Tuesday, October 13, 2009

IndyCar Vision: It's Tougher than it Looks


Less than 24 hours into our New Day Rising Project, we have discovered that defining a comprehensive vision for the IndyCar Series is every bit as difficult as we had suspected.

I thought that the Vision should answer two questions.

1. What is the best that IndyCar can be?
2. How will we know when IndyCar is successful?

Readers and contributors have provided thoughtful and highly varied responses. Let's see whether or not we can establish some common themes.

Citizen John
"To be the premier auto racing series in the U.S. with the Indy 500 being the preeminent auto race in the country."

osca

"To provide racing fans with the best possible open wheel racing in the United States.

To be the best possible open wheel racing means we will offer a varied visual and audio experience provided by a product that is affordable, attractive and available to fans at venues that encourage attendance in person and enhance the TV experience."

Roggespierre Commentary

Citizen John's submission is succinct and ambitious. I like it. Osca takes into account a very important constituency that has too often been ignored by IndyCar participants. That would be customers, racing fans.

I suggest that we combine these two submissions.

"IndyCar shall be the clear number-one choice among auto racing consumers in the United States. The Indianapolis 500 is an iconic American institution that shall transcend racing and become a worldwide automotive celebration."

There are good reasons to use the "number-one choice" language. First, why would a series that includes the Indy 500 aim for anything less? Second, we want demonstrable evidence of success that can be measured; "number-one" serves that purpose. Third, "choice" implies that we understand that the market is competitive. Customers have many events and television programs from which to choose. We must be their first choice.

Notice, too, that I chose to use "auto racing consumers in the United States" in this portion of the Vision Statement. This is important, I think, because the attributes that appeal to people in one culture are not necessarily the attributes that appeal to people in another culture. Because IndyCar is based in the United States, it must focus on cultivating latent demand in the U.S.

In addition, there are many, many people who will never like racing. Those people will do nothing to help IndyCar become number-one. I suggest that we forget about them for eleven months each year. That is why I focus on "auto racing consumers." However, we shall open our doors to the others in May.

Trick Dickle

"Your sport and series have EVERYTHING to do with the Indianapolis 500."

Mr. Dickle is right. But this creates a tricky proposition. Specifically, how do we retain and improve the "special" status of the 500 without making the rest of the schedule appear irrelevant?
That speaks to my final second sentence above.

"The Indianapolis 500 is an iconic American institution that shall transcend racing and become a worldwide automotive celebration."
Many people who like cars do not necessarily like racing. The Indy 500 is both a race and a spectacle that must once again be about cars, both those on the track and those in the Coke Lot. Indy must draw spectators, primarily from Middle America, for three weeks. A three week celebration of automotive innovation, technology and competition is therefore what I have in mind. Indy will be made special by activities both on and off the track.

The balance of the series schedule must be merely the "clear number-one choice among auto racing consumers in the United States."

Onward

Vision Statements come in all shapes and sizes. Two sentences might not be enough. Those that I have proposed might not be the right sentences.

We are not done with the Vision portion of your strategic IndyCar plan. There is more to consider in the Comments section below this article.
I welcome your feedback and additional suggestions.

Roggespierre

15 comments:

  1. "IndyCar shall be the clear number-one choice among auto racing consumers in the United States. The Indianapolis 500 is an iconic American institution that shall transcend racing and become a worldwide automotive celebration."

    Nice job. I particularly like the quantifiable aspect. With ratings and attendance numbers as the metric, we can make those boxes small enough so that excuses can't fit in them.

    -John

    As an aside, say 5 years hence: 16-18 races condensed into a 20-22 week period, with an average viewership of 4 million per race. I think we need to figure out who those 4 million viewers are before we can resolve the issues of oval-centric v. mixed venue and how much emphasis on the 500 v. the series. I find myself agreeing to both sides of the respective arguments, and for me at least, that usually indicates I don't know where I'm going.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The question of relevance for the rest of the schedule to me is the great question when talking about a series. Separating the 500 from a series immediately throws that out. Maybe its the best option?

    Another big thing is having distinguishable circuits of their own. Texas is good because, well, it has a big crowd. But other than that, I think they have to look at running primarily at tracks that are "different". Iowa isn't a bad pick on that end, honestly. Rockingham might be too if it has SAFER barriers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. A few comments:

    I would add the word "again" to Roggespierre's suggested statement.

