Ratings

[SarahFan]

Infineon .25
Chicago .24
motegi .14

[SarahFan]

season update

Rtg (H-holds) Ntwk Race

0.3 (233,000) VS St. Pete
0.5 (388,864) VS Long Beach
.15 (171,000) VS Kansas
4.0 (???,???) ABC Indy 500
0.7 (852,000) ABC Milwaukee
.36 (467,000) VS Texas
0.8 (???,???) ABC Iowa
.22 (248,000) VS Richmond
.87 (???,???) ABC Watkins Glen
1.0 (770,000) ABC Toronto (overnight)
.24 (279,000) VS Edmonton
.14 (165,000) VS Kentucky
0.2 (233,000) VS Mid-Ohio
.25 (281,000) VS Sonoma
.24 (271,000) VS Chicagoland
.14 (165,000) VS Motegi

10.11 YTD with Indy... or a .63 average

6.11 without Indy.... or a .4 average

2.74 on Versus...or a .25 average

[Lousada]

Interesting that Motegi does not even have the lowest rating of the season. Especially considering there were 18 million DirectTV subscribers that couldn't watch.
From the numbers it looks like 250.000 people is the fanbase of the ICS.

[Chamoo]

Now, does this take into account re-airs on Versus? I know it wouldnt be much, but there must be a couple thousand people that have watched the reairs on Versus.

[DBell]

I know that the ratings are statistical estimate, but do the factor in DVRs? Do these rating numbers only reflect people watching live or do they also include people who record it and watch it at their convenience? I've watched very few Indycar races live this year and I was curious about this.

[bblocker68]

There is metadata in the media stream to provide Closed Captions, XDS and Ratings information. Whether it is watched live or cued in your DVR, it will be tallied.

Wow, WTG Versus.

[Wilf]

There is metadata in the media stream to provide Closed Captions, XDS and Ratings information. Whether it is watched live or cued in your DVR, it will be tallied.

Wow, WTG Versus.

Tallied yes, but the question is it included in the ratings? The cable providers have access to that information but I don't think those numbers are included in the ratings provided by Nielsen.

[Will Rogers]

Program ratings include those who record the program on DVRs and view them later. There are estimates of how many people skip the commercials, and those estimates (which vary by program type) are used by advertisers to adjust for the actual viewing audience for their commercials, but the published ratings include both live audience and recorded (DVR) audience.

[Wilf]

Program ratings include those who record the program on DVRs and view them later. There are estimates of how many people skip the commercials, and those estimates (which vary by program type) are used by advertisers to adjust for the actual viewing audience for their commercials, but the published ratings include both live audience and recorded (DVR) audience.

You are correct except my comment is that there is a difference between numbers gathered by a programming or service provider and the numbers counted by Nielsen.

[FormerFF]

Does anyone remember what tier Directv had Versus on? I see that if you have Dish Network that you have to get the Gold package to receive Versus.

[Pat Wiatrowski]

Does anyone remember what tier Directv had Versus on? I see that if you have Dish Network that you have to get the Gold package to receive Versus.

Choicextra (Old Total Plus) I believe. Second Tier for $5/month.

[peasant]

not to make excuses for epic suckage, but what are the ratings for the quali shows and the re-airs. How do those ratings compare for a 3 hour show compared to the previous 2 hour show - does that have much relevance. Failure is Failure - but it would be nice to see a fairer comparison ie. total ratings for versus package v total ratings for ESPN package to get a perspective on exactly how big a failure.

[Wilf]

not to make excuses for epic suckage, but what are the ratings for the quali shows and the re-airs. How do those ratings compare for a 3 hour show compared to the previous 2 hour show - does that have much relevance. Failure is Failure - but it would be nice to see a fairer comparison ie. total ratings for versus package v total ratings for ESPN package to get a perspective on exactly how big a failure.

Why would you want a more accurate comparison; you've already declared it a failure. Others have decided it is a baseline from which to measure next year's viewership.

[SarahFan]

Why would you want a more accurate comparison; you've already declared it a failure. Others have decided it is a baseline from which to measure next year's viewership.


sure other forum members have.......and I'm sure the IRL brass would love to sell it as such..

but do you think current and potential sponsors see the same way?

[Wilf]

sure other forum members have.......and I'm sure the IRL brass would love to sell it as such..

but do you think current and potential sponsors see the same way?

Well, unless the league folds before the beginning of next season I guess we will have to redefine failure.

Apparently several current advertisers are interested in investing in "failure" and there will be more next year. Why can't you accept that reasonable people understand that you have to crawl before you walk.

