Let's assess the composition of the advisory committee that will recommend a new IndyCar chassis to IRL CEO Randy Bernard.
Thanks to this article in the Indianapolis Star, we know that the board will include the following.
Thanks to this article in the Indianapolis Star, we know that the board will include the following.
- Retired Air Force General William Looney (Chairman)
- An undetermined league representative to be chosen by Bernard
- An IRL team owner to be selected by his peers
- A marketer/promoter to be picked by Bernard
- A race engineer
The list has the makings of a good start for the following reasons.
- Looney's job is to ensure that all factions are heard.
- Team owners are rightly included because new equipment will require significant capital investment on their part.
- We shall assume that "marketer/promoter" means "race promoter", one who assumes the financial risk associated with operating an IndyCar event. Certainly this is a constituency that must be given ample consideration.
- Engineering consultation is essential because the car must be safe, fast and functionally efficient. We should also hope that this particular engineer is adept at cost analysis.
What's Missing?
In my opinion, the committee still lacks the comprehensive expertise that will be required to fulfill the formidable business objectives that the IRL needs to achieve with its new car project.First, why are the broadcast partners not represented? Increasing television ratings is by far the fastest way to increase revenue to the league and its promoters, teams and vendors. The new car should be ideally suited to accommodate slick production in High Definition. To not include a representative of either Versus or ESPN/ABC would seem to be a rather significant oversight.
Second, a marketing consultant should be added to the committee. The league should be able to find plenty of them at Indiana University's nationally ranked Kelley School of Business. Happily, that particular institution just so happens to specialize in sports media and marketing!
At Kelley, the IRL will find plenty of highly qualified, experienced marketing experts who might offer analysis such as that which is found here, here, here, here and here. One need not be a pseudonymous blogger to know this stuff.
Third, I believe that including the right kind of "marketer/promoter" is crucial. I would not include one who benefits from financial backstops provided by municipal and state governments. That would mean, for example, that the Edmonton and Barber promoters are out.
My pick would be Bruton Smith, or at least an emissary of Bruton Smith. Speedway Motorsports has been a loyal customer of the IRL for more than a decade. It promotes events at multiple locations, including ovals and a road course. More important, it is a for-profit corporation that does not benefit from direct government subsidies. In other words, Bruton and his firm require a genuinely profitable product, one that attracts lots of fans and corporate advertising dollars. His inclusion in this process is essential.
Finally, I am curious to learn who the "league representative" shall be. I can only hope that it is someone who can anticipate being held accountable for successfully marketing the end product.
Roggespierre
Well said, 惠蘋, and I fully agree that the reason why none of these that RP mentions are involved is that this is not serious.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, we go back to the 500 and the impact any decision will make on that event. This equipment decision determines this cornerstone's entire future. I cannot imagine the Hulman-George family turning this basic decision over to a committee or to outsiders. I suspect there is more at work than this public eyewash.
The criteria should be to write regulations and select conforming race cars which will yield good competition and place a priority on driving skill. Everything else is an extension of that.
ReplyDeleteAny significant bias towards aesthetics undermines this criteria. Sweet looking cars in a processional event is racing you can't sell, in HD or anywhere else.
The cost analysis debate continues to be a low priority, as halving the cost of chassis and engines still only reduces overall team budgets by no more than 25%.
Randy Bernard knows full well that cost cutting is not the priority: generating revenue and esablishing a basis for growth is.
The announcement of Gil De Ferran today as the owner's representative is an interesting development. He is the most prominent team owner who is not a member of the Delta Wing group. I don't think that's a trivial point.
Andy
I've got zero faith in a decent outcome from this. As much as everybody wants to pretend that it was the drivers that made the 500 great, they are wrong. People were interested in the cars and the speed. There are too many compromises to be made for them to recommend a package that will bring the thrill back to the race.
ReplyDeleteIn the end their decision is meaningless because it will continue the watered down sport that draws smaller audiences than figure skating.
The very concept of dictating what cars they will be competing in is wrong. The guys entering the race should be determining the best tool for the job, not the guys hosting the race.
In 3 years the stands on Memorial weekend are going to look like the stands in August.
