These pages were supposed to serve as a warning to IndyCar Management.
American drivers are a necessity if IndyCar racing is to experience legitimate growth in its home market.
American competitors are essential if the crowd at the 2014 Indy 500 is to include more people than attended the United States Grand Prix.
American racers are also necessary - if not sufficient - to increase national television ratings, which are now worse than they were at any time during the split.
This story is now beginning to dominate IndyCar coverage in the mainstream media. Randy Bernard and his charges will not be able to control it. It's an easy and convenient story to write because it requires zero knowledge that can't be attained with a brief perusal of the entry list. It also happens to be true.
Fox News has enjoyed taking pot shots at IndyCar over the past few years. This makes sense because Fox has a lot of money invested in NASCAR.Here's the latest from the "We Report, You Decide" network.
Impressions Outside IndyCar (where they matter most)
Alas, Rupert Murdoch's minions are not alone.
The USA Today version of the same story can be found here. Among other things, the writer suggests that the Indianapolis 500 has become the French Open. That's a good line.
These stories mirror the one that was penned for Sports Illustrated last week by Tim Tuttle, an established motorsports writer who has tended to be kind to IndyCar and the IMS.
The same point is echoed in this story from the Quad City Times.
Something called The Daily Caller weighs in with this offering.
I become physically ill when I read stories like these not because they are wrong, but rather because they have it mostly right.
Once again, good luck to you, Randy Bernard. Tony George never was able to move the mainstream media needle away from the Story of The Split. The story that you must either solve or change is that of The Dwindling American Relevance of the Indianapolis 500.
You are not envied here, Mr. Bernard.
That said, I will suggest that having IndyCar drivers spend considerable time extolling the virtues of Brazilian Sugar Cane Ethanol is probably not going to help very much.
Further development of the "ladder system" is also a waste of time so long as the cost of fielding an IndyCar entry exceeds the value that a team can offer to potential sponsors. Want proof?
- J.R. Hildebrand
- Jonathan Summerton
- Robbie Pecorari
Another Solution that Solves NothingChip Ganassi Racing's Mike Hull is a bright guy who often suggests possible solutions. This is ultimately a good thing for which he should be commended. However, Hull is not a marketing guy. Perhaps that is why he believes that additional manufacturer participation is a big part of the solution.
This is simply wrong. Manufacturer competition will not bring fans back. The stars of the show are the drivers. They must be changed. The Piloti-shod financiers must be expelled. They must be replaced by drivers that auto racing fans in the United States want to watch. That will require drastic cost reductions.
Manufacturers will finance teams; that's why team owners and managers like them. But manufacturers will do nothing to attract U.S. fans and television viewers. Want proof?
- Hideki Mutoh
- Kosuke Matsuura
- Twin Ring Motegi
Want more proof that manufacturers are not The Answer? Notice the trend in IRL network television ratings when Honda and Toyota joined the series in 2003. Manufacturers offer financing. They do not attract fans.
That said, I believe that Hull is right about many things. Among them is his claim that fans want more diversity in the cars and engines. However, manufacturers are not necessary in order to accomplish the task. IndyCar's salad days were dominated by privateers. Innovation was a grassroots phenomenon. It can be again.
Who knows? Today's IndyCar teams and their suppliers might even develop technology that they can sell to manufacturers. Perhaps the league could develop an Intellectual Property Co-Op for that purpose.
There are many possibilities. Let us hope that Randy Bernard, Brian Barnhart, Mike Hull, Eddie Gossage, and the other smart people in power examine them all and choose wisely.
Roggespierre
Well RP, if you're looking for fixes, you have identified a significant problem that will take the longest to correct.
ReplyDeleteDavey Hamilton was a member of the U.S, contingent at Indy, and his situation is a prime example of the greater concerns. Luzco Dragon Racing managed to run a one car effort in 2009, and most of the funding was apparently from private investment.
Gil De Ferran entered as an ownership partner, and Hewlett Packard was added as a sponsor. The sum of those resources is represented by two cars: both entered in the 500, both crashed. De Ferran Dragon Racing owns no backup cars.
Now, Hamilton will miss the Texas race while one car is pieced together for Rafa Matos.
I have read that many of the current owners are hanging on by a thread financially. DFD is not the first team I would have speculated as a member of the list: others may not be capable of competing for the remainder of the 2010 season.