[Jag_Warrior]

If and when the Joyce Julius numbers become available, this question about ratings and sponsor values will be fairly well answered. They're harder to track down now than they used to be. But maybe Forbes, Jayski or IBJ will publish them for this year.

My assumption is that sponsor exposure values will be down substantially from 2008 to 2009. And if the values are down, I would expect sponsor budgets to be lower. Why would they pay the same or more for something that is worth less? And with that, either the team owners will have to cut their budgets or they (or the IRL) will have to make up the difference. It doesn't mean that there won't be sponsors or that there won't be racing next year. But I can't see very many sponsors paying Nationwide Series sponsorship dollars for a series that looks like it's going to finish the year at or below Grand Am levels, with respect to viewership.

[Lousada]

If and when the Joyce Julius numbers become available, this question about ratings and sponsor values will be fairly well answered. They're harder to track down now than they used to be. But maybe Forbes, Jayski or IBJ will publish them for this year.

My assumption is that sponsor exposure values will be down substantially from 2008 to 2009. And if the values are down, I would expect sponsor budgets to be lower. Why would they pay the same or more for something that is worth less? And with that, either the team owners will have to cut their budgets or they (or the IRL) will have to make up the difference. It doesn't mean that there won't be sponsors or that there won't be racing next year. But I can't see very many sponsors paying Nationwide Series sponsorship dollars for a series that looks like it's going to finish the year at or below Grand Am levels, with respect to viewership.

Which sponsors in the IRL are strictly aiming for tv-viewership? I think only Danicas sponsors really fit that description. I believe most sponsors see the value (apart from the 500) in other areas. It is no coincidence that most cars are sponsored by large chains (Target, 7-11, Menards, ABC-Supply, Meijer).

[Jag_Warrior]

Which sponsors in the IRL are strictly aiming for tv-viewership? I think only Danicas sponsors really fit that description. I believe most sponsors see the value (apart from the 500) in other areas. It is no coincidence that most cars are sponsored by large chains (Target, 7-11, Menards, ABC-Supply, Meijer).

From what I understand, the Target and 7-11 sponsorships are basically B2B. Or more specifically, they take on the master sponsorship and sell the space to associates. PM/Marlboro does something similar with Ferrari in F1. I don't know anything about ABC Supply or Menards. And just from what is said (rumors), the Meijer deal is more like the vapor sponsorships that were in CCWS in its final days. But again, I don't know. One of my former companies pumped millions into Team Rahal in the glory days of CART based strictly on B2B deals. We had very few products that were actually sold to the general public, but most every American used or was touched by our products at some point. But at some point, our B2B was tied to a consumer products or services company... and they did care (very much) about viewership.

But I think the more important question relates to what the IRL may see as its future state. It's losing money now, as it's always lost money. The status quo just guarantees that condition will remain. So, what do prospective sponsors want? Would a title sponsor be satisfied with the current viewership? I don't know the answer, but I do believe that it would be difficult to sell falling year-over-year viewership (even Indy on ABC) as an opportunity. Course, everything is worth something. So in the end, it's just a question of how much the IRL and its teams can sell these sponsorships for.

Going forward, would FIAT, VW/Audi, etc. care? I kinda think they would. And that might affect whether or not they decide to invest in this new engine formula that's being discussed.

[Lousada]

But I think the more important question relates to what the IRL may see as its future state. It's losing money now, as it's always lost money. The status quo just guarantees that condition will remain. So, what do prospective sponsors want? Would a title sponsor be satisfied with the current viewership? I don't know the answer, but I do believe that it would be difficult to sell falling year-over-year viewership (even Indy on ABC) as an opportunity. Course, everything is worth something. So in the end, it's just a question of how much the IRL and its teams can sell these sponsorships for.

Going forward, would FIAT, VW/Audi, etc. care? I kinda think they would. And that might affect whether or not they decide to invest in this new engine formula that's being discussed.

I forgot about the supposed title and league sponsors. You are right, for them it is a lot more important what the ratings are. Although, according to Terry they could announce a title sponsor before Thanksgiving...?

As far as engine suppliers, VAG is pushing the IRL for the world engine concept. That way they do not have to invest that much. Suppliers probably want to make money via the leases.

[peasant]

Why would you want a more accurate comparison; you've already declared it a failure. Others have decided it is a baseline from which to measure next year's viewership.

If you've got an answer to the question, then answer. If you just want to give more of the same old very tired ever lame spin, don't bother.

