Vacation is a wonderful thing. If you ever have an opportunity to visit Coronado, California, then I strongly suggest that you do it. What a great place!
Scribbles
I am pleased to let you know that the Mario Andretti Honda commercial ran on the local ABC affiliate in San Diego immediately following the Los Angeles Lakers' Game 7 win over the Boston Celtics in the NBA Finals.
Pressdog reports that attendance at Iowa fell this year. Losing 5,000 paying customers is never good news, but is particularly troubling when that amount is equal to more than a 14% year-over-year decrease. The erosion of IndyCar's oval fan base continues unabated, it seems. IndyCar can't blame ISC and its unbundled NASCAR Cup tickets for this one.
That said, a crowd of 35,000 - that's 105,000 in 3-day attendance parlance - at Toronto would likely be hailed as a huge success.
Cranking the Mill
From the rumor mill, I am hearing that Randy Bernard is now consistently turning to Robin Miller for advice. If this is true, then I think it is a troubling turn of events. Bernard is supposed to be a marketing genius, after all.
Full Disclosure - I like Robin Miller very much. He is candid, smart and very entertaining. He has always treated me well personally. Nevertheless, I have vehemently disagreed with Robin regarding certain subjects at various points in time. Regardless, I have never doubted that he genuinely believes in everything that he writes. He also happens to care about the Indianapolis 500 and IndyCar racing more than many of the sport's participants.
That said, Robin is representative of no one but himself. He is not a marketer. He is a nostalgic fan and quasi-insider who, like many of us, yearns for the good old days. The problem is that those who long for a return to glory tend to disagree about the causes and effects of the growth and the subsequent decline of IndyCar racing. Therefore, Robin is no more an authority than any other fan.
Roggespierre
Well....looks like the sinking continues. Any lifeboats left?
ReplyDeleteoldwrench
cruise director for the "Titanic"
The weather and the weather forecast yesterday morning in the Iowa/Nebraska area was absolutely diabolical. The local forecasts for Newton were calling for an 80% chance of rain, either ending at noon or 1:00 (depending on which website you use) and restarting at 2:00 or 3:00, or maybe not at all (again, depending on website). Personally, my brother and I left the Omaha area yesterday morning in the pouring rain and thunder, with at least a 50% expectation of seeing no racing at all and maybe a 10-20% hope of seeing 250 laps. The NASCAR factor might have accounted for some of the 5,000 spectator drop, but I think the threatening weather played at least as big a part. If the options are 1) drive to the track, quite probably see nothing but jet dryers going around the track and 2) spend Father's Day at home and call the tickets a sunk cost, I can't blame too many people for picking the latter
ReplyDeleteThat said, Robin is representative of no one but himself.
ReplyDeleteI can't say I know TOO much about Robin Miller, but when I saw him getting interviewed together with Randy Bernard in May on local Indianapolis TV, it was rather disconcerting.
Miller was almost acting like he thought he was the Lord Protector of a boy king, jumping over the top of Bernard's answers and trying to get him to nod in agreement with the notion that "we need to get back to the good old CART days, late 80s, early 90s". Which is, as you say, a view based clearly on nostalgia, not any kind of careful analysis.
So I would be disappointed to learn that Bernard really leans on Miller's advice. I can think of other voices out there with more considered opinions... ;)
I agree BC !! Miller wants to re-arrange the deck chairs while the ship is going down! I believe that the owners and the fans have indicated what they both want and need. Now can he pull it all together?? If he does my hats off to him!! He has a big job and little time to get it done. My best to him!!
ReplyDeleteFirst, allow me to count to ten...
ReplyDeleteRobin Miller and his ilk are the reason why "big car" racing in this country collapsed after 1996. It was a golden opportunity for two series that would have gone their own ways and probably been successful, and would have eventually come to co-exist, if not cooperate.
Instead Miller and his ilk trashed IRL, Tony George and eventually turned on CART in its iterations - excepting ol blue eyes, Paul Newman. The never ending thumping for a needless "reunification" debased the legitimacy of both series...and when Penske and Ganassi joined IRL it proved essentially valueless in the marketplace.
On another matter, one never knows the number of legit paying customers at these events. The house was papered by the Iowa corn boosters, all those folks in their green shirts. If there were 35k in the stands, I'll bet fewer than half paid face for their tix.
Did you watch the race?
