Beer & Brats vs Wine & Cheese

[Canada ALMS fan]

Bob,
Let's take a look at the value of sponsorships on a car and the average TV audience and then tell me there is no correlation.
F1 sponsorship is the most expensive - AVG TV audience approx. 250 million? Major sponsorship can be up to $80 million/year
Nascar is next - AVG TV audience approx 15 million? Major sponsorship is over $10 million/year
ALMS/GA - AVG TV viewership 1/2 million? sponsorship doesn't even cover operating costs of the team
These are all very rough numbers based on informed internet speculation and do differ between teams but you get the picture I hope.

[skeeskirrt]

As long as there are rich men with fast cars, we will always have race tracks.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by The Badger

Why ?

What would be the point of having a race track , when race cars didnt even exist !?!?!?

I reckon your either talking outta your hat , or very , very old indeed and know so much more than the rest of us put together . Why dont you try the Gandalf for a change .

See the respoinse above your flatulent remarks.

You cannot be that ignorant.

[The Badger]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

See the respoinse above your flatulent remarks.

You cannot be that ignorant.

..... I didnt see that before !!!

Well Bob ..... you certainly have a way with words dude . Why does it always seem to come across that you are an angry young man with a chip ?

But please dont go away ..... I love the remarks and I hope you dont mind , but I will certainly use the "flatulent remark" bit .

You have me cracking up here at the moment ..... do you perhaps work at the Circus McGurkis , or some shoddy Gerry Springer lookalike show ?

Keep it going dude ..... you make me laugh !!!

[TWK]

Originally Posted by Canada ALMS fan

Bob,
Let's take a look at the value of sponsorships on a car and the average TV audience and then tell me there is no correlation.
F1 sponsorship is the most expensive - AVG TV audience approx. 250 million? Major sponsorship can be up to $80 million/year
Nascar is next - AVG TV audience approx 15 million? Major sponsorship is over $10 million/year
ALMS/GA - AVG TV viewership 1/2 million? sponsorship doesn't even cover operating costs of the team
These are all very rough numbers based on informed internet speculation and do differ between teams but you get the picture I hope.

Excellent. That is exactly the point. In order to have professional racing you need a business model that covers the cost of racing. In our modern world, it takes broad-based popularity to do that, and there's a direct correlation between popularity of any sport and its television audience.

[dj4monie]

Originally Posted by TWK

Excellent. That is exactly the point. In order to have professional racing you need a business model that covers the cost of racing. In our modern world, it takes broad-based popularity to do that, and there's a direct correlation between popularity of any sport and its television audience.

Only differences being, there some sociological issues at play here.

Much like F1 and Football/Soccer is HUGE outside of the United States, its only so-so here. Our large immigrant population only seems like its embraced by more people. I can name one faction of the population that couldn't give two shhh about the World Cup or F1 and its a sizable chunk of the US demographic makeup.

NASCAR has really taken the Mid-west fan base away from Indy Car. That's where the audience switch/increase has come from. Its fan base in Mid-Atlantic and West Coast have largely remained the same or maybe slightly up on the West Coast because of so many Snow Birds leaving the Mason-Dixon area to come here.

I would argue the ALMS has a larger following (especially internationally) then it has during its peak years of the Camel GT.

GA fans largest complaint was the dominance of factory teams (specifically Audi) over privateers (specifically Dyson) and the seemingly more costly model of the ALMS. That's been largely disproved, its equally expensive in either series and that DP's largely cost more than they should given sums of its parts.

The LMP battle has fallen off a cliff, but you can say the same thing about DP's in GA. The winner is coming from one of three cars and nobody else. In past years, it was possible maybe 5-6 cars had a chance to win, that's not the case anymore.

GA's rating have never been good, even when the Daytona 24 was shown on Fox, I believe that was 2008. It got dismal ratings.

Clearly Speed's agreement with NASCAR as them showing their two lowest performing series on their network. Ratings be damed.

As TWK and Robin Miller have highlighted, a season's sponsorship does not pay enough in the ALMS. There is also not enough money won at either the major races or the Championships themselves to cover a season's activities.