Revenue growth, spurred by increased television ratings, is the immediate necessity. More Americans will lose their seats in the coming weeks, and there will be no additions to the contingent until domestic sponsorship is viewed as a reasonable investment.
That is why effective promotion, along with immediate improvements to the on-track product, continues to top the priority list.
I can see no indication that the increased participation of Izod, or any accompanying tricks from the IICS toolbox, have proven to be effective. With very few exceptions, none of the increased advertising or promotional efforts have attracted new eyeballs to the Series or its broadcasts.
The money and resources are being wasted. So is the opportunity to attract new sponsorship. There will be no new seats for American drivers, regardless of their capability, until the priorities are effectively addressed.
Andy
RP,
ReplyDeleteYou hit it out of the park, as usual.
Its about damn time the media (outside of Robin Miller) start to examine the continuing dwindling numbers of American drivers in a American racing series.
The 2 years with the fewest numbers of American drivers? 2009 and 2010. We have had ZERO American rookies at Indy the past 2 years. ZERO. We have only had 2 American rookies in the Indy 500 since 2008 (Rahal and Hunter-Reay). Neither one are full-time drivers now.
I don't want to hear about "getting the best drivers in the world". That is a crock of crap. Its a almost impossible thing to quantify "who is the best" anyway. Does anyone think the vast majority of the current foreign driver contingent are anywhere close "to the best in the world". If you do, you need your head examined.
This sport cannot and will not survive and the ratings will continue to go nowhere but down (although they almost statistically cannot go down much further at any of the non-Indy 500 races) until the sport is DOMINATED again (like it was in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's) by American drivers. Its not being "xenophobic" or "anti-foreigner". Its just about COMMON SENSE. Its about figurering out why interest in the Indy 500 continues to go down each-and-every year, no matter who is in charge and which celebrities are paid to come or how much "buzz" the Indy shills say there is.
This sport has to be about American drivers again. Most of the people who matter in this sport to sponsors and bean-counters are Americans. That is who buys the tickets. That is who the vast majority of sponsors are concerned about. That is who most of the record low 4.0 rating consisted of on Sunday.
America is speaking LOUD and CLEAR. They aren't interested in Ryan Briscoe or Will Power, no matter how many races they win with Penske. They aren't interested in Scott Dixon, no matter if he is a Indy 500 winner or not. If Dario wasn't married to Ashley Judd, they wouldn't be that interested in him either. Most of the rest elicit no reaction one way or the other (apathy is the worst thing for a sports franchise).
This has to be JOB 1, 2 and 3 with Bernard. If it isn't, then they got no chance. New cars, new engines, new rules, new races and new TV networks aren't going to mean squat if the #1 problem isn't taken care of. Simple as that.
Just for fun, how would this fantasy field of 33 looked on Sunday? Think we'd be talking about another record low TV rating and all the empty seats at Indy, if we had this starting field? (and this is off the top of my head, so I may leave out someone):
ROW 1- AJ Allmendinger, Marco Andretti, Graham Rahal
ROW 2- Robby Gordon, Helio Castroneves, Jason Leffler
ROW 3- JJ Yeley, Tony Kanaan, Bobby Santos III
ROW 4- John Edwards, Ryan Hunter-Reay, Sam Hornish Jr
ROW 5- Alex Tagliani, JR Hildebrand, Kevin Swindell
ROW 6- Buddy Lazier, Davey Hamilton, Ed Carpenter
ROW 7- Dan Wheldon, Buddy Rice, Casey Mears
ROW 8- Sarah Fisher, Danica Patrick, Simona de Silvestro
ROW 9- Tomas Scheckter, Townsend Bell, Dario Franchitti
ROW 10- Jonathan Summerton, Robbie Pecorari, Colin Braun
ROW 11- Scott Dixon, Paul Tracy, Bryan Clauson
there should be all americans. no foreigners whatsoever. and they should tell honda to go to hell. and firestone because they're basically japanese. and then there would be no open-wheel at all and we could get two stock car races a year at IMS. but no marcus ambrose and no montoya because they ain't americans neither.
ReplyDeleteAnd stuff your Brazilian coffee beans, and Izod shirts made in overseas textile plants. Italian chassis and Swiss watches: go back where you came from.
ReplyDeleteIsn't it funny that nobody made mention of the Boy Scout endorsement, or the millions of potential fans that should have been solicited along with it? Instead the uproar was to send Milka and her Citgo money packing, in spite of the result that it would put Dale Coyne out of business.
