People like it when their beliefs and opinions are proven to be correct. You don't have to be a horse to want to be Affirmed.
In my opinion, Affirmation is the Core Benefit that accounts for much of NASCAR's rise in the marketplace. NASCAR focused on attracting fans who typically believed that certain things were good and right.
1. Southern Regionalism
2. Rural Lifestyles
3. Working Class Values
4. White People
The last of these is controversial. However, I continue to believe that a segregated marketplace is central to NASCAR's marketability.
Incidentally, I do not propose that IndyCar copy the NASCAR model. That particular market segment has a product that it likes, namely NASCAR Cup.
In addition, I think that NASCAR has strayed from its core Affirmations and that its departure has led to a decline in popularity. One could argue that NASCAR traded Southern Regionalism and Rural Lifestyles for Nationalism. It forfeited Working Class Values and became primarily an exercise in product marketing and corporate sales. NASCAR drivers have been transformed from Working Class Heroes into Product Hucksters.
The values that a product Affirms must remain consistent. The prospect of growth can tempt organizations into sacrificing their founding Affirmations. This is a monumental mistake.
IndyCar Affirmations
I would like to see IndyCar build on the traditional Affirmations of the Indy 500.
1. Entrepreneurship
2. Independence
3. Progress
4. Automotive Leadership
These are not slogans. They are demonstrable activities.
They draw from traditions that were established and sustained by Carl Fisher, the rearview mirror, the Duesenberg Brothers, the Straight 8, Tony Hulman, Harry Miller, the Offenhauser and A.J. Watson. They allow for participation by both Roger Penske and Roger Rager, the super-secret Mercedes Ilmor and the converted school bus engine.
Fans therefore have reasons for their fandom. They have interesting stories to tell. Better yet, those stories provide confirmation of widely held values and Affirmation to those who believe in those values. That kind of promotion can not be bought.
I welcome your thoughts.
Roggespierre
R wrote:
ReplyDelete"I would like to see IndyCar build on the traditional Affirmations of the Indy 500.
1. Entrepreneurship
2. Independence
3. Progress
4. Automotive Leadership
You want all four? The original "Indy Affirmation" was to put lots of money on a table and allow those willing to compete under a set of reasonable rules to earn it. The "500" could have a fleet of interesting cars by 2011 for no more money than is presently urinated away.
Hi "R."
ReplyDeleteI've been out of pocket for a few days. You've asserted several benefits (help me understand if we are using "jobs" and "benefits" interchangeably or if you see them as one in the same (or maybe you've embraced a completely different construct and I missed the boat somewhere along the line - I am a confessed daydreamer).
I need to digest all you have laid out. In general, I think you are on the right track but I feel the need to flesh things out a bit. This list of "jobs" or "benefits" can get too long and we will simply be in academic discussion.
Perhaps offering an extensive list and then prioritizing it is the best approach. Just thinking...
TC
Hi TC,
ReplyDeleteWe have a list of five Core Benefits, although I am open to both consolidating what we have and adding others, if necessary. To date, our Core Benefits are:
1. Aggrandizement
2. Thrill
3. Intrigue
4. Affirmation
5. Community
These Benefits enable customers to get certain Jobs done. The Product will be designed to enable customer to get those Jobs done.
At present, I am attempting merely to define the Core Benefits. Next, we will have to make some difficult decisions. We must analyze various market segments and then target those market segments that appear to be promising. That will go a long way toward determining the specific Jobs that Customers want to get done.
Then, we'll be ready to flesh out specific product attributes.
Does this make sense? Would you suggest revisions?
Best Regards,
Roggespierre
Affirmation was the core benefit that I was really wondering about.
ReplyDeleteBut after reading this I think I understand: you're linking the favorite "innovation" concept (and others) with a real customer benefit that runs deeper than just entertainment - but still must be thought of in terms of getting jobs done.
Based on the big Mission Statement debate, I think most of us were thinking along the lines of "IndyCar will serve the customer...but must also somehow separately embrace 'innovation'" - the thinking here being perhaps that a focus on merely "serving the customer" could leave certain traditional aspects of the series behind.