[The instant classic]

Interesting that Motegi does not even have the lowest rating of the season. Especially considering there were 18 million DirectTV subscribers that couldn't watch.
From the numbers it looks like 250.000 people is the fanbase of the ICS.

i was thinking the same thing
with QF and Practice being on at 2am and race day at 10:30pm i was thinking who will stay up to watch that? i guess i was wrong we have more
die-hard fans then i thought

[Jag_Warrior]

i was thinking the same thing
with QF and Practice being on at 2am and race day at 10:30pm i was thinking who will stay up to watch that? i guess i was wrong we have more
die-hard fans then i thought

We can say that it's apples and oranges, but in the early days of the Motegi race, ESPN ran qualies in the wee hours of the morning. It got a .4 something. At that time, we hadn't seen ratings that low for a CART presentation before, so there was hand wringing over that. But if in the present, a .14 is considered "not so bad" for an actual race (not qualies)... Oh well. :dozey:

[Wilf]

If you've got an answer to the question, then answer. If you just want to give more of the same old very tired ever lame spin, don't bother.

Sorry, didn't mean to disturb you. Maybe someone who agrees with you will look up the answer for you.

[Mark in Oshawa]

yet another Thread where Ken tees off on the fact the rating suck. The sky is blue Ken..and I heard you can drink water. You never know what you might learn by watching....

The obvious answer to your thread is why you keep flogging the horse? We knew the ratings would suck before the season started....

[peasant]

Sorry, didn't mean to disturb you. Maybe someone who agrees with you will look up the answer for you.

lame again.

[garyshell]

not to make excuses for epic suckage, but what are the ratings for the quali shows and the re-airs. How do those ratings compare for a 3 hour show compared to the previous 2 hour show - does that have much relevance. Failure is Failure - but it would be nice to see a fairer comparison ie. total ratings for versus package v total ratings for ESPN package to get a perspective on exactly how big a failure.


lame again.

No less so than the original quote above. It was like declaring a body dead and asking someone to get its pulse.

Gary

[peasant]

The obvious answer to your thread is why you keep flogging the horse?

you figure it's as good as dead then?


We knew the ratings would suck before the season started....

Does that somehow make them alright, and not to be discussed?

[Mark in Oshawa]

you figure it's as good as dead then?



Does that somehow make them alright, and not to be discussed?

Peasent. Ken has beat this horse every week when he found the ratings. He has never ONCE had a solution that is realistic to fix it. It is old, boring and stale.

We all knew the ratings would suck on a network that is only on about half the TV's in the US. We all know programs on VS don't really get the ratings for the NHL has fought that same battle. We also know that VS does a good job all things considered. We also know that the IRL is on VS because they couldn't get any network to pay them cash to broadcast the races. To stay on network TV, they would be in time buys, and part of the reason IRL is in the hole it is because of crap broadcasts that alienated fans of the series. What you and Ken fail to realize there was no bidding war for this series and there was no one willing to pay from the IRL to get the TV time this series is getting on VS. The downside is of course VS isn't on enough TV's or people's mental radar. Stating the obvious all season is boring and while it was worthy of discussion last spring, it is flogging a dead horse. It is the only topic Ken seemed to care about and he never said anything new. Hence...the horse is dead and the SPCA is heading to his house right now.....

[Jacques]

Peasent. Ken has beat this horse every week when he found the ratings. He has never ONCE had a solution that is realistic to fix it. It is old, boring and stale.

We all knew the ratings would suck on a network that is only on about half the TV's in the US. We all know programs on VS don't really get the ratings for the NHL has fought that same battle. We also know that VS does a good job all things considered. We also know that the IRL is on VS because they couldn't get any network to pay them cash to broadcast the races. To stay on network TV, they would be in time buys, and part of the reason IRL is in the hole it is because of crap broadcasts that alienated fans of the series. What you and Ken fail to realize there was no bidding war for this series and there was no one willing to pay from the IRL to get the TV time this series is getting on VS. The downside is of course VS isn't on enough TV's or people's mental radar. Stating the obvious all season is boring and while it was worthy of discussion last spring, it is flogging a dead horse. It is the only topic Ken seemed to care about and he never said anything new. Hence...the horse is dead and the SPCA is heading to his house right now.....

Just because you know something is going to be wrong/low, it does not mean that you should avoid keeping track of its status. Otherwise, how will you know if what you are doing is right or wrong ?

Are the ratings low just because of the network switch or is a more troubling cause underneath ?

If what Ken does is annoying to you, imagine how annoying, what you do , must be for those who like to read his threads ?

Stop repeating the same thing in every single one of his threads.

Just don't open those threads and be happy.

[speeddurango]

This old dead horse of irl is worth beating in many ways, because it's not really dead, and it still keeps dragging the farce of AOWR further down. It's just like its tedious pack racing, stuck together, noone could advance, yet a critical crash hasn't happened to date.