Dickle, your row six drivers combined could barely scrape together enough backing to one one race. Robbie Gordon (among others) tried and failed.
This is Tony Stewart from 2009, talking about renewing his Participation in the 500:
"It's a scenario where you can't just show up and get in one of those things anymore and be good in them," said Stewart, the 1997 Indy Racing League champion. "To really put together an effort to not just try to make the Indy 500, but try to win the Indy 500, you have to start the season with a team and run through the Indy 500 if you're even going to have a shot at it."
"Even if they switched (the 500 to Monday), I don't know if it's feasible to do it," he said. "It's not just the logistics of making the two races. It's everything that leads into the preparation and testing and the time behind the wheel of getting acclimated to the cars again. That's more important than just the sheer logistics of race day."
That pretty well makes the point that running the 500 as a one-off is a false hope, no matter how much of a carrot is promised.
Andy
How could I have forgotten Lotus? Send them back to tea land too.
ReplyDeleteWithout overseas sponsorship and the drivers they select, this Series would be a shell. The dearth of domestic support and participation are the effects of the lack of IndyCar popularity, not the cause of it.
Andy
"That pretty well makes the point that running the 500 as a one-off is a false hope, no matter how much of a carrot is promised."
ReplyDeleteIt appears to me that TS was talking about the performance differential between series regulars and the one-offs, and that is valid. If all were one-off, I'm not so sure it would be.
Perhaps it's time for "Junk Formula II."
This series becomes less popular as foreign drivers replace U.S. drivers and the equipment gets more expensive.
ReplyDeleteThe IZOD IndyCar Series would love to have the IRL's fan base from 2001 and 2002.
The more I think about it, the more I believe that Tony George's biggest mistake was failing to make the IRL cars and engines even cheaper than they were when the series first began.
He was still too caught up in the CART mindset. He probably didn't need to go with the all-ovals provision, but he did need cheaper start-up costs and greater product differentiation.
Takuma Sato brings nothing to the table when it comes to attracting American fans.
My point is that IndyCar should not pay KV the same amount of TEAM money for supplying Takuma Sato that it pays Andretti for showing up with Danica. Why? Because Takuma Sato is not a marketable product. Danica Patrick, warts and all, has demonstrated that she is.
Eric Bachelart is another example. He's already collecting money from Mario Romancini and Bertrand Baguette, who combine to add exactly zero U.S. racing fans and television viewers. Why should IndyCar pay him approximately $120,000 per race for furnishing portions of a product that can not be sold to the target audience.
There are ways to manage the product. Managing suppliers is a primary reason for having managers in the first place. IndyCar does not manage its suppliers. It allows its suppliers to manage it.
Ultimately, this isn't about foreign or domestic drivers, not really. It's about producing a product that can be sold in a very specific market. That market happens to be Middle American because that is where the Indianapolis Motor Speedway is located. That also happens to be where many people who enjoy racing are located.
No racing series can change a culture. No racing series should even try.
Roggespierre
I understand your point about the TEAM money disbursements, but maintining minimum grid counts is the primary concern.
ReplyDeleteIt's the culture of American corporate participation that has to change, and that won't happen until the existance of a vibrant and growing IndyCar Series can be demonstrated.
Andy
As usual, you and your minions throw out comments without actually trying tof ind solutions. Here's a suggestion for you, since you hate IndyCar so much, start your own league. Then when it fails-and it will with you in charge-I seriously doubt that you will come back and say that you were wrong about anything.
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect to each of you gentlemen, Open rules, older cars permitted (with safety concerns met) sliding scale production based engines w/race engine sliding scale option also. It worked in the 70's & early 80's and it can work again. There is no reason that some like Andrew and myself couldn't purchase a 97 Reynard, add the safety requirements, toss in a Andrew/Oldwrench prepared GM Ecotech or Ford EcoBoost of any configuration, add a Oldwrench gearbox or some other variety, toss on a set of GOOD YEAR tires, place J.R. Hildebrand in the cockpit and push the damn thing in line to qualify. The ONLY thing that keeps that from happening is the people who run this turkey. WAKE UP INDY CAR!!!!!
ReplyDeleteWrench, the '03 spec Falcon tub and bodywork, and all the molds, still wait quietly in South Carolina. We could call it the "Minion Special".