ReplyDelete--Demond Sanders
18to88.com
I'm with Speedgeek. Also, Robin Miller is out to sell himself. There is nothing he likes more than to be the center of attention. He'll always be the person in the middle of trouble because he always enjoys the story. Some of what he says is very thoughtful, but you have to take that with the BS that he generates in an effort to make things interesting. I respect him for that at least. Love him or hate him, at least he tries to keep it interesting and keep eyes focused on IndyCar.
ReplyDeleteIt was actually a damn good race. You don't see many of those anymore in Indy Car Racing (races that are actually WATCHABLE), so when one happens, its a nice change of pace.
ReplyDeletePut 14 or 15 American drivers in the cars, instead of the unmarketable, unsellable hacks we have now, and you will see attendance and ratings go up again. Keep them in stable rides for a couple of years and you can actually have a chance of growing the sport and audience.
I hope Sato and Moron Moraes continue to crash in every oval race this year. They could set a record that will never be broken (crashing at every oval venue the league visits in a given year). They are half-way home.
And BTW, Paul Tracy spilled the beans that every driver at KV is bringing at least 5 million bucks to Vasser. So keep writing those checkos, boys. The crash damage ain't cheap.
Otherwise, it was a fairly enjoyable weekend. Too bad its the last oval race until almost September.
Instead Miller and his ilk trashed IRL, Tony George and eventually turned on CART in its iterations - excepting ol blue eyes, Paul Newman. The never ending thumping for a needless "reunification" debased the legitimacy of both series...and when Penske and Ganassi joined IRL it proved essentially valueless in the marketplace.
ReplyDeleteAre you blaming the press for having not tried to prop up the IRL in its infancy for its failure to grow a fanbase of its own?
No, I'm saying the motorsports and general sports press relentlessly destroyed any chance the IRL ever had to establish itself by treating it as the second rate villain to the "banished" CART stars and cars. Miller and others just couldn't see beyond their CART pals, openly hostile to IMS/Tony George/USAC, not recognizing that even with the 25/8 rule CART was better off participating (and probably winning) the 500 than boycotting the event and staging its own show - forcing fans to choose, or simply tune out.
ReplyDeleteThe turning point in this was unquestionably the '96 Memorial Weekend daily double of the diminished 500 versus the US 500 crashfest follies. There was little chance of a quick resolution and little chance of either series being successful after that weekend.
I am also blaming the press for a decade of "reunification" drum beating that denied either series full legitimacy, further diluting public interest.
CART/PPG/CCWS/ETC may well have withdrawn from the oval business and established an international OW "grand prix" series in the Americas, Australia and Asia before F1 expanded. IRL could have moved along with ovals developing stars like Tony Stewart, Robbie Gordon and Sam Hornish, even forging a NASCAR alliance that may have allowed Jeff Gordon and others to run the 500.
What happened happened, and guys like Miller, IMHO, played a fair part in the AOWR Titanic's sinking.
Demond,
ReplyDeleteI was on an airplane, so I missed the race. That is why I did not comment on it. That would be irresponsible.
That said, I have heard from many that the on-track product was very good. That's swell.
Add a few domestic drives up front, and you just might have something.
Best Regards,
Roggespierre
RocketMan and VB,
ReplyDeleteYou both make good points. I go back and forth with regards to the responsibilities of motorsports writers back in 1996.
To VB's point, I would say this.
The inaugural race at WDW was very well attended. The crowd was equal in size to any CART short oval event at that time. The race also pulled a respectable rating at that time - a 1.8, I seem to recall, on ABC.
However, the mainstream motorsports media did nothing but trash the event as viciously and as often as possible. Therefore, let's not pretend as if the press gave the IRL a fair shake out of the gate based on the initial reactions of the market.
Approximately 50,000 fans were willing to give the IRL a chance at WDW in 1996. The mainstream motorsports press was not.
Rocketman53,
Your point is one that I have been trying to make for some time. There was plenty of room for two series IF those two series had agreed to disagree and go their separate ways. But that never happened. The "Cars and Stars" campaign was pure poison, particularly when all of the real stars retired.
Yes, the IRL failed at several early tracks, particularly those that had previously hosted CART races. Dover also comes to mind.
But it earned a terrific audience at Texas. It did well at Charlotte prior to the tragedy there. It won fans at Kentucky, Chicagoland, Kansas, Nashville and Richmond. Those were all viable events. Soon, they might all be gone.
