2010 Versus TV-ratings are up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

I am tired of the Kentucky Derby Comparison.
Yes the Derby's ratings have been climbing as of late (Thanks Barbaro) but it has not equated to a growth in Horse racing. In fact parimutuels have been dying out across the land.

The growth in the Derby is a product of shrewd marketing of things that are unique to the event. Alcohol, fashion and gambling. Alcohol in that it is considered a Cocktail party that is "cool" to attend. Fashion in the hats and the label outfits the women at the cocktail wear. Gambling is self explanatory.
The media salivation over Barbaro also brought huge attention to the event. And people like Horses.

Indy has none of those. Aside from the cars and a few drivers Indy has Parades, Tenderloins and Jim Nabors. That is about as cool as a Jr. High-School Dungeons and Dragons club.

---

You're missing the point. TV viewership for two marquee sporting events had been in decline for years. One has recovered VERY well, draws excellent ratings again and has its mojo back... and one has fallen even further. I would say it does have to do with shrewd marketing on the part of the Triple Crown handlers - and great job by them (proof being in the pudding). Maybe the IRL should try some shrewd marketing (for a change). I would also say that it has to do with personifying (basically) beasts of burden, and telling the "human side" of their story. Whether it was Smarty Jones (my personal favorite from the past few years) or the ill fated Barbaro, people actually identify with the horses (jockeys and owners) more than they do with anyone (besides The Danica) who races an Indy car. That's a very major problem, IMO. Mike Conway broke his back at Indy. Barbaro broke his leg during the Preakness. The American people (really people from all over the world) followed the plight of Barbaro. I doubt you could find five people walking down the street, in any place besides Indianapolis, who could even tell you who Mike Conway is, much less that he suffered leg and back injuries at Indy.

I like horses, but I don't love them. And I've never gotten into the whole horse racing thing (or gambling). But I've been watching the Kentucky Derby since I was a kid. I have an emotional attachment to the race. People used to have that same emotional attachment to Indy. It's getting back that emotional attachment (especially for the non-hardcore racing fans) that Indy and IMS better figure out before things get any worse.

So what should Randy focus on, the 500 or the series?? Because what is good for the 500 does not have to be good for series. For example having Nascar drivers doing the double will do nothing for the series, perhaps even damage it's credibility.

I still think we will see a Le Mans situation in the near future. A support series that is completely off the radar, with the small teams. And one keystone event where all the big factory teams and guest drivers show up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lousada

So what should Randy focus on, the 500 or the series?? .

---

Randy is the CEO of the Indycar series...not IMS

so i suggest there is your answer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lousada

So what should Randy focus on, the 500 or the series?? Because what is good for the 500 does not have to be good for series. For example having Nascar drivers doing the double will do nothing for the series, perhaps even damage it's credibility.

---

I actually think having some (popular!) NASCAR drivers doing the double would help the Indy 500... and the overall series. It would be something of a gimmick move, but still, whatever works. And it would get us part of the way back to the way things used to be, with drivers from different series and disciplines taking part in the Indy 500. Everything possible that can be done, should be done, to get the taste and memory of 25/8 out of peoples' minds. I understand your point about not everything directed at the 500 would benefit the overall series (directly). But by bringing increased attention to Indy, I believe it's more likely that sponsors and fan eyeballs would follow the regualr season races after that.

I actually don't know what sort of power Bernard has as CEO of the IRL. But I'd agree with Ken, that his main focus has to be the overall health of the series. The IMS braintrust has to decide what to do with the Indy 500. And to be honest with you, I don't think the people running IMS right now could effectively sell snow cones on a 90 degree summer day to kids with pockets full of money. We've often discussed how NASCAR got to where it is. And while the IRL (and IMS) have a long way to go before they can even think about that kind of success (again), have they made any first steps to get a west coast or a New York public relations office open... or are they still in "cost containment mode"? I don't know. Outside of this board, I don't follow any IRL or IMS news. But it just seems to me that no one at IMS is ready to embrace what's been said for years: you can cut costs to the bone, but your product MUST retain a level of value that will satisfy existing customers and gain new customers. But I don't know what they should do now. Drop back and punt maybe. I don't know...

