- Low cost basis
- Little or no direct competition
- Low expectations
Unfortunately, Bernard can look forward to enjoying exactly none of those advantages as he attempts to revive IndyCar, where...
- The cost basis is exponentially greater than the value of the end product.
- Direct competition abounds both nationally and internationally.
- Perceptions of past success and the existence of successful firms in the motorsports space make for unreasonably high expectations among buyers and suppliers.
To summarize, Mr. Bernard is sure to discover - if he hasn't already - that Professional Bull Riders and IndyCar are very different animals.
PBR - NASCAR with Horns?
The good news is that Professional Bull Riders succeeded because Bernard effectively sold it to a quasi-mass market. This conclusion is supported by the types of sponsors - Wrangler, Jack Daniel's - that signed on. Thus, PBR would seem to be positioned similarly to NASCAR. Apparently, those folks still have time to watch something on TV in addition to Cup and Grand National. PBR's 2.4 rating with its NBC time buy further supports this conclusion.
One wonders, then, why Bernard would embrace a very different approach to marketing IndyCar.
Yes, the product is different. Then again, Bernard would seem to have authority to change the product in order to attract a large audience. Instead, it seems that he is attempting to create an entirely new breed of U.S. racing fan.
That - the Clamor for Glamour - shall be the topic of an upcoming post.
My next post, however, shall be one of longing.
Wish You Were Here - the 2010 Indianapolis 500 Edition - is forthcoming!
Roggespierre
The cost problem with Indycar is subsidizing the other 16 races on the schedule that aren't profitable. Dumping 1.2 million per car just to make a full season a viable option is strangling the series. Izod is helping, but their $10 mill per year steal doesn't cover the TEAM allocations.
ReplyDeleteThose same 16 races give the existing owners and drivers such an advantage that nobody else can step in and win Indy.
The one change that he's appeared to be in charge of so far is turning Indy into an undercard for a Nascar event. How can Indy be the greatest spectacle in racing when he puts it as a lead in to the competition?
It is one thing to try and attract the Nascar drivers (something that nobody really believes will work outside of JPM) but doing so at the expense of Indy isn't going to work.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou're absolutely right. The irony is that the $1.2 million per car that the league throws away via the TEAM Program isn't even enough to produce a marketable product.
All but two teams are still forced to take money from drivers in order to finance their operations.
If we were to extrapolate the model to other entertainment-oriented businesses, then how much chance for success might they have? For example, what if we were to replace George Clooney in the "Ocean's" series with the executive producers who finance the filming?
Yet that is exactly what IndyCar teams are doing. And the league is subsidizing them so that they might continue to do it?
Unbelievable!
That is why I say that IndyCar is a product that is not really designed to attract an audience.
Best Regards,
Roggespierre
There are so many parallels between PBR and IRL, beginning with the international aspect which Bernard built into PBR.
ReplyDeleteThere's an interesting profile of PBR's growth at the US Sports Academy site. From that article:
When the PBR’s leadership looks to the future, what they see in terms of growth and sponsorship is, clearly, NASCAR. “If you lay the NASCAR demos [demographics] over our demos, they’re almost identical,” said Randy Bernard, the tour’s CEO. “We look at everything they do."
http://tiny.cc/6yk1l
Bernard has a history as a promoter, he quit college because he wanted to run a fair, and that is unlike anyone associated with IMS since Tony Hulman, acknowledged as a master salesman.
I think some people are intrigued by Bernard, just because he isn't Tony George.
ReplyDeleteIt seems most of the ex-CART goofs that now call themselves Indy Car fans again, have their pocket-protectors on tilt, because ANYBODY would be better then that evil Tony George.
I think Bernard has some decent ideas and energy, but can he get much done in a sport that has and still is being poisoned by so many influences (first and foremost, THE OWNERS)? These self-serving d-bag's have helped ruin this sport in THIS country, first bringing CART to its eventual death (with fewer and fewer fans watching fewer and fewer American drivers every year) and now we are seeing the same thing possibly happening in Indy Car (the last 2 years have seen the fewest American starters in the Indy 500 EVER).