"As much as everybody wants to pretend that it was the drivers that made the 500 great, they are wrong. People were interested in the cars and the speed."
ReplyDeleteThe Indy 500 has ALWAYS been about the drivers FIRST. Yes, cars and speed have been a major draw over the years.
But do you think most saine people are going to show up at Indy to watch a cool car and some fast speeds, if they are driven by a bunch of nobody's like Mario Moraes and Bertrand Baugette?
Hell no, they won't.
Indy was Indy, when you had cool, diverse equipment, with fast speeds, driven primarily by the top-of-the-line American drivers of the time. Back when THE BEST, aspired to race at Indy. Not just owners's kids or females. Not F1 washouts or never-were's. Not guys from all-over-the-world, who have little oval racing experience and no fanbase in this part of the world.
Yes a new car will be nice. New regulations will be nice. More competition will be nice. All of that would be great.
But speed records are never happening again. They reached their limit at Indy. The last time they were over 230 MPH, Tony Renna's car landed in the turn 3 bleachers. Before that, Scott Brayton was killed in 1996, when they were over 230 MPH all month. They will never be over 230 MPH again. Guaranteed. For the driver's safety and for the spectator's safety.
Until the driver lineup situation is solved, then all of this "new car" talk, won't mean squat. Its still the #1 problem going forward. 5 American drivers in the top 2 series this weekend at St. Pete, shows this in spades.
All of these "advisory committee" members are dangerous for the sport going forward.
ReplyDeleteMost successful organizations have 1 clear, concise leader. One guy. Obviously, Bernard has very little background with most of the issues of the sport. So he is probably doing the wise thing to delegate some authority. But he can't do this too often. Because once these sorts of things become too commonplace, you will turn into CART again. With a bunch of cooks worrying about their own self-interests and the hell with everybody else.
The sport needs clear LEADERSHIP. From one person. So far, Bernard is not showing that he will be that one single voice to make the tough decisions. Of course when you bring in a racing novice, this is what you get. Doesn't mean he won't eventually do well. But this is a tough deal he is getting himself into.
And let's go back to RP's original point: Who is NOT at the table. This is akin to redesigning the tin can and telling someone to sell 'em to consumers without considering the contents. Do consumers buy the can or the corn inside? And why do you need a committee of can designers?
ReplyDeleteHere's an interview with Bernard detailing somewhat how he grew PBR, and his business and entertainment thinking in the process.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/118794
Agree that drivers are "first" in the equation, but...
ReplyDeleteBut do you think most saine people are going to show up at Indy to watch a cool car and some fast speeds, if they are driven by a bunch of nobody's like Mario Moraes and Bertrand Baugette?
I think if you replace the word "fast" with "fastest-ever", the game DOES change. "It's a new track record" is one of the things that Indy was ABOUT. It's part of the lore and mystique and excitement of the whole proceedings - how fast will man go around this thing?
They will never be over 230 MPH again. Guaranteed. For the driver's safety and for the spectator's safety.
A maddening thing to me is that the concept of "safe enough" is so nebulous in this sport. It's not about hard numerical limits, it's about statements like "we don't want to see anyone get killed, so _____". But that's always how we've felt, and yet what we consider "safe enough" today is FAR safer than what we considered "safe enough" in 1990.
What if the chance of fatality at a given Indy race could be 0%, if the cars were limited to 85 mph? Would we embrace that reality? What if at 200 mph, the chance is 0.01%? Is that safe enough? What if at 230, the chance is .05%? Is that not safe enough? Or should we go with 220, at .03%?
All I'm saying is that without some kind of defining set of safety factors, the idea that over 230 mph is simply not "safe enough" - no matter what sort of engineering comes down the pipeline, it must never happen again - is like announcing an end to the spirit of human advancement that has until very recently been an indelible part of the 500. It's like saying "speed has beaten us".
And maybe that's true. But maybe it's not. Couldn't a 230 lap in a high-power, low-downforce car (i.e. faster straightaway, slower corner speeds) be less dangerous than 230 in a super high downforce car like we have today?