But Affirmation allows us to link the two by saying something like "We will represent these values, values that a)have been embraced by consumers in the past and b)will still be embraced by our target market(s)." Only the deepest shift in whom we consider our target market will be able to change what IndyCar 'ought' to affirm.
If that's what Affirmation means here...I like it!
One thing:
Would it make any sense to have some kind of regional/national affirmation in the list? Though I suppose that as long as we remember that entrepreneurship, independence, etc. are strongly American ideals, this might be superfluous.
BC:
ReplyDeleteI must admit I am not at all on the "pro-innovation" side of the IndyCar debate. Every time I hear it mentioned I throw up a little in my mouth.
Innovation is a red herring to me. Innovation means almost nothing to IndyRacing. The Indy 500 will be 100 years old soon, yet your would be hard pressed to come up with 100 real automotive "innovations" brought about because of it.
So, I think "serving the customer" is more than enough.
"Innovation is a red herring to me. Innovation means almost nothing to IndyRacing. The Indy 500 will be 100 years old soon, yet your would be hard pressed to come up with 100 real automotive "innovations" brought about because of it."
ReplyDeleteDonald,
I take it that by "automotive innovations" you are referring to things like the rear-view mirror that we can point to and say "Aha! One innovation!", and furthermore you are talking about innovations that have in some relevant way translated to cars bought and used by the general public.
By that definition of "innovation" I definitely agree with your position. As far as I am aware, these sorts of things have not really been historically essential to serving IndyCar's audience.
However, I DO think that the concept of innovation as a broader term, measured more in terms of absolute speed and competitive shifts - novel ideas and implementations, big and small, initiated by teams - has been an integral part of IndyCar's history.
So it's maybe a definition thing. When I look back at the post above, I think "progress" includes this broader spirit of innovation.
I also think the way Roggespierre has organized the concept makes sure that any progress (i.e. spirit of innovation) that we embrace must serve fans by providing a sense of affirmation. "THIS is who we are. THIS is what we root for. THIS is why we love it."
So maybe we're just operating under different concepts of the term "innovation"? Innovation as a discretely measurable thing vs. innovation as a value?
From my values statement:
ReplyDelete"Innovation and opportunity will form the basis of our regulations."
In reality, you can't do much more than pay lip service to this relatively minor tenant.
Sanctioning bodies are not designers or builders, in spite of some lofty ideals written here. Sanctioning bodies establish guidelines for safety if they are responsibly written, and imply guidelines for economic reality if they are pragmatic.
As for the "opportunity" part, that means more than watching out for the little guy. It also means we let chicks race, and people of any color or nationality. Jingoism is as outdated as tube frame chassis and front engined racecars.
A lot of what I have read here is about cheap cars on oval tracks with American drivers. What a familiar set of ideals.
There's a poster on the wall in the IRL office with their core priciples written out. I didn't have a chance to digest it: it's written in the peanut butter verbiage you guys would appreciate, and is full of statements about how they are looking out for the little guy.
The posters are probably not sold anywhere, and that's just as well. It wasn't worth the paper it was written on. But it's very aggrandizing to hang it on the wall in a big frame for all the visitors to see, it looks so darn valuable.
Andy Bernstein
Andy Bernstein wrote: "Sanctioning bodies are not designers or builders..."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely true, until/unless the sanctioning body becomes the purveyor of equipment. The fact is the IRL is more than a sanctioning body. The league is a business that pretty much dictates the game to the affiliated "independent contractors" who take its money to buy and lease stuff from its approved merchants. At the end of the day, it gets down to one "best" chassis, one available engine, and, in that sense, the IRL is indeed the equipment designer.
IMHO, this is what further defines the current scene as minor league, diminishing the primary product, the "500", for the sake of a needless series. The quest to "create" a series is simply not smart when it drains potential and resources from your sole valuable asset.
And relying on the exposure of one event will not attract major sponsorship investment, nor will it pay full time personnel or create a viable market for suppliers.
ReplyDeleteThat reduces the Indy 500 to an event for hobbyists. The giant prize scheme works for one guy each year, and leaves the rest wondering why they thought it was a good idea. It leaves major sponsorship out altogether.
