I mean, I don't know what the reasons are. But if IMS wants the ratings to stop falling like a stone, I think they should ask people who used to watch, why they no longer do. I think that if 1000 former viewers were asked why they no longer watch the race, there would be maybe 3-5 things that would rise to the top of the Pareto. And they could (maybe) use that information to relaunch the Indy Car brand, or work to correct the issues that turn people off the most.


Well put. Ken, please note the above qualifies under MY definition of DISCUSSION.

Gary

[SarahFan]

Well put. Ken, please note the above qualifies under MY definition of DISCUSSION.

Gary


glad you issued the "MY"

[garyshell]

you really do have trouble staying focused don't you?


the discussion has been ongoing for almost a decade


Nope, not at all. The "discussion", as you call it, may have droned on for almost a decode, but I have still yet to see anything more than "the ratings suck" repeated ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I guess our definitions of the word discuss are a bit different.

Gary


(in response to a note from Jag) Well put. Ken, please note the above qualifies under MY definition of DISCUSSION.

Gary


glad you issued the "MY"


You might note two things, first unlike YOUR comment in the first sentence above I am trying to be a bit civil in this. And two, I have made it clear before we have a different definition of the word, haven't I?

Gary

[chuck34]

it's all going to be ok... or... give it time... or who cares doesn't change my enjoyment isnt discussion


it's funny... but I seem to be the only one who really DOES want to discuss it

Ken. I layed out my version of how I think things are going to play out. Is that not discussion? What fits your definition of "discussion"? Do I have to only talk about how much the ratings suck, and how much they are going to continue to suck as long as we are on VS? And then, of course they key part, don't give any thought to fixing things. Sound about right for your "discussion"?

[chuck34]

To be fair, I think before anyone (Ken or anyone else) can rationally discuss what to do to make the ratings go up, someone needs to ask some other questions first:

1) what are some of the things that have made the ratings go down over time (likely more than one factor)?

2) what do viewers want that they're not currently getting?


Root cause is a basic first step before getting to any proposed solution. It's nearly impossible to fix something (and keep it fixed) if you have no idea what caused it to break. Argree?

Jag you are quite right. We do need to know where we've been before we go forward. My short answers.

1) Fan base that was fractured combined with less and less technical innovation (from both sides).

2) I think the viewers want a TV product that closely resembles the VS product. While not perfect, it is way better than we've had for quite a while. Now if we can just get VS on more TV's. Plus the on track product needs to be more diverse. And that directly relates to #1 in my opinion.

[NickFalzone]

Chuck, from the perspective of someone that works in tv, I'd say that VS gets it about 80% right, and ABC about 40% right. With a little more money and behind the scenes innovations, VS could get to a really beautiful telecast. ABC/ESPN definitely feel like a lost cause at this point... although I did appreciate the extra time they gave post-race today. Maybe they're listening.

[Jag_Warrior]

To be honest, you'd have a hard time convincing me that the people running the IRL and/or IMS have any objective idea why people watch or don't watch the IRL. The hiring of Gene Simmons just confirmed that for me. A truly WTF moment in the history of auto racing.

One can come up with all the ideas and solutions in the world. And they might be great ideas and solutions. But unless the solutions apply to what are the most significant issues, it doesn't mean a thing.

If I asked Tony George why the ratings have been trending down for the past decade and a half, what would be his answer to me? Not to be cruel. But let's be honest. More than likely he'd look at me with that blank stare of his and say, "I don't know." If nothing else, I'd have to give the man a point for being honest.

[chuck34]

Chuck, from the perspective of someone that works in tv, I'd say that VS gets it about 80% right, and ABC about 40% right. With a little more money and behind the scenes innovations, VS could get to a really beautiful telecast. ABC/ESPN definitely feel like a lost cause at this point... although I did appreciate the extra time they gave post-race today. Maybe they're listening.

I would agree with this except for the part about post race. We got lucky on that one. There weren't many cautions today so there was some time at the end. The broadcast went to it's aloted amount no more, no less. However, at least at St. Pete, the VS coverage went over even after the race was done, so that they could get all the post race interviews. Don't kid yourself, ABC would NEVER do that.

[SarahFan]

You might note two things, first unlike YOUR comment in the first sentence above I am trying to be a bit civil in this. And two, I have made it clear before we have a different definition of the word, haven't I?

Gary


maybe you need to go back and reread the thread from the beginning...

my first posts were clearly discussion by your or my definition..

then i simply posted a factual statement about the final #'s...

which of coarse prompted someone to tell me to "shut-up"


and the usual rediculousness on your and few others ensued..


the solution is simple.....if you dont want to discuss ratings or the biz of the sport then stop clicking on threads that deal with it...

if you do and you simply dont want to face the realities of how said ratings are then simply put me on ignore...

but "shut up" isn't going to fly

[chuck34]

catch 22... or maybe a double edged sword... not sure what...but

I believe Versus is doing there part... Living up to there end of the contract...

problem is they simply will never attract enough eyeballs to grow the sport...


imo (I'll throw the IMO in to make folks happy, but IC and I have discussed it for years) the lead-in three races on versus being down in ratings directly resulted in a drop in ratings for the 500.....

This is your first post here. It all boils down to VS sucks. No discussion of what would be better which is what I'm asking you, and to my knowledge have not heard yet. Please point me to where you have said what would be better for TV if it's out there.

In your opinion how would you do the lead-in races?

[chuck34]

forum scuttlebutt is the final is 3.9

the lowest rated I500 since it began being televised live

Second post, still no discussion.

[chuck34]

yes they have been...

as the lead-ins have gotten worse and worse so have the ratings...

I've discussed it this board the last 1/2 decade or so...

Versus will never garner strong ratings and it's going to effect the 500 and the season long ratings....

this years average rating is going to end up right around a .65..<and thats with INDY

the lowest in AOWR history

Third post. Still no discussion other than some vague reference to past "discussions".

Must I go on? Induldge us and give us a run-down on what you would like to see happen going forward, or what should have been done in the past year (please don't bring up the split, work with the last year's reality). At least point us to where you have "discussed" things. Still too hard for you?

[SarahFan]

me:discussion

me:fact

me:discussion

you :s hut up



whose the problem?

[chuck34]

me:discussion

me:fact

me:discussion

you :s hut up



whose the problem?

Ken I am not asking you to shut up. I am asking you to discuss this with me. To do that you need to talk to me about how you would proceed. If you think that is me telling you to shut up then I am sorry, it is not. I am asking to have a conversation with you. All you keep saying is how you are putting up facts, which is fine. That's a good start, but now how about how you would change things. That is a discussion. Not you fact, me crap.

If you are saying that the three above posts is all the discussion we will get out of you, then that is sad. Because all I see is you "discusing" how bad VS is. That is not discussion. Discussion would start with that and then add some alternatives.

[SarahFan]

Ken I am not asking you to shut up. I am asking you to discuss this with me. To do that you need to talk to me about how you would proceed. If you think that is me telling you to shut up then I am sorry, it is not. I am asking to have a conversation with you. All you keep saying is how you are putting up facts, which is fine. That's a good start, but now how about how you would change things. That is a discussion. Not you fact, me crap.

If you are saying that the three above posts is all the discussion we will get out of you, then that is sad. Because all I see is you "discusing" how bad VS is. That is not discussion. Discussion would start with that and then add some alternatives.

lets be perfectly clear on three points Chuck...

1) you didn't ask me to shut up.. you told me too...and i still dont care either way

2) I'm in no way blaming versus... i believe versus is living up to to there end of the contract....including giving AOWR fans better/improved and extended coverage

3) AOWR/IRL is experienceing the worst TV ratings in the history of the sport...and from a biz standpoint that is relevant no matter how you slice it

[chuck34]

lets be perfectly clear on three points Chuck...

