Can you fix something that never worked?

[Marbles]

I pose this question sincerely. I think, in light of recent events, that it's time to re-brand AOW. I can hear the moaning now but the IRL was a dismal failure from the get go and still is to this day. Brand identity is nothing to worry about. I think the IRL name actually has a stigma attached to it that it would be wise to lose.

If you ever visited non-denominational race torrent sites over the last few years you'd realize that the IRL was always a poor draw. CART, and even even the much beleaguered Champ Car, had far more universal appeal then the IRL. If you were to visit them this year you'd see that now that the IRL is the only game in town that world wide interest in AOW has never been lower.

Re-brand it and listen to the fans! They must have people that visit fan sites... or do they?

Everyone here has whined about ABC's coverage for years yet we get stuck with the same semi literate boneheads year after year. It's as if there is some force greater than the fans themselves that matter most.

You can't help but feel that they have their heads buried in the sand!

In a male dominated, largely male supported sport, is it wise to make a women the face of your series? Patrick has proven herself to be competent but not exactly a race leader. She is also severely challenged in the people skills department. She may have given the IRL a bump in the female demographic and some side show interest but I think her promotion is misguided at best and may have done more harm than good in the male demographic.

A single feeder series (FA) and some sort of Can-Am scholarships program to promote local drivers.

[NickFalzone]

I agree a re-branding is in order, but it should be pointed out that the IRL has somewhat "re-branded" in the last couple years. The term "IRL" is rarely if ever used in press releases or interviews anymore, they refer to the top series "IndyCar" or junior league "Indy Lights". The IRL moniker has stuck around with the fans but has been acknowledged as a problem and avoided by management and drivers.

As far as Danica, I agree. Not completely, because I think she does add some family value to the series, but what you said is very true. I do not think that a Danica-less series would have any more or less chance at success. Possibly more, particularly with re-branding. I do moderately respect Danica as a driver, but this idea that the series needs her to survive is I think very ignorant.

As far as this idea that the IRL has never been successful, ratings wise or attendance wise, and thus it has no shot at popularity, is I think also not a fair argument. Drastic things need to change, but the reality is that only starting last year has the IRL been a single, unified AOWR series. That's a huge change that IMO knocks out the argument. The series was seeing some real progress last season with sponsors, big grids, etc. but this season that has slowed down at least partially due to the economy. It will get, and I think deserves to get, a couple more years as a unified OW series before it can be fairly called the complete failure that many would like to call it right now. Certainly it's struggling, and there are many things that need to be done to get things going in the right direction. Those things might not happen, and it might still fail. But I think all the doom and gloom talk is for one, premature, and two is sort of this negative self-fulfilling prophecy, hoping the doom and gloom comes true, which I think is kind of pathetic.

[DanicaFan]

I, for one am personally tired of all the IRL bashing and complaining. There are things I would change in the IRL and NASCAR but that doesnt mean I like them any less.

If you dont like it, there are plenty of other sports or other things to watch and spend time doing.

I dont mean this as a personal attack to anyone but Im tired of every other thread started being so darn negative. The IRL is the BEST open wheel series bar none, always has been.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I, for one am personally tired of all the IRL bashing and complaining. There are things I would change in the IRL and NASCAR but that doesnt mean I like them any less.

If you dont like it, there are plenty of other sports or other things to watch and spend time doing.

I dont mean this as a personal attack to anyone but Im tired of every other thread started being so darn negative. The IRL is the BEST open wheel series bar none, always has been.

Danica fan...that is your opinion and the ratings and interest shown in the series would say that the general public isn't agreeing.

I don't know if the IRL can change into much more than what it is. The problem is to change the cars to improve the racing, and then marketing it to NASCAR fans who may be disgruntled or bored with what they are getting over there. Those fans that followed CART in the ratings in the early 90's didn't stop watching racing. They started watching other forms of racing. To compete, you must have a good TV product ( on VS they have it, problem is no one HAS VS), you must have good racing (Richmond and Texas wasn't good, the road courses are marginal sometimes), you must have interesting and appealing cars (ummmm no) and you must appear to have the fastest cars on four wheels (Honda, give us that 900hp kick will you??).

Add in the drivers that appeal to people, which they have but are poorly marketed and you have a chance. The thing is, this mess happened over time, and fixing it will have to happen over time. Market to the racing FANS that left and give them the above, and maybe we get them back over time.

