The epic college football battle between the Texas Longhorns and the Wyoming Cowboys pulled 73,073 viewers Saturday afternoon on Versus.
In Dallas-Fort Worth.
They'll have a typical IndyCar audience when the Houston numbers come in. Add Austin and San Antonio, and they might double IndyCar. The rest of the country is thick Texas gravy.
The Dallas-Fort Worth number was achieved without the estimated 458,000 DirecTV subscribers in the MetroPlex.
It seems to us that there might have been a few - like seven or eight - other college football offerings to choose from, including several from the state of Texas. In other words, there was competition.
Will Motegi attract 73,000 nationally? Did Sonoma? Chicagoland?
How soon can we anticipate hearing the same stale explanations?
People will tune in for college football, bull riding, cage fighting and cycling, but not for IndyCar. It needs to be on either a network or ESPN. IndyCar needs the casual fan, the channel surfer. -ApologistsThese excuses are not justification. They are condemnation.
Failing to draw viewers on Versus does not make IndyCar an exception. It does make it a market loser.
How much longer must we wait before the IRL and its teams drop their collective sense of entitlement and do what it takes to earn an audience?
The market is rejecting this product.
Roggespierre
Right on...the dogs don't like the food.
ReplyDeleteBrian,
ReplyDeleteA succinct and accurate metaphor is a fine way to end an otherwise crummy evening.
Best Regards,
Roggespierre
I appreciate you hammering this point. We can blame everything except the product - it's the booth, it's the network, it's the track promoters, my dog ate my homework. When does someone do serious analysis about the product attributes? People muck things up with all kinds of complications. Keep it simple. If the league could fix two things over time the value would support greater investment. These are:
ReplyDelete1) Lack of American drivers.
2) Uninteresting technology/lack of innovation.
To borrow from Mr. Carville, "It's the drivers and cars, stupid!"
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteIt should be that simple, shouldn't it?
But it isn't.
The BOD appears to be weak, unsophisticated and fractured.
The supply chain is horribly convoluted and confused. Many are incentivized to see that it remains that way.
Management must consistently maintain a 360 degree field of vision. End runs to the BOD are not unusual.
This is an organization that does not even seem to understand exactly why it is not making money. It is unlikely to take product attributes seriously.
Strong leadership might help, but there is no reason to believe that it is sought.
I see little reason for legitimate hope. That is why I say that my musings here are written "As If."
Best Regards,
Roggespierre
"People will tune in for college football, bull riding, cage fighting and cycling, but not for IndyCar. It needs to be on either a network or ESPN. IndyCar needs the casual fan, the channel surfer. -Apologists"
ReplyDelete1995 CART TELEVISION (12 NETWORK/5 CABLE)
TOTAL VIEWERSHIP 38,892,000
AVERAGE VIEWERSHIP 2,299,000
TOTAL NETWORK VIEWERSHIP 35,440,000
AVERAGE NETWORK VIEWERSHIP 2,953,000
TOTAL NETWORK VIEWERSHIP W/O INDY 500 26,540,000
AVERAGE NETWORK VIEWERSHIP W/O INDY500 2,412,000
TOTAL CABLE VIEWERSHIP 3,452,000
AVERAGE CABLE VIEWERSHIP 690,000
I'd like to point out the difference between the avg. network w/o 500 (2,412,000) and avg. cable (690,000) - there is some truth to the way they're (apologists) looking at viewership patterns.
Last year ICS average viewership on cable was around 550,000 (0.59 NCR). So not a lot has changed on cable; down about 20% from '95. Avg. network viewership's a different story; they're down about 50% (2008 v 1995) which coincidentally, or maybe not, the 500's ratings are also down about 50% over the same period.
We also see a similar occurrence with F1; they can pull a 1.0 on Fox yet struggle between 0.1-0.2 on Speed. Where we don't see as dramatic a discrepancy is with NASCAR, which brings up and interesting question… why?