Can Randy convince ride-sellers like Dale Coyne, Eric Bachelart, Jimmy Vasser, Robbie Buhl and Keith Wiggins to do a 180 and figure out that the asinine way they have run their business in the past 10-20 years will never make them successful on the track and never make the series successful. Can Randy get these owners to realize that a series full of Mario Moraes's, Mike Conway's, Mario Romancini's and EJ Viso's, not only bring NO fanbase with them when they get here but bring nothing of substance to the sport once they are here. Who gives a crap whether Moraes runs well or not? Nobody cares. Nobody is going to buy a ticket to watch this kid race. Would they if JR Hildebrand was in that car? If Sam Hornish Jr's popularity in the series showed, if he stayed around long enough and had some success, that folks would notice.
Maybe if Randy can convince some new sponsors to come into the series and hook up with teams (because lord knows, these owners have no clue how to get and keep sponsors), maybe more marketable, sellable drivers can actually be HIRED by teams. Maybe. Or maybe they just ask for fewer ride-buyer dollars from perspective clients, because they don't need as much coin?
I wish Randy the best of luck. I think he's going to need it.
I think Randy will be excellent for the simple fact that he is not a dumbass.
ReplyDeleteHe is tasked with marketing something very simple: speed.
Fast as shit shouldn't be hard to sell to any audience.
Fast as shit and sexy as hell is even easier (Swift 23, 66, etc).
He'll get it done. There is no excuse for this sport not to be more popular than it is.
--Demond Sanders
"Fast as shit shouldn't be hard to sell to any audience. Fast as shit and sexy as hell is even easier..."
ReplyDeleteI would argue that "speed" is a state of mind. Is 150 mph fast? It was once upon a time. How about 200 mph? Not anymore. People fly at almost 600 mph every day. And they don't sell racing on its visceral Helldriver basis anymore, it's just not done...until ABC/ESPN/Versus runs the IRL crash and burn reel in the days preceding the 500.
Motivating REAL fans is an appreciation of the subtlety of technique, the mysteries of strategy, and push-to-pass - and that's what attracts younger fans to Izod's "Greatest Spectacle in Racing." No?
If one reads the linked Cavin piece, there is one aspect that bothers me...Bernard "internationalized" bull riding to expand its audience. In fact, a current PBR event looks like ICS in that half the top riders are Brazilian. OTOH, perhaps he will work to "domesticize" this series a bit.
Rocketman53,
ReplyDeleteHaving collected some scuttlebutt while in Indy, I tend to believe the following:
1. Bernard's primary job is to make IndyCar profitable RIGHT NOW.
2. The expedient way to do that is to sign-on with promoters that are devoid of financial risk.
3. Such promoters must be backed by either a large sponsor or a government.
4. There are no large sponsors in the offing. Therefore, government it is.
5. Municipal governments of sufficient size and financial resources are found in large cities.
6. The only way to race in large cities is to utilize temporary circuits.
7. Therefore, IndyCar will continue to seek temporary circuits, at least in the short term.
What are the implications?
1. Unless urban "race fans" suddenly decide that they want to watch racing on television, the ratings will continue to lag.
2. Poor ratings will continue to keep sponsors out.
3. Lack of team sponsorship will continue to necessitate that teams "hire" financiers to drive their cars rather than drivers that U.S. racing fans might actually want to watch on TV.
An economist would call this a "negative feedback loop," effectively a series of Catch-22s from which there is no escape.
Again, I hope that I'm wrong.
Roggespierre
Demond Sanders,
ReplyDeleteThank you for contributing.
Clearly, somebody at IndyCar agrees with you. The "Fastest Drivers in the World" catch phrase is prevalent in the league's present marketing materials.
Never mind that this mantra was once believed by CART to be the Silver Bullet that would save that particular series - it was effectively killed by the unlamented Joe Heitzler.
Does IndyCar feature the "Fastest Drivers in the World" when those drivers are touring a temporary circuit at less than 100 miles per hour? No. In fact, any race fan could tell you that there are multiple series that could run faster at the same "track".
Meanwhile, oval fans have demonstrated that they do not care so much about raw speed as they do about who is driving the cars. Witness NASCAR's oval attendance. Even now, in its depleted state, NASCAR outdraws IndyCar exponentially at ovals.
Meanwhile, today's Indy cars are somewhat faster than those that the IRL ran in the early 2000s. However, by any measure, attendance at ovals - Kansas, Chicagoland, Kentucky - has declined with the proportion of Americans in the series.
Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that the market is giving some strong signals about what it wants. This is racing, so it would seem that "Fast" is a necessary part of the proposition.
But necessary means neither paramount nor sufficient. The empirical evidence seems to suggest that is the case here.
Best Regards,
Roggespierre