Why?
I would suggest the erosion of the IRL's original fan base began in 2003, when Honda and Toyota joined the series. Costs escalated exponentially. Field sizes dropped from the high 20s to around 18 or 19. American drivers began to go away, replaced by the likes of Tora Takagi and Felipe Giaffone. The latter were respectable drivers, but much like today's IndyCar "stars", they were much more difficult to sell to an American oval track audience.
This is not revisionist history. It is truth. I remain puzzled as to why the Robin Millers and Gordon Kirbys of the world do not recognize it as such.
Best Regards,
Roggespierre
from: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/bruce_martin/06/21/new.IndyCar.chassis/index.html#ixzz0reAuG6lu
ReplyDelete"It's our job to make sure that we minimize costs as much as we can without cheapening the sport," Bernard said. "This is the pinnacle of open-wheel racing and we have to keep it at that level. We have to keep safety as an important element of it and keep the competition and speed there. If we can do that while saving money that is a benefit to everybody. But if you can't, you cannot allow the sport to not be the pinnacle of open-wheel racing in North America."
------------------------------------------------
Risky business.
John,
ReplyDeleteThank you for providing the Bernard quote?
What the heck can he mean by "the pinnacle of open-wheel racing in North America"? He seems to see market competition where none exists.
Speed, competition and safety are necessary but not sufficient. Let's hope that he's merely feeding the (very few) faithful.
Best Regards,
Roggespierre
The inaugural race at WDW was very well attended. The crowd was equal in size to any CART short oval event at that time. The race also pulled a respectable rating at that time - a 1.8, I seem to recall, on ABC.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the mainstream motorsports media did nothing but trash the event as viciously and as often as possible. Therefore, let's not pretend as if the press gave the IRL a fair shake out of the gate based on the initial reactions of the market.
Approximately 50,000 fans were willing to give the IRL a chance at WDW in 1996. The mainstream motorsports press was not.
I looked this up from the ratings threads on this site: Both Phoenix and WDW that year did a 2.2. Those were darn good ratings. By the time Indy rolled around, the ratings there dropped, as we known, quite precipitiously. By the time the Indycar series rebooted for its 1996-1997 season, the ratings fell off from their previous highs to a 1.6 on network TV. They never again reached 2.0 outside Indy.
Whether or not they were getting shellacked in the media is secondary to the fact that people did, in fact, give them a chance regardless of the media's opinion. IRL ratings then entered a period of decline on average that continued until bottoming out in 2001. The average ratings for the merge season equalled that one - long before the argued for erosion caused by Toyota/Honda/CART teams.
Now, if you want to argue that CART had a negative effect in so much as their domination in 2000 and 2001 were concerned, you will not get any argument from me. After the decimation of the field in 2001, the ratings totally tanked. It made the IRL look like rank amateurs compared to the CART squads, which of course is exactly what people like Robin Miller had claimed all along. They were entirely validated in their opinion. Its impossible to see how they weren't.
As far as the continued dropoffs of interest in the series: I'm not going to argue that the lack of a interesting, star American driver has hurt the series. However, its impossible to cite that as the pure root of all evil here. If the fans truly were responding to the IRL early on, what happened with cable ratings in 1998? Why is the rating for Texas today the same as it was then?
The IRL was always struggling for legitimacy as a respectable series, CART struggled to maintain legitimacy without the 500. "The Split" had no other dynamics in terms of the public and its interest. And that is largely a function of how the media portrays the product.
ReplyDeleteThat's not to say the IRL didn't contribute to its situation - that crazy inaugural season that ENDED at the 500 was a good example, followed by a run-over season in '96-'97. Stupid isn't the word. Nonetheless, without the exposure afforded by the 500, CART lost its lustre despite proven American stars in the cars like Little Al and Michael Andretti.
Montoya wins in 2000, and a light goes on for some who see an opportunity, and from 2000 through today the 500 becomes a Ganassi/Penske benefit (8 of 11 Sweepstakes won between them)...indeed, the whole series does.
Why is the viewership for Texas the same as 1998? Why not? Until February 2008 "reunification" the IRL remained a rump operation in the press, despite CCWS being a dead series walking since Ganassi and Penske left. Now its a second-rate series running crapwagons, which Penske and Ganassi make go faster than the competitors. The series hasn't had but one American champion in the past decade - and he's a mid-pack driver in NASCAR.