I think one could make the argument there's a difference between an 'audience' and a 'fanbase' which could explain NASCAR's success with 'cable followers' and the various guises of AOWR's relative failure in doing so. I say relative because the lack of cable followers appears to be nothing new to IndyCar, yet compared to NASCAR it's a shortfall.
Not quite sure where I'm going with all this, just throwing some thoughts out there. But I do think it somewhat ties into your concluding remaks:
"How much longer must we wait before the IRL and its teams drop their collective sense of entitlement and do what it takes to earn an audience?" Or should we say, "… to develop a fanbase?"
-John
Good Morning John,
ReplyDeleteI wish that I had time this morning to address your analysis here. It is seminal and insightful.
Look for something about this at the top. Unfortunately, it'll probably have to wait until tonight.
Much Appreciation,
Roggespierre
John,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you--and I have stated it elsewere on this website. What I am hoping for, is someone surfing around, and seeing a race, stops to view it, gets excited, and then the next time he is hunting and sees a race he stops--settles in and watches---soon he or she becomes a fan.
Now if the race had an American leading--say Graham--and the viewer was from Ohio--he might become a fan a lot quicker. Some guy leading who is from Australia, or New Zealand--might as well be from Mars.
Danica leading and the wife sees a WOMEN WINNING AN AUTOMOBILE RACE, and hubby turning the channel would be reason for at least a night on the couch.
When Danica led the 500 ratings zoomed and one of my grand daughters had tears in her eyes as she called from her home to my cell. She said, "Gramps can she win?"
That was on ABC (whose coverage sucks), but if it had been on VERSUS that possibilty couldn't have existed. Too few subscribers.
Exposure is what we want---then if we get a product that is enticing, the fan base will build and TV viewership expand--but we have to have a product that is tuned to the American people, not to Brian ("Give ME four good ones"), Barnhart, and on a channel that more people watch.
osca
Osca,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point, I just don't think it goes far enough in the modern market. It's really hard trying to figure out why people 'don't' do something, and to me, that's what we're trying to get at here.
I agree that part of the problem is market rejection but I think a much larger problem facing IndyCar is consumer apathy. With the former if we ask someone why they don't like NASCAR for example and they answer something to the effect, "the races are too long, I don't like the cars, announcers, etc.," we're okay labeling that market rejection. But suppose I ask, "why don't you watch Rugby?"
Chances are you've been exposed to the sport (Rugby), but I doubt you've given any conscious thought, hence developed a reason, for not watching. Yet we get lured into thinking because we have a reason for doing something others must have a reason for not doing so and consequently start questioning the product, presentation, etc… But is there really anything wrong with Rugby per se? If the Rugby League (or whatever it's called) hired new announcers, would you be more inclined to watch? I doubt it. Same with putting the sport on network, tweaking the rules, a more aerodynamic ball, more American players, or a push-to-score goal button.
I'm not suggesting the irrelevancy of the above mentioned items, just that they're responses to the question of why people aren't watching and by consequence are not in and of themselves reasons for people to watch. And giving people a reason to watch (creating/developing an appetite) is what we need to counter consumer (viewer) apathy.
When I look at the drop-off from network to cable, I'm seeing viewer apathy not rejection. They'll watch the race when they stumble across it, yet won't put much effort into finding it. I'm kind of that way with NASCAR, I'll watch their races when I'm not doing anything else, but I don't seek out their product. However, I do seek out IndyCar and F1 and if I'm doing something I'll go through the extra effort to record the races.
Your example of Danica is fitting: despite all the reasons for rejecting the product (the split, foreign drivers, etc…) Danica gave people a reason to watch i.e. apathy was countered with an appetite.
-John
John,
ReplyDeletePlease see "IndyCar Championship: Tight but no Tension." That entry is my attempt to address the issue of demand intensity that you raise here. It isn't my best, but it's a start.
Your point deserves more thorough treatment.
Best Regards,
Roggespierre