What if hypothetical fatality % in a high-power, low-downforce car for a 245 mph lap is .03%, same as 220 in today's car?
Obviously such an assertion would be extremely hard to make, but the mere possibility of the scenario makes me grimace every time they talk about the impossibility of drivers and spectators being "safe enough" at a certain absolute speed. WHAT EXACTLY IS "SAFE ENOUGH"?
There's nothing hypothetical about it.
ReplyDeleteAn IndyCar at the Speedway that went airborne at 227 MPH resulted in a driver fatality, and would have resulted in injury and death to many spectators...had the stands been full that day.
And in their current configuration, wheel to wheel contact means that airborne cars are an inevitability. Higher speeds incease the likelyhood of debris penetrating or clearing the catch fencing.
It's the most serious safety concern, and will probably be addressed as a required design element of the chassis to be recommended by the ICONIC panel...wheel fairings.
Les Mactaggert is one likely candidate as the IICS representative to the panel, and he has been publicly discussing the need for wheel protection since at least last September.
The presence of wheel fairings on many of the constructors' renderings are not part of aesthetic design exercises. They are required to make racing "SAFE ENOUGH" for the spectators.
At some future date when this concern has been eliminated, perhaps the speed cap will be lifted. Hypothetically speaking.
Andy
Actually there is a safety limit... The Laws of Physics dictate that. We ran into to that at Texas in 2001. The cars can certainly go much faster than the drivers are able to withstand. So at some point there will be a speed limit which will from a drive's stand point will be less than the ultimate speed potential of the cars. Wheel fairings, whether full enclosures or ones leaving some of the tire exposed will alleviate some of the danger of vehicles becoming airborne. However, as many of us who work in the field of geology and engineering geology like to say: "Mother Nature LOVES to throw us curve balls" Just when we think we've got the situation figured out, she throws a curve-ball at us. I see no reason to think that she will not do that with racing cars via the laws of Physics and Chance. WE simply cannot account for all possible outcomes. Trying to put a number on what the probability of car going airborne is, is a fools game.
ReplyDelete"An IndyCar at the Speedway that went airborne at 227 MPH resulted in a driver fatality, and would have resulted in injury and death to many spectators...had the stands been full that day.
ReplyDeleteAnd in their current configuration, wheel to wheel contact means that airborne cars are an inevitability."
Exactly. That Tony Renna crash (which occurred when speeds were inching towards 230 again in fall testing) is EXACTLY the reason why we won't see speeds above 230 again. If that happens in May or in a race, there is no more Indy Car racing. From accounts from the few folks who actually saw it, that was one of the most frightening looking accidents ever seen at IMS. And of course, the aftermath was tragic.
I think any new car will have to have some kind of wheel protection. Biggest issue with the current formula car at high rates of speed, are when they "launch" (mostly from wheel-to-wheel interlocking contact). Obviously that didn't happen with Renna's crash (those factors of cars getting airborn during a spin; which is what happened in the Renna crash) seem to have been improved greatly. But interlocking wheels is still a big worry for many in the sport.
Alright, alright, never thee mind. This is a debate worth having in-depth at some point, but given immediate concerns for the series I guess it's not the thing to load up this comments section with.
ReplyDeleteAt some future date when this concern has been eliminated, perhaps the speed cap will be lifted.
That's fair. Concession given to a degree of conditionality. I like that as party line more than "never".
The Laws of Physics dictate that. We ran into to that at Texas in 2001.
Yeah, THAT was certainly a hard limit on speed potential. When sheer acceleration is too much for the human body, I guess you gotta throw in the towel.
The safety aspect is totally relevant to INCONIC: fans who want a power to weight ratio and aero package that will permit new track records will be disappointed.
ReplyDeleteFans who scream that wheel fairings are blasphemy to the "open wheel" distinction are likely to be disappointed, too.
I hope that fans of the macabre are the most disappointed of all.
High G forces induced by extreme banking is the problem at Texas. Reducing downforce levels to prevent flat out lapping is the solution. The stopgap method employed by IICS is drag penalty to limit speed, which reduces speed differential and creates wake turbulence that undermines close racing.