I don't think Danica is the answer but I think the series would be poorer if she left. She is the most visible racer with the non-racing public so she hopefully will stick around. That said, most of the hard core race fans DON'T see her as the face of the series, so marketing her to race fans as the saviour of the IRL is a HUGE mistake. Danica is either you like her or you hate her and there is no in between, at least where race fans are concerned.

No, if the League changes its image marketing wise, simplifies the feeder system, markets the events harder, pushes the drivers to the front with catchy commercials ( remember the Ganassi-Target ads with Jimmy and Alex?)and really works on race fans from other disciplines, we have a chance.

I do not think all the negativity on the boards this last week should be seen as all of that. It was one final vent now Tony is gone. From here on out, we fans of the sport should be looking forward. What went down we may not agree with, but we are all on the same leaky ship right now together and we better find a way...

[gofastandwynn]

No, kill it all.

IMSA will be gone after this year (sold to the boys from Daytona), might as well sell while a good price can still be had, then everyone can get their wish and the Hulman-George family can completely be out

[EagleEye]

I pose this question sincerely. I think, in light of recent events, that it's time to re-brand AOW. I can hear the moaning now but the IRL was a dismal failure from the get go and still is to this day. Brand identity is nothing to worry about. I think the IRL name actually has a stigma attached to it that it would be wise to lose.

If you ever visited non-denominational race torrent sites over the last few years you'd realize that the IRL was always a poor draw. CART, and even even the much beleaguered Champ Car, had far more universal appeal then the IRL. If you were to visit them this year you'd see that now that the IRL is the only game in town that world wide interest in AOW has never been lower.

Re-brand it and listen to the fans! They must have people that visit fan sites... or do they?

Everyone here has whined about ABC's coverage for years yet we get stuck with the same semi literate boneheads year after year. It's as if there is some force greater than the fans themselves that matter most.

You can't help but feel that they have their heads buried in the sand!

In a male dominated, largely male supported sport, is it wise to make a women the face of your series? Patrick has proven herself to be competent but not exactly a race leader. She is also severely challenged in the people skills department. She may have given the IRL a bump in the female demographic and some side show interest but I think her promotion is misguided at best and may have done more harm than good in the male demographic.

A single feeder series (FA) and some sort of Can-Am scholarships program to promote local drivers.

That was a valid arguement years ago when the IRL ran on ovals only, did not have engine lease deals and did not have the best teams and drivers from open wheel racing. The changes in the IRL have been huge, so much so that it is bascially CART 2.0.

Aside from the the car (which we can all agree on needs to go) and a return to turbos (which seems to be the plan) the series has morphed into CART. And interstingly, the challenges today are very similar to what CART faced in the early 80's: TV ratings, schedule stability, rules stability, and a viable tv package. Since the split, both series struggled, and lost TV ratings.

After wading through Spike TV, and some of the later CART/Champcar telecasts (if you want to call them that), I'm not sure if the ABC coverage is as bad as it was. The IRL has a winner in production from Versus, and they have actually started getting decent ratings for the NHL. Back in the day, CART on ESPN was tough one to find, as I had friends who would have to travel to other cities in order to watch races at houses that actually had ESPN.

Both ABC and Versus telecast provide a good set up for the race, with all the pre-race story lines being set. Jack, is well, Jack. At times bringing value to the coverage, at other times delivering head-slapping comments that leave some viewers saying "Whaaaaaat?" (Gary Gerould remains the best in any paddock!). That being said I would give Versus an A, and ABC a B (but would not argue a B-, C+).

While we spent the last few years of the Champcar/IRL split arguing needlessly about race attendance (how people would argue about how many were at a race, despite the fact they were not there is beyond me) I always reminded those that the big number to watch was TV ratings. IROC used to race in front of no one, but brought good numbers on TV. A 2 rating on TV, is better than a full house of 100k at any race.

The good news is race attendance has been good. The move to two day events at most races was smart on the part of the IRL. If they can co-op marketing with some of their sponsors, ala Izod, and start promoting the series via commercials (Danica is the start here) then the level of visability will increase. That, and improving the oval races is key as it is the phrase "its the racing, stupid" would go a long way to create more buzz.

With some of the recent changes, and some upcoming changes, I think the chances for continued growth remain. Give peace a chance...(but ditch the Dallara!).

[SarahFan]

A 2 rating on TV, is better than a full house of .

were talking IRL here.... so lets be a bit closer with the #'s

is a 1.0 better than 50K at the track?

or is a 0.5 better than 25k in the stands?