Ten companies didn't pony up $10M each on the day Affirmed ran in the Derby. And no jockeys, trainers or horses assumed they would be prepared to run the most competitive event without establishing their best program by running in others first. Everybody gets fed from the winnings at Santa Anita et al.
The current ICS rules don't govern exclusivity, that's a result of the lack of manufacturers' participation. A new formula doesn't change that reality either.
There would be Falcons in the ICS right now if Kranefuss and Anderson hadn't run out of money. And relaxing the rules to a far greater extent makes that situation worse, along with compromising safety.
Acura built fast, safe racecars and decided it wasn't worth it. Same for Honda, Toyota, BMW, Jaguar, and Audi. Renault will be next.
Andy Bernstein
Andy Bernstein wrote: "And relying on the exposure of one event will not attract major sponsorship investment, nor will it pay full time personnel or create a viable market for suppliers."
ReplyDeleteI have no use for any contrived series "supporting" the 500 - none. Until the IRL came along, none had ever existed. The AAA/USAC/CART series were spinoffs that traded off the 500. If a series is viable, and I sincerely doubt one is under anything like current circumstances, it will form and make money for the participants regardless of any "peanut butter" prose laid down here.
I'm not proposing relying on the exposure of one event - I am proposing one event. It will either survive, or it will collapse regardless (and perhaps because) of a vampirous, money-losing, run-on-the-cheap, something-for-everyone-satisfying-no-one, coattail series.
"That reduces the Indy 500 to an event for hobbyists. The giant prize scheme works for one guy each year, and leaves the rest wondering why they thought it was a good idea. It leaves major sponsorship out altogether."
Seems to me the event has always been one for "hobbyists" - certainly once manufacturers left the field and the Miller/Offy ruled for decades mounted in chassis welded together in garages. Half the teams today qualify as "hobbyists," reducing staff in the off season.
It is apparent that the "professionals" have about squandered the event's legacy, and have no idea how to recapture its diminishing magic. Odd how this one giant prize historically financed entries over the years. The proposed $25 mil approximates what IMS/IRL spends today on putting 33 crapwagons on its premier grid - without a major sponsor. The 500-Mile Sweepstakes has become a cash cow that will eventually run dry, and sooner than many here imagine.
"The current ICS rules don't govern exclusivity, that's a result of the lack of manufacturers' participation."
It wouldn't be that the lack of participation has anything to do with benign rules and an anticipated return on investment in a severely limited market. Can't be.
"There would be Falcons in the ICS right now if Kranefuss and Anderson hadn't run out of money."
I'd be driving myself but for the same reason. Good investments attract capital.
So what, that means you were a bad investment?
ReplyDeleteYour viewpoints are formulated from a very narrow agenda, and most of it is reactionary.
I read as many diverse viewpoints as possible, hoping to learn about actionable strategies to cope with any of the technical or economic challenges. The arguments are constant and myopic, the the examples of innovative thinking can be counted on one finger.
Same thing happens when you write a set of rules to promote safety and attempt to control cost. Nobody has the desire or capability to make the investment and find the answers.
Denigrating the values of the institution or the regulations is not an actionable agenda for success.
Andy Bernstein
"The examples of innovative thinking can be counted on one finger."
ReplyDeleteAB,
I assume you're talking about this project here, the only internet locale I've found in which the "myopic arguments" have so far not won out over an honest attempt to truly understand the situation.
Knowing who we are, who we want to be, and why is essential to pursuing actionable strategies that are not merely reactionary. Unless we're willing to rely heavily on luck.
Yes, Andy, my viewpoint is very narrow: Save the 500, which is in distress as evidenced by its diminishing stature and ever-shrinking television ratings.
ReplyDeleteIt’s not that I’m closed-minded; I just haven’t heard anything offered here to cause me to change my mind. A large sum on a tabletop is an instantly actionable strategy – one that created prosperous circumstances at IMS and for fans of the 500-Mile event for nearly a century. The reason my argument is constant and perhaps myopic is that it is based on first principles that have proven successful in a landscape littered with failed alternatives, including both IRL/ISC and CART/CCWS. The world of commerce is littered with the “innovative”, too – from Edsels to new Coke to Arch Deluxes…and the next “indy car series” will be added to that list – along with the current iteration - because there is simply insufficient commercial demand for one, as this site has documented.