    I have stated before that I think the Indy 500 can be part of a series, but it SHOULD NOT be the crutch that supports the series.

    TD are you saying that there is no difference in driving skill or style when driving on short tracks, long ovals (paved or unpaved), highbanked ovals or road/street courses. I maintain there is and the series should emphasize this diversity. To my knowledge there is no other racing series on Earth that has that diversity of skill sets or tracks. But we can debate this till the cows come home.

    As for customers, the primary customer is the fan. Are we giving the primary customer good value for his/her money spent?

    The secondary(but equally important) customer is the spomsors/networks that invest in this sport.

    We have to be giving good value/ROI for those customers who are putting up much larger sums of money than the fan. Please note: I do not advocate a switch to NASCAR-style "entertainment".

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think that we can beat NASCAR without becoming NASCAR. We don't want to imitate #1. We want to beat #1 and be #1.

    GM - Where would you put "again"? I thought about tacking it on to the bit about Indianapolis, but then I decided that I did not want to imply that Indy isn't already special. It is special. It's just that we need to have more people who recognize it as such.

    Regarding the composition of the series (tracks)...

    In my estimation, this is a question that must be answered in the Marketing Plan. It's the "Place" in the 4 Ps - Product, Price, Place, Promotion. Where we distribute our product includes race tracks, television partners, online options, and so on.

    Let's get through Vision, Mission and Values. It shouldn't take long and it will give us some guiding principles as we make strategic and tactical decisions.

    Feel free to disagree. I will by glad to seriously consider all arguments.

    Best Regards,

    Roggespierre

    ReplyDelete
  5. Roggespierre:

    I had intended that the word "again" would go at the end of the sentence".... worldwide automotive celebration." But on further thought, I think that sends the wrong message. The Indy 500 has lost some of it's luster, but worldwide it is still an "Iconic" event.

    ReplyDelete
  6. GreyMouser said:
    "I have stated before that I think the Indy 500 can be part of a series, but it SHOULD NOT be the crutch that supports the series."

    The 500 is not the crutch, it's the core, the Raison d'ĂȘtre. That's clearly borne out by history. It's what CART/CCWS lacked despite all its star-power and technical advantages in 1996 and beyond. But, I'm pleased it can be at least a part of the INDYcar series.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Right now the 500 IS the crutch that supports the IRL. That is why I wrote what I did. Somewhere along the way the 500 became the financial crutch of the IRL.

    ReplyDelete
  8. GreyMouser said:

    "Right now the 500 IS the crutch that supports the IRL. That is why I wrote what I did. Somewhere along the way the 500 became the financial crutch of the IRL."

    The fact is the 500 has been the "crutch" for Championship racing since 1911. It has always provided, by far, the biggest payday to participants, for many the cash to keep a car running. The AAA/USAC/CART championship series was/is a direct derivative of the 500 - and the IRL goes one step too far by making the 500 integral as an event. Therein lies the mortal sin that continues to diminish the asset.

    So, the choice is simple - Dump the IRL brand, dump the IRL, or continue as it is. The brand holds little positive value...the series is a moneypit...the 500 still has iconic and commericla value...

    ReplyDelete
  9. The AAA/USAC/CART championship series was/is a direct derivative of the 500 - and the IRL goes one step too far by making the 500 integral as an event. Therein lies the mortal sin that continues to diminish the asset.

    Oh christ, Rocketman has said it best. This hits on two marks:

    -The power of the Indy 500 and the method in which Indy is really at the expense of every other race

    -Tying the Indy 500 to a series like the IRL (which has never had full public support and as a product has been rejected by the market continuously for the last 15 years) only hurts the 500 and makes it appear as lower class.

    I'm convinced. The vision must be to jettison the IRL and, at most, promote only a couple events that are complementary to it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Rocketman and VirtualBalboa,

    I am taking the suggestion to jettison the IRL very seriously. Allow me to ask a question.

    Might there be a way to construct a series, such as the PGA Tour, the works in conjunction with a fully independent, "open" event such as the US Open, which is sanctioned not by the PGA, but rather by the USGA?

    I recognize that this might look very similar to what we had in 1995. However, I think we can say that CART and the IMS did not exactly "work in conjunction" with one another.

    What do you think?

    Best Regards,

    Roggespierre

    ReplyDelete
  11. Rocketman53:

    My point was that the 500 is the FINANCIAL crutch for the IRL. It directly subsidizes the IRL. At least that's the way I see it.

