Not according to some here - ratings are meaningless member?Originally Posted by SoundMan360
I would like to know what is the main measure of metric that ICS uses to determine growth/success or failure. If members like Defender KNOW that it's not ratings then they should KNOW what it is they are using to know how well they are doing?
I mean short of IMS not having to spend any money.
The reality is the numbers are dropping yet you call the deal 'ahead of its time'. The only end result that can be drerived from that is the series will be broke 'ahead of its time'.
I would like to know as well. Defender seems to think he knows but as proven by Rex Cannon
he can't tell the difference between baking soda and powder. Until then we are stuck with his poor excuses and namecalling.
.....right off of your head
I know it's a totally different world with segmentation, choices, number of channels, etc. But again, on TNN in the 90's, ASA was pulling 1.5's. Some Saturday Nights, we'd have over a million people watching a live race from Odessa, MO or Salem, wherever. If the ratings came in under a 1.0, we were running up and down the halls freaking out.
Of course, people say "can't compare" - but I can compare how hard it was to get sponsors for a TV audience of 700,000-800,000 people. How hard is it to land a sponsor for 194,000?
Here were our crowds too. Sure, small stands, 20,000-60,000 ish, but still they were FULL with passionate fans.
Every race I run in is in preparation for the Indianapolis 500. Indy is the most important thing in my life. It is what I live for. - Al Unser Jr.
Everything I ever wanted in my life, I found inside the walls of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. - Eddie Sachs.
That's not what I meant to say.
But doubling from 0.2 to 0.4 may not mean any significant, lasting improvement has been made.
Doubling from 1.0 to 2.0 - well, that might be different. Especially if it is sustained.
But what's more important is improving those qualities that are known or reasoned to attract fans. Some of those the series can do, some they can't control directly. Smart millionaires ( and lesser ones) with lots of motorsports experience have tried and failed in the past.
But any of us can have an impact in our own way, starting today. And we will... One way or another. Experience tells me that ragging on each other is worse than doing nothing, though.
"The series may be hesitant to say it, but the day is here for everybody that loves IndyCar racing to link arms and help each other out. Anybody who doesn’t want to do that needs to find something else to do with their time.”
-- Eddie Gossage, President, Texas Motor Speedway, ICONIC Advisory Committee & TrackForum member
I wasn't referring to you.That's not what I meant to say.
But doubling from 0.2 to 0.4 may not mean any significant, lasting improvement has been made.
Doubling from 1.0 to 2.0 - well, that might be different. Especially if it is sustained.
But what's more important is improving those qualities that are known or reasoned to attract fans. Some of those the series can do, some they can't control directly. Smart millionaires ( and lesser ones) with lots of motorsports experience have tried and failed in the past.
But any of us can have an impact in our own way, starting today. And we will... One way or another
I think the 90's is still pretty comparable in terms of the world of ratings. Other sports have held or grown since then.
Going back to same day coverage is a stretch, but the 90s? I know I had 300 channels in 1995.
If that's not what you meant to say, why did you say it again?That's not what I meant to say.
But doubling from 0.2 to 0.4 may not mean any significant, lasting improvement has been made.
Doubling from 1.0 to 2.0 - well, that might be different. Especially if it is sustained.
But what's more important is improving those qualities that are known or reasoned to attract fans. Some of those the series can do, some they can't control directly. Smart millionaires ( and lesser ones) with lots of motorsports experience have tried and failed in the past.
But any of us can have an impact in our own way, starting today. And we will... One way or another
.2 to .4 on NBCSN would be very indicative of a breakout, to use a stock term. Something significant would have had to occur (excepting if the .2 was something that was situationally effected, like by a rain delay, network shift, etc).
And if something draws double the attention, suddenly you've got twice as many people watching that improved product. And then that can grow, etc.
Growth does happen in things. It can be done.
It's MUCH harder to get that something done if people keep insisting the status quo is perfectly fine OR damaged irreparably.
Sorry, don't believe you had 300 distinct channels back in 1995....even today, claims of 200+ channels turn out to be misleading when you consider that claim includes items like 3 (or more) versions of Speed (basic package, digital package, HD package).
OTOH, there are so many channels available to day, considering that tvbythenumbers lists the top 100! ratings for cable alone for Thursday alone.
And, not to make an excuse for the Edmonton rating, some shows with staying power rated down in the .3-.4 range
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/201...n-more/142132/
Heck, one of my favorites, Burn Notice, pulled a 1.3 in the number 3 spot behind 2 rerun episodes of Family Guy. Property Brothers on HGTV pulled a .3 as did the O'Reilly Factor.
Oh, and despite being (in)famous, a Sunday episode of the Kardashians only pulled a 1.4
new sig pending
Plus or minus .2 could happen for any number of random reasons.
I don't know anybody happy with the status quo, but that doesn't mean just any ol' arson will improve it, either.