[Wilf]

noone could advance

CHICAGOLAND with 18 Lead changes among 6 drivers
KENTUCKY WITH 20 Lead changes among 7 drivers


yet a critical crash hasn't happened to date.

This racing; there will be accidents. Anytime you take a cars and drivers to their limits, someone will go beyond. Fortunately, the drivers in IndyCar have realized they have to respect each other and minimized "rubbin' is racin'."

[indycool]

Let me give you a head start, Ken. Those VS ratings aren't going to be much better, if at all, next year, IMO. That's going to be a long-range situation. That's why it's a 10-year deal. So continue to snuffle now and probably even a third year.

But what might happen to effect it? Do Direct TV and Versus strike a bargain? Does Comcast buy NBC? Do attendances continue to rise in some places. Does the economy come back fast or slow?

Time will tell.

[Jag_Warrior]

With all due respect, IC, I think it's going to take a lot more than just the passage of time to improve the ratings or make the IRL profitable.

Do the powers that be know why people watch? Do the powers that be know why the majority of people who watched (Indy) 15 years ago have stopped watching? Do the powers that be understand the propsective fan base well enough that they can develop and execute a plan to get them back?

Blaming Versus (for everything) is a cop out, IMO. It's not helping. But what does Versus have to do with the Indy 500's ratings? It still takes place on the same date and at roughly the same time as it did 25 years ago. A better buildup on a major network would help. But even when the IRL's been on network, it's not been drawing very many viewers. So... blame ABC for not pouring money into promotion? Blame ABC and the sponsors for not doing more to help the IRL? How about we look at the IRL the same way as we do any other business? We don't blame the customers when GM's sales fall. We don't blame the advertising agency. We blame GM management - and rightfully so. We blame the management, because the management is the only body that can solve the problem.

I don't know what the answer is anymore than anyone else does. But if the people running the IRL are just thinking that time will heal this wound, I don't think this is going to end so well. Why would sponsors flock to something where there doesn't seem to be a plan?

[Jag_Warrior]

Just because you know something is going to be wrong/low, it does not mean that you should avoid keeping track of its status. Otherwise, how will you know if what you are doing is right or wrong ?

Exactly!



Are the ratings low just because of the network switch or is a more troubling cause underneath?

And that is the $64,000 question. NASCAR actually has people devoted to analyzing and answering questions like that. Does the IRL? I dunno.

[DBell]

With all due respect, IC, I think it's going to take a lot more than just the passage of time to improve the ratings or make the IRL profitable.

Do the powers that be know why people watch? Do the powers that be know why the majority of people who watched (Indy) 15 years ago have stopped watching? Do the powers that be understand the propsective fan base well enough that they can develop and execute a plan to get them back?

Blaming Versus (for everything) is a cop out, IMO. It's not helping. But what does Versus have to do with the Indy 500's ratings? It still takes place on the same date and at roughly the same time as it did 25 years ago. A better buildup on a major network would help. But even when the IRL's been on network, it's not been drawing very many viewers. So... blame ABC for not pouring money into promotion? Blame ABC and the sponsors for not doing more to help the IRL? How about we look at the IRL the same way as we do any other business? We don't blame the customers when GM's sales fall. We don't blame the advertising agency. We blame GM management - and rightfully so. We blame the management, because the management is the only body that can solve the problem.

I don't know what the answer is anymore than anyone else does. But if the people running the IRL are just thinking that time will heal this wound, I don't think this is going to end so well. Why would sponsors flock to something where there doesn't seem to be a plan?

That is great post on the subject Jag, imo. It gets to the heart of the matter That's why I ask people who think that the Indycar will be better off a few years from now, why? What is it that you see that is going to get people to start paying attention to Indycar again? It's been popularity has been in decline for many years now. What is it that's going to change things and begin to reverse that? I have not seen a plan offered by Indycar that addresses this question.

I like what Jag said in another post in one of these threads, essentially, that he didn't believe the future would be better, just because it's the future. And to me, that seems to be what Indycar is banking on.

[Lousada]

How about this for perspective:

Thursday night's NHL doubleheader on Versus, featuring Capitals/Bruins and Sharks/Avalanche, averaged 833,000 viewers -- giving the net its most-viewed NHL opening night ever.