ReplyDeleteAndy
Andy & Wrench,
ReplyDeleteI like that - the Minion Special. It beats the Filet Minion, I suppose.
Sorry.
Roggespierre
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I do not hate IndyCar. I love IndyCar. That is why I am not willing to sit back and watch it devolve into irrelevance so that the present participants and a few true believers can have the kind of racing series that they want.
No, that is not acceptable.
My point is that an international road racing product will fail in the United States. There are people who really, really like that sort of thing, but they are too few in number.
It was true in the days of Can-Am. It was true in the days of CART following The Split. It was true in the day of ChampCar. And it is true now.
A member of my family has been to every Indianapolis 500 since 1936. It is an experience that I hope to share some day very soon with my six year-old son. I want his first 500 to be every bit as awesome as mine was in 1978, my father's was in 1957, and my grandfather's was in 1936.
Patches of empty seats are unacceptable. Poor TV coverage and lousy ratings are unacceptable. Deathly silence during driver introductions is unacceptable.
There are some who really do hate IndyCar and the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. They are thoroughly enjoying the devaluation of this once great institution.
I am not enjoying it at all. I am angry.
And that is why I am here. A few others who come here are angry, too. That is why I neither filter nor edit the comments that are posted here.
If you're sufficiently pissed off that you are compelled to curse, then, please, be my guest! And you don't even have to be pissed off about the same things that piss me off.
Argue with my data and my reasoning all you like, but have no doubt about my motives.
I want the Indianapolis 500 to be undeniably awesome again!
Roggespierre
"As usual, you and your minions throw out comments without actually trying tof ind solutions. Here's a suggestion for you, since you hate IndyCar so much, start your own league."
ReplyDeleteOr we can sit back on our asses and lap up everything the Indy Car set puts in our bowl and hope things "get better next year".
The person above must be a typical TrackForum asshat, whose usual response to anyone who dares to tell the truth and tell people why the sport is dying, is to berate them and tell them "to start your own series" or "start your own team".
Guess what Slim, the points made in this blog make a hell of a lot more sense then anything you get from the "yes-men" and delusional souls who populate many of the other blogs and message boards out there.
The field of 33 that I suggested earlier (which would have likely been what the field of 33 would have looked like in the 70's or 80's) would very, very unlikely be looking at record low TV ratings, record low interest in the race/sport and thousands and thousands of empty seats at Indy.
And if you had a clue, you'd know that.
The more I think about it, the more I believe that Tony George's biggest mistake was failing to make the IRL cars and engines even cheaper than they were when the series first began.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the positive effect then? More American drivers people didn't know and or have serious emotional investment in? Having 60 subpar drivers trying to run the 500 instead of 40 wouldn't have changed the IRL's fortunes, and might have lead to a lot more hurt drivers (as the IRL chassis of the day did).
American drivers are worthless unless you can convince the American public that they are not merely OK, but actually great/the best. IMS could never convince the public at large to accept Buddy Lazier. It wasn't going to happen. Nor would they accept anyone else in the same boat (including Billy, lol, what a pun!) so long as the stars they recognized were in exile.
Think of soccer for a moment. Millions of kids play soccer and have played for years. There's a large immigrant population that loves soccer. Purpose built soccer stadiums for the MLS have actually been successful in cities like Columbus. You know why soccer isn't really competing with the NFL or MLB? Because we suck at soccer. No one really wants to see subpar anything, and MLS soccer is subpar. It will continue to be subpar for many, many years unless something dramatic happens in terms of US soccer instruction, our success in international play, and the ability of MLS teams to retain national stars for their own teams rather than losing them to big money squads in Spain, Italy, and England.
Wrong football.
ReplyDeleteEver heard of Clint Longley?
One Thanksgiving Day, on a national broadcast of a traditional rivalry, Dallas' star quarterback Roger Staubach went down with an injury.
In comes a guy nobody ever heard of. Performing at the highest level against the best competition, Longley ruled the day.
If you look at the career of Tom Brady, he too came in as an unknown scrub: Brady was able to parlay a similar opportunity into a stellar career.
A.J. Foyt, Rick Mears, and any Nascar star on the list were all unknowns, too. It took success in competition, in front of a national audience, to establish them as household names.
The Game, and the fans of the game, make the stars. Had Townsend Bell won the 94th Indy 500, millions of people would know his name today.
But without people watching, there are no stars. There is no motivation for American companies to fund drivers, or popularize them in advertisements for their product.