DirecTV and USSB (the premiums used to come from a separate entity) were online in 95. Then channels from 202-370 remain mostly unchanged (lots of network names have changed). Same with 600s. USSB had 40 or so channels (some repeats, like HBO East and West). I got my locals elsewhere, but that was another half dozen or so.
In 1998 some had closer to 600, but that included the locals from about the top 30 markets
I'm certainly not advocating arson.
On Versus/NBCSN when has .2 worth of ratings been added for ANY reason, short of the prior, lower event having been influenced by rain, etc.?
You can't really tell me that if each race this year were pumping along with 30-40% improvement in ratings, things wouldn't feel a whole lot better.
Growth builds growth. Or, as a colleague of SoDakIndycar and mine used to say, busyness drives business.
Hey TC, have you seen any Canadian TV numbers?
Not yet, but I have a couple of people working on it. This race here was on TSN not TSN2, so I would expect the numbers to be pretty good for Canada.
I'l post the results if, and when, I get them.
I'd also like to know the Brazil numbers.
Boy, DirecTV has gone downhill from the 90s, even their top package today only advertises 285+ channelsDirecTV and USSB (the premiums used to come from a separate entity) were online in 95. Then channels from 202-370 remain mostly unchanged (lots of network names have changed). Same with 600s. USSB had 40 or so channels (some repeats, like HBO East and West). I got my locals elsewhere, but that was another half dozen or so.
In 1998 some had closer to 600, but that included the locals from about the top 30 markets
That's different. If you get a steady string of six or more in a positive direction and outside the realm of random chance, then something significant may be going on and you would want to look to what changes were working, and how are they doing so.
But it's always on the processes, and the improvements, that you should focus. Not the outcomes.
It's all in the handbook
Yep- and nothing succeeds like successMisery may love company, but so do a million people looking for a place to party
Nobody said a word about reinvesting gross profits back into participants. Where did this red herring tangent come from?
No, the series isn't giving all teams that payout anymore. Any profit is financial inefficiency at a bad time to not make the absolute most of available cash flow.
It isn't a methodology, it is a proven business model. Can Roger Goodell tell the Colts who to draft and what to pay them? Where are you inferring these ideas from?
The HG Family. Their financial involvement with Edmonton, Milwaukee, Baltimore and almost every other race in the series this season is NON VALUE ADDED. These races could happen without the added cost of Randy Bernard and the majority of employees on the Indycar payroll. There is no consumer value based reason for the HG family to be involved with any race outside of IMS.
That is an absolute fallacy. Randy Bernard has made it clear that profitability is an expectation of his bosses. The family has made it clear that their future involvement with the series is profit based.
The family could completely guarantee that 100% of profits from IMS are retained by ceasing involvement with the series. If that is all they wanted, the divestiture would have occurred long ago.
Why do you think Randy's goal is 20+ races? Every additional race adds significant cost for each race team as well as a struggle to break even with the marginal increase in output. Meanwhile, every added race brings significant amounts of additional television revenue, mostly from international contracts right now. It is a profit play and nothing more. The series and owners care little about the health of the participants and nearly entirely about their own interests.
This sport is utilizing a business model that is great for milking profits when at critical mass, but has a self consuming burn rate when operating at lower portions of the demand curve. Every race that goes by only serves as supporting evidence.
Real, sustained growth is not going to happen prior to a radical change to the business model... and I am talking an actual change to the overall structural model, not the tactics for monetizing an event or events. The inefficiency is in the overall structure, not in extracting revenue from the events themselves. The audiences on television and at the venues aren't large enough to bleed any further.
Boy, DirecTV has gone downhill from the 90s, even their top package today only advertises 285+ channels
Kinda depends on your definition of "channel" ....
For example, if you buy the DirecTV "premier" package (listed as 285+ channels), that doesn't include the channels broadcast in other languages. I believe there are almost 100 Spanish channels in addition to the English channels. There are dozens more channels in the "International" package, broadcast in Russian, Chinese - both Mandarin and Cantonese, Korean, Vietnamese, etc.
Over 100 channels are provided as "Pay-per-View", and aren't included in the "package" as you pay for them if you view them ...
About another 100 channels are music feeds.
And in my area my "local" package includes dozens of channels as we have not only local channels in English, but Chinese, Spanish, and other languages I don't recognize.
Some channels are available for diagnostics, so a technician can determine which LNB is bad if there are problems with the dish/receiver ...
And DirecTV doesn't count when they transmit the same "service" on two channels ... one in SD and one in HD .. they only count one "channel"
In my channel listing (if I expand it to show all channels broadcast by DirecTV) there are easily 500 to 600 ... probably more ... I just ain't gonna take the time to count them all ...
