Tuesday, June 1, 2010

2010 Indy 500 gets Record Low Overnight TV Rating


This should not be a surprise to anyone.

Digital Sports Daily is reporting that the 2010 Indianapolis 500 earned the worst national overnight rating in the event's history. The source is new to me, but I believe the number to be credible.

NOTE: SportsBusiness Daily has now confirmed the 4.0 overnight number.

Thus, a racing product that is not designed to attract a large American television audience has again failed to attract a large American television audience.

DSD claims that an ABC source indicated that the overnight composite number is a 4.0. That is down 4.76% from the record low of 4.2 that was set last year.

That number is also less than the NASCAR Cup average on Fox (4.9) this year.

The overnight rating reflects viewership in the nation's largest, "metered" television markets. We should anticipate a downward revision when the smaller markets check in and the final rating is released.

Apparently, the IZOD IndyCar iteration of a U.S. based international road racing series is heading toward the same fate that greeted the previous permutations: CanAm, CART, and ChampCar. Mergification has generated worse television ratings than The Split.

Promotion of the event and its drivers was up this year. IZOD did a fine job holding up its end of the bargain. Promotion is not the principal marketing problem that imperils the IndyCar Series.

No, the core difficulty is that most Americans who are willing to watch racing on TV are not willing to watch an international road racing series on TV, not even when it races at the world's most celebrated oval. Promoting these drivers and these cars will not generate the desired results.

Randy Bernard, your suppliers of racing teams are gradually devaluing the one marketable asset that remains in your purview. How to stop the negative feedback loop? Here's one idea.

The Revolution is eating its children. The guillotine blade draws nearer with each "successful" government-subsidized event and every new Piloti-shod financier.

Additional Ratings Info (5:06 p.m.)

Sports Media Watch is reporting that the top market for the 500 was - surprise, surprise - Indianapolis. So, where else does IndyCar racing have some fans?
  • Dayton, OH - 9.3
  • Louisville, KY - 8.4
  • Fort Myers/Naples, FL - 8.4
  • Orlando, FL - 7.2

Notice that those nascent urban racing markets that IndyCar appears to be pursuing are not at the top of the list.

Roggespierre

27 comments:

  1. That corroborates the ratings number from Andy Hall of ESPN, so it seems realistic...and dire.

    As to this point:

    "Promotion of the event and its drivers was up this year. IZOD did a fine job holding up its end of the bargain."

    I don't see how a lack of productivity can be viewed as anything more than a waste of assets. This outcome was predictable when watching the title sponsorship announcement last November.

    Did you know that Izod had been staging appearances at Macy's stores with current and former drivers in 2009? I didn't, and they apparently had little effect on attracting new fans.

    We all knew Izod bought significant airtime on the IICS broadcast stations to tell us that everything was gonna be alright in 2009. And the partial sponsorship for Ryan Hunter Reay has been in effect since 2008.

    What they announced for 2010, and what Izod has done, is just a little more of the same. When commercial spots during the NFL playoffs failed to move the needle above a 0.4 rating for the 2010 season opener, the handwriting was clear. Seeing that RHR received full backing for only 1/4 of the season was a guaranteed failure.

    Did you read a lot of comment about the two-seater debut before the 500? Wasted promotion, and conducted in conflict with the normal anticipation of the green flag.

    Worldwide viewership of 300 people for the online "Race to the Party" at Long Beach means you shut the program down instantly, and listen to ideas about how to better invest the time and money.

    Nobody gives a rat's pitoot about the celebrities in attendance at Indy, and their fans were not attracted to tune in by any promotional efforts leading up to the race.

    Snapple has 200,000 Facebook fans. Do they know that Ryan Hunter-Reay carries their sponsorship? No.

    Kim Kardasian has over a million Facebook followers. Were they solicited to tune into the 500 broadcast? Wahlberg or Nicholson fans? No.

    The TV spots, sweepstakes offers, and special guest appearances are promoted only in media slots where existing fans can see them. Or in Vanity Fair, where few will care.