There are so many wheels within wheels turning, but the result is the same...it is a giant reclamation project that has limited resources and limited time to regain some of its public esteem.
The IRL was always struggling for legitimacy as a respectable series, CART struggled to maintain legitimacy without the 500. "The Split" had no other dynamics in terms of the public and its interest. And that is largely a function of how the media portrays the product.
ReplyDeleteThe media's portrayal was not terribly inaccurate. The IRL really was made of second rate operations with next to no money racing each other with mostly second rate drivers. CART really was a series of superior drivers and cars who were without the event that best validated them to the public. The media would have been doing a disservice to have portrayed the situation in any other light. It would have been outright lies. So is that really what we go back to? That its the media's fault for not playing along on a national level?
When we're at the point that we're arguing that the media should have lied to try and save Indycar, we have a serious problem.
Montoya wins in 2000, and a light goes on for some who see an opportunity, and from 2000 through today the 500 becomes a Ganassi/Penske benefit (8 of 11 Sweepstakes won between them)...indeed, the whole series does.
What happened was the demands of the sponsors. That, combined with the pulling back of IRL funding from the pockets of the George family, led to everything that followed. These aren't disconnected incidents. You can try to cut up the narrative for the purpose of argument, but its so easily seen through that it falls apart under any scrutiny. You don't get to the part where Tony George can't spend as much money without him spending the money to start with. Complaining now that he isn't spending as much obviously isn't any solution to problems.
Why is the viewership for Texas the same as 1998? Why not? Until February 2008 "reunification" the IRL remained a rump operation in the press, despite CCWS being a dead series walking since Ganassi and Penske left.
After unification in 2008 it was still a rump operation that everyone spoke of having reunited 10 years too late to do any good for itself. But if the IRL truly was inspiring a significantly larger fanbase to watch circa 1998 versus today (as Roggiespierre argues), then why did they not follow the sport to cable TV? Ever?
Please don't put words in my mouth. No one suggested lying. This isn't a question of press accuracy, it's a question of regularly shading commentary in a not-too-subtle teardown job extending over a decade that continues to this day, and, IMHO, is a major contributing factor to OWR's lead ass resurrection.
ReplyDeleteSports journalism has always been akin to circus promotion, truth is always second to "the story," and Miller, et al, were shamelessly settling scores particularly with George (and USAC early on) in their IRL commentary and reunification drumbeat. (How about Miller's continuing TGBB nonsense in reference to Brian Barnhart as a current example? There's no reason for that sophomoric bullstuff, and it does nothing but further illegitimize the sport.)
After Ganassi/Montoya in 2000, which was probably the only case of a sponsor insisting, Ganassi, Penske and Andretti/Green recognized easy millions and minimal competition for the spoils. A blind man could see that prospect. An old line IRL team, all of which run on a relative shoestring, hasn't won the race since.
The IRL was NEVER inspiring, but it had a fledgling chance in 1996, with the 500 and an ABC-TV network contract. Today the reunified series, including its flagship event, continues to struggle against significant media hostility and outright dismissal. It's a major reason I advocate scrapping the series entirely in favor of an open 500, which carries the last vestiges of public interest in big car racing.
Please don't put words in my mouth. No one suggested lying. This isn't a question of press accuracy, it's a question of regularly shading commentary in a not-too-subtle teardown job extending over a decade that continues to this day, and, IMHO, is a major contributing factor to OWR's lead ass resurrection.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the conclusion to be reached from this? Apparently anyone who sees and reports the present day Indycar Series as decidedly not working isn't exactly doing their part to promote the circus. Aren't we as at fault as anyone else by demanding massive change for survival rather than regurgitating the company line? Or does that only apply to those with a large enough megaphone?
After Ganassi/Montoya in 2000, which was probably the only case of a sponsor insisting, Ganassi, Penske and Andretti/Green recognized easy millions and minimal competition for the spoils. A blind man could see that prospect. An old line IRL team, all of which run on a relative shoestring, hasn't won the race since.
I don't see how its unlikely that their sponsors demanded that they begin to look at Indy. I would be stunned stupid if their sponsors hadn't moved strongly towards their inclusion in the IRL in addition to the 500. Why are we so unwilling to follow the paper trail when it leads somewhere unsatisfactory?