"As long as the focus remains generating a profit for a non-value adding stakeholder instead of putting money back into the sport the result is going to be the same" - BrakeEarly
It is easily to conclude that you are saying profit should be put back into the sport. What do companies re-invest with? Revenue or profit?
Again, gross profits are different than net profits. I'm assuming you understand this? If not, here ya go....revenue less COGS/Direct costs equals gross profit. Gross profit less operating costs/indirect costs equals net profit. From the time of business, net profit has been used to re-invest in a company. All else is a operating expense.
The series is giving 24 cars the $1.3 million/car. Which makes absolute sense. Randy said the days of Indycar funding teams that offer no tangible value to series (i.e., no promotion, etc) are over. In other words, the Marty Roth's of the world or Conquest Racings. Is it such a bad thing for teams to earn that money?
What if after all operating expenses (including the TEAM payout which is a operating expense) that net profit is $1. Would it matter? Again, your argument would hold a little weight if Indycar has turning net profits in the millions of dollar range. But, if Indycar is at best breaking even, then your reasoning is just plain silly.
I don't think you can compare the business/operating models of NFL and Indycar. I will bet you that NFL turns a profit.
I'm sorry, but this makes absolute no sense to me or how it is relevant to the TV ratings @ Edmonton. NON Value added to whom?
So teams would just show up to Edmonton and race? Who would negotiate sanctioning fees? Promote the race? Are you suggesting someone would do that for free?
How is that different than any other CEO that runs a business? I think profitability is an expectation of any CEO. What if the net profit is $1? Will it matter?
Again, I'm having a hard time following your point here.
If Series and owners cared little about the health of the participants, then they would cease the TEAM revenue program.
And every additional race Indycar puts on the schedule is an additional cost to Indycar. I think Randy wants a 19 race schedule (of late I've heard nothing from him that indicates a 20 plus race schedule) is because he believes it adds value to the series sponsors, team sponsors, the growth of the series, etc. I think most would agree that a 16 race schedule is too short.
But what if the team owners said 12 races? Would that be ok? Since you suggest that it is unreasonable for Indycar to turn a profit, then would it be unreasonable if the teams turned a profit too? What if the net profit Indycar distributed to the teams was used to line the team owners pockets or not used to directly re-invest in their programs?
Again, what's your point?
This doesn't make much sense either. What are you saying? What are you suggesting the model be? If I'm reading correctly, essentially what you are saying that Indycar should disburse every last penny of its profit to the teams owners. Is that correct? If so, what if Indycar has a profit of $1, $10,000 or $100,000? Would it matter? IF Indycar turned a profit in the millions, then yes your argument would hold weight, but I highly doubt that will ever happen anytime soon.
I will still contend that the HG family hired RB to operate Indycar as a standalone/self-sustaining entity and not rely on the IMS kitty to operate it as TG did. If anything, blame TG for this, not the HG family.
"Any time that I can be out at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, you're going to see a smile on my face." - Dan Wheldon
"It's crazy how the Indianapolis Motor Speedway can make you so emotional. I went from the highest of highs to the lowest of lows in less than 24 hours." - Alex Tagliani
That's not true.... Right now a doubling to the ratings can occur without exceeding the central limits of normal variation already demonstrated.
That seems to be a trend.
The point is only lost on those who want, for some unexplainable reason, to believe that the Hulman George family needs to retain the ability to make money on races outside of the property they own.
It is funny that you want to discount the NFL business model. Why isn't it appropriate? Because the owners of a stadium in Indianapolis don't own the sport instead of the teams?
Fine. Does Wimbledon insist on the right to make money when Tennis players show up for the Australian open? No? Does Augusta National get a cut every time the tour shows up at Pebble Beach? Surely there is a family somewhere that gets first crack at the sponsorship money from the PGA tour right?
You seem to admit that the current arrangement is a problem if the sport becomes successful as it once was and the teams/drivers/fans want it to be again... so how do you justify that arrangement as a starting point on the path to a point at which it will be a problem?
If, against all odds, the series does grow with this inefficient Hulman George cost center still involved it will only crash down again in the future. Good luck with another rebuild like this one.
Your posts are hard to follow because they are verbose. Plus, it is obvious you can't argue my points in my post.
I challenge you to prove that the HG family has a direct financial gain of a race in Edmonton, Baltimore, etc. Until you prove otherwise, I will still contend tHe HG family wants Indycar to be self sustaining and not funded by the IMS kitty.
Did Augusta fund PGA for several years and millions of dollars? Your examples arent comparable to the relationship between Indycar and IMS...it is unique. HG Family, is done spending millions upon millions of the IMS kitty towards funding Indycar and rightfully so.
When Indycar was its height, did CART, USAC, etc., distribute all of its profits to teams?
"ineffient Hulman George cost center"....what does that mean? Better or worse, if it wasn't for the HG family, It could be argued Indycar wouldn't be here today.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks