But all that doesnÂ’t matter because IndyCar is dying on VERSUS. ItÂ’s not a theory or an assumption, itÂ’s a fact. ----RM

[SarahFan]

MILLER: Nobody Is Watching
Written by: Robin Miller
09/09/2009
Indianapolis, IN Let’s get the positive stuff out of the way. VERSUS coverage of IndyCar racing is top notch, certainly a vast improvement over the past several years on ABC/ESPN.

The shift to VERSUS has seen IndyCar ratings head steeply downhill. (LAT) » More Photos
The races are heavily promoted throughout the week and treated like a major sporting event from start to finish. Viewers always get to hear from the winner and there’s a healthy pre-race show.

Terry Lingner remains one of the premier motorsports producers in the business and the chemistry in the booth between Bob Jenkins, Robbie Buhl and Jon Beekhuis has been a pleasant surprise (especially Buhl).

But all that doesn’t matter because IndyCar is dying on VERSUS. It’s not a theory or an assumption, it’s a fact.

The ratings are abysmal, almost infomercial level. So far in its 11 races on VERSUS, the IRL’s average rating of 0.32 figures out to less than 240,000 people per race. The official numbers say that the VERSUS telecasts have reached 2,552,000 households and that represents roughly 3,310,000 viewers. And those aren’t average numbers, that’s the TOTAL for all 11 events.

By contrast, this year’s Indy 500 on ABC reached 4.5 million homes and was watched by 6.3 million. The other four ABC races in ’09 made it into 3,710,000 homes and totaled 4,619,000 eyeballs for an average of just over 1.1 million per telecast.

Without even figuring in Indy, there are five times more viewers watching IndyCar on ABC instead of VERSUS.

These numbers aren't shocking to IRL management since they claim they expected it. It’s also not the first time an open wheel racing series has been AWOL this decade (Champ Car vanished in 2004 when it ventured onto SPIKE).

The company line has been that it’s going to take time for IndyCar and VERSUS to grow together and that’s why they signed a 10-year deal. But the cold reality is that IndyCar doesn’t have the luxury of patiently waiting for VERSUS to try and establish itself as a player in the sports network world.

A series bereft of sponsorship at every level cannot hope to survive on a cable network that’s virtually unknown unless you’re into cage fighting. Whether it’s fair or not, the first thing potential sponsors want to see is the exposure they’ll receive on television.

“The issue is one of sponsorship. We’re seeing it now and we did back then,” said Kevin Kalkhoven, the co-owner of KV Racing who was referring to the disastrous decision to go with SPIKE when he co-owned Champ Car. “It’s quite simple. You need to be on national television in order to get proper sponsorship.”

Paul Tracy recently met with GEICO, which sponsored him at Indianapolis and Watkins Glen this season. The insurance company said it was happy with PT’s efforts and wanted to help him again in 2010.

“But they’re only interested in the races on ABC,” said Tracy.

The pressing problem is that IndyCar budgets are so unbelievably unreasonable compared to the value of the series. It costs $4-6 million per car to get near the front and $8-10 million to monopolize like Ganassi and Penske. Tracy went to Monster energy drink a couple years ago (when IndyCar was still all on ABC/ESPN) looking for $4 million and was told IRL was only worth $1.2 million.

So what in the name of Bob Reif would that number be today?

It’s an inverted financial pyramid because right now the series isn’t worth a fifth of what it takes to run up front.

The latest bit of news that DIRECTV has pitched VERSUS and its 16 million homes might seem like more doom and gloom. Yet it’s really good timing because it could be the out in the contract that IndyCar needs.

There appears to be a couple of options. Maybe IndyCar could re-negotiate its deal with ABC and, instead of getting big money for Indy, take less and get more races than the five that are currently promised for 2010.

If that’s not feasible, then simply go buy time on NBC and CBS (like ChampCar did in its final years), or call Fox or SPEED. Because IMS has its own in-house production company, a time buy wouldn’t be nearly as costly as it was for Gerald Forsythe and Kalkhoven (rumored to be $800,000 per race).

Of course there is one major obstacle in this plan.

PT's sponsors have seen the value of advertising in the IndyCar Series heavily decline since the VERSUS partnership. They now only want to sponsor Tracy for the races aired on ABC. (LAT) » More Photos
VERSUS is supposedly paying IndyCar $6 million a year and it might be tough to convince the new IMS management to quit receiving money and start spending it.

But it needs to happen ASAP. Keep Lingner, the talent and the VERSUS attitude, just dump the channel and reconnect with the mainstream. Network television may not be IndyCar’s allies, but they damn sure can come to the rescue.

It matters not that VERSUS puts on a good show because nobody is watching.

[NickFalzone]

I agree with Robin on this. The problem is that I don't think the IRL will get anything beyond a time-buy, outside of the agreed upon 5+ Indy schedule. So thats 11 races that together could cost as much as 10 million out of the IRL's pocket. This is basically a 16 million loss, since they'd be losing the 6 million a year Versus is currently paying them. I agree, best case scenario would be going to ESPN/ESPN2 for next season and using the current Versus broadcast crew. But if this didn't happen under TG, I really can't see it happening under Belskus. The unfortunate reality though is that we may be looking at 3-4 years, at best, before the Versus ratings even start equalling the ESPN2 ratings from last year, and that's a lot of time of low-low ratings that I wonder if the series could survive. Based on some of the sponsorship discussion above, I do not think the IRL as we know it will be able to survive .3's for the next few seasons. Double-that, maybe..

Thinking about it some more, I agree the Speed channel may be a good option, even if it bumps up against their endless NASCAR coverage on occasion. They could work around it.

[NickFalzone]

Starter, all of what you said is true. Rain delays, women's golf running into the first few laps, shortened pre and post-race shows, etc. I remember these issues particularly in the 08 season and I hated it. On the other hand, if they brought over the Versus broadcast booth/pit road team, that would make the ABC/ESPN broadcast significantly more bearable than it was back then. And here's the thing, I don't know the numbers so this is entirely speculation, but lets say RM is right about the ratings being so low on VS that sponsorship of the series and the teams is going to be hurt bigtime. If that's the case, then we're looking at a series that is going to go down the drain pretty quickly. Even the crappy/shortened/delayed/etc. ABC/ESPN broadcasts, as bad as they were, delivered the ratings that the IRL sponsors needed. And ultimately, it seems, that's the most important part of the equation right now to keep the series alive. If the choice is a full season with Marty Reid and Scott Goodyear on ABC/ESPN for 2010, or on Versus but with 14 cars and much shortened season schedule, I'll have to go with the former.

[MDS]

I'm with Robin. This deal is a suicide pact, and while some fans on this board would rather have lengthy pre and post race shows rather than sponsors on the cars I gotta think the series is going to have trouble surviving without a major broadcast partner.

I've been against this verses deal from the start and think if they have an out, they should take it. Yes ABC/ESPN isn't perfect, but you need a broadcast partner to promote you. Prime time co-promote spots and cross promotional appearances are the lynchpins of high profile, multi-platform marketing, right now the IRL is getting none of that.

There are so many marketing opportunities that the IRL is missing out on by being in bed with Versus. They can't get mentions during football games or reality shows, which are the biggest ratings machines at the moment, and those are just some things that a larger partner could help with. Driver apperances on late night shows, news shows doing features on various drivers, "Behind the lines" features on ESPN, booth drop ins at football games.

Beyond that they just aren't thinking creatively. Transformers was a massive hit, why didn't the IRL try to get one of their cars represented as a Transformer. How cool would it have been to see a segment filmed at Indy, or Long Beach, where Scott Dixon's car becomes a giant robot? That stupid Herbie remake easily could have been about the IRL instead of NASCAR. Why wasn't "Lighting McQueen," who my nephew is obsessed with, an open wheel car? Why not open up the speedway free to any significant production company that wants to shoot there? Why does NASCAR get all of this free marketing? Because they have a Hollywood division that does nothing but help feature films get access to NASCAR.

I don't think you can survive in this day and age on an obscure cable network with no cross-platform support, no matter how much their paying you, or how long the pre and post race shows are.

[NickFalzone]

I can assure you that if 10 races were on ABC and 7 were on Verses the teams would be looking at a much brighter future.

MDS, even that I don't think is a good solution. First of all, ABC itself is never going to air 10 races, they aren't even that generous to NASCAR. They're going to air the 5, then put the rest on ESPN or ESPN2. NASCAR generally gets ESPN for Cup, I've only seen NWide drop down to ESPN2. With ABC you get cross promotion across ABC/ESPN/ESPN2. Now granted, the supposed cross promotion did not help a whole lot back in 07 or 08, but now there's from I can tell Zero cross promotion between ABC/ESPN and Versus. Maybe a little at the beginning of the season but otherwise, none that I've seen. If the IRL goes back to ABC and gets its 5 races on network average .9's or 1.0's, and the rest on ESPN averaging .7's, that's a hell of a lot better than they're getting now.

In spite of this, with the purse strings tightening, I do not see the above scenario happening. Sometimes it takes spending money (buying network time) to make money (getting a series sponsor). But the IRL is unlikely to take that risk.

[chuck34]

I'm with Robin. This deal is a suicide pact, and while some fans on this board would rather have lengthy pre and post race shows rather than sponsors on the cars I gotta think the series is going to have trouble surviving without a major broadcast partner.

I've been against this verses deal from the start and think if they have an out, they should take it. Yes ABC/ESPN isn't perfect, but you need a broadcast partner to promote you. Prime time co-promote spots and cross promotional appearances are the lynchpins of high profile, multi-platform marketing, right now the IRL is getting none of that.

There are so many marketing opportunities that the IRL is missing out on by being in bed with Versus. They can't get mentions during football games or reality shows, which are the biggest ratings machines at the moment, and those are just some things that a larger partner could help with. Driver apperances on late night shows, news shows doing features on various drivers, "Behind the lines" features on ESPN, booth drop ins at football games.

Beyond that they just aren't thinking creatively. Transformers was a massive hit, why didn't the IRL try to get one of their cars represented as a Transformer. How cool would it have been to see a segment filmed at Indy where Scott Dixon's car becomes a giant robot? That stupid Herbie remake easily could have been about the IRL instead of NASCAR. Why wasn't "Lighting McQueen," who my nephew is obsessed with, an open wheel car? Why not open up the speedway free to any significant production company that wants to shoot there?

I don't think you can survive in this day and age on an obscure cable network no matter how much their paying you, or how long the pre and post race shows are.

Did any of this great and wonderful promotion/cross promotion happen last year? Will it happen next year?

Let's face it the ratings suck. There's no two ways about it. But they were steadilly falling on ABC/ESPN for the past decade. How many more years on ABC/ESPN would it have taken for the ratings to get to the same level they are now on VS? I'm willing to bet not many.

SOMETHING needs to change, there's no denying that. But going back to "the good 'ole days" on ABC/ESPN isn't gonna do a damn bit.

Since everyone seems to think that the league has a big pile of money laying around waiting to do this time buy deal. Perhaps they should use it for some PROMOTION instead. Something like buying ads on the big three, or product placement stuff (the Transformers idea sounds good), etc.

Going back to ABC/ESPN is not going to be a cure all. Nor will it change a whole lot.

[chuck34]

Why is everyone fixated on ABC/ESPN? They're married to NASCAR. CBS/NBC are the better choices.

Throw in Fox too. Are any of them willing to pay for the IRL? Or maybe a "freebie" deal? Or should the league get their duff's off the pile of money they're sitting on and pay for their broadcasts?

[DBell]

Why is everyone fixated on ABC/ESPN? They're married to NASCAR. CBS/NBC are the better choices.

Agree, could also mention FOX/Speed would be an improvement.

[MDS]

Fox and NBC/Speed are in bed with NASCAR, CBS and Fox have football, and lots of it. Much of the IRL's dates would conflict with NASCAR or the NFL on Fox and NBC so most of the races would be pushed to second or third tier coverage anyway. Still if the Indy 500 were on Fox and the balance of the schedule would be on F/X that would be an improvement over what they have now.

In an ideal world you could work a deal with CBS to air the balance of the season and have 30-40 percent of your races on Versus when there was conflicts with the CBS schedule, or races in odd time zones that had you starting at midnight or 10 p.m. EST. Even if you could get eight races live on a major broadcast partner it would be better than what they have now because ABC/ESPN just doesn't care about the IRL and Versus might care, but they have no platform to speak of at all.

[ykiki]

How is the ALMS doing with their random races on NBC or CBS? I would think they'd be doing better buying their time on network tv than IndyCar is doing while being paid by Vs. As much as I'm a big fan of Vs & VsHD's NHL coverage, I think a switch may be best for IndyCar.

[NickFalzone]

How is the ALMS doing with their random races on NBC or CBS? I would think they'd be doing better buying their time on network tv than IndyCar is doing while being paid by Vs. As much as I'm a big fan of Vs & VsHD's NHL coverage, I think a switch may be best for IndyCar.

The recent ALMS ratings on network tv that I've seen posted on messageboards have been pretty poor, but even so, they have been a little better than IRL's been getting on Versus, and in addition, they've generally been tape-delayed (thinking Mid-Ohio). The IRL was getting better ratings on network this year than ALMS, unfortunately they only had a handful of races there. If anyone has a list of the full ALMS ratings for this season I'd be interested in comparing them to the ABC/VS ratings IRL has gotten.

[SoCalPVguy]

Fact Versus now down to 61-million households.
Fact ABC is 115-120-million households.
Fact the average viewer doesn't care about the details of production like the cognoscenti of this forum do.
Fact ABC has twice the available 'eyeballs' available to watch vs. Versus
Fact the sponsors want the average viewer to buy their average products - the rabid race fan base alone is too small.
Example: Sponsor Gieco tell PT they only want to sponsor cars shown on ABC
Fact (you can take this one to the bank) The Versus deal will be the ultimate death of Indycar racing

[NickFalzone]

Socal, the sad reality is that if the ratings continue as they've been the last few races, in the .1 to .2ish range, then yes, the IRL as we know it could be finished before 2010 season starts. I don't know what the solution is, but losing Direct TV could be the nail in the coffin. No sponsors are going to put up the money the teams need if they're getting those ratings for 2/3rds of the season.