As I said in another post what is Patron bringing to the series besides a free bottle of booze? Has the purses increased substantially for the privateer teams? Today besides GM Racing and BMW, all the other teams are "Technical Partners" meaning the teams have to put money on the hood (buy the cars) in order to get access to say factory drivers and fund parts development.

If Patron is subsidizing the TV contracts, that should free up more purse money, but I kinda don't see that happening. If that's the case in 2011, then I bet all the start times are moved into the early afternoon so they can show Patron adverts along with other related lifestyle sponsorships.

The IMSA Cup (for Privateers) has not been renamed the Patron Cup...

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by TWK

Excellent. That is exactly the point. In order to have professional racing you need a business model that covers the cost of racing. In our modern world, it takes broad-based popularity to do that, and there's a direct correlation between popularity of any sport and its television audience.

No it does not, baseball and football, no fans in the stands, or, no new ballpark, GOODBYE team.
Please tell me which team, has not left town due to TV.

Minnesota and Montreal were both up for contraction, sure is a good thing that TV contract saved Montreal.

[porsche91722]

Originally Posted by dj4monie

.....I would argue the ALMS has a larger following (especially internationally

I would agree, and now that they have a reliable live stream happening with some of the races, international following of the series can only improve. The ALMS just have to get the message out there to the masses, worldwide. The product is still excellent, albeit, not as good as we would like, ie, a better prototype field. I know that, with David Brabham and Pat Long coming out to Australia for some of the V8SC enduros later this year, there is a bit more interest from some of the locals in the ALMS.

[rich07]

Originally Posted by porsche91722

I would agree, and now that they have a reliable live stream happening with some of the races, international following of the series can only improve. The ALMS just have to get the message out there to the masses, worldwide. The product is still excellent, albeit, not as good as we would like, ie, a better prototype field. I know that, with David Brabham and Pat Long coming out to Australia for some of the V8SC enduros later this year, there is a bit more interest from some of the locals in the ALMS.

ONE HD was looking at televising ALMS but knocked it back due to cost so I've heard. Us ALMS fans would be the only Aussies who knew who Pat Long was unfortunately.

[veeten]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

No it does not, baseball and football, no fans in the stands, or, no new ballpark, GOODBYE team.
Please tell me which team, has not left town due to TV.

Florida Marlins (MLB) comes to mind. Lowest attendance record for consecutive seasons, and yet have won two MLB championships and several All-Star players. Go figure.

Then there's Cleveland, with both the Browns and Indians. Browns had great attendance, and left, while the Indians had poor attendance, and stayed. It was all due to managment either getting, or not getting, what they wanted in a new stadium deal from city hall, not the stands. In fact, the Browns had more fan activity than the Indians, and look who left.

The most ironic bit is that they left for Baltimore, whom had gone through a similar row with the Colts and their owner. And let's not go into the Oakland/Los Angeles Raiders.

Way too many examples, Bob.

Minnesota and Montreal were both up for contraction, sure is a good thing that TV contract saved Montreal.

But it did help them when they were relocated to Washington DC in '05.

BTW, hows that spankin' new field up there? It was more cognisant to the Twins having better players on the field that brought the fans in.

But, I guess that's neither here-nor-there, is it?

[Flyin Ryan]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

No it does not, baseball and football, no fans in the stands, or, no new ballpark, GOODBYE team.
Please tell me which team, has not left town due to TV.

Minnesota and Montreal were both up for contraction, sure is a good thing that TV contract saved Montreal.

Not really a good comparison. Montreal got ran into the ground by then-owner Jeffrey Loria (e.g. no TV or English-language radio locally because no one would pay or offer what he thought he should be paid for the rights; so the only way to follow the team when on the road was French-language radio) and Loria was able to leverage that over the rest of the baseball owners resulting in him selling the Expos to MLB and simultaneously buying the Florida Marlins, which he still owns.

a few years old: http://espn.go.com/page2/s/list/owners/greediest.html

9. Jeffrey Loria (Florida Marlins)
The whole Expos-Marlins-Red Sox ownership deal looked awfully fishy. Loria failed to build a decent franchise in Montreal, so MLB bought the Expos, which Selig said were no longer worthy of existence, and then let their owner, Loria, buy another franchise. Meanwhile, Marlins owner John Henry takes his $150 million-plus chunk of change to buy a piece of the Red Sox. Is Loria interested in good teams, or just a good shell game?