The product is a service: excitement. That will only be realized by chassis and engine regulations which enable speed differential and variety of setup and strategy. Then you have a product you can successfully promote, and drivers who can demonstrate consistant excellence and become recognized for it.
This is a technical exercise, the development of a new formula. It has nothing to do with promoters or marketers: it has everything to do with drafting regulations and selecting equipment which will enable the best racing.
Then you call in the salesmen, and give them the easy job.
The problem is that car owners, designers and engineers will all have allegiances, or adgendas to speak up for. I think that politics and greed rule the decision making process: the logic of the solutions is not beyond the grasp of a group of very smart men.
Mr. Bernard portrays himself as an objective overseer, and perhaps that makes him the exception. General Looney may be a similar ally. That still doesn't insure the best result.
Andy
The product should read "entertainment", but you already know my perspective.
ReplyDeleteAndy
Andy: High G forces at Texas induced by the banking is one potential limit. Another is that we would potentially reach a limit with tire adhesion on lesser banked ovals. Even with decreased downforce there is a physical limit to adhesion. The coefficient of friction cannot exceed 1.0. If it did the tires would stick to the pavement like glue, and the car would not move. Even at Indy with it's relatively low banking of 9 degrees, there is still a physical limit to the speeds that can be attained in the corners with drivers on board.
ReplyDeleteBut we are getting away from the topic of this blog post. If you wanted to make the venue safe for the spectators, just move the front row of the stands to 500 feet away from the racing surface. That should kill off the series once and for all.
Not quite following you, Grey. I was trying to bring the discussion back on topic.
ReplyDeleteThe coefficient of friction of a racing tire can and does exceed 1.0 on some racing surfaces. And finding the limit of adhesion when tires are influenced by lateral loads is what racing is all about.
Unless you're a drag racing fan, that is. I understand they have taken to moving the fans further away from the track lately.
Not my kind of racing, and not my idea for increasing safety at IndyCar events.
When vertical load is increased on racing tires by high banking, or by adding enough downforce, the limit of adhesion of the current IndyCars on the current tires cannot be exceeded. So drivers can lap flat, and the quality of the racing suffers as a result.
That's one point for the ICONIC panel to take into consideration. And no, reducing the grip level or contact patch size of the current tires is not the answer. That would undermine the fantastic performance and safety of the Firestones. Not exactly a good marketing strategy for them, and not the required change to increase the importance of driving technique during cornering.
Reducing downforce levels will get the job done. The resultant decrease in wake turbulence helps to solve another of the problems that the ICONIC panel should be evaluating.
Maybe Eddie Gossage knows about altering wing tip vortices or diffuser turbulence. I'd rather hear what Adrian Reynard has to say.
Andy
When I first heard mention of the advisory board I was hoping Bernard would bring in a seasoned product development manager to head the committee. I'm not completely disappointed in his selection of the General, but I think he could have found someone a little more fitting to the task at hand. Also, I'd like to see someone involved in the process who understands and is on top of the current media developments, trends and how all the various platforms fit and work together.
ReplyDelete- Citizen John
The biggest media developments from this entire process so far has been the introduction of a clown car, and more false public pronouncements about decision dates. And constructors marketing directly to fans, who wil be disappointed when their favorite rendering gets rejected.
ReplyDeleteGanassi backed off the clown car this weekend: "It doesn't have to look that way", he told Autoweek... after Bowlby's insistance for months that it does, in order to meet the performance criteria.
Now a sudden interest in refitting the existing Dallaras has popped up in the interviews, since the realization has hit home that the money for new equipment won't be so easy to find.
Penske even raised the subject on Saturday of equipping the existing chassis with a new engine package. Bernard just broached the subject that the new car should still enable low budget teams to compete with their old gear.
Gee, what a profound set of concepts. The various platforms fit and work together fine, and it wasn't that hard to figure out how a long time ago. Either greed and politics are running the show, or these pencils aren't too sharp.
Speaking of sharp pencils, does anyone think IZOD has been doing a proper job of promotion to maximize their ROI? Ten Million plus is a big investment: I've watched the races and commercials, and feel no compulsion to upgrade my wardrobe. But I see things a little differently then all of you, so your reaction would be of interest.
