In the past, I have worked hard to explain here why increasing television ratings should be jobs one, two and three for IndyCar management.
Simply stated, there is no other metric that can be leveraged in so many different ways to increase revenue to the league, its promoter-customers, and its suppliers of racing teams.
Reaching this conclusion is easy. However, accomplishing the objective is extremely difficult.
I invite you to read this fascinating Ad Age story about the value of prime time television ratings.
What might we be able to extrapolate from the article with regards to IndyCar racing sponsorship value? Is this good news or bad news?
I invite you to answer the question before I provide quantitative analysis.
Roggespierre
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In regard to increasing television ratings, (setting aside issues related to improving the product), the low-lying fruit are the casual viewers who'd watch a race on Versus but don't know when and where to find the race. I believe this leakage also occurs with ABC, but to a lesser extent. (Leakage in this sense defined as those who can and would watch a race but don't because they aren't prompted/reminded to do so).
ReplyDelete Versus' reach is about 65% of ABC's (75MM/115MM HH's).
2009 ABC average viewers, per race (sans 500): 1,179,000.
Potential VS viewers with zero leakage, per race: 766,000 (1,179,000 x 65%).
2009 VS average viewers, per race: 256,000.
Potential VS viewer loss due to leakage, per race: 510,000 (766,000 - 256,000).
Potential VS viewer loss due to leakage, per season: 6,125,000 (510,000 x 12).
A direct response, opt-in email campaign leveraged off the ABC/VS race broadcasts, sponsors, drivers, teams, race promoters and race attendees would have a significant impact on plugging the above leakage. At least in terms of potential viewers who would and could watch IndyCar races but don't due to lack of prompting, a targeted email broadcast notification campaign would be far more cost-effective and produce quicker results than the shotgun approach of PR, sponsor activation, promos, etc…
-John
To John,
ReplyDeleteHow do you target those viewers to email? And it still only appeals to a small percentage: those on the list who would watch the race if they knew when and where to find it, and had nothing better to do.
A promo that attracts casual viewers to a website for direct participation, and then links the eyeballs to a schedule, seems a better approach.
The model you describe is employed by Grand Am, who send emails I ignore about their upcoming events. They established their database by soliciting email addresses of attendees at events. Sure, it might help a little.
Tha analysis of metrics took one day. After the Izod title sponsorship announcement, NFL commercials, and a fair amount of drama preceding the inaugural Brazil race, a 0.4 rating was all anybody needed to see.
There likely is not the advertising budget available to bombard the airwaves, and the adversarial relationship between the two IRL broadcast partners make it a difficult task regardless.
This is going to take targeted promotions to reach almost everybody who isn't watching now. The Honda two-seater ride at Sonoma is the first and only one I can point to that has been utilized, and is one pepperoni off the pizza that should have been served.
Take the example of the Indy Camaro Pace Car giveaway: entry coupons at a retailer to register online for a chance to win it was the way to go. Announce the winner during an upcoming race broadcast, "tune in to see if you've won".
So you print up a stack of cards, and they go on the desk of every Sunoco gas station, or liqour store that sells Maker's Mark. Or Macy's, or stuck on the side of every can of Brazilian coffee, whatever.
That builds you a database, website hits and new eyeballs to the broadcast. That's one example of the promotions it will take to catch the attention of everyone who isn't looking at their TV or their spam emails now.
They raced little cars in New Jersey last weekend. Nobody came. You can't sell a downsized IndyCar Series: in the case of IndyLights, you can barely get one to the grid.
RP, you can wave the same sword of budget cuts in spite of the reasons that have been written to point out, on a large scale, that they are unfeasable. And the areas where regulation changes could have the most effect on R&D budget expenditures have been ignored here.
Andy
Today is supposed to be the day that at least some news is released about the ICONIC panel's decision.
ReplyDeleteThere's a new bunch of cars ready to take the track...safer, flashier, with brand identity and manufacturer involvement built right in.