[EagleEye]

But not to the promoter of that race. The crowds need to be there so it's attractive for a track owner to bring the series in. He needs to be in the black so he can pay the mortgage. It also creates buzz for the series.

The teams and the series are just the opposite. They need the TV exposure and ratings to sign sponsors. You need both halves to work for it all to be successful.

The thread was about the state of the IRL. Certainly, the promoter wants full stands...the piint is for the league to grow and survive, the TV ratings are what count.

Full stands for F5000 back int the day did not do anything to help the series survive.

[Bob Riebe]

The thread was about the state of the IRL. Certainly, the promoter wants full stands...the piint is for the league to grow and survive, the TV ratings are what count.

Full stands for F5000 back int the day did not do anything to help the series survive.
WRONG, no track, that I have heard of cancelled a Formula A race for fear of no spectators.
That did happen to the Can-Am and Trans-Am; it was the SCCA that screwed with the Formula A series partly because it was rarely really more than a also ran series compared to the Can-Am and Trans-Am.
No tracks- NO series.
Tracks do not care squat about TV rating, (they actually would not mind if TV went away) they care about fans in the stands, as Champ Car found out when Road America kicked them out and let them back in only on a probationary trial.
They were told if enough fans did not come through the gate, they would be gone for good; i.e. that is why they bundled with the IMSA.

[garyshell]

The thread was about the state of the IRL. Certainly, the promoter wants full stands...the piint is for the league to grow and survive, the TV ratings are what count.

Full stands for F5000 back int the day did not do anything to help the series survive.


And if you have empty stands at the race, where do you think the TV show will be broadcast from the following year? No attendance = no venue = no tv = no IRL. This is not an either/or situation you MUST have both parts of the equation for things to grow.

Gary

[Chris R]

I think racing is "falling victim" to the same trend that is killing newspapers - falling advertising revenues...

There are simply more effective ways for companies to advertise than auto-racing... NASCAR is starting to see the problem too - but it will not hit them for several years yet (as long standing contracts expire and new ones are not a lucrative)...

Back in the day there was a TON of tobacco money that basically made NASCAR and was a big part of CART... Those companies had no other legal way to advertise so thy went with motorsports....

Today there are many ways to advertise your company and sticking your name to the side of a race car does not rank too highly on that list...

Indycars actually need to go waaayyy back to the immediate pre and post war periods where the majority of cars were owned and run by wealthy sportsmen with minimal real sponsorship.... These people did it because they loved it and could afford to do it... Today everyone who wants to win needs big $$ sponsorship and that is hard to find... That being said, I highly doubt anybody will choose this route - so ....

Fundamental changes are needed to be to the car and engine to enhance the spectator/viewer appeal and there is a need to enhance the image of drivers and the product in general - but these are issues of fine tuning - not re-inventing the (open)wheel.... ;) The most serious issues facing Indycar right now are completely beyond the control of the IRL...

Lets not forget - any expectation of GROWTH in the current economic climate is pie in the sky - very few companies are growing and most are shrinking at a much more dramatic rate than the IRL..... Generally speaking it is time to fine tune and work on a new technical package and just wait things out as best as possible.... Eventually the economy will straighten out and once it does it will be time to talk about growth....

[NickFalzone]

I think all that EE is saying is that full stands mean very little for a "national" sponsor-driven sport if the TV ratings stink. A venue or two that gets poor attendance CAN be replaced, or even dropped. But bad tv ratings are the death-knell of something like IndyCar. Some local sports can thrive on just the track attendance, but it ultimately is just a small portion of what something like the IRL needs to succeed. Of course the goal would be to have great attendance and great tv ratings. All EE is saying is that in the big picture, the tv ratings are a more crucial component to the series success or failure. Right now, most IRL races this season have had solid attendance, even or up from last year's equivalent events. Some, like Toronto and The Glen seem to be doing so-so attendance numbers. But that's more the promoter's problem (and fault due to various reasons) than the IRL's. The IRL is much more responsible for the on track product/entertainment and how their tv ratings fare.

[Lee Roy]

And if you have empty stands at the race, where do you think the TV show will be broadcast from the following year?

Wherever they can sucker some poor municipal officials into holding a street race with promises of making their metropolis into the next Monaco or Long Beach and telling them of the millions of dollars that will be coming their way as a result.

