Mid Ohio TV numbers

[SarahFan]

Originally Posted by ibj
The national TV ratings for the Indy Racing League’s Mid-Ohio race, according to New York-based Nielsen Media Research, was .2, meaning 233,00 TV households nationwide watched the road race which aired on Versus cable channel starting at 1 p.m. Aug. 9.

The Nielsen rating for the central Indiana market for the Mid-Ohio race was 2.2, which equates to 25,000 TV households.

The Mid-Ohio national ratings were higher than the previous race, a .14 at Kentucky. But were lower than the .24 rating of the Edmonton road race July 26.


for those keeping score at home... season to date..

.3
.5
.15
4.0...ABC
.6....ABC
.36
.8...ABC
.22
.9....ABC
1.0....ABC
.24
.14
.2

YTD w/ Indy .72
YTD wo/ Indy .45

YTD on Versus .26

[ClarkFan]

There were close to that many watching in person - the track was jammed and it was still slow getting out after the Speed World Touring race. On the other hand, for many of the people there watching on TV wasn't an option - Versus is not carried on many cable systems in Ohio. :\

Getting an overall series sponsor to fix the TV coverage has to be priority #1A for the IRL. Only with some kind of TV viewership can teams present a package that has some value to sponsors.

ClarkFan

[Chris R]

not that it matters all that much to potential sponsors - but is that a good number for Versus in general?? i.e. - wound another program on Versus in the same time slot do any better???

[NickFalzone]

Chris, the expectation going into the season was that IndyCar on Versus would get numbers similar to the NHL on Versus. NHL last season (not including playoffs) was averaging .3's - .4's. The first half of this season IndyCar was doing in that range but it's dropped off since into the .2 range. My guess is that they'll still finish up within the .3 range average. Which is about what was expected, but I'd say on the lower end.

The real question for IndyCar is not whether the ratings are good enough for Versus to be happy, because I think they are, but whether the ratings will appease the sponsors. My impression is that the sponsors are OK with the deal, in the anticipation that very soon, say within the next 12-16 IRL races, the ratings on VS will steadily go up. I'd guess that .5 range is the minimum that sponsors are looking for over the 2010 season. The honeymoon period where they are accepting of these current ratings will not last very long. And I agree, that short of Versus/Comcast suddenly getting into a ton of additional markets by next season, the IRL's best bet is to hook up with a title sponsor that can heavily advertise "indycar on VS". Short of that happening, things are unlikely to change for the better.

Here's another take on the ratings to give some perspective:

On a Network that literally every tv owner can view, ABC, the IRL regular season races get around a .9 - 1.0.

On the most popular sports cable channel, ESPN, that over 100 million viewers have access to, the IRL regular season did around .6's - .7's.

On a niche sports cable channel, VS, that around 70 million viewers have access to, the IRL regular season is doing around .3's.

So you have a situation of a racing series, that already on Network TV that gets at best a quarter of the NASCAR ratings, is then moved onto a niche cable network and the viewership drops off the charts. Is the tv product better? Yes. Is a better tv product a fair trade for much lower ratings? That's the question. In the short term the clear answer is no. In the long term, the answer is "maybe", if the quality of the tv product and additional airtimes can grow the series. But it's definitely a big risk that they've taken here.

[garyshell]

On the other hand, for many of the people there watching on TV wasn't an option - Versus is not carried on many cable systems in Ohio.

It's on ComCast and Time Warner. Doesn't that cover most of Ohio?

Gary

[NickFalzone]

Using that measurement you would expect that Versus, at 70% of the ESPN viewers, would get 70% of the ratings or .42 to .49.

Sort of. The .42 or 70% would be the baseline difference. But then you have to consider that, of those homes that DO have Versus, how many prefer to watch ESPN, or even know that they have Versus? ESPN is a much more promoted sports brand and is thus more likely at this point in time to be the more popular channel for sports fans. Again, just because you have Versus on your cable system does not mean you necessarily added it or even are aware of it.

[ClarkFan]

It's on ComCast and Time Warner. Doesn't that cover most of Ohio?

Gary
Well, in my market, it's channel 162 in the digital package, right between "leased access" and "Encore retroplex." In the analog package (still the majority of service), it's not available at all.

I'd call that "not on TV," unless the goal is to reach the slim-minority-nutjob audience. (Where I probably qualify, not having cable at all.)

The model for the IRL needs to be more like regular PGA tour events. Most golf tournaments also get indifferent ratings, but the title sponsors have bought the TV time to broadcast the tournaments. Sponsors are how niche sports get on more viewed networks. That it why the IRL needs a serious, stable title sponsor and why Gillette/P&G (who get this whole worldwide branding thing) are a better bet than Menards.

ClarkFan

[garyshell]

Well, in my market, it's channel 162 in the digital package, right between "leased access" and "Encore retroplex." In the analog package (still the majority of service), it's not available at all.

I'd call that "not on TV," unless the goal is to reach the slim-minority-nutjob audience. (Where I probably qualify, not having cable at all.)

The model for the IRL needs to be more like regular PGA tour events. Most golf tournaments also get indifferent ratings, but the title sponsors have bought the TV time to broadcast the tournaments. Sponsors are how niche sports get on more viewed networks. That it why the IRL needs a serious, stable title sponsor and why Gillette/P&G (who get this whole worldwide branding thing) are a better bet than Menards.

ClarkFan


Hmmm, would that "digital package" be the same one required for one to get Speed Channel? (Hint: It is.) And on what do you base the "the analog package (still the majority of service)" comment? From what I have heard the majority of Time Warner customers are on the digital tier.

I'd love to see P&G become the title sponsor, but would be really surprised if that came with a TV package of the type you suggest.