    These are not examples of a fine job of producing results from huge budget allocations. Nor is re-working a website for insiders that still provides poor race coverage for overseas fans, and serves as the principal outlet to announce new perks.

    Every promotional initiative I have suggested is directed toward new eyeballs. If the decision was made to increase television time buys, exactly none of it should have been spent on Versus. The IICS website is a similar waste of resources.

    And to follow that point, so it the TEAM allocation program. I have been publicly chastised for suggesting that the powerhouse teams don't deserve a dime of Series money, beyond purse winnings for their results. The TEAM money should be made available as a grant, and only dispersed to competitors who require it for their continued participation.

    Maybe Izod sells a lot of shirts, and whistles happily along the trail. There are no other visible gains attributable to the promotional efforts of IICS, Izod, or Randy Bernard. Fodder for insiders to glorify, and nothing more.This is push-to-pass strategy: all hype and no horsepower to produce a bit of advancement.

    The Texas numbers will likely suck, and the season will end with a few less entries on the grid and no tangible improvement to demonstrate to prospective sponsors.

    If I was a car constructor or auto manufacturer, I would see no reason to expect that there will be a healthy IndyCar market for my products two years from now. The notion of competing entities for exposure in this marketplace is a pipe dream. There will be one new chassis, one engine, and maybe ten teams around who can afford them.

    Andy

    ReplyDelete
  2. The first two of the cities on your updated list are within a two hour drive of the Speedway. Perfect metropolitan areas for Targeted Advance Promotions with discount ticket or fuel purchase coupons.

    Looks like the Times Square billboards for Graham, Ryan and Danica didn't do much good. Maybe the demographic of Fort Myers was enticed by the "pop culture" media promotion and their Vanity Fair subscriptions. As if.

    Andy

    ReplyDelete
  3. The #1 enemy of holiday weekend daytime television is good weather...and from my viewing of the weather map, things looked pretty good nationwide. Who wants to stay inside to watch a televised race - any race?

    IZOD is taking a different tack. They're not selling clothes to guys like me, and probably not to most of us posting. It's no secret who is their target audience, and its somewhat different than the audience IRL says it's getting - and I suspect much younger than the 500 habitue. A recurring description in their 2009 annual report is "the active customer." And I'll bet they're not TV watchers or web surfers when the sun is shining.

    According to the parent company's annual report, the projected payments for Indycar are no more than $6.3 mil for '10, $5.5 mil each for '11 and '12, and $5.35 for '13 and '14 - and those are doubtless high because the aggregate reported includes other sponsorships, like the Nets basketball arena and a pro football HOF program. It's not a giant investment.

    ReplyDelete
  4. To Rocket:

    Thanks for the figures, although I suspect they do not include the television time buys. If they do, everyone in the IICS has been fudging the numbers to every one of the fans. Cheshire cat smiles and "Ten million plus" is the public translation of the private deal.

    My perception is that Izod wants their target demographic to come from Indy, Dayton and Louisville to watch the race in the sun, hang out in the snakepit and buy a groovy T shirt.

    More of them probably went jet skiing, and they weren't wearing polo shirts at the time.

    As for "The Fastest Seat In Racing"...punch in Indy 500 on Youtube, and you won't find it. Only 2,000 people have watched the video of SUPERSTAR Mark Wahlberg become the IICS' newest tail-ender. At least he is American, n'est pas?

    Now Honda is offering the same ride to a lucky fan for Sonoma. Promotion at Honda retailers to attract new fans? No sign of that, it's an online deal that only insiders will hear about.

    Tune in to find out if you've won? No need, you'll get the notification privately. No kids allowed, and you can't bring them with you unless you pay for more than the two free tickets and airfare. One entry (and website visit) per household.

    One month sweepstakes, narrow exposure, available for one race instead of seventeen chances to attract new customers and spur TV ratings. Push to pass.

    Andy

    ReplyDelete
  5. OK, in the past several months I have received promises from Mr. Bernard of phone calls to discuss promotional initiatives. As if.