[Bob Riebe]

I think all that EE is saying is that full stands mean very little for a "national" sponsor-driven sport if the TV ratings stink. A venue or two that gets poor attendance CAN be replaced, or even dropped. But bad tv ratings are the death-knell of something like IndyCar. Some local sports can thrive on just the track attendance, but it ultimately is just a small portion of what something like the IRL needs to succeed. Of course the goal would be to have great attendance and great tv ratings. All EE is saying is that in the big picture, the tv ratings are a more crucial component to the series success or failure. Right now, most IRL races this season have had solid attendance, even or up from last year's equivalent events. Some, like Toronto and The Glen seem to be doing so-so attendance numbers. But that's more the promoter's problem (and fault due to various reasons) than the IRL's. The IRL is much more responsible for the on track product/entertainment and how their tv ratings fare.
Drag racing cars and tracks are full of sponsor's posters and decals.
No big TV promotion there.

[NickFalzone]

It's not having sponsors, it's having sponsors that pay a good amount of $$. I'm not convinced that very many of those drag racing sponsors are putting much money down. I look at a car like Tagliani's this weekend, that is full of sponsors, but they're all associate sponsors that he basically cobbled together to get on the track. Having lots of sponsors means nothing if they're not putting much money in, but to have a few that pay a crapload of money because they're going to be seen by millions on TV, that means a lot. A title sponsor is really one of the keys for the IRL in the next 2 years, particularly with the HG pursestrings. If they do not get a title sponsor (primarily because ratings suck) then I think significant ownership changes or series bankruptcy will occur.

[CCWS77]

I think we all can see that the economic model of each individual race car having to find its own multi-milion dollar sponsors is failing and not all that appropriate anymore in the 21st century. The real problem is no one has the vision, initiative or resources to try something else. Simple rebranding or PR efforts are certainly not going to fix this.

[Lousada]

Drag racing cars and tracks are full of sponsor's posters and decals.
No big TV promotion there.

NHRA gets higher ratings then IRL and most other 'major' series in the US.

[NickFalzone]

NHRA gets higher ratings then IRL and most other 'major' series in the US.

According to Sports Business Journal, the NHRA averaged a .63 for the entire 2008 season. This is on networks with a lot more availability than Versus. A .63 not a very good rating.

[Mark in Oshawa]

We need people in the stands, we need people watching on TV. The crowds at the track are easier to get if you don't mind dropping prices but the promotor isn't into red ink so there is only so much you can do that.

The TV issue is tougher. TV is down for properties like NASCAR and American Idol. I think the economics of racing are in a flux and I don't know what the solution is.

That said, we need TV and the promotors on the ground to win, and for that, the product on track needs to improve. Sorry guys, that is the problem and the elephant in the room that no one has really grasped.

650hp cars with no variety of chassis, driver's not marketed and an image of ineptitude have to be issues addressed.

Put the best possible product out there, and some of this stuff can be solved on its own. We don't have the best possible product on the track and the racing and ratings are reflecting it.

[Jag_Warrior]

We need people in the stands, we need people watching on TV.

I fully agree with that. It's not an either/or situation. They need to work on both areas.

Is it fixable? I don't know. It's taken 15 years to make every possible wrong move under the sun and drive the sport into the ground. So if it is fixable, I think it's going to take years of rebuilding. Not just an odd good season here & there. Not that Tony ever had a good idea, but he was willing to spend money - I'll give him that much. But with his firing, I'm not sure that the willingness to spend money or the ability to develop a better plan is at IMS any longer.

As Ken and others have said, I also see the teams/team owners stepping in sooner rather than later to save what's left of this sport.

[BrentJackson]

I agree with you entirely Jag, but on the comment about the team owners taking it back. This team owners vs. track owners/promoters fight has been going on for more than 30 years and it caused most of this mess. The absolute last thing the IRL needs is another rift between the team bosses and the IRL management. That crap has to stop, and it has to stop now. I'm not really one or the other - I hate TG, I hate KK, Penske is always himself first and Ganassi and Mikey are dickheads, so you can say I hate them all equally - but the battles between the team owners and series owners MUST STOP NOW. IMS, like it or not, is here to stay and a repeat of them being forced out again is the last thing the sport needs, and after the IRL I don't ever see them willingly tossing the keys to the owners. Both need to be in on it. Formula 1 is about to learn this, too.