I'm not going to disagree RE: the question of running a series. I've argued the same thing here. Clearly IMS needs to stay far the hell away from that sort of prospect for years.
I think you're being willfully ignorant regarding the media and the role it plays in promotion, especially in sports. If you're not, you need to get a clue about how that game is played. What Robin Miller does is not straight journalism, it's opinion, and there is much more that goes on that just getting the story straight. To compare the impact of what we do at this site over a few months with the decade-plus record of Miller with his agenda is silly, IMO.
ReplyDeleteBe stunned stupid. The CART boycott of the "500" was part of the deal - what do you think Penske told PM when he skipped the race from '96 thru '00? Maybe next year? Really? Or that PM really took five years to force the issue with Roger? Strikes me as a pure business decision by Penske based on the downward spiral CART was experiencing itself, and easy pickings as shown by Ganassi in '00. And why just the frontrunning teams getting pressed? That "sponsor pressure" stuff was a smokescreen for Penske and Ganassi to test the waters and later defect while avoiding personal blame for deserting a now-failing series they were instrumental in forming.
I think you're being willfully ignorant regarding the media and the role it plays in promotion, especially in sports. If you're not, you need to get a clue about how that game is played.
ReplyDeleteYou mean like how ESPN hypes up NBA games especially when they are being broadcast on the Disney family of networks? Yeah, I get that. Herein lies the problem: The IRL wasn't something the media wanted. Wasn't something the media needed. It existed (at least hypothetically and philosophically) as a reaction to the big business approach to racing which networks were a part of.
Now, you can compare it to other spasms in pop culture: Abstract expressionism. Punk Rock. Grunge. Those also were intended to be great diversions from commercially successful and accepted movements in art. That was fine. But they were populist in creation. The IRL was not populist, even if it attempted to be under the guise of a international but distinctively midwestern racing series. In short, the IRL was not something the fans really had been asking for either. If it represented what the fans truly desired, why didn't they react by watching the Indy 500? And not just that year, but all following years?
Be stunned stupid. The CART boycott of the "500" was part of the deal - what do you think Penske told PM when he skipped the race from '96 thru '00?
Lots of empty talk to deflect the fact that Penske was looking to keep control of the sport with the owners.
Strikes me as a pure business decision by Penske based on the downward spiral CART was experiencing itself, and easy pickings as shown by Ganassi in '00.
It was probably a combination of sponsor demands and poor business for both racing organizations that led to Penske and so on's departure to the IRL from CART. The rest of the teams that followed on a fulltime basis in 2003 did so for similar but magnified reasons. Penske, Ganassi, etc. waited to make the move over until A) it was certain that CART could not work either as an international F1 feeder series or competitor in the US to the IRL B) along with their partners, they could begin to exhibit control over the IRL.
As for your quip about the smaller teams: Uhhh, are you serious? Are you really going to ask that? After endless complaining that small/midpack teams in CART were taking ride buyers and keeping Americans out of the series, am I really having "why weren't smaller CART teams looking to the IRL because of sponsorship" thrown in my face? They weren't beholden to sponsors and that there were nowhere near as many ride buying drivers of any skill level willing to drive in the oval only IRL as there were in the road course heavy Champ Car/CART.
Herein lies the problem: The IRL wasn't something the media wanted. Wasn't something the media needed. It existed (at least hypothetically and philosophically) as a reaction to the big business approach to racing which networks were a part of.
ReplyDeleteWhere do we disagree? Regardless of the motive, the fact remains that the IRL was dismissed by the motorsports media, which is a major contributor to its inability to get traction in the marketplace. CART had it all, except the 500, and that de-legitimized them in a few seasons to where neither series had the chops to draw public interest. Among those who didn't want the IRL (or Tony George) to succeed was Robin Miller.
And now we're back to the beginning of the conversation.
Where do we disagree? Regardless of the motive, the fact remains that the IRL was dismissed by the motorsports media, which is a major contributor to its inability to get traction in the marketplace.
ReplyDeleteWhich brings us back to what I had said initally: That the criticisms were not unfounded. Add in the fact that there were no particular reasons in this case to lie on behalf of the IRL, and you get unabashedly honest media tearing into what they saw as the destruction of the Indy 500.
The alternative to this is the media lying. End of story. If that's what was needed to maybe, maybe give the IRL a chance at catching on, there was a big problem with the IRL's product.