They will compete in the Nascar Nationwide Series, and it re-starts this weekend at Daytona.
Must be my head is too full of IndyCar sand, 'cause I didn't see much about this until watching ESPN tonight. The new Mustangs and Challengers, based around Cup car chassis, look GREAT.
This is going to be major buzz, and it wouldn't surprise me to see the changes get fast-tracked for competition into the Sprint Cup Series as well. The plan at present to do so is indefinite, perhaps a few years away.
Nascar is bound to see a bounce, in ratings and attendance, in both divisions. When you see the cars, you'll know what I mean.
Somebody's piece of pie just went to the other table.
Andy
Here's a link to a "close-up" issued by NASCAR. The Nationwide Mustang and Challenger are indeed head turners.
ReplyDeletehttps://nascar-assets.americaneagle.com/assets/1/workflow_staging/News/189596.PDF
Thanks Rocket, I had seen reference to similarity of the chassis but not interchangability as the article states.
ReplyDeleteI'm prognosticating here, but I say this is at least a moderate game-changer. Sound strategy and implementation, too: the fans can debate the merits of the cars on the track, not the boardroom wall.
Andy
Lousy picture, revealing comments:
ReplyDeletehttp://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/nascar-nationwide-series-ready-to-race-new-cars-this-weekend/?hpw
Why this looks like a big deal to me is that the manufacturer reps are saying, and doing, what IndyCar had hoped for.
So in a landscape of tight budgets, emphasis placed on a potential growth trend in Nascar popularity leaves the IRL with less to ask for, and less to offer in return.
A manufacturer's major investment in an IndyCar engine program wouldn't net nearly as much brand recognition.
Andy
I think the only way significant brand recognition is likely to happen with an IndyCar engine program is if was based on race-prepped versions of production engines. I don't think purpose built race engines buy much for manufacturers, especially if they just put their name on the valve covers, instead of actually designing and building it themselves.
ReplyDelete“Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday” needs a credible connection between what is being raced and what is in the showroom. Purpose built race engines don’t have that connection any more than NASCAR’s COT does.
Dave
This is an honest question, because there's a lot of years I ignored... didn't Chevy get much play out of badging Ilmor engines?
ReplyDeleteWe're on the same page, I don't think they would make a major investment today because of the lack of interest.
Andy
“Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday” is not particularly part of the championship car tradition. Very few showroom sales of Offenhausers, Cosworths, or even Aurora Olds and Hondas traced to this form of racing.
ReplyDeleteAndy,
ReplyDeleteI don’t the know specifics, but I’m sure you’re right. Certainly naming rights for the Indy engine was great advertising, but how many people went to a dealer and bought a Chevy because of it? How many more would have done so had Chevy designed and built the engine in house? How about if Chevy won Indy with a race version of the engine available in a Corvette, Camaro or Impala SS?
I think a more direct connection between racetrack and showroom is really needed to influence the buying decisions of significant numbers of race fans. I also think that having that connection can create a greater incentive for Chevy / Honda etc. owners to watch Indy racing to see how “their” engine does.
Also, as we all know, times are different now. The value of having “Chevrolet” on the valve covers of an Indy engine isn’t what it used to be. I think to have a similar impact today would probably require a much more direct connection to the showroom.
Personally, I would love to see something closer to actual production engines at Indy but I ‘m not sure it’s feasible. I suspect it would be a case of: “cost, performance, reliability… pick any two”.
Dave
Rocketman53 said...
ReplyDelete““Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday” is not particularly part of the championship car tradition.”
My point was about the value of an Indy engine program to the manufacturers in terms of brand identity, and ultimately, showroom sales.
Nevertheless it’s true, it has not been a part of championship car tradition. That doesn’t mean it can’t be, or shouldn’t be. It was, after all, the reason that the track was built in the first place, and the primary point of the Indianapolis 500 circa 1911. I believe it was still a factor into the 1930’s.
Given the current state of the sport, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to consider moving back in that direction. It would give fans another way to connect to the sport.
