Thank you to Damon for relaying this information from Sports Media Watch.
Thursday's National Hockey League opening night prime time game on Versus drew 833,000 viewers. The late-night second game of the double-header earned a .37* rating, easily beating all IndyCar races this season except for Long Beach (.50).
(*I originally wrote that the second game got a .49 rating. That was inaccurate. I regret the error.)
Even without 18 million DirecTV subscribers, this was the best NHL opening night in history on Versus.
2009 IndyCar cable ratings are here. Additional analysis can be found here.
Recall that I have argued:
- Versus is not to blame.
- The DirecTV exodus is unlikely to have much impact on IndyCar ratings.
The good news is that we have identified some sports with which IndyCar is competitive.
- Major League Soccer = 292,000 viewers average on ESPN2
- WNBA = 269,000 viewers average, also on ESPN2
The problem is the product.
Roggespierre
Speaking of the product, last year's first 13 races (inclduing Long Beach) in terms of viewership compared to 2007:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/122763
It's easy to write things off and say, "Danica was the reason for Indycar's success after the low ratings in 2003/2004", but if you look at last year's TV ratings on ESPN/ESPN2 as well as ABC, you see that through the first 13 races, 9 of them saw double digit jumps (including St.Pete, Kansas, Indy and Watkins Glen).
The product isn't any different now than it was then in my opinion, yet those four races I highlighted were special because: two of them featured wins by American drivers (Rahal at St.Pete and Hunter-Reay at The Glen), a major bump after Danica's win in Japan and a significant increase in viewership at the sport's crown jewel race.
Damon,
ReplyDeleteThose seem like valid points.
I would add that post-mergification optimism might have had something to do with it. Again, I do not claim to be representative of the market, but I will admit that, following 13 years of scorched earth tactics and general destruction, I was ready for a little Peace, Love and Understanding.
The high car counts were nice, too. Unfortunately, it is now pretty clear that many of those entries were financed by the IMS.
In addition, several cable races this year were very, very bad. Richmond, Mid-Ohio and Edmonton were virtually unwatchable.
If your target audience can't relate to your drivers, then you had better at least give it some darn fine racing. By the time the IRL got around to that at Kentucky and Chicagoland, it would seem that many prospective fans had already given up.
Thanks again for providing the valuable info.
Best Regards,
Roggespierre
That's very true about the car count and the racing itself, but Long Beach and Texas drew pretty good ratings despite that, especially Texas, which came after all the bad races early on.
ReplyDeleteHowever, not having Danica, Graham and Marco contending for wins hurts the product as well (especially in Danica's case), because at least if you've got three of those four winning races, people will start paying attention rather than just giving it a causal "oh, Danica finished 4th, but didn't win"...."she finished 5th, but didn't win" mention.
When it comes to niche sports and Indycar is a niche sport, if you're favorite athlete isn't doing much or their prospects for victory aren't that great, you tune out and they're good, you're going to be glued to the TV.
Another example of this is golf when Tiger Woods wins/is in the hunt vs not being in the hunt and finishing way back (see the ratings for the WGC-CA tournament earlier this year and the Duestche Bank tournament over Labor Day weekend), the ratings are noticable.
Damon,
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt about your final point. The Men's Championship at Wimbledon skyrocketed this year in the U.S. because Andy Roddick made it to the final. Lance Armstrong gave Versus a 98% increase in Tour De France ratings.
Danica and Marco need to be up front. They also need about 15 more U.S. drivers in the field. The market is competitive. NASCAR is the dominant market leader to which all others are compared. You can't just have four or five U.S. drivers because consumers have other alternatives. Three of them are sanctioned and owned by NASCAR, and they all get better TV ratings than IndyCar.
I do think that the bad racing really hurt this year. Texas did okay, but historically it had typically outperformed the rest of the schedule by a far greater margin than it did this year. Not coincidentally, the 2009 TMS race was probably the least competitive in the event's history.
Richmond was next. It was a farce, thanks to Firestone, who cut the Richmond tire compound from its inventory this year in a cost saving measure. Mid-Ohio is always hit or miss, and this year it was a miss. Edmonton is just a horrible race. Why is that airport so bad? Why isn't it more like Burke Lakefront?