The job is to get people to watch, and give them an entertaining show. That's how the stars emerge, and corporations realize the value in hiring them.
Will it work in reverse? That's what Tony Stewart's comments addressed. IndyCar can profit short term from the star value of Kasey Kahne in a Chip Ganassi entry, but he isn't going to win. That takes investment in equipment and time which is not available, as Stewart pointed out.
Does Kahne want to finish where Townsend Bell did? Does that satisfy his sponsors and fans, or make him a legend? It won't compell people to watch the rest of the Indycar season, or make sure to watch again next year.
IndyCar today minimizes the opportunities for excellence. First, every efficient device must be used to get people watching. Second, variety in perfomance levels of the equipment must be reestablished to improve the show.
What makes a star then? A heroic drive by an unknown in good equipment. A heroic effort by an established driver, squeezing the best out of inferior equipment. The guy driving the four cylinder to victory against the V8, or the old chassis in a field of new ones. The guy who outpaces the new GM engine with his new Ford engine. The surprise winner who benefitted from superior durability, efficiency or strategy.
If IndyCar events drew 1.5 ratings average, Paul Tracy would have a chance to continue his legendary career. J.R. Hildebrand would have a chance to start his. Domestic corporations would be happy to step up, just as they did in Nascar. The result will be more American drivers, with the opportunity to become stars.
That's what I'd like to see too. The Road to Indy will always be paved with money, and we see where it is coming from today. The driver lineup won't change until the sources of investment change. That takes promotion and product to produce entertaining domestic shows, and domestic corporations will join the race. With the best American drivers they can hire.
Tim Cindric tried to enlist Nascar drivers and failed. The $20M dream prize has drawn skeptecism from drivers in both camps: IF it happens, it could well be another party that nobody races to. That's what Dario Franchitti said on Sunday, and he's one of the very few drivers in the world who could change the look of the grid in either series.
Andy
Using backup QBs as an example doesn't work: They're in the NFL playing the best in the world at the sport, so any success they have is against, well, you guessed it. Now, compare Longley to Sherdrick Bonner. Who you asked? Well, he was ranked one of the 20 best Arena Football players of all time. As a QB, his career rating was 116.3 over 14 seasons, which is astronomical. By comparison, Peyton Manning has a 95.2 QB rating.
ReplyDeleteYou know what? No one cares. He played Arena ball.
VirtualBalboa,
ReplyDeleteYour argument makes all the sense in the world to me, but I'm not sure that it's accurate.
After all, the IRL had much better TV ratings when Ray, Boat and Cheever were the stars. And that was when those who followed and covered the sport were telling anyone who would listen that the IRL sucked.
Today, we would take the 2001 and 2002 TV numbers and attendance at tracks like Kentucky, Chicagoland, Kansas and Texas in a New York minute.
One could argue - and provide strong supporting evidence - that Mergification has hurt the sport more than the split ever did.
I won't make that claim because I'm note sure that it's true. But is is not inarguable.
I will say that we're not going to convince anyone that the current crop of drivers is the best at anything. Our current Indy 500 and series champion was a NASCAR washout. Is that a fair assessment? No, but it doesn't matter. The 6th place finisher at the Indy 500 can't scratch out a spot in the Top 30 in a Nationwide race. Is that a fair comparison? No, but that's the perception.
The whole "best" argument can be interesting and fun. But is it relevant from an economic point of view? You could argue that it is, but I'm not convinced.
Best Regards,
Roggespierre
Would Kurt Warner playing Arena Football help?? He went on to become NFL MVP- Super Bowl Champion with the St. Louis Rams! I think it fits with the Rick Mears analogy !!
ReplyDeleteBut even as the ratings were higher back then, the market was rejecting the sport. It slid to its present position in the sporting ladder through a prolongued period of erosion from fans. You neednt do more than look at the charts of network TV ratings by year that you've done - In 1996 alone there's a significant dropoff after the 500. Never again does the IRL break 2.0 for a race outside of Indianapolis. What happened? Why did the market start to turn away from Indycar when there were so many American names and faces from the Heartland?
ReplyDeleteWe can compare to WoO till we are blue in the face if we want. Different business models. Different style of racing. Different wear and tear. Indycar can learn a couple things perhaps from them, but there's not too much that reasonably can be culled. They need to come up with something uniquely Indycar, and competing with the slick product of NASCAR and F1 will not make it easy.