Friday, September 17, 2010 at 12:48PM
On LinkedIn yesterday a discussion started in the Motorsport Professionals Group as the result of an article in the Sports Business Journal quoting David Hill of Fox and the drop off in viewing figures. To quote the discussion, "Fox Sports chairman David Hill recently told the Sports Business Journal that “the biggest problem facing NASCAR is that young males have left the sport.” Fox reports that ratings among men 18-34 have declined 29%. This isn't just NASCAR's problem, folks, this is racing's problem. If new life isn't injected into the sport in terms of technology and overall interest - and soon - before you know it there will be nothing left but vintage racing all across the country."
Just as an aside, David was the Producer for the telecast of my first F1 event in Adelaide in 1985, he has gone far since then.
Anyway, this seems to have struck a chord with a lot of the Group and there are several comments. Regular readers to my blog will know I posed the question, "Is motorsport in danger of becoming a non-spectator sport?' a few weeks ago, and commented that NASCAR were removing seats so obviously did not expect the audience levels to return.
It's interesting that the comment above talks about injecting new technology. Is that in the way that people interact with racing, or in the cars and motorcycles? One of the Group said that technology was killing the interest, but how can that be when just about every category is "dumbing down" the technology in the interest of cost savings? NASCAR still runs carburetors and five nut wheels and COT that is virtually a spec car, IRL is a spec car, as is basically Grand Am, Moto2 and soon 3 in motorcycle GP's, ALMS has two spec classes to make up the numbers, and even F1, that pinnacle of technology has control tires, common ECU, engine rules that are virtually spec, and moves for more common components. This spec racing is not reducing "costs" because it is costing racing spectators and viewers.
Then there are those that say that the marketers are getting it all wrong. So did they have it right when NASCAR went through it's growth spurt? I doubt it, it probably had more to do with Dale Earnhardt, a larger than life character. Where are they now? Only Tony Stewart even comes close and they slap him down every time he shows a spark of life. NASCAR went through a fad, and thought it would last forever and alienated it's fan base to chase the yuppie. It went to new markets. Did you read the piece here a couple of days ago from ESPN F1 about F1 chasing new markets like Korea?
So then there are the sponsors, who are pushing the sports towards these new markets and younger generations. Have they asked anyone if that is what the people watching now want? The sponsors came in because the sport was successful, and then they want to change what made it successful, and are then annoyed that the audience drops. I wrote the other week about Martin Whitmarsh suggesting F1 needs to market itself better and commenting that there is a problem marketing a product that is not good. Red Bull is probably one of the great marketing stories of the decade, and I watch their cars and motorcycles all the time, and did try it once. Hated it and have never bought one since. You cannot make people like something.
That is probably the nub of the problem. We have a generation growing up that does not want to watch what we are offering. No amount of marketing or packaging is going to change that. Some sociologists can probably tell us why they think this is. Maybe they are all brainwashed about global warming and racing wasting resources. Would they all watch if we raced electric cars? Maybe they cannot watch two hour races, but GT have tried shorter races and I do not think more people watched them. Maybe because they can all race every track and every car on their X-Box in their lounge room or on their phone they do not need to go to the race or watch on TV. Then again, as they get older will they "find" racing and become a fan? I do not profess to know the answer. But if we change racing to suit them, do we lose the audience we have now?
I do know that most tracks being built are non-spectator tracks for people to drive their own cars fast. This has to tell us something about the future? We may not like it, but we are not going to change it by "better marketing." Perhaps we have to adapt to a new world, or go the way of the dinosaur?
Reader Comments (3)
Absolutely the correct critical analytical approach. What and Why?
Because of the hype, everything got blown out of proportion. Attending a race has to be an "event". Amateur sports car racing in the US could pull 20,000 - 30,000 to premier local events. Everything was new and sports cars were "new" in the US. Now that is what some F1 races attract!
We know why Indy "collapsed", the breaking of the series at its height and the loss of the colorful dirvers, the Unsers, Andrettis, AJ, Nigel.
For F1, how much can people afford to pay? $300 for a two hour event. How can a reasonable ticket price be charged when promotors are expected to lose and like it?
Why go to a sterile environment to pay through the nose and not see what some can see on TV? In order to draw the event has to be something that spectators can spend a pleasant time. The whole facility has to be inviting. But TV, again, to see a race one used to have to go see a race, nez pas? The entire experience must be enjoyable and affordable, value for money.
Thank you for raising the race as an event Allen. I thought of including that, but as the Hill comment was more about TV audience I did not, but it is relevant. From my experience probably half the people at a race, or any other major "event" are there for the atmosphere and it is the place to be. I used to get annoyed when standing in Race Control in Adelaide and looking over the grandstand to see people ignoring the start of the race! But in the end they paid their money and are part of the whole scene. Promoters need to make sure their races are "events" and provide entertainment not just on the track.
Good Blog today Bob. You know where I stand when it comes to events and cross promotion. Miller had their biggest crowd ever at the WSBK this year. All because they also presented 3 classic rock bands.
If you create and attractive scene, people, even those not interested in racing, will be want to be a part of it. Long Beach is a case in point.
There needs to be a gateway for people. When I was producing the Boston Blues Festival, securing Ducati North America as a sponsor brought new blood to the event. People who may not have attended if it weren't for the display and rally/ride to the event. The upside for DNA is that their product was introduced to a new audience.