Best Regards,
Roggespierre
Obsessing over tens of thousands of viewers out of a potential audience of millions fascinates me.
ReplyDeleteYes, I understand the economic impact even these few potentially have on the "value" of the IRL, but such variables as regional weather or similar butterfly effect happenings may cause such viewership variations. The simple trend is downward, the numbers such that it's sifting gnat droppings.
Let's go back to your first-year undergraduate business students, who know that marketing begins with the Four Ps.
1. Product - What is the product? The answer is not a series - it's one race that historically made a parallel series promotable. It did that by selling "stars" largely created by that one race - even minor racers became known as "Indianapolis drivers." You heard about them on radio, you saw them in newsreels, even on TV, and here they are in your hometown. Come experience the Indianapolis thrills and spills. That was the pitch from every promoter, from Hankinson to Nunis to Marchese, right up to Bill France... and Tony Hulman appreciated his race's role, and largely avoided the politics of the National Championship trail because it just didn't matter to his event, where many entrants were solely for his race. As you noted, Hulman went to Yale, but his baking powder business depended on personal sales, and he saw them as inseparable in his Speedway business.
2. Price - For the competitor the price is way overblown these days. That could be fixed very quickly by diverting any IRL support cash into the 500 purse.
For an investment much smaller than the costs associated with propping up an IRL, IMS could raise the Sweepstakes purse to $25-30 million, and let the competitors assume the entire cost of participation, again. Yes, the Foyts and other shoestringers will largely disappear, and so did the Moores, Welches, Wilkes and Patricks. It's the evolution of
the game. Penske and Ganassi will be gone, too, someday. No supporting series? So what? Let's see what $25 million over 500 miles brings.
3. Place - The 500 has been diminished, now merely a famous IRL event. Eliminate any IRL identification, rebrand the 500 as an International Sweepstakes, and see what happens when new equipment shows up, and/or name drivers are hired to pilot. Maybe USAToday will rate it worthy of mention. Now, what to do about speed and safety... can one promote without any "new track record" being set? Something to think about.
4. Promotion - The largest purse in motorsports, with the purported revival of the 500, will buy plenty of promotional exposure. From there the product, the race itself, shows vitality and viability, or not. Hulman never let the Greatest Spectacle go stale - always combing for something to tout, from the
first post-war event with Rudi and a slew of interesting equipment, to allowing Brabham to test and race, turbine power, right up to 1995. After that even established stars couldn't maintain public interest without the 500. And here we are.
Nearly everything that has been done in recent years is directly opposed to Hulman's formula for the 500's success, and the results are there for all to see.
Cars that all look alike, sound alike, driven by drivers from everywhere but the US, providing a predictable result, and you have the IRL.
ReplyDeleteThrow out the rule book, create a new formula, control costs; total cars to cost $500,000.00 a copy and to prevent cheating (a "claiming fee" for any car), and you'll have 70 - 100 cars available, driven by mostly Americans.
Take off the wings, give them 800 HP but with limited down force, limit the amount of fuel for a race, and restrict the number of tires allowed per race, and we'll see who can invent and who can really drive.
A turbine, a diesel, an LNG engine, a hybrid allow them all---with the computers of today engines of all types (even electic motors) can be made "equal".
Then fans will return, the TV audience grow, and racing will be what it is supposed to be an innovative competitive sport which appeals to the young.
IT IS NOT ABOUT THE TV COVERAGE--IT'S ABOUT THE PRODUCT.
osca
Osca and Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYes, it is absolutely about the product. You will not find anyone who agrees with that conclusion more strongly than I do.
Allow me to explain why I spend so much time analyzing television ratings.
There are some people from the IRL and its teams who come here from time to time. I wish they were greater in number, but I am glad that someone is paying attention.
That said, I think it is important that IndyCar participants recognize how bad things have become. They do not want to believe it. That is why they like venues such a Toronto, where the urban backdrop allows for a "major league" feel and 30,000 to 40,000 people looks good enough. That is why they will be very excited about "phenomenal" fan turnout at Barber Motorsports Park next year, never mind the fact that the place can only hold 30,000 spectators.