[maxmach]

No question the production and time spent on Indycar is better on Verses. The real question is, do we have a product, that is good enough to impress people and grow an audience in 1-3 years, and does the series have enough money to last 2-3 years with the current ratings, getting marginallly better(hopefully) as time passes?
I don't think so. This series is in survival mode. It's maybe 2 steps away from being a rich guys hobby. We need to go with( I hate this) the fishing/monster truck/women's gofl channel. Suvive to fight.

[grungex]

Fact (you can take this one to the bank) The Versus deal will be the ultimate death of Indycar racing

The poor quality of the product will be the ultimate death of Indycar racing.

[anthonyvop]

The poor quality of the product will be the ultimate death of Indycar racing.

Bingo!

[Lousada]

Look at what PT says, a few years ago (that means before Versus), Monster stated the IRL was only worth 1,3 million. Yet it costs at least 4 million to even compete, let alone challenge Penske/Ganassi. So even with a massive timebuy, the value will still be too low compared to the asking price.

The races have the same problem. The santion fee is too high compared to the worth of the event. That's why all the ovals drop out when their contract expires. The IRL as a sanction body can't make a decent profit while they still get around 10 million a year in TV-money. Dropping that to go time-buying means the losses spiral out of control very quick.

The ICS still lives, spends and feels like it's a CEO, not facing the facts that they have been fired and are now flipping burgers.

[SarahFan]

Don't kid yourself. Professional racing in the US has more often been a rich guys hobby than not. The percentage of the grid (owners) who have made a profit has been pretty small throughout. Other than NASCAR (and you'd be surprised how many self funded efforts are there too) CanAm, F5000, USAC, CART, ICS all the same. True that there have been periods when teams could turn a profit, but that hasn't been the norm. Also true that a few have done pretty well, Penske for instance, and those are the exception. Most teams have been funded out of the owners pocket or by their captive company. Sponsorship helps defray some of the costs but it's still been a negative cash flow.



is penske making a profit on AOWR?.. actual $$$ to the bottomline and in his pocket

sure the top line is large... real large... but by the looks of things he spends every dime

[Mark in Oshawa]

I have no real answer. My issue with Ken's constant whining about the ratings was that ABC/ESPN was treating and has treated the IRL like Crap once they were able to land NASCAR again. They devalued the IRL product, and the IRL was stuck. Going to VS wasn't my first choice, since I saw how they have not done the NHL any real favours, but VS CARES about the product. THAT is the one thing that people cant grasp. It isn't helping because I think the damage done by the years of stupidity is just too great. The ABC/ESPN deal kept the IRL alive inspite of the fact most race fans are turning to NASCAR. Why? NASCAR is well promoted, is hyper competitive...and AMERICAN. You Americans have lost interest in a series that is AMERICAN but has a lot of foreign drivers in it. I think it is nuts, but there you go, you cant fight city hall....

I think VS or no VS, not having a network partner that respects and will give fans the quality of show they want is going to be detrimental. I don't see ABC/ESPN as a solution so maybe Fox/Speed or CBS might work. Not sure what the answer is. I do know that it all may not matter....

[SarahFan]

I have no real answer. My issue with Ken's constant whining about the ratings was that ABC/ESPN was treating and has treated the IRL like Crap once they were able to land NASCAR again. They devalued the IRL product, and the IRL was stuck. Going to VS wasn't my first choice, since I saw how they have not done the NHL any real favours, but VS CARES about the product. THAT is the one thing that people cant grasp. It isn't helping because I think the damage done by the years of stupidity is just too great. The ABC/ESPN deal kept the IRL alive inspite of the fact most race fans are turning to NASCAR. Why? NASCAR is well promoted, is hyper competitive...and AMERICAN. You Americans have lost interest in a series that is AMERICAN but has a lot of foreign drivers in it. I think it is nuts, but there you go, you cant fight city hall....

I think VS or no VS, not having a network partner that respects and will give fans the quality of show they want is going to be detrimental. I don't see ABC/ESPN as a solution so maybe Fox/Speed or CBS might work. Not sure what the answer is. I do know that it all may not matter....

who's fault is that ABC showed no respect?

[SarahFan]

I have no real answer. My issue with Ken's constant whining about the ratings ....


BTW gary... heres another classic example of projection

[Jag_Warrior]

By what was said a year or so ago, ABC/ESPN was losing money on the IRL. So I'm a little confused about what people think ABC/ESPN should have done to show more respect and support for the IRL. Should ABC have provided more cameras at the track? Given the IRL a free promo show? Placed IRL drivers on popular ABC programs, like Lost maybe (pun intended)? Taken out newspaper ads promoting IRL races?

As Yogi said, this is like deja vu all over again. When CART and CCWS made bad TV deals, many of the fans blamed everybody under the sun, except for the series themselves. The severe ratings decline can be blamed on many things. I'm not an ABC/ESPN fan - so happy that F1 is on Speed now. But I don't believe that ABC/ESPN can be blamed for not wanting to plow money into something that's shown no sign that it's in demand by the viewing public.

But maybe I'm missing something. What was ABC/ESPN supposed to do to help, support or show more respect for the IRL... other than being a rich sugar daddy, willing to throw money around with little hope of a return, I mean?

[NickFalzone]

Jag, never read that ABC/ESPN was losing money on the series, only that the ratings were trending downward. Again, it may well have come down to Versus offering the IRL the $60 million/10 year deal, and ABC/ESPN basically offering nothing or very little (still better than a time-buy).

One note about the ABC/ESPN ratings. As bad as they were, there were/are many "sports" that ABC/ESPN airs that in fact regularly got worse ratings than the IRL. I'm not sure how many of these are time-buys and how many are owned programming, I'd guess 50/50 but that's a total guess. That being said, I'd imagine there are NO shows now on any ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 that get worse ratings than IRL on Versus.

As far as what ABC/ESPN could have done to promote the series, I don't know. I don't necessarily think the NASCAR gets much better ratings because the networks do or do not promote it. It has its own big fanbase that know when/where to find it. The IRL needs (needed) that kind of fanbase to tune in every week, a fanbase developed outside of ABC/ESPN. Unfortunately now I'd guess that fanbase is smaller than ever.

[speeddurango]

I would rather see it as an overall average. Say 1 in a hundred watches irl, while 5 in a hundred watches NASCAR; when they're on the same network their ratings are 1 to 5; but when irl goes to a smaller network, their ratings ratio is scaled accordingly, like 1 to 10 or something.

[NickFalzone]

Speeddurango, I think those numbers are about right. NASCAR generally getting in the 4.0-4.5 range, IRL on ABC generally getting in the .9 range. So 5 to 1. Now it's worse than 10 to 1. Again, it's been said on the other boards, but I just don't see how the IRL can survive another season if the ratings are regularly .3 or lower. This is an expensive sport, heavily reliant on sponsor money. If regular series ratings have dropped by over half since 2009, and there is a corresponding dropoff by half in sponsor money, it's over.

[Jag_Warrior]

Jag, never read that ABC/ESPN was losing money on the series, only that the ratings were trending downward.