    So I just invited him here, on his public Facebook page. Check it out if you wish, here's the note which predeced the link:

    "Greetings Mr. Bernard,

    Bob Kravitz writes that you are fond of reading blogs. I haven't received any confirmation that mine is of interest, so here is another you might wish to peruse...the first two article and attached comments in particular.

    Best wishes for a safe and successful Firestone 550. I'm sure that RHR will receive the careful medical scrutiny warranted by his injury... your friends Miller and Cavin might be able to fill you in on the precedent."

    Andy

    ReplyDelete
  6. Andy,

    You stir the pot, sir! Kudos to you.

    By the way, Andy, I want to know more about your 4-cylinder idea. My guess is that I would like it. I find myself leaning in that direction, although I will admit that my opinion on this issue is founded on little more than a hunch.

    I would like to change that. I also know that you know a helluva lot more about engines than I ever will.

    Can you summarize for me why you like the 4-cylinder option?

    Thank You,

    Roggespierre

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks for asking RP, it's a broad subject that includes a lot of details I have uncovered and a lot of answers I did not receive. Let me try to condense the talking points into bite-sized servings and I'll get back.

    I dropped the subject when Brent Mauer of Ford racing and one of the chassis constructors told me that the Honda V6 turbo was perceived as a done deal.

    The intent was to identify existing racing engines that could feasably be installed in the existing chassis as a transitional step and to introduce variety. In my unsubstantiated opinion there are at least three 4 cyl. turbo platforms, and an existing ALMS chassis to provide as an exemplar for the package. That means the precedent for semi-stressed installation, and the engine management system, already exist as well.

    There's also a fire-breathing V6 turbo built for an assault on Pike's Peak. Honda's has not even been completely designed, according to Berkman of HPD.

    Andy

    ReplyDelete
  8. Confirmation from Sports Business Journal's Twitter account:

    "Indy 500, which Dario Franchitti won for second time in four years, earned a 4.0 overnight, lowest since race began airing live in '86."

    ReplyDelete
  9. With the current chassis you can toss any engine provided you can offer a structural support to strengthen the engine bay area. The 4 cylinder offers little problem in conversion and similar to Andrews comments, you can basically use anthing you like provided it meets size specifications. Recent work with the Ford EcoBoost shows that it will meet the needs of the competitor with relatively few changes that Ford Motor Company can provide with little cost to them. Overall there are literally hundreds of 4 cylinder engines from past or present that can meet the need. You just need someone to listen. In short...WAKE UP INDY CAR!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. @tvbythenumbers.com:

    The 2010 Indianapolis 500, won by Dario Franchitti, drew a 4.0 overnight rating on ABC Sunday afternoon — down 5% from last year (4.2), down 22% from 2008 (5.1) and down 17% from 2007 (4.8).

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yep, the Ford Duratec is also an alloy four cylinder turbo that has already been developed for high output racing applications. Same with the GM Ecotec 2.4 turbo.

    The semi-stressed installation in the Dyson Lola ALMS chassis is the perfect example: That's the MZR-R Mazda 4 cyl, with A frames added for engine bay bracing. The lighter and narrower Dallara chassis would make it even easier to maintain torsional rigidity.

    I'd add an additional carbon fiber undertray to tie in the rear tub bulkhead and rear suspension crossmember. Controlling the flex is imperative, but I don't believe for a minute that it is a great feat of engineering.

    Andy

    ReplyDelete
  12. How about you don't try to sass Randy Bernard? We don't need to scare away competence just as it rears its head for the first time in a long time.

    You're a jackass, Andy.

    --Demond Sanders

    ReplyDelete
  13. Wrench, can the Ecoboost block architecture handle 600 HP? Will a reinforced bedplate (girdle) and sleeves handle it, or would a bespoke block be required?

    Andy

    ReplyDelete
  14. If a "jackass" is the opposite of a "yes man", then I'll include your slur to my resume.

    Thanks for the advice, Colonel.