The Barber race would not exist if not for government subsidies. Toronto might be similarly subsidized, although I do not have evidence of it. Nevertheless, these events allow the participants to fool themselves into thinking that they are part of something that is cool and popular.
The IndyCar Series will not make the changes that must be made until those in power believe that those changes are necessary. They tend to like the dream world that they currently occupy, and they want to sustain it for as long as possible.
They do not want to lower themselves to serving an audience. IndyCar racing has no history of serving anybody except for a small group of insiders. Those insiders still exist and exert significant influence over the league.
That is why they blame others - promoters, television partners, sponsors that don't execute grand activation strategies, etc. Versus is only the latest in a long line of pariahs. IndyCar participants like what they do and believe that others should, too.
Terry Angstadt and Brian Barnhart do not appear to be capable of leading this sport out of the doldrums. That suits many of the participants just fine. CART, too, always lacked strong leadership. That was very much by design.
I want to turn a mirror to those who are destroying this once great sport. I intend to leave no doubt that they have failed in the marketplace. I want them to know that they are not only not cool, but also not relevant. They are spoiled brats who inherited market acceptance and then threw it away so that they could do what they wanted.
That is why I will continue to shout about horrible TV ratings. That is why I will not allow them to get away with blaming Versus, track promoters, NASCAR, ISC, or any other third party, either friend or foe.
IndyCar's failure is the fault of those who wield power in IndyCar. They refuse to believe it. I intend to leave them no other alternative.
Best Regards,
Roggespierre
Roggespierre,
ReplyDeleteVERY WELL STATED, AND BELIEVE ME I TOO HAVE MADE SURE ANYONE AND EVERYONE WHO IS THE LEAST LITTLE BIT INTERESTED GETS YOUR WEBSITE.
osca
Osca,
ReplyDeleteThank you, once again. I value your support immensely.
Warmest Regards,
Roggespierre
Umm, you kind of got the numbers wrong on the late night game, Roggespierre. According to the article you linked, that late game got a 0.37, not a 0.49. The 0.49 was the rating Versus got for their opening night first game last year. Your point is still mostly valid with a 0.37 instead of a 0.49. However, the rating was a little worse than you claimed.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteThank you for providing the correction. I will go back and review the article. My guess is that you're right and I'm wrong. If so, then I will edit the original.
In all sincerity, thanks again. I do not want to publish inaccurate data.
Appreciatively,
Roggespierre
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou were right and I was wrong. Thanks again. I have corrected the error and noted that my original quote was inaccurate.
Best Regards,
Roggespierre
Roggespierre, there's something else in that linked article which may have artificially created the viewing record for both games: the teams that were playing. This year, the two teams in game 1 were the Washington Capitals and the Boston Bruins. Last year, it was the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Detroit Red Wings. Versus is not broadcast in Canada and, even if it did show there, Canadian ratings wouldn't contribute to the US Nielsen ratings. According to the latest US Census report in 2008, there are about 288,000 more people when you add Washington DC and Boston together than those who live in Detroit.
ReplyDeleteIn game 2, the Colorado Avalanche played both years. Last year, it was against the Boston Bruins and this year it was the San Jose Sharks. Again, according to the latest Census report, San Jose has about 239,000 more people than Boston does. Even with a presumed small increase in the year to year figures for Denver (home of the Colorado Avalanche) between 2008 to 2009, it wouldn't be enough to make up the difference between San Jose and Boston. Here are the raw Census numbers straight from their website:
Washington DC: 591,333
Boston: 609,023
Washington & Boston combined: 1,200,356
Detroit: 912,062
San Jose: 948,279
In both cases, the four cities playing in both games represented a larger US population footprint in 2009 than in 2008. Versus's viewing record may have had more to do with a lucky schedule quirk and less about them gaining any popularity in a year to year comparison. Sorry to throw some cold water and the hot flames of optimism. However, if anybody, I thought you could respect to use of official figures to give another perspective on the Versus opening night NHL viewership report.