July 28, 2008

ESPN holds the rights for next year, but has given the IRL the green light to shop them. ESPN executives say they lose money on the deal, which has ABC broadcasting six races in addition to the Indianapolis 500, with the rest of the 17-race series going to ESPN or ESPN2.

http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/59646

[harvick#1]

The problem with time buys is that you get second choice to the network programing. That can mean delayed telecasts into late night, early morning or the next day - with a ratings repercussion that will degrade what you might otherwise expect. It'll also result in loosing the pre and post race programming. It costs too much money over and above the race itself.

Rain delay or too many yellows? Cut away to roller derby before the end of the race. Monster trucks run over? Join the race on lap 22.

Those are many of the reasons the IRL went with the Verses deal. A better idea would be to cut a deal with one of the networks for minimal or no pay, but still have the network as a major partner. Several of the networks could use some help with Sunday afternoon programing.

I dont think anything was bad as Nascar getting cut for Desperate Housewives :rolleyes:

thats why ABC has always sucked, but if they gave us the Versus guys and coverage to ABC, then it will be better, but the IRL is killing themselves by having guys in the booth too busy gagging over Danica then actually knowing the other drivers names and actually following the race

[NickFalzone]

Jag, now that you have the quote, I remember reading that as well at the time of the Versus stuff coming up last year. That being said, "Lose money on the deal" does not mean that the IRL necessarily HAD to go to a different network. They could have potentially done a "different" deal, say one in which ABC/ESPN paid the IRL a bit less for the rights. The IRL supposedly struck a deal for $6 mill a year with Versus. Maybe ABC/ESPN was paying half that much. Maybe the IRL could have agreed to ABC/ESPN paying less, so they no longer "lost money" on it, but still stayed on network. Sounds to me like the choice was stay on a place with decent ratings and little pay, or go to a station with low ratings and good pay.

[Jag_Warrior]

Sounds to me like the choice was stay on a place with decent ratings and little pay, or go to a station with low ratings and good pay.

I agree with that. I think they looked at the immediate need for some revenue without considering what they'd lose by being on a totally niche network. The Champ Car lesson with Spike didn't teach them anything apparently. That's why I said this whole deal is like deja vu all over again. I've seen this movie before.

How much in potential title sponsorship has been lost by being on Versus? Enough to accomplish what you mentioned? I'm thinking, maybe.

[NickFalzone]

Yep, of course hindsight is 20/20. I was up on the Versus deal last year because I was disgusted with the ABC/ESPN coverage and thought to myself, how far could the ratings really drop? Well, pretty far actually. I suppose people said the same thing about the NHL deal, and that has worked out. But I think with the shakeup at IMS and the apparently precarious financial situation the series is in, I really can see this as being the wrong decision. With Direct TV gone, wow, who is going to pay for sponsorship? More of Sonny's BBQ??

[Lee Roy]

The Champ Car lesson with Spike didn't teach them anything apparently. That's why I said this whole deal is like deja vu all over again. I've seen this movie before.


The faithful keep bringing up the comparison of NASCAR and ESPN in the early 80's, but that was another era and another situation. The Champ Car/Spike TV example is a far more appropriate comparison to the IRL/Versus debacle.

[chuck34]

Jag, now that you have the quote, I remember reading that as well at the time of the Versus stuff coming up last year. That being said, "Lose money on the deal" does not mean that the IRL necessarily HAD to go to a different network. They could have potentially done a "different" deal, say one in which ABC/ESPN paid the IRL a bit less for the rights. The IRL supposedly struck a deal for $6 mill a year with Versus. Maybe ABC/ESPN was paying half that much. Maybe the IRL could have agreed to ABC/ESPN paying less, so they no longer "lost money" on it, but still stayed on network. Sounds to me like the choice was stay on a place with decent ratings and little pay, or go to a station with low ratings and good pay.

Question: At the rate the ratings were declining, how long would it have taken for the ratings on ABC/ESPN to get to the level they are on VS? With or without a "pay" cut.

I would say about another year or so. So the IRL took a chance on a network that was going to PAY them, improve broadcast quality, and promote them. Why wouldn't you have gone with them?

Now perhaps in hindsight things haven't worked out exactly how it was thought, specifically in the promotion side. But how many times do deal work out exactly as planned? But I still don't think that there is sufficient data to prove a trend in ratings. Yes Ken, the ratings suck today. Let's see where they are in a year.

However, if a deal isn't reached between VS and DircTV (at least by the start of next year, hopefully sooner), then the IRL needs to move.

[chuck34]

The faithful keep bringing up the comparison of NASCAR and ESPN in the early 80's, but that was another era and another situation. The Champ Car/Spike TV example is a far more appropriate comparison to the IRL/Versus debacle.

So the thing to do was to stay on ABC/ESPN, hear EVERYONE complain about the broadcast team, complain about the lack of production values, miss the start of the race for underwater basket weaving, hear no post-race interviews because they need to show the start of the lumberjack world nationals, and continually see the ratings decline?

THAT is the solution?

Had that happened (the IRL stayed on ABC/ESPN), many of the same people that are now d@mning the IRL for the "poor" decision of moving to VS, would be d@mning the IRL for not "doing something" about the ABC/ESPN deal. That's the plain truth.

Well, the IRL did try something. Something that in the minds of many is a failure. While in the minds of others (I would suggest the leauge and some owners are in this camp) it has not been the best short term, but this is a LONG term deal that has yet to fully play out.

But they tried, and are still trying. Damn them for that, I guess.

[Lee Roy]

Well, the IRL did try something. Something that in the minds of many is a failure. While in the minds of others (I would suggest the leauge and some owners are in this camp) it has not been the best short term, but this is a LONG term deal that has yet to fully play out.

For years, one of the IRL faithful's main excuses for low ratings was "the split". Last year "the split" was healed, and the ratings didn't improve. Well, the faithful then said "this is the first year, give it some time". Well we're nearly through the second year of the "unified series" and ratings continue to decline precipitously, and what is the excuse this year? Versus!!! And what is the cry of the faithful? Give it time.

What will the excuse be next year?? That is, if there is a next year.

[garyshell]

The faithful keep bringing up the comparison of NASCAR and ESPN in the early 80's, but that was another era and another situation. The Champ Car/Spike TV example is a far more appropriate comparison to the IRL/Versus debacle.


How is the comparison of a relationship with an established entertainment network that had never run a sports series in its lifetime more appropriate than the relationship with an at the time fledgling sports network? That suggestion could not be further off base.

Gary

[garyshell]

For years, one of the IRL faithful's main excuses for low ratings was "the split". Last year "the split" was healed, and the ratings didn't improve. Well, the faithful then said "this is the first year, give it some time". Well we're nearly through the second year of the "unified series" and ratings continue to decline precipitously, and what is the excuse this year? Versus!!! And what is the cry of the faithful? Give it time.

So what would YOU have done to miraculously repair 13 years of damage in 18 months?


What will the excuse be next year?? That is, if there is a next year.

And that would make you quite happy wouldn't it?

Gary

[garyshell]

I have no real answer. My issue with Ken's constant whining about the ratings...


BTW gary... heres another classic example of projection

Only in YOUR eyes. To some of the rest of us, it rings quite true.

Gary

[SarahFan]

How is the comparison of a relationship with an established entertainment network that had never run a sports series in its lifetime more appropriate than the relationship with an at the time fledgling sports network? That suggestion could not be further off base.

