At its best, auto racing is the more thrilling than any other sport. It features a unique combination of sights and sounds. There is no halftime; racing is perpetual motion.
How best to craft a racing product that attracts fans? Visitors and contributors here are fully qualified to answer that question.
What are the most aspects of racing that you find most thrilling? I ask that you be mindful of the nature of this phenomenon. To be thrilled is not a long-term state of being. It is emotional and fleeting. I shall provide an example.
For me, the greatest thrill in racing was always the start of the Indianapolis 500. Unfortunately, race control has seen fit to allow the field to scatter prior to the green flag in recent years. Much of the thrill has therefore been extracted in the name of safety. As a fan, I would like to see the field aligned in eleven rows of three when it takes the green. Perhaps other variables might be adjusted if safety is in fact a legitimate issue.
I invite you to share the elements of IndyCar that might thrill you.
Roggespierre
The start of the Indy 500 has one thrill after another and it is a part of what drives us all.
ReplyDeleteFor me the sound of the first car (at speed) on opening day has always been special. So, the sound that the car makes is a thrill.
And we all must acknowledge that a crash is a thrill even if it is not a good one. I still vividly remember a couple of really scary Danny Ongias crashes. I also remeber Eliseo Salazar, Kevin Cogan (twice), and many others.
And an engine failure/ mechanical breakdown... Mario is slowing on the backstretch! Thrilling, dramatic, entertaining.
But racing is inherently thrilling isn't it? Almost every aspect has its thrills. Passing, Pit Stops, the Start, the Finish, the fly-over, Practice, Qualifying, etc.,.
-indyian
IndyIan,
ReplyDeleteYes, racing is inherently thrilling. But there are various degrees. A mechanical breakdown can be thrilling when the driver is one that fans care about. Otherwise, it's irrelevant.
Qualifying is not thrilling anymore, in my opinion. Crashes and s__t-boxes aside, it is a foregone conclusion.
Bump Day with a full field and twelve legitimate entries trying to get up to speed is thrilling. Bump Day with a full field and two crummy cars circling the track 3-4 mph slower than the Bubble Speed is not.
Best Regards,
Roggespierre
I agree with you both!
ReplyDeleteSo if we can return to the thrill of yesteryear; drivers we care for, driving cars that are visually and audibly attractive, in numbers that make qualifying more than an exercise in finding 33 teams that can find money enough to buy and enter a car, (yes, that means affordable race cars), we'll see the "thrill" return.
osca
Osca,
ReplyDeleteThat sums it up pretty well, at least with regards to the 500.
Does it seem to you that our Core Benefits tend to overlap quite a bit?
Aggrandizement
Intrigue
Thrill
Think about high stakes competition, for example. High stakes and the legitimate risk of failure would seem to: 1) imply "bigness", which augments customer aggrandizement; 2) create a basis for customer intrigue - who will be the winners and how will they do it?; 3) heighten the thrill for customers in those split seconds when success and failure are determined.
This leads me to believe that our Core Benefits are sufficiently integrated and actionable.
Given the tediousness of this process, that's a good thing.
Best Regards,
Roggespierre
#1 "[An otherwise forgettable event can be thrilling] when the driver is one that fans care about. Otherwise, it's irrelevant."
ReplyDelete#2 "Bump Day with a full field and twelve legitimate entries trying to get up to speed is thrilling. Bump Day with a full field and two crummy cars circling the track 3-4 mph slower than the Bubble Speed is not."
I think a very interesting example of those two concepts going head-to-head is John Andretti trying to make the field on bump day '09.
Observation: the apparent thrill experienced by the admittedly few in attendance was greater than anything I witnessed watching the race from the stands in turn 1.
Question: how would we rank these scenarios, in terms of their potential to produce "thrills"?
A) Three unknown drivers attempting to make the field on bump day in three marginal cars.
B) Three "cared-for" drivers attempting to make the field on bump day in three marginal cars.
C) Twelve unknown drivers attempting to make the field on bump day in twelve or more competitive cars
D) Twelve "cared-for" drivers attempting to make the field on bump day in twelve or more competitive cars.
Obviously, scenario A is least desirable and situation D is most desirable. But what about B and C? Does scenario C have the potential to thrill the crowd in the same way as John Andretti's successful run, which came more or less under the conditions of scenario B? I don't want to start an off-topic argument; I intend these questions as a food-for-thought at this point.
I think at least that the video linked to above demonstrates the ability of product elements to contribute different levels of input toward the fulfillment of a given job.
Some thrills are transcendent. You could put anybody in the cars and the first turn at Indy would still be hair-raising. The product elements of "track" and "rules" (11 rows of 3) trump "drivers" and to some extent "cars" in delivering this thrill.
But bump day is a good example of something that provides its essential thrills through a more complex combination of product elements.
BC,
ReplyDeleteYou really nailed this point, IMO.
From a management perspective, I think that the goal should be to manipulate the rules and economics such that scenario D is plausible.
That's where we're heading - making strategic management decisions in order to maximize Core Benefits to customers. In this case, the Core Benefits would appear to be Intrigue and Thrill. The former precedes the latter. Together, they ensure that fans are entertained and that they'll come back again next year.
Incidentally, Scenario D would also give the IMS and the IRL something that it could promote to prospective fans. In this case, promotion can be very powerful because the Core Benefits that accrue to customers are themselves powerful. Promotion works when you promise and deliver Core Benefits that customers want.
Thanks for the great input.
Roggespierre