Quote:

---

I still think we will see a Le Mans situation in the near future. A support series that is completely off the radar, with the small teams. And one keystone event where all the big factory teams and guest drivers show up.

---

I think we're all but there now... except that at Le Mans they actually do get manufacturer interest. Which is interesting, since the ACO makes the IRL look like sheer geniuses when it comes to rule and decision making. But imagine an Indy 500 where Audi, Peugeot, Porsche and GM/Chevrolet (not allowed to say "Chevy" anymore, I hear) were determined to be represented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SarahFan

interesting...

becuase I tend to trust the neilson rating....and figure authors/posters/bloggers/etc get the conversion between hoseholds and viewers etc wrong/confused....



for me if neilson says texas is a .3...... and LB was a .5.......Id suggest LB outperformed texas..... the rest is just spin, statistics and Bull****

---

I'm counting households Ken, not converting anything. Neilson is the one converting things. All I'm saying is that the number of households is up. That's gotta mean something. I'm sure you don't give a d@mn though. That doesn't fit with your doom and gloom story.

Sure I'd like the share numbers to be up, but I'm not expecting any miracles. It's a long road ahead.

To drag the point out a bit, let's look at the households numbers a bit more.

Long Beach 09: 388,000 10: 490,000 an increase of 26%
Texas 09: 467,000 10: 518,000 an increase of 11%

Personally I don't give a damn about some "share" number based on how many people are watching TV in total or what-not (especially when were still talking about such low number as to be noise). If I were a sponsor, I'd be interested in the ACTUAL number of TV's turned on to the program. And since that appears to be growing (at least for those two races), then I'd be a bit cautiously optimistic about the future of the series.

09' neilsen released a .36
10' neilsen released a .30

the rest is just authors/bloggers/posters/imposters/posers interpretation

http://www.indycar.com/news/


*above is the link to the Indaycar.com news page.....if texas was indeed the most watched race ever on VS I would the folks running the show would want to make it known....

like Lousada attempting to portray a .3 as a .45 i suspect the SBJ folks simply got it wrong

So are you saying that the number of households that have been reported are wrong?

My understanding is that the number of households watching are counted, then the share number is caluculated using some sort of formula based on total number of TVs on at that time, and the number of people who even get the channel, etc.

So even if the "share" is down the actual number of people watching the show could be up. If this is not the case then please explain, and I'll change my mind. But for now, I'll count the number of people watching a show, not the "shares"

"Figures don't lie, but liars figure" - Mark Twain

Ratings mean something to marketing people, but they often look at the demographics as much as raw numbers. If you are selling Geritol, the raw ratings are meaningless if the numbers come from a kid's show. On the other hand, if your market is teenagers (particularly male), the ratings from the NOPI Nationals on Spike are really important. Since no one seems to have a clue what demographics are represented in the ratings, or what market various companies are trying to target, all of this discussion is pretty meaningless. The numbers are very low, so the audience for a specific demographic can't be large but we don't know if it is large enough for a particular advertiser.

An interesting view on ratings came from an analysis of NASCAR ratings

http://sportsmediawatch.blogspot.com...ar-on-tnt.html

Ratings have been going down steadily every year, yet the Pocono race was #1 on cable in households, viewers and several key demographics, specifically men 18-49 - NASCAR's primary target group. The markets are getting more and more fragmented and the numbers have to be compared with the current competition for viewers, not what happened years ago.

I'm suggesting the sbj folks found a ratings # ...took it and did exactly what hundreds of forums memeber do.... Tweaked it, twisted it.... Played with it

And ultimately got it wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

To drag the point out a bit, let's look at the households numbers a bit more.

Long Beach 09: 388,000 10: 490,000 an increase of 26%
Texas 09: 467,000 10: 518,000 an increase of 11%

Personally I don't give a damn about some "share" number based on how many people are watching TV in total or what-not (especially when were still talking about such low number as to be noise). If I were a sponsor, I'd be interested in the ACTUAL number of TV's turned on to the program. And since that appears to be growing (at least for those two races), then I'd be a bit cautiously optimistic about the future of the series.