Gary


you have got to be kidding gary...

leeroy nailed it

[SarahFan]

Only in YOUR eyes. To some of the rest of us, it rings quite true.

Gary


nothing to do with my or your eyes...

but by definition

[Lee Roy]

How is the comparison of a relationship with an established entertainment network that had never run a sports series in its lifetime more appropriate than the relationship with an at the time fledgling sports network? That suggestion could not be further off base.

Gary

Wow, I'm not quite sure what you said there, leaving out such information as exactly "who" you are referring to.

Let's try this then. When NASCAR started having their races shown on ESPN in the early 1980's, it was at a time when only selected high-profile NASCAR Cup races were being shown on network TV. ESPN was picking up the smaller, less important races. This was a situation where something NEW was taking place. I remember it was so exciting that I could now actually see ALL of the NASCAR Cup races on TV, either live or tape delayed in the case of Martinsville.

Let's take a look at the IRL on Versus. All of the IRL's races have been shown on TV since it's inception. Showing the races on Versus is nothing new. Just the same thing on a smaller provider. (Smaller with respect to the number of households reached.) This is the same thing that happened to CART/Champ Car. The CART/Champ Car races had been shown on TV for nearly it's entire existence, at least since the late 1980's. They just moved to Speed, then Spike, both smaller providers. Same thing as the IRL has done on Versus.


So what would YOU have done to miraculously repair 13 years of damage in 18 months?

I don't think the "split" caused the "damage" to the IRL, it's just a convenieint rationalization.

[MDS]

I would say about another year or so. So the IRL took a chance on a network that was going to PAY them, improve broadcast quality, and promote them. Why wouldn't you have gone with them?

Now perhaps in hindsight things haven't worked out exactly how it was thought, specifically in the promotion side. But how many times do deal work out exactly as planned? But I still don't think that there is sufficient data to prove a trend in ratings. Yes Ken, the ratings suck today. Let's see where they are in a year.

Actually this was pretty foreseeable, as I said at the time Versus is a bad idea because it has nill branding or market penetration. It doesn't have any credibility with the casual fan, very little ability to draw attention to itself, almost no cross-platform support and promotional tie in with one of the networks or ESPN.

The IRL went to Versus for a paycheck and the hopes that long term they could have a network built around them, and maybe its still possible, but I don't know how you can build a 1.0 average on a network that averages .01 with mostly cheaply produced canned shows, and has no cross-promotional tie-ins to speak of.

What the IRL needs is a deal where the majority of their races, like 10, are on a broadcast network and the off-hour races, or the ones that compete with footbal, are on a support network. I suppose the best deal that could be had right now would be NBC and TNT, in a deal similar to what NASCAR had 2000-2006, where races like Long Beach, Indy, Toronto, Texas, Milwaukee, Brazil, at a minimum and hopefully four or five others would all be on NBC and TNT would handle most of the night races, Motegi, races that conflict with the NFL or college football, the bulk of Indy qualifying, regular weekend qualifying and support races. NBC might not be willing to pay for it, but even if it were revenue neutral it would be a far better deal for the teams than the 5-ABC 13 on Versus deal they have now.

[chuck34]

You all have convinced me. The IRL is DEAD. Dead as a doornail.

That is unless they go back to ABC/ESPN, where they will miraculoulsly be treated right, and the ratings will magically shoot up despite all the evidence that they were/have been declining.

Either that or they must do a time buy on some other network with the pile of money that the IRL has stashed away somewhere.

Yep, that'll do it. Oh yeah and get rid of TG, that'll fix everything right now.

Oh wait ...

[F1boat]

Did any of this great and wonderful promotion/cross promotion happen last year? Will it happen next year?

Let's face it the ratings suck. There's no two ways about it. But they were steadilly falling on ABC/ESPN for the past decade. How many more years on ABC/ESPN would it have taken for the ratings to get to the same level they are now on VS? I'm willing to bet not many.

SOMETHING needs to change, there's no denying that. But going back to "the good 'ole days" on ABC/ESPN isn't gonna do a damn bit.

Since everyone seems to think that the league has a big pile of money laying around waiting to do this time buy deal. Perhaps they should use it for some PROMOTION instead. Something like buying ads on the big three, or product placement stuff (the Transformers idea sounds good), etc.

Going back to ABC/ESPN is not going to be a cure all. Nor will it change a whole lot.

I agree...

[Jag_Warrior]

Wow, I'm not quite sure what you said there, leaving out such information as exactly "who" you are referring to.

Let's try this then. When NASCAR started having their races shown on ESPN in the early 1980's, it was at a time when only selected high-profile NASCAR Cup races were being shown on network TV. ESPN was picking up the smaller, less important races. This was a situation where something NEW was taking place. I remember it was so exciting that I could now actually see ALL of the NASCAR Cup races on TV, either live or tape delayed in the case of Martinsville.

Let's take a look at the IRL on Versus. All of the IRL's races have been shown on TV since it's inception. Showing the races on Versus is nothing new. Just the same thing on a smaller provider. (Smaller with respect to the number of households reached.) This is the same thing that happened to CART/Champ Car. The CART/Champ Car races had been shown on TV for nearly it's entire existence, at least since the late 1980's. They just moved to Speed, then Spike, both smaller providers. Same thing as the IRL has done on Versus.

Very well summed up! Kudos.


I don't think the "split" caused the "damage" to the IRL, it's just a convenieint rationalization.

Not sure about that. If not the split, then how the two series handled the split. Too much time was spent battling each other, rather than tending to business on BOTH sides of the fence. The next generation of stars and cars was not addressed. And let's be honest, the split did divide the fanbase severely. Really to the point that all either had left in later years was the most hardcore of the hardcore fans. Viewers were turned off by the constant bickering, and that loss of fans contributed to the loss of sponsors.

So I believe that I agree with you, in that what dogs AOWR isn't the split, as much as how the two series handled their businesses in the aftermath.

[drewdawg727]

I disagree with the fact that Versus is incapable of getting new viewers, as a network that is supposed to be supportive of the Indycar series, I think that they are doing a terrible job of advertising the series to get new viewers to turn over and watch some races. You can't just rely on commercials during hunting/fishing/bull riding shows to get brand new viewers to watch your product, there needs to be something else done.

Say whatever you want about Versus and how supportive they are of the IRL, but if they really wanted to get their ratings higher, they would do something more.

[garyshell]

How is the comparison of a relationship with an established entertainment network that had never run a sports series in its lifetime more appropriate than the relationship with an at the time fledgling sports network? That suggestion could not be further off base.


Wow, I'm not quite sure what you said there, leaving out such information as exactly "who" you are referring to.



Lets see, of the two networks being compared, which one was an established network that had never run a sports series on their channel... Spike. And which one at the time was a fledgling sports network? Gee, I guess that would be ESPN. Does that make it a tad easier for you?

I still maintain that comparing Versus to ESPN makes a LOT more sense that Versus to Spike. Versus and ESPN are both sports channels and both fledglings in the context of what was being compared. Spike was a neither of these. They were already established as a entertainment channel having little to do with sports, having little to resemble Versus.

Gary

[garyshell]

So what would YOU have done to miraculously repair 13 years of damage in 18 months?



I don't think the "split" caused the "damage" to the IRL, it's just a convenieint rationalization.

