Versus will become the exclusive cable television home of the Indy Racing League

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Helix-

Uhm... for more money and better coverage?

Would you prefer less money and horrible coverage?

And people think Tony does a bad job running this sport. :p

---

Better coverage? Or hope for better coverage? No one knows yet if any of the promised additional air time will come to fruition.

With 20 million fewer homes, the appeal to sponsors is already been questioned by some of the team principles. And while the 500 is the draw to the sponsors, it is not the ONLY thing that they look to. The fact that there are 20 million fewer possible viewers is going to give some of them pause, when deciding to pull the pin or not.

As one of those 20 million homes, I am really disappointed by the decision. I sure as hell am not going to run out and replace my cable TV which works rain or shine with the satellite setup like my father and nephew have that can't be seen in a downpour. And I am not holding my breath that Time Warner is going to bring that channel back in their lineup.

Gary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by garyshell

Better coverage? Or hope for better coverage? No one knows yet if any of the promised additional air time will come to fruition.

---

Well I actually get Versus and watch it quite frequently. I've seen what they've done with their NHL coverage and know that they're capable of great coverage. So no, it's not "hope". I actually know what I'm talking about. They've already promised us a 3 hour minimum timeslot for races and without having to worry about having to rush to the start of a tape delayed softball game it already sounds pretty good and will probably be even better. Also, no NASCABs constantly being shoved down our throats.

Quote:

---

With 20 million fewer homes, the appeal to sponsors is already been questioned by some of the team principles. And while the 500 is the draw to the sponsors, it is not the ONLY thing that they look to. The fact that there are 20 million fewer possible viewers is going to give some of them pause, when deciding to pull the pin or not.

---

When you already get 0.3's on ESPN, what's the difference? Atleast the ICS will have room to stretch it's legs on Versus where it actually has a chance to grow instead of being pushed down below poker replays and hot dog eating contests.

More airtime = sponsors getting more exposure for their money. Some sponsors probably see Versus as a GOOD thing, believe it or not.

Ratings, especially non-Indy ratings, don't play that important of a role in sponsor decisions. Ratings are a sham to begin with (and sponsors know this) but that's a whole different topic. It isn't as simple as "oh less people = less money". It's a bit more complex than that. They're going to take in Versus' potential and the different kinds of audiences that are tuning in into account as well. When you already have a small hardcore fanbase that is pretty loyal to the sponsors that work with the series, a slightly smaller hardcore fanbase is not going to make that much of a difference. They're still getting about the same bang for their buck, and because Indy is still on ABC, the ratings that the sponsors are REALLY interested in shouldn't suffer at all.

Quote:

---

As one of those 20 million homes, I am really disappointed by the decision. I sure as hell am not going to run out and replace my cable TV which works rain or shine with the satellite setup like my father and nephew have that can't be seen in a downpour. And I am not holding my breath that Time Warner is going to bring that channel back in their lineup.

Gary

---

Well I'm sorry for your situation. (Though it sounds like it's a personal choice to not be able to view the races to me) But thankfully networks have the ability to grow to more households. I bet at one point you didn't get ESPN either.

I would recommend bugging the hell out of your cable provider and getting others to do the same. It's up to us the fans to see Versus reach more households. Though I already get it, so I'm pretty happy.

It's difficult for me to understand (and bigtime TV people must be able to explain it) why Time Warner in Cincinnati doesn't have Versus and Time Warner in other locations does. One would think the a cable provider's deal with a network would be the WHOLE network and the WHOLE cable provider system. I suppose it's how they strike a bargain as to how much someone pays someone, but it's still confusing.

Comcast recently took the TV Guide channel off its basic program in Indianapolis. No notice, no nothing. Just "Channel Not Available" comes up when you hit the numbers. It appears to me that you sign up with any of these providers that they can be very arbitrary about what they give to you for how much money when.

Not only because of versus or Indycar, but I've thought for quite awhile that it's time for me to check out different deals and see if I can do better. When I got around to doing that with my cell phone and home phone and redoing the deals, it saved me $700 a year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Helix-

So what does your lack of outlook 15 years ago have to do with the topic at hand again?

---

Take 15 years and figure it out for yourself. :)

Originally Posted by -Helix- http://www.motorsportforum.com/forum...s/viewpost.gif
I can't see the IRL ever having to pay for airtime, or any teams having to deal with sponsorship problems (any more than they already do that is).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Helix-

More airtime = sponsors getting more exposure for their money. Some sponsors probably see Versus as a GOOD thing, believe it or not.

---

Some may. No one is suggesting that ALL sponsors will see Versus as a bad deal. Some may be perfectly fine with it, depending on what their expectations are. But sponsor exposure value is calculated based on On-screen time + mentions x non-discounted commercial ad cost. The ad rates on Versus are not as great as those on ABC, or likely even ESPN. So it would take a greater amount of time x in focus views + mentions on Versus for a sponsor to get the same level of sponsor exposure value as they'd have gotten on ABC/ESPN.

Quote:

---

Ratings, especially non-Indy ratings, don't play that important of a role in sponsor decisions. Ratings are a sham to begin with (and sponsors know this) but that's a whole different topic.

---

Indy, being the biggest race and ratings bucket is the biggest slice of the pie - that is accurate. But to say that sponsors don't consider the ratings of non-Indy ratings to be that important is completely inaccurate. Commercial networks make the bulk of their money selling ad time. ABC/ESPN had trouble selling non-discounted ad time on the non-Indy races. Why? I would say because the ratings and viewership figures were relatively low... but I'm not stating that as a fact. Probably a good guess though. Low ratings generally mean less ad revenue. Less ad revenue means that your product won't be valued as highly as a program with higher ratings and better ad revenue.