The one case that best suits your post is probably the Jacksonville Jaguars, which only sold out 1 of 8 home games last year and will be most likely moved to Los Angeles once their long-standing stadium issue is resolved.

[Zurbert82]

Originally Posted by Flyin Ryan

Not really a good comparison. Montreal got ran into the ground by then-owner Jeffrey Loria (e.g. no TV or English-language radio locally because no one would pay or offer what he thought he should be paid for the rights; so the only way to follow the team when on the road was French-language radio) and Loria was able to leverage that over the rest of the baseball owners resulting in him selling the Expos to MLB and simultaneously buying the Florida Marlins, which he still owns.

a few years old: http://espn.go.com/page2/s/list/owners/greediest.html

Not that this adds anything to the topic but I remember listening to the Expos on AM 990, an english language station from 2001-2004. I think it was just English TV coverage that was lacking.

*Edit* nevermind, looks like they landed English radio deal after the Loria era.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by veeten

Florida Marlins (MLB) comes to mind. Lowest attendance record for consecutive seasons, and yet have won two MLB championships and several All-Star players. Go figure.

Then there's Cleveland, with both the Browns and Indians. Browns had great attendance, and left, while the Indians had poor attendance, and stayed. It was all due to managment either getting, or not getting, what they wanted in a new stadium deal from city hall, not the stands. In fact, the Browns had more fan activity than the Indians, and look who left.

The most ironic bit is that they left for Baltimore, whom had gone through a similar row with the Colts and their owner. And let's not go into the Oakland/Los Angeles Raiders.

Way too many examples, Bob.



But it did help them when they were relocated to Washington DC in '05.

BTW, hows that spankin' new field up there? It was more cognisant to the Twins having better players on the field that brought the fans in.

But, I guess that's neither here-nor-there, is it?

Which of those team was SAVED due to Television?
Please tell me.
The fact some owners are loyal to their fans does not disqualify the ones who left due of lack fans, or AS I SAID, and far worse, no new stadium.
A lack of fans, means no money for owners and that is the only reason the original Twins owner sold, too few people.
A lack of fans and no other reason is the reason the twin were up for contraction. Those with, a comparative, low attendence that stay, are making ENOUGH to survive. It is as simple as that.

The Twins came here because the owner said that Washington fans were not baseball people, only he was a bit more blunt than that.
Have not been there yet, but except for gawdawful high food prices, all who have. have been pleased.
I went to one game in the dome and that was the last Twins game I attended strictly because I would not pay money to sit in that douche bag stadium.
I loved the old Met. stadium.

NOW tell which team did not move due to Television, or which team moved due to lack of television?
I.E. which case was TELEVISION the driving factor that made fans irrelevant.

The fact is that some are trying to say TV is a primary factor when it is at best a secondary factor that those who have a successful item can milk, or the TV people can milk, AFTER the fact.

[veeten]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Which of those team was SAVED due to Television?
Please tell me.

Okay, just as soon as you can prove which teams were LOST due to television. We can play this false dichotomy game as long as you like to, I have no problem.

The fact some owners are loyal to their fans does not disqualify the ones who left due of lack fans, or AS I SAID, and far worse, no new stadium.
A lack of fans, means no money for owners and that is the only reason the original Twins owner sold, too few people.
A lack of fans and no other reason is the reason the twin were up for contraction. Those with, a comparative, low attendence that stay, are making ENOUGH to survive. It is as simple as that.

Actually, there are more reasons than just 'a lack of fans', some of which go deeper to the situation. Evidently, it seems that you either don't want to delve that far, or lack sufficient will to do so. That's on you.

The Twins came here because the owner said that Washington fans were not baseball people, only he was a bit more blunt than that.

and yet, less that a few years later, another Washington Senators team arose, which lasted until '71. Now, here's the former Montreal Expos, saved from contraction by efforts to relocate them.

Have not been there yet, but except for gawdawful high food prices, all who have, have been pleased.
I went to one game in the dome and that was the last Twins game I attended strictly because I would not pay money to sit in that douche bag stadium.
I loved the old Met. stadium.