    Andy

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm glad you are so fond of bashing Izod's initiatives, but let's look at the real problem: a fucking horrible effort from ABC/ESPN?

    Those clowns totally missed the first two passes for the lead, and pretty much everything after that. Worst broadcast crew in sports. Most boring too.

    Demond Sanders
    18to88.com

    ReplyDelete
  16. Back to cause and effect, Colonel. You show me numbers that indicate a large audience left the broadcast because of poor production values, and I'll blame ABC's shortcomings.

    You have to get people to tune in, then give them an entertaining show. Same for the Versus broadcasts, which are the majority of the schedule.

    Neither partner is responsible for filling seats at the track. Is that job getting done?

    Andy

    ReplyDelete
  17. Demond,

    I agree with you regarding ABC's coverage. Yes, it was bad. In fact, it was so bad that the New York Times was compelled to publish a story about how the NASCAR telecast was superior to the Indy 500.

    That said, television networks are followers, not leaders. For example, FOX got into the NASCAR game and threw big money at production value only after NASCAR had demonstrated that it was a highly competitive national television property.

    It wasn't that long ago that Cup races were on The Nashville Network, you know?

    If IndyCar were to do on Versus what Cup did on TNN, then networks would be bidding against one another to buy the rights, promote the product, and so on.

    Blaming the television partner is too easy. That doesn't mean that the partner gives a damn about IndyCar; it clearly does not. But the relevant question is, why SHOULD ESPN/ABC give a damn about IndyCar? It's a non-performing asset.

    Roggespierre

    ReplyDelete
  18. Andy,

    We think because IndyCar or the 500 was popular, it could regain its past glory if we just make IndyCar or the 500 today like it was in the past. I'm not suggesting that poor decisions didn't lead IndyCar into its current malaise, but there's a big difference between failing to maintain your position in the market and trying to regain that position once lost. K-Mart v. Wal-Mart comes to mind.

    At the end of the day, IndyCar and the 500 have failed to maintain their position in the marketplace. Restoring it to 'what it was' won't bring it back to 'where it was' anymore than making the circus what it was will bring it back to its former position in the market. IndyCar and the 500 are what they are, not what they were.

    I'm not claiming to have all the answers, but getting the cost-to-sponsor ROI inline seems like a good place to start. The problem is most IndyCar fans won't like the result. They want $15MM/yr. per car of value off a $1.5MM/yr. per car budget.



    Hey Roggespierre,
    Nice to see you back at it. Don't blog yourself out; I truly missed your insight, ideas, analysis & structure you bring to the dialog.

    -John

    ReplyDelete
  19. Final Ratings are out:


    Indy Final- 3.7 (down from 3.96 from 09')
    Indy Same Day Replay- 12.2 (down from 14.1)
    Indy Victory Banquet- 8.0 (down from 12.1)


    What is truly frightening, is how the interest in the race in Indianapolis is falling. Those are BIG drops for Indianapolis.

    And if the folks in Indianapolis are apathetic and bored by Indy Cars (and its getting worse by the year) then what chance do you REALLY have? Indianapolis have REAL race fans. They have SMART race fans. And the numbers are falling fast with them.

    But I am sure it will "be better" next year?

    ReplyDelete
  20. John,

    I'm not following your line of thinking. My opinions are not reactionary: today's media market is nothing like the past, and developing new IndyCar fans is the only strategy for success in the future.

    What is missing by comparison, and what needs to be restablished for the on-track competition to improve, are the reintroduction of variables.

    Fiscal restraint will not permit the range of competition we had in the past. Modifying the current cars, and enabling them to remain in competition against the evolutionary replacement, is a viable plan to reinstitute variety of performance and participation.

    "Junk Formula II" was never my choice, as I don't believe that current safety standards can be retrofitted to older chassis and still enable them to be competitive. IF that could be achieved, I'm all for it.

    The engine sourcing is one variable which, in my opinion, could already have been implemented. The investment for research and development has already been made: this is simply a matter of adapting a current chassis to accept an alternate powerplant. Looking back to the past, this was done routinely.