---

You're mixing up viewers with households and overnights with finals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lousada

You're mixing up viewers with households and overnights with finals.

---

So how many households tuned in to each race? I don't know how they get viewers, since I would think it's an imprecise art to devine how many people are watching each TV. That's why I would think that the number of households should be the most accurate number. But I could be wrong?

I was going off the households numbers that Ken provided on the first page of this thread. But I take it that he now disputes his own numbers?

Pay attention chuck...

Go back and reread the htread ..

I was calling bs from the start

We can debate which numbers are which to the end of time but the fact is.....




0.3 is a Horrible rating. Even if you double that rating it still is bad and will never attract serious sponsorship.

You're right man. With the kind of ratings the IRL is getting they will never be able to start 18 cars outside of Indy, they'll be lucky to start 33 at Indy and there is no way, no how that they will ever be able to find a series sponsor.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

0.3 is a Horrible rating. Even if you double that rating it still is bad and will never attract serious sponsorship.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by downtowndeco

You're right man. With the kind of ratings the IRL is getting they will never be able to start 18 cars outside of Indy, they'll be lucky to start 33 at Indy and there is no way, no how that they will ever be able to find a series sponsor.....

---

Hahahaha....Sarcasm..........so witty!

i don't know what I was thinking. Indy Cars is the most successful and profitable series on the planet. I hear the Ferrari and McLaren are both checking out Dallaras and soon we will see Hamilton vs. Alonso on the oval in Iowa

Just keep peddling the doom brother, keep peddling....a couple guys here will always be right behind you cheering you on. : )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Hahahaha....Sarcasm..........so witty!

i don't know what I was thinking. Indy Cars is the most successful and profitable series on the planet. I hear the Ferrari and McLaren are both checking out Dallaras and soon we will see Hamilton vs. Alonso on the oval in Iowa

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SarahFan

Pay attention chuck...

Go back and reread the htread ..

I was calling bs from the start

---

You believe what you want to for everything to be right in you little doom and gloom world.

Now I remember why I steered clear of you ratings threads. I thought that maybe after a year you would be able to have a civil conversation about what's the real numbers etc. But I guess I was wrong. I won't make that mistake again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by downtowndeco

Just keep peddling the doom brother, keep peddling....a couple guys here will always be right behind you cheering you on. : )

---

Peddling doom? I have never done that.

I am expressing Facts.

Sunday's F-1 race on Fox garnered a 0.9 rating.

That is higher than any Indy Car race this year expect the Indy 500!

So now you have a Series with No American Drivers, No American Teams and No American Race Beating the US's "Premier" formula car series.

Something has to be done......FAST!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

You believe what you want to for everything to be right in you little doom and gloom world.

Now I remember why I steered clear of you ratings threads. I thought that maybe after a year you would be able to have a civil conversation about what's the real numbers etc. But I guess I was wrong. I won't make that mistake again.

---

come on chuck you took a second swipe at me a few posts back...and I'm the one whose not cival?

and your not smart enough to pay enough attention to the flow of a thread... who said what when etc...

your right.....dont join a discussion if your not going to pay attention

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SarahFan

come on chuck you took a second swipe at me a few posts back...and I'm the one whose not cival?

and your not smart enough to pay enough attention to the flow of a thread... who said what when etc...

your right.....dont join a discussion if your not going to pay attention

---

That's class. When did I take a swipe at you? Never ment to, if your little feelings got hurt then I'm sorry, or maybe not.

You really can't take anyone questioning anything you do or say can you? You MUST be right all the time. Even your posts can not be questioned. If someone doesn't quite understand EXACTLY what you are saying, then it MUST be THEIR fault because the great and all mighty Ken MUST be right 100% of the time.