As far as reinvention, that may not be right either. This sport has always run on enthusiastic guys doing what they love - all of motorsport is that way, even F1. The problem with wanting to entice wealthy enthusiasts is that most of them run at places like Le Mans, where they can both drive the car and still have a hope of doing well and even winning. Grand Am has this nailed down beautifully, which is why they are still prospering despite the economic problems with have beat the sludge out of the ALMS.

(An aside: IMO, the ALMS needs to toss the ACO rules in the bin and throw the door open to cars run in the past decade or so, then work the rules to level the playing field. New LMPs cost gigantic $$$, and since Audi and Acura have spent the last decade destroying everything in their path, nobody is running in the top level. If that doesn't work, scrap the prototypes altogether and run it as the American GT series or something of the like.)

Indycar suffers form the problem that not enough people care. Those who care care about it a helluva lot, which is why despite the split the sport ain't dead. As much as I loathe Penske and Ganassi and George and Kalkhoven and Michael Andretti, I know they'll be here next year, and the year after that, and the year after that. What needs to be done is to get more people to care that badly. They are out there.

More powerful cars needed? You bet. IMO, what they need is a medium-tech chassis with smaller amounts of downforce, good looks and a volcano of a power plant in the back, something that goes like hell and is better looking than Jessica Alba, but is also something you get up and drive rather than just guiding it around. Some will call speed concerns, but with reduced downforce and heavier weight, you'll slow the cars in all corners, even big banks like Texas or Michigan or Las Vegas.

Drivers not marketed? A big problem if your name isn't Danica, but the problem also exists about rivers moving around. Not a problem at the big shots, but at the little shots its more problematic. What Indycar needs in this regard is to get NHLR and Coyne and Panther and Luzco Dragon and Dreyer/Reinbold enough dollars to run regularly in the mid pack and run for wins, enough to ensure that we can count on Wilson in the #18 and Wheldon in the #4 and Matos in the #2 and Doornbos in the #06 for well into the future. Once you know who is in it, you can get marketing. It's part of Dale Earnhardt's mystique that he drove the black #3 Chevy for so long. Richard Petty, likewise, was always the blue and red #43.

There is a lot wrong, but you have things that are right. Build on the strengths and remove or minimize the weaknesses.

And to all the nattering nabobs of negativity out there, I have a line from Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino for you: "Get the f--k out". I think we'll all agree that constructive criticism is a good thing, but plain old whining and hating on somebody - frankly, I've been avoiding forums because I've been seeing that s--t for years and I'm really, REALLY sick of it.

[Jag_Warrior]

I agree with you entirely Jag, but on the comment about the team owners taking it back. This team owners vs. track owners/promoters fight has been going on for more than 30 years and it caused most of this mess. The absolute last thing the IRL needs is another rift between the team bosses and the IRL management. That crap has to stop, and it has to stop now.

Thanks, Brent.

Oh, and what I'm talking about is not another war between teams and management. What I'm talking about is everyone (for once) rowing the boat in the same (right) direction. All of the stakeholders accepting and understanding the current situation, establishing future goals and working toward that desirable future state. With Tony gone and bean counters now seemingly overseeing the $ spent, I'm not convinced that anything like that is going to happen, other than treading water.

Judging by the TV viewership, the sport has lost somewhere around 65% of its audience over the past 15 years. I don't mean fans, but do the-powers-that-be have any idea why that is? Something based on data, and not just anecdotals and wild azz guesses? I am not a fan of Bernie Ecclestone (or Max Mosley). But unlike AOWR, F1 has been run as a business over the past couple of decades. AOWR doesn't necessarily need to go to the extremes that Bernie has taken F1. But instead of being run as a hobby or a club, AOWR needs to have a management structure that includes people from all sides of the table. And those people need to do a better job of running this sport as a business than has been done previously.

[BrentJackson]

Thanks, Brent.

Oh, and what I'm talking about is not another war between teams and management. What I'm talking about is everyone (for once) rowing the boat in the same (right) direction. All of the stakeholders accepting and understanding the current situation, establishing future goals and working toward that desirable future state. With Tony gone and bean counters now seemingly overseeing the $ spent, I'm not convinced that anything like that is going to happen, other than treading water.

OK, I guess I misread what you meant. I guess after 30 years of everyone sligning mud at each other, I guess we get used to it.

[call_me_andrew]

Indycars actually need to go waaayyy back to the immediate pre and post war periods where the majority of cars were owned and run by wealthy sportsmen with minimal real sponsorship.... These people did it because they loved it and could afford to do it...

So you're saying we need Frankie Muniz?