To put the 833,000 viewers in perspective, Versus averaged 879,000 for the '09 Stanley Cup Playoffs and 530,000 for the '09 Tour de France. Meanwhile, regular season MLS telecasts averaged 292,000 viewers through 20 games on ESPN2, and regular season WNBA games averaged 269,000, also on ESPN2.
Source: http://sportsmediawatch.blogspot.com/

[indycool]

Jag, your post #33 is a thoughtful one and quite good. What I'm saying is that we don't really know what the future might hold despite the ratings. Obviously, the split hurt. The split lasted 18-plus years, so it's not going to turn around with one Versus telecast being a couple points below what ESPN2 did the year before. I've got plenty of bridges for sale for anyone who thought it was going to be any different this year. Can people watch the ratings with negativity? Sure. Watched pots don't boil. Is there a long-term plan? The 10-year deal with Versus would indicate SOME long-term strategy. Whether it works well, medium or fails is to be seen...plus all the other elements that go into it.

So, what does a .2 rating for Kentucky, let's say, mean for the future? I don't know, and I don't think anyone else does, either.

[SarahFan]

ratings suck.... must be kens fault for posting them


Classic projection

[NickFalzone]

How about this for perspective:



Source: http://sportsmediawatch.blogspot.com/


Lousada, those sorts of stats are why I was a bit surprised to see the .2's and .3's, because some of the other sports on Versus have done a LOT better than that. So to put it all at Versus' feet is not fair, I'd guess that the IRL is not quite delivering them the numbers they expected. Although Versus is not in as many hopes as ESPN/ESPN2, it still is in enough households that it can generate solid numbers if the fans come out to watch. This comparison says to me that there are simply many more fans of the NHL and Tour De France than the IRL right now. This is also why I think the "potential" may still be there for Versus, but it's not going to be just about Versus promoting the sports, it's gotta be about the IRL generating fan interest in the series on its own. The 500 gets roughly 22 times as many viewers as a regular series race (4.5 on ABC and .2 on Versus), so clearly they need to get the 500 viewers excited enough about the racing that they check out the next week in Texas, and know that it will be on Versus (or ABC if that's the case). This years 500 was boring as hell, and also had little to no mention of upcoming races on Versus.

[bravefish]

This comparison says to me that there are simply many more fans of the NHL and Tour De France than the IRL right now.

Stuff the stats - this is a big chunk of the reason for the answers this drawn out, boring, heard it every year topic gets

M I N O R I T Y sport...

The most enjoyable part of this thread is the banter - special mention for Peasant and Wilf - keep up the good work

Bury the horse - it is truly dead !!!

[Mark in Oshawa]

ratings suck.... must be kens fault for posting them


Classic projection

No....but you offer no solution either. You just complain they suck on VS. That is like saying the sky is blue.....we know that.

[Mark in Oshawa]

As for your take Jag, I agree. The future doesn't mean much if the IRL hasn't looked at what they have to do to change the future for the better. There is no indication what the new management/ownership of the series is going to mean. Having Tony gone is one thing, but having someone provide leadership and a direction is something else, and it hasn't happened.

I think they need radical change to get people's attention that this is going to be a different form of racing. The cars havne't changed in damn near a decade, and unlike NASCAR, that wont work in OW. This is the high tech series in North America in the eyes of the great unwashed. I think they need to provide good racing on all forms of tracks (lead changes on the ovals not withstanding, it is pack racing and they are meaningless lead changes until the very last few laps). They need a relevent and evolving formula, and they need to provide races that are not parades if they are going to persist in adding Long Beach style street tracks and natural terrain road courses to their sched.

THey then need to find a way to jolt the apathetic fans back to life, and draw in new ones. How they do it, I don't know, but almost requires a gimmick or something really out of the box to get people's attention. Putting up a lot of money maybe for a race in an unsual location? Not sure...but something has to be done differently, and while they have a 10 year deal with VS, I would look for some way to hope VS ends up doing a deal with a major network for races at some point. ABC has to be worked on to provide more promotion, and in turn they need to give ABC something they haven't shown them before. THAT said.....I will admit I am out of ideas at this point.....so I guess like Ken, I have no solutions....but at least I tried.

[SarahFan]

No....but you offer no solution either. You just complain they suck on VS. That is like saying the sky is blue.....we know that.

Really mark...

Then it should be easy for you to point out inthis thread for example where I complained about them

go ahead quote my complaint

[peasant]

.I will admit I am out of ideas at this point.....so I guess like Ken, I have no solutions....but at least I tried.

Why do people on internet discussion forums have to come with solutions?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Why do people on internet discussion forums have to come with solutions?

Peasant...if you don't come up with new ideas...then what you are doing is Bitching...and if you cant see what is wrong with that, it might explain a lot about you....

[Jacques]

Peasant...if you don't come up with new ideas...then what you are doing is Bitching...and if you cant see what is wrong with that, it might explain a lot about you....

You are way off. How many ideas have you come up with, or discussed, in your over 9,000 posts ?

Forums are for people to discuss and argue about a certain topic, or to pass on information they have heard or seen/read somewhere. Sometimes, people just have questions, and they ask them in a forum.