1) you didn't ask me to shut up.. you told me too...and i still dont care either way

2) I'm in no way blaming versus... i believe versus is living up to to there end of the contract....including giving AOWR fans better/improved and extended coverage

3) AOWR/IRL is experienceing the worst TV ratings in the history of the sport...and from a biz standpoint that is relevant no matter how you slice it

Ok let's be clear then

1) In this thread I have not told, asked, implied, or anything else for you to shut up. In fact I have been BEGGING you for what you think should happen.

2) Ok good, you're not blaming VS. So from that I would divine that you are blaming someone in the IRL managment that agreed to the VS deal. So I'll ask you, yet again, what would you have done differently??????????????????????????????????????? ?

3) No one and I mean no one is disputing this fact. Saying it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over without further discussion adds nothing to the conversation. Telling people what you think should be done to boost these poor ratings adds something to the conversation.

4) You are 100% correct in stating that this is a relevent topic for "Biz Discussion". But like I keep saying, you stating that "this sucks" does not amount to discussion. Do you want to have a discussion or do you just want to cry about how bad things are?

[SarahFan]

my apologies Chuck....it was in fact someone else who implied i need to 'shut-up'


what needs to be done...

file BK...negate all existing contracts...hand of the keys to a 'team union' of sorts and hire someone qualified to grow the sport..

as far as 2009 is concerned from a TV standpoint... it's going to get worse before better...

me... I'm going to enjoy the racing... possibly make it to another race

[chuck34]

my apologies Chuck....it was in fact someone else who implied i need to 'shut-up'


what needs to be done...

file BK...negate all existing contracts...hand of the keys to a 'team union' of sorts and hire someone qualified to grow the sport..

as far as 2009 is concerned from a TV standpoint... it's going to get worse before better...

me... I'm going to enjoy the racing... possibly make it to another race

See was that so hard?

Why does bankruptcy need to come into play? I'm not sure who is unhappy about their contracts. Except the team owners who want more money, but BK won't help that. Maybe I'm missing something?

I'm very leary of a "team union". Sounds too much like CART. Perhaps some sort of board with all involved parties having a seat (team owners, track owners, maybe even some drivers). Afterall that is all TG wanted in the first place, a seat at the table. Then some Head/President/CEO something that makes the final decisions. That might be workable.

So you do see some hope for the TV ratings? That's what I see. Sure they're bad now, but they'll get better over time.

Enjoy the races!

[SarahFan]

So you do see some hope for the TV ratings? That's what I see. Sure they're bad now, but they'll get better over time.

!


why?

becuase you want them too?

nothing over the life of the IRL suggests they will

[SarahFan]

I'm very leary of a "team union". Sounds too much like CART. Perhaps some sort of board with all involved parties having a seat (team owners, track owners, maybe even some drivers). Afterall that is all TG wanted in the first place, a seat at the table. Then some Head/President/CEO something that makes the final decisions. That might be workable.
!


sounds a heck of a lot the CART of old.... but whats the alternative.... status quo of losing cash hand over fist cannot go on for ever....

[chuck34]

sounds a heck of a lot the CART of old.... but whats the alternative.... status quo of losing cash hand over fist cannot go on for ever....

The alternative (and I think it could work) is exaclty what I put forward. A board comprised of team owners, track owners, and drivers with some sort of "Head" that has final say-so. That is different from CART because in CART the track owners and drivers didn't have a say, and also there was no "Head" acting sort of like a "Benevolent Dictator" (but with some type of term limit, or something). At least that is how I remember CART, could be wrong though.

[chuck34]

why?

becuase you want them too?

nothing over the life of the IRL suggests they will

Perhaps it is a bit of wishful thinking. Yes you may be right about that.

But what one of the things that I think was driving the ratings ever lower on ABC was the p!ss poor coverage, IMO. Who, other than the hard-core fans, could watch it? I believe that to be different on VS. I think the more casual fan can sit down and watch the race. That will hopefully add some fans. Then as those new fans get hooked, they'll tell their friends. Then those without the channel will start demanding it. That will drive the number of eyeballs up.