Andy
"I've watched the races and commercials, and feel no compulsion to upgrade my wardrobe."
ReplyDeleteCoke and Pepsi commercials aren't really designed to make you go out and buy their products either. The idea is to link their product up with a positive image or emotion in your mind so when you're shopping or the urge hits for something to drink, or in IZOD's case a new wardrobe, their product has an established, creditable and hopefully desirable place in your mind.
-John
Why bother with the faux drama of this committee? Why not follow the obvious path - keep the current car and allow alternatives. If Penske and Ganassi or anyone else want something new, by all means, build it...within competitive specs. No need to tie up the league's money. Toss the development dough into the race purse, and let 'em run!
ReplyDeleteIzod's not my style. It's their $10 mil, and they're smarter than I am when it comes to selling clothing.
Rocketman 53: Don't you feel the urge to just dress like a yuppie???? I agree, I was born in cowboy boots and jeans and that is what I like. As for the path.....Keep the cars present, add the older cars with saftey regulations met and let everyone have at it!!! But you have to just try that lavender sweater!!!! (lol)
ReplyDeleteThat sweater would match my eyes...
ReplyDeleteNow that the idea of "cross gen" racing is out there, I think it's going to happen. Cost will drive it - especially if the '10 field indeed is 40 cars. Doing otherwise will undoubtedly reduce the field, and what value has that?
John, I think you're discussing "transfer technique", and I understand the concept. My point wasn't made very well, so let me sharpen the pencil and try again.
ReplyDeleteI would have brand loyalty to Firestone, if they built a better street tire. I would buy a Honda, if my choice was for a contemporary commuter car.
And I would buy Izod shirts, if the cool ones pictured at the time of their title sponsorship announcement in November were available. Those shirts are not to be found, on the Izod website or the television commercials.
Why a racecar driver is wearing a polo shirt while jet skiing is quizzical, but that's show biz. It isn't even a cool shirt he is wearing.
Izod achieved what some have described as an unprecedented level of exposure for the IndyCar Series with their brand association activations. Big spend. Expensive spots. The first race earns a 0.4 TV share in a great time slot with non-competitive programming.
Is that an example of the transfer technique not working yet? Consumers excited by the clothes, but not the racing? Do the racing consumers care about the clothes?
Izod's Facebook page is barren, and the website shows the commercials but no new product. So I am trying to use this as a lesson, and the technique hasn't transferred to me yet. I read about social media and web advertising methods, but this doesn't look like an effective campaign on any level, at least not yet.
Funny about the two preceding posts, they point out something told to me by some drag racers. They look at IndyCar as an elitist, snobby, rich guy's game, that sort of thing. Izod reinforces that image, doesn't it?
There also doesn't seem to be a way to gauge Izod's direct return, and if anyone has a clue to drop I'd appreciate the point. The PVH acquisition of Hilfiger, and a planned fall release of a new golf clothing line, will result in little comparative value of sales...unless there is some other way to isolate the Izod figures.
Commercials began in December. The contract is supposed to be for six years. So I look at what hasn't happened so far, and wonder how long PVH will hang on the rack. It's an issue that affects the acquisition of other sponsorships at all levels, and determines the financial health and public image of the Series. I don't think PVH is getting jack.
Maybe the new clothes come out, and all the media viewers wander into a Macy's and transfer the cool shirts into their shopping bags. And then go home to watch the race.
Or they see Tony Kanaan on a jet ski, decide to go to the next IndyCar race as a result, and buy their new duds there. If that's the way it works, great. What's your opinion?
To Rocketman: I posted the "cross gen" program on this site Feb. 10, although it had been written and circulated before that. Prolly nobody read it, but it wasn't any less valid before Roger Penske raised the issue last Saturday. It's a good idea, and will only happen if the ICONIC panel and Mr. Bernard make choices that enable it. That's another reason why tech guys, not clothing or TV pitchmen, need to be populating the ICONIC panel.
Andy
"I don't think PVH is getting jack."