Nobody really knows what the answer to Indy's lack of popularity really is. Some people, though, do want to remain informed on any news regarding Indy's latest status on its tv popularity.

Just because you don't like to be reminded of how irrelevant Indy has become, it does not mean that you have a right to dictate what other people talk about.

[FormerFF]

Mark, normally I agree with you, but we diverge on this one. All Ken does is to post the ratings, usually without comment. I, among others appreciate him doing so, as it is one of the few hard data points we get on the state of the series.

As far as coming up with solutions, it doesn't really matter. None of us are in a position to implement them, and I don't think IndyCar is soliciting suggestions from its fanbase.

[NickFalzone]

I don't know how accurate these #'s are, since it was posted on Twitter by a guy named "Austin Karp" and he says Sun when we all know the race was on Sat. That being said, here's the reported ratings:

"IndyCar finale on VS draws 268K viewers Sun afternoon" (https://twitter.com/AustinKarp/status/4839004525)

And here's the context from sportsmedia ratings site:
UFL opener topped by NHL, IRL, WNBA, MLS, EPL (http://sportsmediawatch.blogspot.com/2009/10/ufl-opener-topped-by-nhl-irl-wnba-mls.html)

The debut of the United Football League was not much of a draw last week.

Last Thursday's California/Las Vegas game, the first game in UFL history, drew just 205,000 viewers on Versus. The game did not "crack Versus' top 20," and was not even among the top 5,000 programs of the week on cable.

To put that the numbers perspective, Versus drew 405,000 viewers for a Capitals/Bruins game earlier that week, and 268,000 viewers for the IRL season finale on Sunday.

Additionally, the 205,000 is lower than the regular season average for the WNBA on ESPN2 (269,000), MLS on ESPN2 (292,000, through 20 telecasts), and the English Premier League on ESPN2 (274,000, through 6 telecasts).

[Mark in Oshawa]

You are way off. How many ideas have you come up with, or discussed, in your over 9,000 posts ?

Forums are for people to discuss and argue about a certain topic, or to pass on information they have heard or seen/read somewhere. Sometimes, people just have questions, and they ask them in a forum.

Nobody really knows what the answer to Indy's lack of popularity really is. Some people, though, do want to remain informed on any news regarding Indy's latest status on its tv popularity.

Just because you don't like to be reminded of how irrelevant Indy has become, it does not mean that you have a right to dictate what other people talk about.

He is free to ignore me if he wants. I cant stop him.

My point is that I am tired of people just posting to dump all over the racing or the league who don't at some point in their posting history try to come up with some idea or theory, even half baked that contributes to the discourse

As for those who think the IRL doesn't look here, you might just be surprised who might read these posts. I know a lot of people involved in my years of racing with IMSA and the like who do read on here, not to mention people I knew from CART/CCWS timing and scoring. IF they are on here or at least reading it, who is to say who else may read?

My point is Ken on this thread is week after week put ratings up here like he was the guy who was saying "I told you so" all year. This topic has been beaten up and down, and I have yet to hear a theory on what the IRL could have done different in terms of TV. To carve them up for this one isn't fair, and god knows I have been pretty harsh on Tony and IRL management in the past, but at this point in their history, I cant really see where they had a choice.

[Jacques]

He is free to ignore me if he wants. I cant stop him.

My point is that I am tired of people just posting to dump all over the racing or the league who don't at some point in their posting history try to come up with some idea or theory, even half baked that contributes to the discourse

As for those who think the IRL doesn't look here, you might just be surprised who might read these posts. I know a lot of people involved in my years of racing with IMSA and the like who do read on here, not to mention people I knew from CART/CCWS timing and scoring. IF they are on here or at least reading it, who is to say who else may read?

My point is Ken on this thread is week after week put ratings up here like he was the guy who was saying "I told you so" all year. This topic has been beaten up and down, and I have yet to hear a theory on what the IRL could have done different in terms of TV. To carve them up for this one isn't fair, and god knows I have been pretty harsh on Tony and IRL management in the past, but at this point in their history, I cant really see where they had a choice.
I understand that; nevertheless, some of us ARE interested in obtaining regular updates on Indy's ratings. Quite morbid, I know that, but it is what it is.

If IRL people read these forums, they are not paying much attention to what posters are writing ;)

There may not have been much for the IRL to accept, but that, then, is the major problem the IRL faces.

I have no answer, I admit that. But, I am among millions who no longer care too much if we watch a race or not; other things are now more important, and that was not the case a few years ago. Fix that.