Nothing over the life of IndyCar (pre split) suggested that the ratings would go this low. History, while a good indication, does not predict everything.

[SarahFan]

Nothing over the life of IndyCar (pre split) suggested that the ratings would go this low. History, while a good indication, does not predict everything.

glad you said pre-split... becuase CC/CART on Speed and spike certainly suggested todays(2009) were possibly...

[Jag_Warrior]

The alternative (and I think it could work) is exaclty what I put forward. A board comprised of team owners, track owners, and drivers with some sort of "Head" that has final say-so. That is different from CART because in CART the track owners and drivers didn't have a say, and also there was no "Head" acting sort of like a "Benevolent Dictator" (but with some type of term limit, or something). At least that is how I remember CART, could be wrong though.

CART had many "heads" over the years. But no, he was never a true dictator. Because it was the team owners who put him there, it was also the team owners (or franchise holders) who could take him out.

I appreciate what you and Ken are saying, but is there really any evidence to suggest that it's the ownership, control or management STRUCTURE which is the ROOT CAUSE of the problem? Could it be that any one of several structures would work, if (big IF) the right people occupied the key positions? I really don't know... that's just a question.

[chuck34]

CART had many "heads" over the years. But no, he was never a true dictator. Because it was the team owners who put him there, it was also the team owners (or franchise holders) who could take him out.

I appreciate what you and Ken are saying, but is there really any evidence to suggest that it's the ownership, control or management STRUCTURE which is the ROOT CAUSE of the problem? Could it be that any one of several structures would work, if (big IF) the right people occupied the key positions? I really don't know... that's just a question.

You could be right too Jag. Truth be told, I'm not totally convinced that TG is the worst person to head the thing. *ducks and runs for cover* I'm just putting another possible stucture out there. But I do think that the management structure of CART was it's eventual down-fall. You can't have the inmates run the asylum.

[Jag_Warrior]

You could be right too Jag. Truth be told, I'm not totally convinced that TG is the worst person to head the thing. *ducks and runs for cover* I'm just putting another possible stucture out there. But I do think that the management structure of CART was it's eventual down-fall. You can't have the inmates run the asylum.

As long as Joe Heitzler, Andrew Craig and Andy Evans are alive and breathing, I would have to agree that no, George is not the worst person.

Just my opinion, but we've now seen about every possible form of ownership and management structure in AOWR. They've either all eventually failed or are in the process of failing: private with a democracy (of sorts), public with a democracy (of sorts), private with two dictators and private with one dictator. The only one that ever turned a real profit and had any meaningful level of success over time was the private ownership with an elected president. It failed in the end, but it was formed in the last deep recession and went on to be successful for about 15 years. But I'm not convinced that it was the structure that made it successful. As I've learned more about the infighting and stupid decisions of CART, I'm actually amazed that it was as successful as it was.

Structures only matter when the right people are within the operation. Rome flourished as a dictatorship under Augustus, but failed under Nero. Turning the current IRL into some version of the original CART won't solve (short term anyway) the issues that the league has, IMO. It won't get them a title sponsor. It won't get them a higher paying TV deal on a network with broader exposure. It won't get top tier NASCAR drivers into the cars so that the average Joe would have at least a vague idea of a driver's name (besides The Danica).

I'm being totally honest. I really don't know why people aren't watching. And without some idea of that, I think it's a waste of time to throw noodles at the wall and propose solutions. I mean, think about what we do much of the time here. It's like I can see that you're not feeling well. But I have no idea what the problem really is, yet I'm going to suggest that you get surgery on your big toe???

I'm just another swingin' Richard fan. If I don't know nuthin', well, I don't know nuthin'. The problem is, I don't think that anyone at IMS really knows nuthin' either. "Hey, let's ask Gene Simmons what he thinks we ought to do!" Whoever came up with that lame ass idea should be shot. If it was Tony, then he should shoot himself.