ReplyDeleteThe direct ROI is only one piece of the value puzzle. Take a look at a google trends graph:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=izod%2C+izod+indycar&ctab=0&geo=all&date=ytd&sort=0
The "news reference volume" factors into the overall ROI equation as well. For the most part, every time IndyCar is mentioned (in the news), IZOD also gets a mention.
-John
That's a piece of expert advice, for which I thank you. Any inference drawn from that?
ReplyDeleteAndy
"I posted the 'cross gen' program on this site Feb. 10, although it had been written and circulated before that."
ReplyDeleteAndy, I take from this that Penske et al must be reading your brilliant stuff and finally having second thoughts - and public ones at that - as a result, huh? Well, then, congratulations!
Pretty naive to think that, and I don't. If anybody did read what I have written, then Robin Miller kept his word in January but hasn't answered the question since.
ReplyDeletePretty amazing to think that all of the smart engineers and team owners didn't reach the same conclusions long ago, isn't it? So why didn't antbody do anything, other that to b*tch about the problems, and design an expensive new concept vehicle as a replacement?
I got only two answers, and I posted them above:
"Gee, what a profound set of concepts. The various platforms fit and work together fine, and it wasn't that hard to figure out how a long time ago. Either greed and politics are running the show, or these pencils aren't too sharp."
So you tell me why nobody admitted they can't afford new equipment, or why nobody ever screwed another engine into a Dallara since 2003, or even discussed it until now. I ain't brilliant enough to figure that out.
Andy
I am lukewarm regarding the Delta Wing car, but I am intrigued by the business model. I very much like the fact that it might encourage teams to manufacture components. As many of you know, I am a proponent of IndyCar teams building rather than buying whenever possible.
ReplyDeleteI also find it encouraging that the model is based on the economics of the LINUX Operating System. This would seem to leave room for open-ended, managed development. Teams can get a component approved by Delta Wing Management - which should be a disinterested 3rd party - and then put it out there for use by all who wish to use it.
That isn't exactly what I had in mind. I wanted to see the IRL adopt a list of technical constraints and let the teams strike deals with whomever they may. I still believe that the classical entrepreneurial model could work. Insiders clearly disagree, for whatever reason.
The LINUX model is the next best thing, it seems to me. Delta Wing - the concept, not necessarily the car - might be the best that we can hope for.
Thoughts?
Roggespierre
2/21/10
ReplyDeleteOn Open Sourcing
Let’s say Delta Wing publishes specifications for a rear lower wishbone on their website.
Cool, if I’m a fabricator, now I can submit a prototype to become an authorized supplier. Never mind design time, I’ll use their
blueprints. So I build a jig and start making wishbones.
And who examines the welds? Makes sure the steel and the rod ends meeys specifications? Makes sure the quality control is maintained so that my competitor doesn’t underbid me by using substandard materials?
To me, that looks like Delta wing or the sanctioning body has to establish a sort of “UL labs” system for monitoring open source
components.
When you build racecars in-house, there is one set of rules, and one responsible party.
Even before testing, some "body of review" will be needed to critique and comment on design proposals. Who is that source? Will they offer feedback on submissions?
Perhaps young noodle slurpers will design their own components. Are they expected to build working prototypes for evaluation? In the given example of a new nose cone, who does the R&D work for determining alternate design parameters, and building the molds?
Most importantly, who gets paid for the intellectual property and prototyping? If the open source system sets the component pricing,
there had better be a huge cost component added to incentivise independant submissions. I thought I read that Penske put an estimated
$300K into designing Dallara front wing end plates.
From this site, March 2, 2010:
Open sourcing is not Delta's innovation. It will be perfectly adaptable to the domestic production of any chassis, so long as the manufacturer is encouraged by the sanctioning body to grant licensing. With the cost components of currency fluctuation, higher overseas labor rates and shipping removed, there is no reason why the OEM manufacturer cannot remain competitive with independant suppliers to still sell his parts.
You could even write a content rule as part of the supplier's agreement. No problem.
On Izod and the Delta Wing:
And are they interested in the revolutionary design of the Delta? Izod looked at IndyCar racing, and what they saw was excitement they hoped to capture and infuse into their promotional image. They also saw the heritage of the sport, and are relying on it to sell clothing to their young and trendy demographic.