Get over yourself. And don't expect any further response from me. I don't like to give attention to people as "classy" as you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SarahFan

come on chuck you took a second swipe at me a few posts back...and I'm the one whose not cival?

and your not smart enough to pay enough attention to the flow of a thread... who said what when etc...

your right.....dont join a discussion if your not going to pay attention

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

That's class. When did I take a swipe at you? Never ment to, if your little feelings got hurt then I'm sorry, or maybe not.

You really can't take anyone questioning anything you do or say can you? You MUST be right all the time. Even your posts can not be questioned. If someone doesn't quite understand EXACTLY what you are saying, then it MUST be THEIR fault because the great and all mighty Ken MUST be right 100% of the time.

Get over yourself. And don't expect any further response from me. I don't like to give attention to people as "classy" as you.

---

Ok Girls...Back on topic.




So. If somebody had told you 3 years ago that F1 would get better ratings on TV than a Indy Car race would you have believed him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Ok Girls...Back on topic.




So. If somebody had told you 3 years ago that F1 would get better ratings on TV than a Indy Car race would you have believed him?

---

3 years ago.. Maybe

the day they signed with VS.... Ya I would have

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SarahFan

Rtg (H-holds) Ntwk Race [2009 rtg]

0.4 (411,000) VS Sao Paulo [n/a]
0.6 (???,???) ABC St. Pete rainout show [VS 0.3]
0.4 (310,000) VS Barber [n/a]
0.5 (490,000) VS Long Beach [VS 0.5]
0.7 (???,???) ABC Kansas [VS .15]
3.6 (???,???) ABC Indy 500 [ABC 4.0]
0.3 (518,000) VS Texas [VS .36]

Just so Im clear.....this years texas rating was the lowest rated Versus race this season.... not to mention that it was lower than long beach last year as well as lower than than the texas race last year...

yet it was the most watched race ever on Versus...

color me a little skeptical

---

what part of the last line did you struggle with Chuck?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

So. If somebody had told you 3 years ago that F1 would get better ratings on TV than a Indy Car race would you have believed him?

---

F1 is putting on a heck of a show this year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by e2mtt

F1 is putting on a heck of a show this year.

---

They put on a heck of a show every year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

Nope. Some years are real snoozers. This year is an exception. Last year also to a certain point because of the competitiveness of Jenson and Rubens.

---

To each their own.
If anything the later half of 2009 was more exciting than the first 1/2.

Here's how I see the TV ratings improving:

1) Versus and NBC are now under the same tent. Rework the Versus contract to get some non- Indy marquee events on the big channel and schedule them when there's little other competition (like Fox's F1 coverage this past weekend).

2) Keep the Versus announcing booth (with the exception of BJ who I think stinks). Focus on the driver personality angle and start to build relationships with viewers about certain drivers like NASCAR has done.

3) Keep Versus in the fold and help the NHL build the profile by having Comcast advertise on their web site and bills they send home and their Shaq/Ben Stein commercials.

4) Work on getting away as much as possible from ABC/ESPN. Their coverage is horrible. Their announcing team in horrible (although I'd rather listen to Marty than Jerkins). Who on the planet earth wants to here anything out of Eddie Cheever's pie hole ever??? Who??? The ridiculous display at the beginning on the 500 coverage is unforgivable. That stupid, stupid drama about who is a threat to win- featuring Princess Loseagain- left me puking. The coverage of the Conway incident was some of the worst I've ever seen. If I wasn't a die hard, I would never watch this sport again based on the TV coverage that day (I was at the event and ABC in no way portrayed what was going on there).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Sunday's F-1 race on Fox garnered a 0.9 rating.

That is higher than any Indy Car race this year expect the Indy 500!

---

Damn, what an accomplishment!!!

I mean, there are so many sports out there that can't beat Indy Car in the ratings. I am shocked that F1 could.

A .9 is still a terrible rating. Just shows how unpopular F1 is in America and how few formula car road racing fans there are. Which is why its so puzzling why Indy Car continues to try and make the formula car/road-street racing model work. Its obvious that it ain't gonna work, no matter what network its on, who is the CEO, who is the series sponsor, or what slam-bang marketing guy they hire. Its like selling ice cream in Siberia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scotty G.