    I agree, dump the IRL brand and the the league, and come up with a brand and series that resonates with the public.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think we are making progress.

    To me, one of the critical problems is the IRL was STARTED BY THE IMS (Tony George).

    Tony Hulman always resisted BECOMING PART OF AN SANCTIONING BODY. Oh, he had a big affect on them but he NEVER put the Speedway into any ownership of that body.

    The sanctioning body needs to be separate; Yes the Indy 500 can count toward any championship, but it needs to be totally independent.

    The IRL needs to be euthanized, and a new INDEPENDENT SANCTIONING BODY FORMED. Funding coming from the teams, race sanctioning fees, and any ancillary revenue source; example T-shirts. Today the IRL pays the teams because the product they have is economically unsaleable to sponsors, and overpriced to anyone wanting to start a team.

    Then the tracks could pay a prize for winning. Have you seen any purse figures except for Indy this year?

    If there were any it was minuscule.

    Why? Because every penny they could grind out of the tracks (and Versus) was used to support the IRL.

    So off with their heads (IRL)!

    osca

    ReplyDelete
  13. "The Indianapolis 500 is an iconic American institution that shall transcend racing and become a worldwide automotive celebration."

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

    Electric Cars to run Indy 500
    Series officials announced today that the 2012 Indianapolis 500 will be run with electric cars.

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

    Set aside for the moment if it could be done or what the actual racing would be like, and consider the ramifications if it did happen.

    To start:
    1. The national media would run with it.
    2. Every car magazine from around the globe, Car & Driver, MotorTrend, etc., would send reporters both to the race and with articles leading up to the race describing the cars.
    3. The environmental movement, lead by their Hollywood vanguard would show up en masse.

    If optimally managed, the buzz would be enormous.

    I'm not suggesting this should be done, but more to emphasize what could be - what lies in potentia within the 500 - an iconic American institution that shall [can] transcend racing [and sports] and become a worldwide automotive celebration.

    -John

    ReplyDelete
  14. Roggespierre asked:

    “Might there be a way to construct a series, such as the PGA Tour, the works in conjunction with a fully independent, 'open' event such as the US Open, which is sanctioned not by the PGA, but rather by the USGA?”


    Neither the Open nor Masters is a PGA event, and both events operate and thrive under very similar conditions as the “500” could. They are both “open” in the sense that anyone can play IF they qualify for an invitation, including amateurs. And both are dependent on the PGA for the very best players. OTOH, the PGA counts earnings and points earned at these two majors towards its standings.

    The PGA didn't form around these two events, but the principle stands: Both the events and the PGA mutually thrive. No reason why the same wouldn't be true of a national championship racing series - if one forms. The IRL could alternatively "reorganize", and create a series largely based on the "500" formula. And IMS needs to protect its brand this time - no trademark tie to the series.

    What killed the "500" was the equipment rules that prescribed IRL equipment and closed off entries. That killed off the "open" nature of the event, and sealed the event's diminishment by tying it to the IRL.

    One issue is FIA/ACCUS recognition. The IRL is a member of ACCUS, so it can sanction the “500” and maintain its competition status. Or, IMS could seek sanction from another ACCUS member – USAC, NASCAR, and SCCA most likely. IMHO, who sanctions the race is less at issue than how the race is branded and under what rules it runs.

    ReplyDelete
  15. John,

    I think that it can be more than a dream.

    We can all probably agree that fuel conservation and alternative propulsion systems are the next frontier with regards to automotive innovation. The problem is that there is no standard that is established in the marketplace. Further, it is not clear that there will ever be a single standard like the internal combustion engine.

    That is why the IRL must free the supply chain. You can not dictate innovation from above. It must evolve organically from below.

    What you can do from above is establish and refine a system of constraints that might nudge innovation in a desired direction. As the NFL has demonstrated, you can also cooperate with the competing participants to bring their collective contributions to market. Their individual IP holdings can remain separate, but both they and you benefit if they are marketed as one. When a revenue sharing component is added, the system can become self-reinforcing.

    I have something similar in mind for the IRL and its teams. I'm not ready to roll it out just yet, but I the time is near. I'm not talking about licensed apparel. I am talking about licensed automotive innovation.

    Think of the brilliant and very successful "Intel Inside" campaign. Replace "Intel" with "Indy", and you can begin to imagine where I'm going.

    Best Regards,

    Roggespierre

    ReplyDelete