I didn't ask what you thought caused the damage. I asked what your repair would have been to fix it in 18 months.

Gary

[Lee Roy]

Lets see, of the two networks being compared, which one was an established network that had never run a sports series on their channel... Spike. And which one at the time was a fledgling sports network? Gee, I guess that would be ESPN. Does that make it a tad easier for you?

I still maintain that comparing Versus to ESPN makes a LOT more sense that Versus to Spike. Versus and ESPN are both sports channels and both fledglings in the context of what was being compared. Spike was a neither of these. They were already established as a entertainment channel having little to do with sports, having little to resemble Versus.

Gary

Thanks, that does make it easier.

Both your theory and my theory are just that, theories.

I like mine better, but you mileage may vary.

[Lee Roy]

I didn't ask what you thought caused the damage. I asked what your repair would have been to fix it in 18 months.

Gary

I'm just an internet poster, like pretty much everyone else here. Only people with some "skin" in the game can make any changes.

Who knows? But to hear the faithful, the big problem was "the split". Once it was over, there seemed to be no change in "Indy Car's" popularity, in fact, it appears to have continued to decline. But when the question is asked about why there isn't a change in the fortunes now that "the split" is over, the "goal-posts" keep being moved back.

That's all from me.

[garyshell]

I'm just an internet poster, like pretty much everyone else here. Only people with some "skin" in the game can make any changes.

Who knows? But to hear the faithful, the big problem was "the split". Once it was over, there seemed to be no change in "Indy Car's" popularity, in fact, it appears to have continued to decline. But when the question is asked about why there isn't a change in the fortunes now that "the split" is over, the "goal-posts" keep being moved back.

That's all from me.

Yes, the faithful (on BOTH sides) have pointed to the split as causing the damage. There are those who thought if CART had given in to TG in 1996, that all would be right with the world. And there are those who thought if TG had had a different "vision" in 1996, none of this ever would have had to happen. But none of us on either side have suggested that unification would undo the damage and certainly not in 18 months. No one is moving the goal posts. Most of us realized they goal posts are a lot further out than 18 months. There are some here who seem to think we should have thought the goal posts were a lot closer.

Gary

[NickFalzone]

Yes, the faithful (on BOTH sides) have pointed to the split as causing the damage. There are those who thought if CART had given in to TG in 1996, that all would be right with the world. And there are those who thought if TG had had a different "vision" in 1996, none of this ever would have had to happen. But none of us on either side have suggested that unification would undo the damage and certainly not in 18 months. No one is moving the goal posts. Most of us realized they goal posts are a lot further out than 18 months. There are some here who seem to think we should have thought the goal posts were a lot closer.

Gary

Gary, I have to somewhat disagree with this. At the time of unification, if you asked many people inside and outside the IRL if things would be better in 18 months, I can guarantee you most if not all would have said yes. The fact that things are not better but probably worse is what caught many by surprise IMO. Again, this is not to say things cannot be turned around. And there are many ways to share the blame (economy, Versus, etc.) but whatever the reason, things went from a league kind of teetering in extinction back in 2007, then unification was supposed to fix things, and now I see a league in even worse shape than 2007. I'm generally not a doom and gloom person, but I think it's fair to say that things are a long way from where most of us expected them to be now, almost 2 full seasons since unification took place. My concern going into this offseason is that money is going to be even harder to come by than last year, and we're going to see a 20-car or smaller grid in Brazil, and hardly anyone watching on tv. In other words, the small grids of the late "split" era and even less people watching. I'll be watching, but I don't know if the series is going to survive through 2010 unless major changes occur.

[SoCalPVguy]

Showing the races on Versus is nothing new. Just the same thing on a smaller provider. (Smaller with respect to the number of households reached.)

Actually LeRoy you the nail on the head regarding the big problem with the ICS television situation, although you did not emphasize it.

Versus is TOO SMALL to allow the coverage now that ICS requires to attract viewers and the sponsors that market to these viewers, and it is too small even if it grows to show a potential upside in the future.

[ClarkFan]

Actually LeRoy you the nail on the head regarding the big problem with the ICS television situation, although you did not emphasize it.

Versus is TOO SMALL to allow the coverage now that ICS requires to attract viewers and the sponsors that market to these viewers, and it is too small even if it grows to show a potential upside in the future.
And with the present sponsorship economics, ICS won't last long enough to make it to that future, however bright and shining it may be.....

ClarkFan

[garyshell]

Gary, I have to somewhat disagree with this. At the time of unification, if you asked many people inside and outside the IRL if things would be better in 18 months, I can guarantee you most if not all would have said yes.

I guess that depends on what your definition of "better" is. Not to try to parse this to finely, but I had no illusions that things would be "better" in 18 months. But I did have the thought we'd be on the way to "better". And I still think we are. With two series we were on the way to nowhere. To bring back some of my old pre-calculus, it's all about the slope of the curve. Before we were looking at a shear drop down. If we had continued as two series in the current economy both would have been dead and buried by this juncture. Now, and this is totally what I expected, I think we see the slope of decline as less steep. It's sorta like the same thing with the economy. A year ago the curve downward was very steep. Now it is still downward but smoothing out with the anticipation of a gentle slope back up. I am not expecting miracles in 18 months on either front.

(And no Ken, I am NOT talking about the tv ratings. They are only one measure of the state of AOWR.)

Gary

[FIAT1]

Penske should take charge of the series and remove tg ,remove irl and use Indycar name only. Building fast cars like we had in 1994 900hp would be good start for people to watch on any chanel. Having spec nascar 2 is very boring. Take time and build cars that make stars not otherway oround. Promote Indy as Indy car palace before nascar kills it. Race on the best road tracks and ovals including couple streets. When they ask what is Indycar I would like to say fastest and most sophisicated machine where only special brand of racers are capable to tame. Build a product and tv will come with sponsors. NOTE: this is my opinion and don't want compare old days but remebered that we didn't have this problem then.

[SoCalPVguy]

I guess that depends on what your definition of "better" is. Not to try to parse this to finely, but I had no illusions that things would be "better" in 18 months. But I did have the thought we'd be on the way to "better". And I still think we are. With two series we were on the way to nowhere. Gary

Gary I'll be honest, I though that after the split ended, it would be "better" in 18 months - "Better" being defined as more sponsors, more cars, more 'name' drivers, better TV coverage quaility, higher ratings. However, in the 18-months ensuing it seems things are now worse, "worse" being defines as less sponsors, less cars, less name drivers, lower ratings.

The only thing being 'better' is th ein race production, but 'nobody' notices because its on a station that 'nobody' gets.

I admit I did not factor in the Obama effect of killing off the economy through over regulation that frankly is going to be around for the next three to five years, when I predicted 'better' 18 months ago. And I made the prediction of 'better' before the Versus deal was signed. These two things unforunately put Indycar racing in real jeapordy and I am not sure exactly what to recommend.

I would start by suggesting an Indycar only cable channel similar to the Nascar channel and SEC football channel, All Indy car all the time. Old races, low cost features, studio shows, even autoracing related movies. It has to be put on a high tier cable, not digital so more peole can receive. I recommend twitter and facebook guerilla marketing to attract younger fans. I recommend all out marketing to hispanic market, the fastiest growing segment even if 3/4 of them are illegal... Other than that most of what I think could be like arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

[garyshell]

I admit I did not factor in the Obama effect of killing off the economy through over regulation that frankly is going to be around for the next three to five years, when I predicted 'better' 18 months ago.