As for denigrating the institution, I hold its traditions and past values in high esteem – and I absolutely denigrate the “institution” as it exists because it is largely devoid of any links to the former greatness upon which it trades.
To Mr. Cheek:
ReplyDeletePursuit is the key word there, and it is an arduous one. Good luck with it, just keep in mind that idealism might help steer the vehicle but it doesn't get you out of the garage.
To Rocket:
I hope the Indianapolis 500 becomes a race that will one day enjoy.
Andy Bernstein
oops,
ReplyDelete"...that YOU will one day enjoy.
Guys,
ReplyDeleteI've been away for a few days, but I'm back at it now.
Innovation can't be dictated from above. IndyCar has confused "technology" and "innovation" for many years. Not all technology is innovative. In fact, most technology in the present IndyCar Series is standard, the antithesis of innovation.
We'll get to the specifics soon. Right now I'm simply trying to define our Core Benefits to customers. I'll put a write-up about Community up top this afternoon, and then we'll move forward.
Best Regards,
Roggespierre
Here's the real story.
ReplyDeleteI don't know Tony Cotman, and I had never read any of his quotes before.
Here's the answer to a lot of questions:
http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/arti...th-tony-cotman/
Apparently there is a lot more under consideration than Mr. Barnhart was quoted as revealing last Thursday, when he said no changes were contemplated for 2010.
All of the specification changes to make the current equipment competitive that I wrote up are in here, to one degree or another. Of particular note is the description he gives of the change to the overtake assist, which discusses changing it to a system that is directly comparable to the "Power Boost" used on the A1GP Ferrari engines.
My positions were to adopt this throttle mapping strategy, which would create an 8% difference between full throttle and "full share" activation: plenty of differential to break up the dangerous packs, without having to back out of the throttle and lose momentum.
The Honda engineer I spoke with at Homestead said that this approach had already been suggested by them, and obviously it would not require internal engine revisions. To the extent of my knowledge, the only required change would be a software alteration to the ECU to reinterpret the throttle position sensor signal.
The other changes are not specifically discussed, so they'll stay in the notebook I wrote that nobody wants to read. If you combine the "full share" overtake assist along with a minor selective downforce reduction, you reintroduce a full set of variables which put a premium on car control, set up compromises, and speed differential to enable passing on ovals.
All of that is achievable at a nominal cost and applicable to 2010. So are all the marketing strategies I wrote, one of which was the two-seater plan that some 5th Avenue marketing genius managed to figure out as well. My plan is much more detailed and effective as a cross promotional tool, but I'm sure they'll get it figured out.
I'm guessing at this point that all of the other marketing strategies I submitted will be dismissed or have also been devised by people inside the loop. Too bad for the last three months I spent working for free.
The good news is that all of the people who throw their criticism at the IRL management are full of garbage. People who think the management is complacent or incompetent have no idea of the facts that must be evaluated before any policy changes are enacted. I have learned about 1% of what's going on, and that was the first picture that came into focus:these people know what they are doing.
One more point before I disappear, and it will probably meet with the same indifference as all the others I have tried to make:
At Homestead, I gave Mr. Barnhart a brief writeup on a track in the Brazilian state of Parana named Curitiba. They were not aware of this venue, and if you do a little homework you'll see that it looks worthy of consideration. No, it would not be the first choice: yes, it would be a face-saving race in Brazil at an FIA approved track in a major city that would not have to be thrown together like a last minute street race.
Whether Curitiba was ever checked out, I don't know. I never got a response on that either. Hopefully the 2010 season will begin in Brazil as planned, and I hope it is an enjoyable one for all of us. Best wishes,
Andy Bernstein
Andy Bernstein wrote:
ReplyDelete"The good news is that all of the people who throw their criticism at the IRL management are full of garbage. People who think the management is complacent or incompetent have no idea of the facts that must be evaluated before any policy changes are enacted. I have learned about 1% of what's going on, and that was the first picture that came into focus:these people know what they are doing."
If, as you say, these people know what they are doing, why are we having this discussion? It would seem to me that that "even the most casual observer" can see that something is wrong and that apparently the current management has no idea of how to fix it. And no, Rocketman53, $25 million on the table will not fix it either.