Damn, what an accomplishment!!!

I mean, there are so many sports out there that can't beat Indy Car in the ratings. I am shocked that F1 could.

A .9 is still a terrible rating. Just shows how unpopular F1 is in America and how few formula car road racing fans there are. Which is why its so puzzling why Indy Car continues to try and make the formula car/road-street racing model work. Its obvious that it ain't gonna work, no matter what network its on, who is the CEO, who is the series sponsor, or what slam-bang marketing guy they hire. Its like selling ice cream in Siberia.

---

So you suggest shutting Indycar down? Maybe making the Indy 500 a one-off race, a novelty, raise some money for charity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scotty G.

Damn, what an accomplishment!!!

I mean, there are so many sports out there that can't beat Indy Car in the ratings. I am shocked that F1 could.

A .9 is still a terrible rating. Just shows how unpopular F1 is in America and how few formula car road racing fans there are. Which is why its so puzzling why Indy Car continues to try and make the formula car/road-street racing model work. Its obvious that it ain't gonna work, no matter what network its on, who is the CEO, who is the series sponsor, or what slam-bang marketing guy they hire. Its like selling ice cream in Siberia.

---

I'll admit that a .9 is low but if they can pull up to a 1.3 I would orgasmic.

Ratings, when it comes to sponsors isn't just about total numbers.
A .9 for an F1 race is worth more to certain companies than a 3.5 for a NASCAR race.
Did you notice that one of the sponsors for the F1 telecast on Fox was Porsche? They understand that the average buying power of 1 typical F1 fan is equal to 3 typical NASCAR fans.
Look at the ALMS. Why do you think Porsche, BMW, Jaguar, Patron, Audi, various high-end watch brands..ect are involved there and not NASCAR?

One of the problems of Indy Car is they can't make up their minds which demo are they going after. They insist on being a combination road racing/Oval series. They believe they can return to the halcyon days of the 1980's where fans who were starved for any racing on TV would embrace the multi-format series.

Most agree that the oval business model has be rendered a private domain of NASCAR and the #'s don't lie.
Set aside the Indy 500 as that is a separate entity and has never been shown to have it success rub off on the other races of the series.
All of the other Oval events have dismal attendance and TV Numbers. The Road/Street course races aren't much better but if you are a potential sponsor which would you rather be a part of? An oval race with 30K fans and a .4 TV rating or a road course race with the same number of fans and TV rating but with typically twice the average buying power?

Indy Car had better get their a*s in gear. There is another series that will soon be exploding on the scene on a network that is much better than VS. I have seen the network plan and they have full backing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

I'll admit that a .9 is low but if they can pull up to a 1.3 I would orgasmic.

Ratings, when it comes to sponsors isn't just about total numbers.
A .9 for an F1 race is worth more to certain companies than a 3.5 for a NASCAR race.
Did you notice that one of the sponsors for the F1 telecast on Fox was Porsche? They understand that the average buying power of 1 typical F1 fan is equal to 3 typical NASCAR fans.
Look at the ALMS. Why do you think Porsche, BMW, Jaguar, Patron, Audi, various high-end watch brands..ect are involved there and not NASCAR?

One of the problems of Indy Car is they can't make up their minds which demo are they going after. They insist on being a combination road racing/Oval series. They believe they can return to the halcyon days of the 1980's where fans who were starved for any racing on TV would embrace the multi-format series.

Most agree that the oval business model has be rendered a private domain of NASCAR and the #'s don't lie.
Set aside the Indy 500 as that is a separate entity and has never been shown to have it success rub off on the other races of the series.
All of the other Oval events have dismal attendance and TV Numbers. The Road/Street course races aren't much better but if you are a potential sponsor which would you rather be a part of? An oval race with 30K fans and a .4 TV rating or a road course race with the same number of fans and TV rating but with typically twice the average buying power?