Once again, that's on you.
Moaning about stadiums that are long gone isn't going to change the fact that Twins managment made smarter moves with what they had and improved on it, which invigorated their fan base to grow to suffucient heights. Either go to a game or don't, or just watch it on TV. They won't mind, as they are still gettin' paid.

The fact is that some are trying to say TV is a primary factor when it is at best a secondary factor that those who have a successful item can milk, or the TV people can milk, AFTER the fact.

In the present-day, where revenue agreements and sponsorships are negotiated in the billions of dollars, major sports leagues and series have long realised that Television (Broadcast, Cable, Satellite, and even Internet) had far reaching capability to more areas, regions, nations, and even continents than anytime previous. That's what makes it more than a secondary factor, just ask those that not only participate, but also view.

As I said before, it seems that you are the only one here that has a problem with that.

[juicy sushi]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

No it does not, baseball and football, no fans in the stands, or, no new ballpark, GOODBYE team.
Please tell me which team, has not left town due to TV.

Minnesota and Montreal were both up for contraction, sure is a good thing that TV contract saved Montreal.

Bob, I think you're being very, very simplistic. How much of a % of revenues is the gate a team pulls in vs. their TV deal?

What is the major revenue generator for the New York Yankees? Or the Red Sox? Fenway is the smallest park in baseball if I recall, yet Boston, despite that smaller gate, has the money to compete with the Yankees. Why? Their TV deal. The revenue those broadcasts, and the resulting sponsorships TV brings in exceeds the gates, and enables the higher spending. An easy example: When looking at the sponsor banners on the walls in Yankee Stadium until this year, or Boston or Seattle at current, it is possible to notice that some of the most prominent sponsors are Japanese. Why? There are not large numbers of Japanese fans at the games? But there are large numbers of Japanese fans watching the games on Japanese TV (cheering on Matsuzaka, Ichiro and Hideki Matsui). That is a revenue source not represented by the gate, but of equal significance.

Racing has the same approach. Look at F1. Bernie does make a lot of money from the tracks for hosting the races, but many put on the races at a loss. The gates do not equal the sanctioning fees. Governments cover the difference in those cases. Yet the gates themselves, and the sanctioning fees are not the bulk of the revenues for Bernie or the teams. Those revenues come from the TV deals. Racing may have started in a pre-TV era, but the scales of revenues the sport currently has, and the resulting budgets and spending, are directly the result of the TV deals.

The ALMS does not have that same appeal. The races in many cases are well-attended (in some cases equal to, or exceeding GP levels), yet the teams are not operating on a for-profit basis, and the series is on the brink of collapse. Evidently race attendance is not enough to sustain the series at its current spending levels. Yes, the tracks will not operate at a loss for the sake of the series, but the tracks alone do not offer sufficient revenue to sustain the series either.

Just as some general comments on the topic:

I like beer, brats, wine and cheese. I see no reason to enforce a distinction between them, or the demographics. Cheap blonk is no better than Budweiser, while some craft brews decidedly equal fine french wines. Bullitt drove a Mustang and ate in a fine restaurant. The two are not exclusive.


The need for growth on TV to help the series grow is clear. The only problem is that the era of big-time revenues from large TV ratings is disappearing. All of pro sports seem to be in decline on TV, and TV audiences are fragmenting. Network TV no longer pulls in the same numbers it once did, and sports no longer hold the same appeal either. You can blame the internet in part, as it provides entertainment as an alternative to TV, but that only further creates a problem, as it is much harder to pull in the same numbers online as from TV, and harder to obtain revenue from them.

Sports car racing will somehow have to grow without TV revenue being the same panacea it is for F1 or NASCAR, and that means they will have to get ahead of the curve, media-wise. I have yet to see a single person in racing, anywhere that has the nous and intellectual capacity for that, and certainly am not aware of anyone in sport car racing that can pull that off, even though sports car racing has a major edge: Grand Turismo and similar video games have awoken the teenage masses to sports cars at a younger age, and to a greater depth than there was previously, and the manufacturers know it. Also, the biggest car show on the planet, Top Gear, worships the kinds of sports cars seen in GT1/2/3. Why no one has figured out how to take those two blessings, and run with them to grow the youth audience while providing the same great racing we, the already devoted fans, love is something I can't understand...