    So what's the rub? That is a question I cannot answer. Presumably IndyCar engineers and team owners are aware of technology used in other forms of motorsport. If not, they are fools for not looking as the examples are abundant.

    That leaves me to GUESS that money is the motivating factor, not racing. The IRL wants a major manufacturer to supply all the engines at a fixed cost, and subsidize the Series for the priviledge. Honda still sees enough reason to play along. No other manufacturer does.

    The additional benefit for the Series is that they do not have to scrutinize or regulate a variety of engines and their performance levels. Plug and play. Flawless reliability. Complete uniformity. No innovation.

    All of that works great: it just isn't racing, and the result is evident on track today.

    Andy

    ReplyDelete
  21. Andy,

    I think that you've really hit on something here. Having an exclusive engine supplier makes regulation very easy. It's a lazy man's solution.

    Single-source engines are therefore good for Brian Barnhart. They can claim that other engines are welcome, but we all know there will be no additional manufacturers.

    Why would anyone join the party when the spec is written to Honda's desires?

    In addition, it seems that we shall be stuck with Motegi for years to come and Carl Haas won't lose his ride buyer.

    Swell.

    Roggespierre

    ReplyDelete
  22. I agree in part with Andrew's logic. I do belive that older cars can be retrofitted to meet current specifications BUT....how much will it cost? In a normal shop you hourly rate to perform such work could exceed the value of the car. Most smaller teams do not have either the finanicial or engneering resources to perform such work. Someone like myself can but again HOW MUCH? I agree with the analogy RP but I am going to reserve my opinion on the engine package until the formal rules come out. I can see both designs running but if the playing field is level then you have to go with the V-6. You can't overcome a 2 cylinder handicap if all things are equal. ANDREW!....Please provide an email address and I will discuss with you the aspects of the question you presented in regards to the EcoBoost. Not caring to elaborate on this site or any other at this time.

    ReplyDelete
  23. bring back the aprons in the turns so drivers can pass and make it a multiple groove race track again.....

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous,

    That's an interesting observation. I recently watched the 1982 Johncock-Mears battle again on YouTube.

    That dogfight would not be possible given the present configuration of the turns at Indianapolis. The same goes for Fittipaldi-Unser, Jr.

    Thank you for contributing.

    Roggespierre

    ReplyDelete
  25. "bring back the aprons in the turns so drivers can pass and make it a multiple groove race track again....."



    Sorry, but the apron only made the crashes at Indy more grizzly and the injuries to drivers more severe. The angles the cars hit the wall were serious, when the apron was around. At least now, most of the accidents have contact with the side or back-end first. Before, there were a LOT of head-first shots that broke up a LOT of drivers.

    The main problem with the racing at Indy are the tires. The heavy marbling that we see now at Indy makes anything outside the groove impossible and has made Indy into a one-lane street course.

    Go back and watch a race from the 80's and count how many cars pancake the wall during a race because they got a foot outside the racing groove and had no traction. You almost never saw that back then. Nowadays, that kind of accident happens 2 or 3 times a year at Indy.

    There is still enough race track left to put on a great race. But not when the tires don't allow it anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  26. From ESPN:

    "The Flyers' 4-3 overtime victory over the Blackhawks on Versus on Wednesday night earned a 3.1 rating and averaged 3.6 million viewers. It was the highest-rated and most-watched telecast in network history."

    Saturday night, there will be no Nascar, NBA, or NHL broadcasts.

    Enough people apparently know where to find Versus.

    Andy Minion

    ReplyDelete
  27. I have been exploring for a bit for any high-quality articles
    or weblog posts on this sort of area . Exploring in Yahoo I at last stumbled upon this site.
    Studying this info So i am glad to exhibit that I have a very excellent
    uncanny feeling I found out exactly what I needed.
    I so much certainly will make sure to do not omit this website
    and give it a glance on a constant basis.
    http://www.twitterfollowersreviews.webs.com

    My site: laufenberg

    ReplyDelete