And it's not that "ratings are a sham"... and no, sponsors don't know this. The Nielsen measurement system is like any other measurement system based on random sampling. Various groups and sponsors (not just related to racing or sports) have voiced concerns that Nielsen Media is missing a necessary component of measurement system analysis: that the system be not just random, but also representative of the population universe being measured.

Certainly the Nielsen system is not perfect. But it's typically those fans of lower rated shows that complain that the system is a "sham or "bogus" or "not fair." But only if there was proof of bias in the system could people show that Nielsen systematically undercounts those who watch certain programs. The main issue I've heard that subscribers have with Nielsen is its lack of accurate representation to the population, which hampers them in doing deep demographic studies.

Quote:

---

It isn't as simple as "oh less people = less money". It's a bit more complex than that.

---

It's not that much more complex. Ratings and viewership are used to set ad rates. Ad rates, being a component, drive sponsor exposure values. Sponsors (arms length companies) primarily use historical sponsor exposure values to determine future sponsorship levels or limits.

Excluding B2B arrangements, that's how the three divisions of my former company determined sponsorship limits, that's how my current company sets its F1 budget and that's how every participating company at the sponsorship conference in Charlotte several years ago determined what level of sponsorship cost would still provide an acceptable ROI.

Quote:

---

They're going to take in Versus' potential and the different kinds of audiences that are tuning in into account as well. When you already have a small hardcore fanbase that is pretty loyal to the sponsors that work with the series, a slightly smaller hardcore fanbase is not going to make that much of a difference.

---

In your opinion.

Quote:

---

They're still getting about the same bang for their buck, and because Indy is still on ABC, the ratings that the sponsors are REALLY interested in shouldn't suffer at all.

---

It's interesting that you already know this when meetings just began yesterday to determine what Versus means for teams, the series and sponsors. Charlie Morgan admits that he's still not sure how many IRL fans are even reached by Versus. Instead of trying to spin this, why not just admit (like the rest of us... and the IRL/IMS) that these are still open questions at this point?

The IRL and its teams may find a way to make this work for sponsors and fans. But despite the spin going on here, that question has yet to be answered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indycool

It's difficult for me to understand (and bigtime TV people must be able to explain it) why Time Warner in Cincinnati doesn't have Versus and Time Warner in other locations does. One would think the a cable provider's deal with a network would be the WHOLE network and the WHOLE cable provider system. I suppose it's how they strike a bargain as to how much someone pays someone, but it's still confusing.

Comcast recently took the TV Guide channel off its basic program in Indianapolis. No notice, no nothing. Just "Channel Not Available" comes up when you hit the numbers. It appears to me that you sign up with any of these providers that they can be very arbitrary about what they give to you for how much money when.

Not only because of versus or Indycar, but I've thought for quite awhile that it's time for me to check out different deals and see if I can do better. When I got around to doing that with my cell phone and home phone and redoing the deals, it saved me $700 a year.

---

Now you see why so many people are going satellite and cable is dropping so fast. Going with a national satellite provider (DirecTV is the best IMO - more sports packages/options) ensures that you will get these channels and that they won't just drop off like they do with a local provider. Watch for big deals on FREE installation, FREE receivers and sometimes FREE upgrade to HD which in my experience has made a HUGE difference in our race-watching experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carracing

Now you see why so many people are going satellite and cable is dropping so fast. Going with a national satellite provider (DirecTV is the best IMO - more sports packages/options) ensures that you will get these channels and that they won't just drop off like they do with a local provider. Watch for big deals on FREE installation, FREE receivers and sometimes FREE upgrade to HD which in my experience has made a HUGE difference in our race-watching experience.

---

You list some of the pros that satellite offers, but there are cons. The main one that prevents me from going to the dish is that if you live in an area that has a lot of thunder storms, you will have to put up with a lot of service interuptions. Our friends that have dish satellites have told us that when it storms, they lose their signals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DBell

You list some of the pros that satellite offers, but there are cons. The main one that prevents me from going to the dish is that if you live in an area that has a lot of thunder storms, you will have to put up with a lot of service interuptions. Our friends that have dish satellites have told us that when it storms, they lose their signals.

---

I live in SE Michigan. Summer contains frequent severe thunderstorms and winter has frequent severe snowstorms.

My DirecTV signal drops out for about an average of 10 minutes per year - due to satellite reception. :p

Power related drop outs due to the wildly inadequate electrical infrastructure in this country are a completely different issue. :vader:

LIke JSH, I too live in a rural area (central Indiana) where electricity is lost far more often than the digital signal from a dish. No cable offered. I have had C/Ku-band for nearly 15 years. Added the DISH Network around 5 years ago. Yes, I loose signal during heavy thunderstorms for maybe 3 minutes but likely would loose electrical first. Once the power goes doesn't matter where the signal is coming from. You're not going to see it unless you invest in a generator.

FYI, Versus is not in my package with either the big dish or Dish Network. Guess I'll watch from a bar.

I had Dish for six months. It was horrible. Signal always dropping, pixillated screens constantly, more picture related service calls, than I could count, and the infamous, you realy need to take down those two trees.. Hmmmm, a two hundred year oak tree in my yard I WON'T take down, and a HUGE Maple tree on city property I CAN'T, or your POS satellite dish? I put up wiht comcast until Verizon finally gets the FIOS in our neighborhood.