[Bob Riebe]

[QUOTE=veeten;2745625]

Actually, there are more reasons than just 'a lack of fans', some of which go deeper to the situation. Evidently, it seems that you either don't want to delve that far, or lack sufficient will to do so. That's on you. I am not the one who initiated a team sport analogy, I am simply using their quasi-logic.

Once again, that's on you.
Moaning about stadiums that are long gone isn't going to change the fact that Twins managment made smarter moves with what they had and improved on it, which invigorated their fan base to grow to suffucient heights.
And put the team on the verge of contraction-- you are a bit myoptic.
Had they not got the new stadium, the Twin would be gone.
They fully intended to do with the Dummy Dome what the Vikings intend to do, no new contract.
Now tell me how TV is going to keep the Vikings here.

As I said before, it seems that you are the only one here that has a problem with that.
EWWW- racing can reach, regions, nations and continents, tell that how that helps to track owners in the U.S.
No boots on the ground fans, no tracks, no tracks, no races.

I will admit I am one of the few here who is not infatuated with and whine about something not being on TV.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by juicy sushi

Bob, I think you're being very, very simplistic. How much of a % of revenues is the gate a team pulls in vs. their TV deal?

.

I simply took the team sports analogy, which in reality is a bogus analogy, and used it in a similar manner, to show TV is secondary to many markets, that was being used here by some to show that TV was going to save the ALMS.

Simplistic, yes, actually not a true analogy, yes, but that is the point.

Primary concern for any sanction in the U.S., that does not also own, or support, the tracks it races at, is that the racing is attractive enough, to bring enough people, to make the races profitable for the track.
Tracks do no operate as a charity.

[Mike_Wooshy]

Those of us who enjoy Perry and Cider oppose to Wine or Beer. Prefer to see Quirky Morgans and Big Jaguars doing battle oppose to cheering for Continental or Colonial cars. As long as there is a selection of cheese ( Wensleydale, Stilton, Cheddars, Double Gloucester and some Stinking Bishop) and a selection of sausages ( Cumberland, Lincoln, Oxford) going around, then which Camp do we sit ? Because my arse is hurting from all this sitting on the fence ......

[old man]

Originally Posted by gucom

if I can contribute my 2 cents...

yes, race tracks probably get most of their budget from spectators (i dunno how much the TV stations pay to the organizers for the TV rights, or how much money flows to the organizers from TV ads, but I'll just assume track-side spectators bring in more direct money).

but that's only half of the equation; if you want top-level racing, you'll need manufacturer involvement and like ptclaus said, they'll wanna have a larger audience than even de quarter of a million spectators at Le Mans, before investing the sums of money they do. This is especially true for prototype programs.

Unless the situation is very different from Europe the series and/or the circuit will pay the TV company for air time, not the other way around

Getting an entry at Le Mans, particularly in GT requires good results in a feeder series and so some entries are there for that reason. I doubt any of the teams has more income than expenditure and any shortfall is made up by either the drivers bringing money or the team owner subsidising.

The economics of motor racing outside F1 and Nascar are very strange and the TV takes away paying spectators as much as it brings new. I am a case in point, after around 60 years of almost obsesive (according to the wife) enthusiasm for the sport I have to admit to not going to circuits except for LM24 and a few in the UK, this year 3 or 4 only.

For the manufacturers it is all about image, that is why Porsche, Audi, Peugeot, Ferrari and BMW do it but remember, the Porsche racing division makes an operating profit.

[ptclaus98]

Originally Posted by old man

Unless the situation is very different from Europe the series and/or the circuit will pay the TV company for air time, not the other way around

Getting an entry at Le Mans, particularly in GT requires good results in a feeder series and so some entries are there for that reason. I doubt any of the teams has more income than expenditure and any shortfall is made up by either the drivers bringing money or the team owner subsidising.

The economics of motor racing outside F1 and Nascar are very strange and the TV takes away paying spectators as much as it brings new. I am a case in point, after around 60 years of almost obsesive (according to the wife) enthusiasm for the sport I have to admit to not going to circuits except for LM24 and a few in the UK, this year 3 or 4 only.