---

Good points. It gets even more interesting when you consider the demographic of the event attendance. A road course gets 30K of high-end consumers... a large percentage probably drive a lot of expensive sports cars & spend their money on luxury stuff. 100K in a street course & some like to complain about how they aren't real fans... no but its a bunch of people who may never go to a race at a track, but they like fast cars & and are willing to pay to see a street festival with race cars. Casual fans beat non-fans any day. What kind of demographic goes to Indycar oval races?

I don't watch many Indycar races on TV. Every time I do, I am blown away by how poorly they are televised. Too much time watching the leader drive around while ignoring action mid-pack. Way too much time showing & talking about "name" drivers, rather then drivers that are performing in the current race. Terrible understanding of pit, fuel, & tire strategies. Not nearly enough replays of on-track action, unless its a crash. Not nearly enough attention paid to timing & scoring.

One of my big peeves: too much camera zoom. In F1, a car rarely fills more then a 1/4 of the width of the screen. You can see more of the surrounding track & opponents, & you get a better feel for the handling & the driving lines. On Indycar TV, they tend to zoom in enough to make the car nearly fill the screen. You lose the sense of speed, it is harder to relate the car to the track, and it gives me a headache. It does make the sponsor logos bigger, but that doesn't matter much if the show isn't worth watching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Indy Car had better get their a*s in gear. There is another series that will soon be exploding on the scene on a network that is much better than VS. I have seen the network plan and they have full backing.

---

What series would this be? I like being on the leading edge... PM me if you don't want to start a mess on the Indycar forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

This is some what off topic, but who watched the F1 from Montreal last weekend? That is how you telecast a race!!! Showing action well back into the pack. Good camera angles. Great commentary. The director did a wonderful job.

---

They used the international feed, which is the same feed F1 uses every week. But it was an entertaining race (I watched). In the past, most F1 races were over at the start and the rest was a parade. But Montreal has always been different.

This year, the key seemed to be the tire degradation as both tire choices went off very quickly. With lap times all over the place, there was a lot of speed differential between cars. Maybe this is the key to good racing. Tires that go off significantly, making tire strategy and the ability to go fast and save tires very important. (even NASCAR figured that one out) The races are not parades and people actually want to watch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beachbum

They used the international feed, which is the same feed F1 uses every week. But it was an entertaining race (I watched). In the past, most F1 races were over at the start and the rest was a parade. But Montreal has always been different.

This year, the key seemed to be the tire degradation as both tire choices went off very quickly. With lap times all over the place, there was a lot of speed differential between cars. Maybe this is the key to good racing. Tires that go off significantly, making tire strategy and the ability to go fast and save tires very important. (even NASCAR figured that one out) The races are not parades and people actually want to watch.

---

The speed differential is the key- whether it's tires, engines, whatever. Different strategies as well (provided it's not about fuel economy).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

This is some what off topic, but who watched the F1 from Montreal last weekend? That is how you telecast a race!!! Showing action well back into the pack. Good camera angles. Great commentary. The director did a wonderful job.

---

quite on-topic to the discussion and TV ratings & how to improve them.

YES! Not only was it a very good race, but the telecast was fantastic, for all the reasons you said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by px400r

The speed differential is the key- whether it's tires, engines, whatever. Different strategies as well (provided it's not about fuel economy).

---

But tires are about the only element with a varying speed differential during an event. With equal tires, a Lotus F1 is dreadfully slower than a Red Bull. But a Lotus with fresh tries is probably the equal with a Red Bull with tires that have gone off badly.

Everything else is fixed at the start of the event, especially now with no fuel controls. If my engine has more power than yours, that isn't going to change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by e2mtt

So you suggest shutting Indycar down? Maybe making the Indy 500 a one-off race, a novelty, raise some money for charity?

---

At this point, it makes a hell of a lot more sense then continuing to stumble along going nowhere.

Blow it all up and start over from scratch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by e2mtt

On Indycar TV, they tend to zoom in enough to make the car nearly fill the screen.

---

On Indy Car TV broadcasts, don't they zoom in on the car so the people watching on TV won't be able to see the grandstands and notice that they are usually pretty empty? The people watching on TV might wonder if it's worth watching a series that can't draw a decent crowd.