Gary

[ClarkFan]

Hmmm, would that "digital package" be the same one required for one to get Speed Channel? (Hint: It is.) And on what do you base the "the analog package (still the majority of service)" comment? From what I have heard the majority of Time Warner customers are on the digital tier.
Not in Cincinnati - everything happens 20 years later here!

Even with the digital package, the location is a problem. Unless Versus is on your must-view list, not many people channel surf that far down the numbers or wait long enough for those channels to come up on an information package.

ClarkFan

[drewdawg727]

Brace yourselves for the Motegi ratings...

[SarahFan]

Nick.... To your first paragraph

Who's expectation?

Yours?

The leagues?

Versus?

[Lousada]

What I find even more worrying then the low ratings is the geographical spread. 1/10th of the people watching are from Indianapolis. That means in most other big markets there would be hardly anyone watching.

[NickFalzone]

Ken I saw the NHL as a comparison made by writers and Indy bloggers back when the contract was signed, and I do remember the comparison being made during a teleconference with Angstadt. But I can't speak for the league's or even Versus' expectations, those were closed door affairs during the contract period. Let me ask you something though, do you consider the NHL ratings to be a valid comparison as far as IRL expectations going into this season? I think they're the best and probably only comparison you can make on VS as far as how their ratings compare in-network. Tour De France? Maybe.

[Jag_Warrior]

Expected or not, these are the lowest ratings in the history of AOWR - I guess that's a statement of the obvious. As long as sponsors are willing to support the series and teams, I guess they'll be OK. But considering that there are alternatives, I don't know why they would continue at the same level of funding, since the overall Sponsor Exposure Value (including Indy) is probably going to be much less this year vs. last year.

A friend of mine's wife is my new "girlfriend" when it comes to watching Mad Men on AMC. We chat after every episode. She asked me after the premiere why BMW bought such a large block of sponsorship for the premiere. On a little known, niche network, Mad Men brought in 2.8 million viewers for the season opener... and the viewership has been rising since Season 2. The fact that it's on AMC doesn't matter as much as the fact that the show delivers a good, steadily growing audience in an upper demographic bracket. And it draws a good number of men and women - what's not to like? So BMW and other sponsors (auto makers or not) want eyeballs. Hope and promise are fine, but that doesn't justify a low ROI. I don't know what the IRL needs to do at this point. But I do know that the future is based on the present. The ratings aren't going to go up in the future just because it's in the future. I guess the one positive is, they can't get much lower.

[Jacques]

The ratings aren't going to go up in the future just because it's in the future. I guess the one positive is, they can't get much lower.
That is what some used to say when the ratings used to be in the 0.8 range.

Look where we are now. A little bit lower, which is not impossible, and all of Indy will be at Motegi levels (can something that low really be considered a "level" ?)

[SarahFan]

Ken I saw the NHL as a comparison made by writers and Indy bloggers back when the contract was signed, and I do remember the comparison being made during a teleconference with Angstadt. But I can't speak for the league's or even Versus' expectations, those were closed door affairs during the contract period. Let me ask you something though, do you consider the NHL ratings to be a valid comparison as far as IRL expectations going into this season? I think they're the best and probably only comparison you can make on VS as far as how their ratings compare in-network. Tour De France? Maybe.

writers?...miller? Cavin?

indy bloggers?...you mean glorified forum posters?

Angstadt said he expected ratings to be down for the season?.... I'd love to hear/read that....

can you link link it in any way?


sure an NHL comparison is fair... but what about as you say the tour... or MMA...

how did the championship fight last week fair?... I really have no idea... do you?

how about bull riding?... what are there ratings?... again i have no idea... do you?




the thing is... if IRL leadership expected ratings to be in the .25 range why in the world would they have made the switch?... especially when they still had a year left on there contract with ABC/ESPN?



and as Jag said.... ratings wont be up simply becuase its the future.....

besides some extended coverage what has actually changed?


the move to versus is proving to be a disaster...as the season progresses ratings are going down, not up........ and the scary think is there was a precedent set with the CC/Spike deal.... and leadership ignored it, that is whats so scary

[SarahFan]

and Nick (or anyone else)

do you expect the #'s to be better in 2010?....

why or why not?

[SarahFan]

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/article.jsp?assetId=P6220002

^and who knows how the above will play out?

will we even see Motegi and Homestead?

[garyshell]

writers?...miller? Cavin?

indy bloggers?...you mean glorified forum posters?

Angstadt said he expected ratings to be down for the season?.... I'd love to hear/read that....
can you link link it in any way?


sure an NHL comparison is fair... but what about as you say the tour... or MMA...
how did the championship fight last week fair?... I really have no idea... do you?
how about bull riding?... what are there ratings?... again i have no idea... do you?


the thing is... if IRL leadership expected ratings to be in the .25 range why in the world would they have made the switch?... especially when they still had a year left on there contract with ABC/ESPN?

and as Jag said.... ratings wont be up simply becuase its the future.....
besides some extended coverage what has actually changed?

the move to versus is proving to be a disaster...as the season progresses ratings are going down, not up........ and the scary think is there was a precedent set with the CC/Spike deal.... and leadership ignored it, that is whats so scary


Do you have ANYTHING new to say on the subject or are you going to continue with the same four of five lines ad infinitum. I understand the interest in posting the new figures after each race. That make perfect sense. What makes no sense to me is the continued rehash of EXACTLY the same points over and over again.

Gary

[SarahFan]

Do you have ANYTHING new to say on the subject or are you going to continue with the same four of five lines ad infinitum. I understand the interest in posting the new figures after each race. That make perfect sense. What makes no sense to me is the continued rehash of EXACTLY the same points over and over again.

Gary

if they keep asking the same questions......