For the manufacturers it is all about image, that is why Porsche, Audi, Peugeot, Ferrari and BMW do it but remember, the Porsche racing division makes an operating profit.

Yeah, but it's different in that racetracks aren't dense around these parts, unless your talking about ovals. For example, I live in Chattanooga. I have two world class tracks in an 150-200 mile trip. The next closest is VIR, 400 miles away. Say I live in Swindon in the UK, there are 8 places within a 200 mile trip I can go see British F3 or Britcar. Some being on return occasions.


I know if I lived in Swindon I'd be making the trip a lot more than I do now.

[fieldodreams79]

Originally Posted by Mike_Wooshy

Those of us who enjoy Perry and Cider oppose to Wine or Beer. Prefer to see Quirky Morgans and Big Jaguars doing battle oppose to cheering for Continental or Colonial cars. As long as there is a selection of cheese ( Wensleydale, Stilton, Cheddars, Double Gloucester and some Stinking Bishop) and a selection of sausages ( Cumberland, Lincoln, Oxford) going around, then which Camp do we sit ? Because my arse is hurting from all this sitting on the fence ......

Well said, sir.

[ptclaus98]

Originally Posted by Mike_Wooshy

Those of us who enjoy Perry and Cider oppose to Wine or Beer. Prefer to see Quirky Morgans and Big Jaguars doing battle oppose to cheering for Continental or Colonial cars. As long as there is a selection of cheese ( Wensleydale, Stilton, Cheddars, Double Gloucester and some Stinking Bishop) and a selection of sausages ( Cumberland, Lincoln, Oxford) going around, then which Camp do we sit ? Because my arse is hurting from all this sitting on the fence ......

I'm hungry now, and I'm blaming it all on you.

[TWK]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

I simply took the team sports analogy, which in reality is a bogus analogy, and used it in a similar manner, to show TV is secondary to many markets, that was being used here by some to show that TV was going to save the ALMS.

Simplistic, yes, actually not a true analogy, yes, but that is the point.

Primary concern for any sanction in the U.S., that does not also own, or support, the tracks it races at, is that the racing is attractive enough, to bring enough people, to make the races profitable for the track.
Tracks do no operate as a charity.

If a sport can't support good television exposure, it won't attract sponsors, won't be seen, then won't draw fans to your precious tracks in enough numbers to support teams, series and others.

There is simply NOT ONE major sport that lacks a good television "footprint." Tracks (and stadiums) cannot attract fans to an invisible sport or series. One hand washes the other.

[carsten66]

Originally Posted by TWK

If a sport can't support good television exposure, it won't attract sponsors, won't be seen, then won't draw fans to your precious tracks in enough numbers to support teams, series and others.

There is simply NOT ONE major sport that lacks a good television "footprint." Tracks (and stadiums) cannot attract fans to an invisible sport or series. One hand washes the other.

I think most of us will agree with you but the question still needs to be dealt with who will pay all the bills... and for shure you need tons of money and it's safe to say that neither the ALMS nor the LMS are able to get together the funding at the moment...

Just a thought, but maybe the other way around could work as a first step for them... and much cheaper: introduce a web based TV program/station, one platfom for all - the LMS, the ALMS and 24H of Le Mans - and hire some good stuff for TV broadcast productions (or a company), involve RLM and show all the races live, including Qualifyings and Pre-Race-Shows etc. - and hand the stuff over to the TV stations in the US, Europe and worldwide for free (for a start)...

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by TWK

If a sport can't support good television exposure, it won't attract sponsors, won't be seen, then won't draw fans to your precious tracks in enough numbers to support teams, series and others.

There is simply NOT ONE major sport that lacks a good television "footprint." Tracks (and stadiums) cannot attract fans to an invisible sport or series. One hand washes the other.

Hmmm, let us see, so you are saying that the U.S. populace has become a herd of- pretty colors on the screen junkies- without which they are ignorant and obtuse of the outside world; therefore, that must make the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people of people that attend short-track events- some sort of cultural outlaws?

OH the humanity!