2010 Versus TV-ratings are up

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.