[indycool]

Those ratings posts are designed for bandwagoners to jump on board and say the IRL is FOS. Sure, we want to follow them, but I don't know what realistically the bandwagoners' posts are designed to do. I don't know if the IRL is expected to kidnap a bunch of people and tie them up in front of a Nielsen set or not.

NO ONE HAS EXPECTED MICROWAVE-TYPE ADVANCES. Because of that, it is not news that the ratings are way down. As far as Indy goes, 270,000 people every year deem it relevant by showing up and a few more million watch it on TV around the world.

[SarahFan]

Those ratings posts are designed for bandwagoners to jump on board and say the IRL is FOS. Sure, we want to follow them, but I don't know what realistically the bandwagoners' posts are designed to do. I don't know if the IRL is expected to kidnap a bunch of people and tie them up in front of a Nielsen set or not.

NO ONE HAS EXPECTED MICROWAVE-TYPE ADVANCES. Because of that, it is not news that the ratings are way down. As far as Indy goes, 270,000 people every year deem it relevant by showing up and a few more million watch it on TV around the world.

come on ic..... that post is rediculous coming from a guy who went out of his way to find, post, and negatively dicuss cc ratings...


shame on you

[Jag_Warrior]

As far as Indy goes, 270,000 people every year deem it relevant by showing up and a few more million watch it on TV around the world.

Is it "news" that the Indy 500 got the lowest recorded TV ratings in the history of the race this year?

The Nielsen TV ratings are just part of a measurement system, like many other measurement systems in the world. It just provides raw data. Nothing more and nothing less. And whether Ken or anyone else has an agenda or not, unless he's doctoring the numbers before posting them (which he is not), I can't see the problem. They are what they are.

Other than race results, the ratings numbers are the basis for what few (purely) factual posts we have on here. Most everything else is just our opinions.

[indycool]

Sure it's news. But Chicken Little didn't get famous because he said the sky was going to stay up.

[SarahFan]

Sure it's news. But Chicken Little didn't get famous because he said the sky was going to stay up.



again... coming from you of all people


weak

[Jag_Warrior]

Sure it's news. But Chicken Little didn't get famous because he said the sky was going to stay up.

Good one! :D I've never heard that before.

But to me, it's just data. And the data from one season to another may (or may not) establish a trend of some sort. All the ratings tell us is how many people watched. Comparing like ratings (ABC vs. ABC) from one year to another can show a trend.

If people don't like what the trend shows, that's perfectly OK. But the trend doesn't give us any root causes. So, in that sense, I disagree that a downtrend (necessarily) means that the sky is falling. Though it might be one indicator that the sky isn't looking so stable.

If Indy's TV ratings are at all time lows, surely someone should be asking why. But if they choose not to, that's on the powers that be. Whether anybody asks the questions or does anything about it or not, it is what it is.

[NickFalzone]

Jag, we all know why the ratings are much lower than last year's, the network that it's on is much less popular than ESPN, and in less households. If we're talking about "why are the ratings on a gradual slide" then we've got a discussion. Because they've been trending slowly down for the series races, as well as the 500. The 500 still gets a LOT of viewers, as I said in another thread, around 20x the number of regular series viewers. And it wasnt down all that much from last year's race. The real question is when will this trend stop, and if VS is perhaps has sped up the loss of viewers, or is instead growing a more solid base with better programming (don't laugh, that's what they've done with NHL). I don't think we have an answer yet. But as we've said before, 2010 will be a critical season for sponsorship and tv ratings.

Also, does anyone actually have the final metered/household number for Homestead? I have not seen it ANYWHERE outside of a potentially wrong number that quoted an IRL sunday race (homestead obv was saturday).

[indycool]

Good post, Jag. But they probably ARE asking why and may be finding that it's hard to shove hot butter up a goat's tail with an eyedropper.

[SarahFan]

Good post, Jag. But they probably ARE asking why and may be finding that it's hard to shove hot butter up a goat's tail with an eyedropper.

that doesn't sound so hard... what other way would you do it?

[SarahFan]

Trust me, you don't want to know. :eek:

:p


turkey baster?

[garyshell]

Good post, Jag. But they probably ARE asking why and may be finding that it's hard to shove hot butter up a goat's tail with an eyedropper.


that doesn't sound so hard... what other way would you do it?


Trust me, you don't want to know. :eek:

:p


turkey baster?


Too wimpy. Pressure washer!

Gary

[SarahFan]

and folks think I(we) dont have any suggestions to improve the ratings....


butterbastinsheepinsemination would change things real quick

[Jag_Warrior]

Jag, we all know why the ratings are much lower than last year's, the network that it's on is much less popular than ESPN, and in less households. If we're talking about "why are the ratings on a gradual slide" then we've got a discussion. Because they've been trending slowly down for the series races, as well as the 500.