I can't get past this comment to even begin to take the rest of it seriously. I love the concept that somehow Obama was able to influence the economy in this way BEFORE he even came into office. Before you continue on with such revisionist history, I think you might want to look at where the economy was on Jan 21 of this year.

Gary

[Jag_Warrior]

Well, when the mortgage industry was handing out loans to anyone who could fog up a mirror, the IRL still wasn't soaking up sponsorship. Daniel Sadek did let Eddie Griffin drive (and promptly crash) a Ferrari Enzo in the making of one of the worst movies ever. But I don't recall him, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs or Bank of America floating heavy sponsorship in the league.

So with all of this "crippling" regulation that's on the horizon, how is that going to affect the IRL? Not at all, says I. Just more hyperbole, IMO.

[Alexamateo]

Well, when the mortgage industry was handing out loans to anyone who could fog up a mirror, the IRL still wasn't soaking up sponsorship. Daniel Sadek did let Eddie Griffin drive (and promptly crash) a Ferrari Enzo in the making of one of the worst movies ever. But I don't recall him, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs or Bank of America floating heavy sponsorship in the league.

So with all of this "crippling" regulation that's on the horizon, how is that going to affect the IRL? Not at all, says I. Just more hyperbole, IMO.

been watching CNBC tonight Jag? ;)

[call_me_andrew]

Penske should take charge of the series and remove tg ,remove irl and use Indycar name only. Building fast cars like we had in 1994 900hp would be good start for people to watch on any chanel. Having spec nascar 2 is very boring. Take time and build cars that make stars not otherway oround. Promote Indy as Indy car palace before nascar kills it. Race on the best road tracks and ovals including couple streets. When they ask what is Indycar I would like to say fastest and most sophisicated machine where only special brand of racers are capable to tame. Build a product and tv will come with sponsors. NOTE: this is my opinion and don't want compare old days but remebered that we didn't have this problem then.

Ok. Now tell me why Penske would invest so much money in such a thing?

[Jag_Warrior]

been watching CNBC tonight Jag? ;)

:D That's right, ol' Sadek was on "House of Cards", wasn't he?

Nah, I actually knew about him early on. My cousin's husband was running the same kind of mortgage racket in SoCal. Sadek got the Enzo. Cuz only got a Bentley. :rolleyes:

Not to get into politics (or religion) in this thread, but neither Obama nor Jesus Christ has anything to do with where the IRL is. What did the economy look like when CART was formed? Point made? OK, so let's move forward, eh, folks?

[Jag_Warrior]

Ok. Now tell me why Penske would invest so much money in such a thing?

Unless he starts hittin' that Cognac bottle with Kanye West, I doubt he would.

[beachbum]

What did the economy look like when CART was formed? Point made? OK, so let's move forward, eh, folks?
Excellent point. Like all professional sports, racing runs on money, and there just isn't that much spare change to go around at the moment. Trying to resurrect CART III (or is it IV) to solve the problems would probably have the same result in today's economy as CART I and CART II - bankruptcy

[FIAT1]

Ok. Now tell me why Penske would invest so much money in such a thing?

Why not? He is very smart and successful businessman with love for Indy and this type of racing. My believe is that he would bring credibility and stability to the series and I'm not a fan of Penske but edmire his accomplisments. Would he spend a money ? Maybe not, but one of this days someone have to build it or kill it.

[Lee Roy]

Successful professional racing series grow from the grass-roots up, not developed as a stand-alone, out-of-the-box creation.

[Wade91]

i have comcast cable, so i am of course able to get versus, but directTv has alot of custamers also, and i hear none of them can see the indycar races, which really hurts the series

[SoCalPVguy]

I can't get past this comment to even begin to take the rest of it seriously. I love the concept that somehow Obama was able to influence the economy in this way BEFORE he even came into office. Before you continue on with such revisionist history, I think you might want to look at where the economy was on Jan 21 of this year. Gary

OT: I refer you to the four graphs located at link:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/09/graph_of_the_day.html

Note that at month "12" Obama election day, industrial production,real income, and employment have all dropped significantly at that date after being realtively stable. Employmnet especially has significantly dropped since the election, refer to the chart below ( apicture is worth a 1000 words).

http://transfers.mep-llc.com/files/augustunempdata.jpg

[garyshell]

This is really laughable. First if you look closely at the four graphs and go back six months for the ones with last observed dates of July and seven months for those with August dates, we get to the inauguration. And what do those charts look like then? Oh wait, that's right Obama's over regulation has the ability to reach back via some magic time machine and exert influence on prior events. Man the guy is just amazing isn't he?

And look at the chart you posted below. Do you notice the starting point of that slope was most assuredly PRIOR to the election. And the reality is employment figures lag behind the economic downturns and subsequent recovery by several months. Laying the economic mess at Obama's feet is patently ridiculous. It was in the dumper LONG before he was elected or came to office.

What was they old quote about figures and lies?

Gary

P.S. Beyond this reply, I am not going to continue to participate in getting this thread further off topic. I have done enough damage.


OT: I refer you to the four graphs located at link:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/09/graph_of_the_day.html

Note that at month "12" Obama election day, industrial production,real income, and employment have all dropped significantly at that date after being realtively stable. Employmnet especially has significantly dropped since the election, refer to the chart below ( apicture is worth a 1000 words).

http://transfers.mep-llc.com/files/augustunempdata.jpg

[DBell]

Thanks, but I come here because it's a racing forum, not to hear political opinions and propoganda. There is a section in the forum for this kind of stuff.

[Jag_Warrior]

One of the main reasons I stopped teaching Six Sigma classes was because it was so incredibly hard to get across to the students the difference between correlation and cause & effect.

Here we go. Quite clearly, we can solve global warming by addressing the number of pirates, right? :rolleyes:
http://www.seanbonner.com/blog/archives/piratesarecool.jpg

This is a racing forum. So I'm still waiting to hear what macro economic policy has to do with the IRL, or racing in general - outside of the obvious: all boats supposedly rise during times of growth. But even with that, let's remember that even during one of the longest periods of peacetime recovery and growth in U.S. history, the IRL still did not turn a profit.

Perhaps if we solve the pirate problem, the IRL's ratings and profits will increase too. Maybe there's a graph somewhere that'll "prove" that. *sigh*

[SoCalPVguy]

getting back on track...
despit ethe cause, the recession is here, its real, and its going to last through at least 2013... the self-imposed drop dead date for the IRL to be profitable.
The IRL must find a way to improve profitablity is a down-economy until then.
One way is to attract sponsors.
It must be agreed that the Versus situation will preclude obtaining a series or major sponsor as the viewership is so limited.
ICS must get out of the Versus deal in anyway possible and get on a more viable platform with widder viewership.

[Shifter]

So how do we convince people that racing is more interesting than people hitting balls with sticks? Can it be done?

[call_me_andrew]

Why not? He is very smart and successful businessman with love for Indy and this type of racing. My believe is that he would bring credibility and stability to the series and I'm not a fan of Penske but edmire his accomplisments. Would he spend a money ? Maybe not, but one of this days someone have to build it or kill it.