By the way, isn’t the Offenhauser widely thought to have nearly killed off the wildly popular sport of midget racing, back in the 1930’s, (I think)? Seems I read that the purpose built Offy’s pushed everyone else out because they were too fast, but then when the few remaining Offy powered cars raced, it was nothing but a boring parade. Anyway, the point is, that purpose built race engines aren’t necessarily the best way to go, even if it is the current tradition.
Dave
Here is food for thought gentlemen: http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/marshall-pruett-2012-iconic-indycar-rules/
ReplyDeleteI think someone has been reading this blog! Some of the suggestions are Andrew/Oldwrench. Take a moment and give me your thoughts.
He yanked my downforce reduction idea for ovals, but didn't say how he would do it. Pruett and Chippy also took a shine to the Subaru suggestion, which would be a great architecture for a central tunnel car...like the Delta.
ReplyDeleteMost of the rest is rambling garbage. He talks about indendent builders, then later goes on to say that manufacturer participation is necessary to bring a stack of promotional cash along with their engine.
That's what Barnhart already told everybody on June 6. The independaent builders are not invited.
If you go back ad read what this guy has been writing since December, he's all over the place. One reason his latest article is so long is to make room for all the backtracking.
Pruett = DNQ.
Race time for the new Nationwide cars, see ya.
Andy
Dave, it was a combination of the Offy engine and the Kurtis chassis that killed midget racing for the reasons you state...one engine...one chassis...there's perhaps a parallel there.
ReplyDeleteWant to see the marketing value attached to IICS racing? Did you see any window or floor ads celebrating Dario's 500 win at Honda or Firestone dealerships? I missed any at my local stores. Ads on TV? Anything, anywhere? BFD, eh?
Wrench, I read your "food" and there is little i disagree with in principle. The technical end is not my forte. I just want to see something emerge that protects/builds the 500 into the foreseeable future - something fast enough, interesting enough, with a competitive ability to catch sufficient public attention to create the necessary star base to make this something respectable and more again.
My point was to Andrews. Engines under 40 grand and manufacturer in a supply capacity. Andrew's point to dribblings is in line also. Andrew & I both know that you NEED the little guy or your goose is cooked before the first flag flys. Trying to whooo auto makers into this deal knowing that the cost exceeds the value is just bringing the whole thing to a stop. They know the value of Indy Car. That's why the said no thanks!!!
ReplyDeleteRocketman, I definitely see a parallel there. Reducing the options down to one engine, one chassis etc. is a good way to bore the audience. Not just because there isn’t any technical variety, but also because it becomes much harder to pass a car in front of you if it is exactly the same as yours.
ReplyDeleteAs for marketing value, I have not been to any dealerships since Dario’s win, but I have to say I’m not greatly surprised by the lack of ads. It makes a pretty powerful and sobering statement about how little Honda and Firestone value an Indy 500 win as a way to connect with their customers. It might have been different if Danica or Marco had won, or if they had to beat Chevy and Goodyear to get the win.
Dave
Dave, it would be nice if Chevy and Goodyear got involved, but why should they? There's not much in it for them unless they beat the drum to make something...and therein lies the basic problem. It is plain to me that these others generally aren't interested in heavy lifting when it comes to promoting a series that is generally invisible except one day a year...and that's fading, too.
ReplyDeleteWhat would Tony Hulman do? If we go back to the record he would at the least find some novelty, and bend his Sweepstakes rules to get it in the race, or at least on the track, to attract interest. Think Carrachiola and JATO power in '46, the Ferraris in '52, Race of Two Worlds in '57 & '58, Fangio in '59, Cooper-Brabham in '61, Mickey Thompson in '62, Lotus-Gurney-Clark in '63...then there were the Blue Crowns versus Novis, Kurtis vs sidewinders, Watson vs everyone, the British Invasion, dinosaurs versus funny cars, Offys vs Ford, turbopower, the turbines...there was always an angle. Now it's Danica and Wheldon's teeth.