What you did't see, next to the Firestone sticker on the Delta vehicle, was one from the series sponsor. That's not what they bought into, not what they have constructed their promotional plans on, and may not be anything they wish to support in the future. They think retro is cool.
Andy
"Any inference drawn from that?
ReplyDeleteAndy"
My guess, and that's all it is, is that IZOD's involvement has less to do with IndyCar's present value and more to do with what they think it could be with proper marketing and PR. I think we all know, including IZOD, that the IZOD brand would be a much better match with ALMS' fan demo than IndyCar's, yet they figure it's a good fit for their brand platform. That leads me to assume that they're not so concerned about IndyCar's current fan demo (which is skewed gray) and more with what a new demo would look like. Just reading between the lines though:
“We are thrilled to be a part of the IZOD IndyCar family,” stated Gary Rudnick, executive vice president and Midwest regional managing director of GolinHarris. “We look forward to working closely with their sponsors, teams and drivers to promote the sport to new audiences within North America and the world.”
“We are excited about what GolinHarris will be able to do for us on and off the sports pages,” said Terry Angstadt, president of the commercial division for the Indy Racing League. “Our goal is to make our drivers stars in the mainstream landscape, and the hiring of GolinHarris is one of the first steps in doing so.” GolinHarris will work with the IZOD IndyCar Series to develop traditional and non-traditional programming targeted toward a younger audience in efforts to grow the fan base for open wheel racing.
“We met with a number of top-notch firms, and couldn’t be more excited to welcome GolinHarris as agency of record for IZOD IndyCar— in partnership with the Indy Racing League,” said Mike Kelly, executive vice president of marketing for Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation, owner of the IZOD trademark. “GolinHarris brings the perfect mix of skills as we seek to re-energize existing fans and grow into adjacent audience segments; top-notch media relations; longtime racing experience; big creative ideas to reach 18-34 year olds and other sports fans; and relationships with key brands both inside and outside of racing.”
Take note of:
"promote the sport to new audiences…"
"do for us on and off the sports pages…"
"non-traditional programming targeted toward a younger audience…"
"grow into adjacent audience segments…"
"big creative ideas to reach 18-34 year olds…"
John,
ReplyDeleteAll quite true, and a relatively small gamble for PVH to get in at a low ebb and hope to capitalize on the growth. Smart move.
No sign it's had much effect since last November.
GolinHarris and Izod don't answer their mail either. I wrote a campaign to dovetail the PVH Hall of Fame Fan's choice program for the NFL into an IndyCar Hall of fame program, since the website and eyeballs were already established.
That was a $10M campaign for PVH, and linked directly to in-store promotions with J.C. Penney. Dovetailing it would gain exposure to all the participating NFL fans, with racing clips and short bios of all the current eligible Indy candidates.
As if.
Andy
PVH pre-announced earnings March 22. The report was slightly better than analysts had expected. However, the upside all came from growth in the Calvin Klein brand. IZOD sales were down.
ReplyDeleteWhat does that say about the IndyCar sponsorship? Not a thing, in my estimation. There simply hasn't been enough time to draw any meaningful conclusions.
The IZOD series sponsorship dollars clearly came from two sources. The first is the IMS licensing giveaway that effectively transferred merchandising revenue from the IMS to PVH. In that regard, the IMS and IRL are, yet again, effectively sponsoring themselves.
The second source was a reallocation of funds from the now defunct IZOD Center in the Meadowlands. That's real money, but not much. The Center wasn't exactly a Class A sporting venue.
I doubt that whatever cash money IZOD gave to the IRL was enough to give PVH significant clout with regards to race car development.
Roggespierre
Thanks for that RP, the PVH bounce I had found, but nothing on Izod individually. If there is a public source to follow subsequent reports, I'd appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteIzod might have enough clout to say "We don't want THAT car", but otherwise they are just along for the ride. I don't see reasons to feel confident it will be a long one.
Andy
I guess this picture is appropriate, since the chairs are still empty. Ironic.
ReplyDeleteAndy