Yes, Penske is a great buisnessman and loves OW racing, but a buisnessman isn't going to invest in a buisness unless he's damn sure he'll get a return for it. Marlboro has been very kind to his team, but unless they help him establish the Indy Racing League Marlboro IndyCar Series, he's not going to do it.

[Jag_Warrior]

Besides this squabble with DirecTV, why are the Versus numbers going down, instead of at least remaining stable? Forget about growing the ratings. IMO, the IRL first has to stop the bleeding... stop the current fans from tuning out. Does anyone within the IRL really know why people watch? Does anyone within the IRL really know why people are tuning out? I think one of the major problems that all of AOWR has had for the past decade or so is the loss of once hardcore fans. CART didn't "get that"... neither did CCWS, and it now seems that the IRL is clueless on that front too.

No disrespect meant toward anyone here. We all may have different opinions on what the future holds for the IRL. But to say that in 18 months it will be better, or in 24-36 months it will be better... to me that's just wishful thinking. The future is based on what is being done in the present. I don't believe it's realistic to think that in 2 years, we'll all wake up for the 2011 season opener and the viewing public will have (suddenly) decided that this will be the year that they're going to begin watching IRL races. And that same year, the sponsors will be on board... just because? And did the one time AOWR fans need two additional years to digest the end to the split?

Maybe it's just me. But if I see a company that hasn't made it work after 15 years or so, and things aren't going so well in the here & now, my expectations for its future are not so bright. And now Mommy and the Wicked Sisters have bounced Tony and pulled in spending? Are they now content to cut their losses and let the IRL die on the vine... maybe just find some way to preserve the Indy 500? Dunno.

So, what's the answer? I have NO idea. The last time I saw a mess like this, I started shopping my resume and eventually left. But I'm not one to believe that the future will be brighter, just because it's in the future.

[Lee Roy]

http://www.versus.com/nw/article/view/82761/?tf=press_center.tpl&UserDef=true



VERSUS REVS UP ADDITIONAL MOTORSPORTS COVERAGE WITH MULTI-YEAR NASCAR DEAL

NEW YORK, N.Y. (September 18, 2009)—VERSUS today announced a multi-year deal with NASCAR to air a fast-paced, up-close HD look at the 12 drivers competing in NASCAR’s 10-race Chase for the Sprint Cup. The weekly, half-hour series titled Quest for the NASCAR Sprint Cup will air on VERSUS on Tuesday nights at 11 p.m. ET, beginning September 22, and will air each week until the conclusion of the 2009 NASCAR playoff season.

Quest for the NASCAR Sprint Cup, an adrenaline-filled show that offers motorsports fans stunning race footage with an intimate behind-the-scenes perspective, is a milestone in HD sports programming and was honored with a Sports Emmy® Award for “Outstanding Live Event Turnaround” in 2008. VERSUS and NASCAR will also partner on additional programming opportunities which will be announced when details become available.

“Just as we’re about to conclude our first year of IndyCar Series coverage, we look forward to the opportunity to extend our racing season through this new partnership with NASCAR,” said Marc Fein, Executive Vice President of Programming, Production and Business Operations for VERSUS. “VERSUS has become a top television destination for motorsports fans with our in-depth and all-encompassing coverage of the IndyCar Series and we are very excited to launch into a multi-year venture with NASCAR to showcase all the action and excitement surrounding their championship run.”

“We are delighted to partner with VERSUS on our Emmy-award winning Quest for the NASCAR Sprint Cup series,” said Jay Abraham, Chief Operating Officer of NASCAR Media Group. “With VERSUS being the fastest growing sports cable network in the country, this is one more way in which NASCAR can reach additional fans with the excitement of our playoffs, the Chase for the NASCAR Sprint Cup.”

[SarahFan]

Hmmm.

Ken, what's your take?



2 thoughts ...
First is this additional coverage not replacent..... Huge difference

second is ......zero.24

[PA Rick]

Here we go. Quite clearly, we can solve global warming by addressing the number of pirates, right? :rolleyes:
*

The subject of Pirates is a little touchy here in Pittsburgh. (The city of Champions and the Pirates).

[Rex Monaco]

It's called Indycar racing. The sport was built around Indy. If that race holds no value to the general public, then the series is worthless.

We have entered a new age of automotive technology with no clear winner of what will replace the internal combustion engine. So far, only Le Mans has seen the future and is reacting to it.

The Indy 500 was established as a long distance race to prove the reliability of new technology.

So guess what the solution is? Open up the @#$#%* race and let them race new technology at Indy. And hopefully 20 or so teams will stick around for the rest of the series.

When the first diesel hybrid engine running on french fry grease wins, the public will take notice and the sport will begin to grow.

Or they can cut costs further and introduce Honda Civics as the new spec car. Then we can watch with anticipation as the speeds increase to 135mph from 133 the prior year.

[PA Rick]

........
We have entered a new age of automotive technology with no clear winner of what will replace the internal combustion engine. So far, only Le Mans has seen the future and is reacting to it.

..........

I think the F1 KERS system is a step in the right direction. But the race needs to be opened up to new technology.
The days of turbines and diesels and even rear engines made for more interest. Every year you would read about some whacko who created a car to stretch the envelope. Sometimes the idea had merit, sometimes not.

[chuck34]

It's called Indycar racing. The sport was built around Indy. If that race holds no value to the general public, then the series is worthless.

We have entered a new age of automotive technology with no clear winner of what will replace the internal combustion engine. So far, only Le Mans has seen the future and is reacting to it.

The Indy 500 was established as a long distance race to prove the reliability of new technology.

So guess what the solution is? Open up the @#$#%* race and let them race new technology at Indy. And hopefully 20 or so teams will stick around for the rest of the series.

When the first diesel hybrid engine running on french fry grease wins, the public will take notice and the sport will begin to grow.

Or they can cut costs further and introduce Honda Civics as the new spec car. Then we can watch with anticipation as the speeds increase to 135mph from 133 the prior year.

Bingo!!!!!!!! Open up the d@mn rules. It might hurt in the short term (though I doubt it), but in the long run it will bring back interest. When there is a hybrid desil competing against a "normal" gas engine that is competing against an ethanol engine that is competing against a turbine that is competing against an electric car, THAT will bring excitement and interest. And it's not that hard. And equivalency based on BTU of energy can be found.

And not to pull this off topic too much more, but that graph put up earlier was put forth by (I believe) the current administration in DC, in order to justify their "stimulus". So it does have some merit.

[NickFalzone]

I'm not hugely against spec racing.

My feelings on multi-manufacturers versus spec racing is this: If you're going to be a series with multiple engines/chassis, I'm ok if certain teams blow away the others on a regular basis within a season (as long as it changes up a bit from season to season). I understand that, it's part of creative engineering. But if you're going to be completely spec racing, you better put on a great dang show with passing and competition throughout the race, because you're certainly not offering much else, from a technological or development standpoint. If you're a series that's entirely spec, with little passing and 2 or 3 teams that almost always win (usually only 2-4 cars), year in year out, then there's really not a whole lot for me to be excited about. I'm not saying that the current IRL is the latter, but it's increasingly close to that.