If, as you say, these people know what they are doing, why are we having this discussion?
ReplyDeleteBetter yet, why fly down to Miami and try and sell them on being a consultant if they already know what they're doing? I mean, I hope to hell that they have a good lock on what to do. I guess we'll find out soon enough. Now where's that Brazil race at.....
You can "know what you're doing" on different levels. Operations vs. Long-term strategy, e.g.
ReplyDeleteAB,
your points always pertain to specific ideas and actions that may move the CURRENT IndyCar from point A to point B.
R's project is all about charting a basic direction and creating an overall framework under which specific tweaks can be analyzed from a consistent point of view.
His argument is that the system is flawed and needs fixing.
Your argument is that specific product elements are flawed and need fixing.
These things are not mutually exclusive. But while, as you point out, IndyCar is very actively addressing the latter reality, they give no indication that the former is a priority.
And thus The Indy Idea. Overall strategy before specific decision-making. If you reverse the priorities of the two in your arguments, your comments will necessarily be less constructive.
The economic reality is there will be no point B unless point A gets fixed.
ReplyDeleteI have no Andy Idea how many people staff the ICS, or how the massive list of duties is delegated.
I could guess that many of these people have never held career positions where careful cost management was essential. I can guess that many of them are not innovative thinkers, or that they are so overwhelmed with the urgency of their current duties that they lack the time for broader reflection.
Maybe I'm wrong, and these people are all as arrogant and incompetent as the Ideas here presume from a unilateral perspective.
Mr. Angstadt has likely been preoccupied in trying to cut the best deal possible for a title sponsor. Absent of other options, he sold the keys to the kingdom for as much as he could get. Very little.
Lack of a better strategy? Lack of the manpower or seed money to implement it? Panic? Maybe you can answer that, I don't know the man or the environment in which he operates.
Point A is 20-26 cars on the track in Brazil, exactly 4 months from today. In the interim, several teams will disappear or contract. Prospective new entrants cannot find funding.
Racing has always been like this, on all levels: the economic realities are a bit more harsh now, that's all. Cheaper equipment isn't the answer, as feeder series competitors can't generate sufficient sponsorship either.
The written and spoken words of ICS management amd competitors seems to indicate a state of paralysis in response to the economic reality. They might change very little, for fear that any investment at all is too risky. That won't get them to point B: the product needs immediate improvement as much as it needs immediate promotion to improve the cashflow.
Your Ideas are based on ideals, and that's fine if the immediate reality is ignored. I'll join you in hoping there are investors to buy and wave a new flag one day.
So I see things a little differently, and maybe that doesn't work for anybody else. I "go
racing" by scoring free tickets and paddock passes from a sponsor, driving my $1,000. Jaguar for 40 hours, and shelling out $99 for one night at a motel. Works for me, I accomplished all that I set out to and had the time of my life to boot.
I don't know why Cotman doesn't have the answer to his fuel strategy question. I don't know why ICS had not looked for alternative venues in Brazil. I don't know why they seem unresponsive to suggestions from an outsider on these topics and many others. Maybe you will all have better results.
Below is a link to a video from Curitiba. The WTCC cars shown are running the road course configuration, the second link below shows the oval layout. Who knows, maybe it needs some additional safety barriers and grandstands: I don't think there are any in downtown Rio right now. I offered it as a plan to get to Point A, in case the focus of Mr. Angstadt's effort was unsuccessful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeDOXswjMQQ&feature=PlayList&p=98BD442EBF0AAC69&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=73
_____________________________________________
http://www.speedsport-magazine.com/circuit-directory/southamerica/Curitiba,61.html
___________________________________________
Cancelling Point A would be a world class disgrace that would deprive the ICS and the teams of an Apex payday they desparately need.
That makes Curitiba look like good ground to me.
Andy Bernstein
AB,
ReplyDeleteI don't see much to disagree with in your comment. The fact that the leadership is likely (and understandably) unable to focus much beyond immediate operations is one of the big issues.
Though I would call Curitiba something more like "necessary" ground. I'd reserve a word like "good" for a location that IndyCar would pick wholly on the basis of appealing to fans.