Yes, more why the trend is still down for the overall season average (including Indy). The VS races would be marked as a special cause, or would be put in a "*" category, to be looked at next year and the year after. Now, that's ratings. On sponsor exposure value, I doubt that benefit is given... unless the teams are asking for less money, to make up for the loss (if there is any) in the Joyce Julius numbers.



The 500 still gets a LOT of viewers, as I said in another thread, around 20x the number of regular series viewers. And it wasnt down all that much from last year's race. The real question is when will this trend stop, and if VS is perhaps has sped up the loss of viewers, or is instead growing a more solid base with better programming (don't laugh, that's what they've done with NHL). I don't think we have an answer yet. But as we've said before, 2010 will be a critical season for sponsorship and tv ratings.

Well, yes, but " a lot" is pretty relative. If you look at Indy's 1995 ratings vs. those of the 1995 Daytona 500, Indy got an 8.4 and Daytona got a 7.8. In 2001, Indy got a 5.2 and Daytona got a 10.0. This year, Indy got a a 3.9/4.0 (depending on the source) and Daytona got a 9.2.

Just looking at the average rating (without Indy) vs Indy (only) on the first page, it looks like it's about a 10 to 1 ratio of Indy-> average race. Just glancing at some old numbers from the 90's, that's a pretty stable ratio.

Someone wrote a piece a few years ago comparing the Indy 500 to the Kentucky Derby. The Derby's numbers were also looking weak a few years ago, and that "brand" was successfully rebuilt. How they did that, I don't know. But it can be done.



Also, does anyone actually have the final metered/household number for Homestead? I have not seen it ANYWHERE outside of a potentially wrong number that quoted an IRL sunday race (homestead obv was saturday).

Hmm, no, I haven't seen them. To be honest, I pretty much only pay attention to ratings and Joyce Julius numbers when I see them posted here. :D Seriously. I kinda depend on Ken to post them these days. :s mokin:

[SarahFan]

FWIW.... i havent see homestead ratings anywhere....


and.... just when I thought we werent going to see the previos three they came out...

I suspect IBJ will do some sort of season ending recap.... when?... who knows

[Jag_Warrior]

Hey Ken, do you ever see the Joyce Julius sponsor exposure value numbers anymore? They used to be posted around different boards. But in the past 3 or 4 years, I can't recall seeing them.

Forbes does reports for NASCAR and includes that data. And of course, there are various financial reports for F1 every year. I even saw it for the NHRA when they had a buyout on the table. But nothing for AOWR lately. Anything on your end?

[SarahFan]

Hey Ken, do you ever see the Joyce Julius sponsor exposure value numbers anymore? They used to be posted around different boards. But in the past 3 or 4 years, I can't recall seeing them.

Forbes does reports for NASCAR and includes that data. And of course, there are various financial reports for F1 every year. I even saw it for the NHRA when they had a buyout on the table. But nothing for AOWR lately. Anything on your end?

havent seen anything....

but of coarse the guys like IC and wilke that used to post them with CC to IRL comparisons no longer do...

I suspect we all know why

I'll peek around though

[NickFalzone]

Sports Business Journal recapped the IRL '09 ratings. ABC viewership down 3%, overall viewership down 28%

http://sportsmediawatch.blogspot.com/2009/10/irl-viewership-down-28.html

IRL viewership down 28% (http://sportsmediawatch.blogspot.com/2009/10/irl-viewership-down-28.html)

The IRL saw big declines in viewership during its first season on Versus.

ABC and Versus averaged 1.2 million viewers for coverage of the IRL during the 2009 season, down 28% from 1.6 million for last year's races on ABC, ESPN and ESPN2.

In particular, Versus averaged a mere 315,000 viewers for its 12 races, down 60% from 778,000 for 11 races on ESPN/ESPN2 last year. To put that in perspective, the least viewed IRL telecast last season drew 377,000 viewers.

Compared to other sports, the IRL on Versus finished behind the 2008-09 NHL regular season on Versus (330,000) and the Tour de France on Versus (530,000), but topped regular season WNBA games on ESPN2 (269,000) and regular season MLS telecasts on ESPN2 (292,000, through 20 telecasts).

On ABC, five IRL telecasts averaged 2.6 million viewers, off 3% from 2.7 million for seven races last year. That average includes the Indianapolis 500, which drew 6.3 million viewers.

Source: Sports Business Journal (http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/63813)

[Jag_Warrior]

Thanks, Nick.

[NickFalzone]

Here's another article on the IRL '09 ratings. Call it BS, spin, or not:

http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/63813