Attendance and TV Ratings so Far

[Snrub]

Here's a thought, can we come up with confirmed numbers for Edmonton's Grand Stand seating and luxury suites? (eg. published proof) Other races would work too, but there's been a lot of stuff published on how the Edmonton race is being put together.

All of the luxury suites have sold and race organizers are expecting to top the 175,000 mark in total attendance during the three-day event at the City Centre Airport track. Grand Prix officials will make 20,000 general admission tickets available
http://www.edmontonsun.com/Sports/Mo...19013-sun.html

I thought the Grand Stand seating was suppose to be ~20k? [ 20k (Grand Stand) + 20k (GA) ] x 3 days = 120k figure. That's obviously high because they probably won't sell out friday. Surely there aren't [175k - 120k] / 3 = 18k in luxury seating?

[macdaddy]

Snrub, all I could garner from the race's website was this:

17 drivers from 7 countries, including Canadian stars Paul Tracy and Alex Tagliani, will battle... in front of 60,000 fans.

Not meaning to go off-topic, but I find the number "17" to be very interesting.
Also, they make no mention of Andrew Ranger.

[macdaddy]

Figured somebody would've taken the "17" and run with it by now.

Is this not something to be interested and/or concerned about?

[Snrub]

Just a guess, but maybe that part on Edmonton's site was written at the time that the Milwaukee race was on?

[macdaddy]

Surely they update their website. It's a major event, afterall.

I'm thinking that their contract only calls for 17 cars, (as did Milwaukee's).

But what I'm concerned about is the possibility that they're only expecting 17 cars.

[macdaddy]

And... Worse yet...
ChampCar is only expecting to field 17 cars...

[Amar7605]

Well what count do we have at this time?

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by Snrub

Here's a thought, can we come up with confirmed numbers for Edmonton's Grand Stand seating and luxury suites? (eg. published proof) Other races would work too, but there's been a lot of stuff published on how the Edmonton race is being put together.

All of the luxury suites have sold and race organizers are expecting to top the 175,000 mark in total attendance during the three-day event at the City Centre Airport track. Grand Prix officials will make 20,000 general admission tickets available
http://www.edmontonsun.com/Sports/Mo...19013-sun.html

I thought the Grand Stand seating was suppose to be ~20k? [ 20k (Grand Stand) + 20k (GA) ] x 3 days = 120k figure. That's obviously high because they probably won't sell out friday. Surely there aren't [175k - 120k] / 3 = 18k in luxury seating?

From what I understand over 40,000 grandstand seats were erected. I believe that number has been firm for quite sometime now.

[mountainstar]

Just got word that it is exactly 48,000 grandstand seats at Edmonton with the ability to erect 32,000 more if necessary.

[macdaddy]

Toronto:

...race-day crowd of 73,155 boosting three-day attendance numbers to over 160,000 for the 12th consecutive year.


Edmonton:

...projected to sell out... and over 80 corporate hospitality suites have been sold.

"We are anticipating that our Champ Car race in Edmonton will be the most successful entertainment event ever held in the Province of Alberta."


San Jose:

...already sold nearly all of its grandstand tickets and hospitality suites.


Denver:

...saw a 40 percent rise in attendance last year, setting a new event standard with 112,000 fans coming to see the 2004 race.

...ticket sales being three times ahead of where they were at this time last season... In addition, the Denver event has attracted more than 35 new sponsors...


Montreal:

...has seen an average of 150,000 attending...

CC.com

[Amar7605]

Those numbers sound all well and good, but we've basically been discussing on this thread how numbers can be fudged to make things look bigger than they actually are. I am not saying that the numbers aren't impressive, or that they are automatically fudged, but let's take a cautious optimism stance.

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by Amar7605

Those numbers sound all well and good, but we've basically been discussing on this thread how numbers can be fudged to make things look bigger than they actually are. I am not saying that the numbers aren't impressive, or that they are automatically fudged, but let's take a cautious optimism stance.

NO I disagree. This thread is about champcar attendance and tv ratings, not conspiracy theories about it. So far no one has offered any conclusive proof of any fudging of any numbers this year. When you all you do, please post it.

[JohnSSC]

Of course mountainstar, proof that OWRS (or any other sanctioning body) is NOT doing it this way could be seen as something you could verify. Just as there is a thesis being put forward here by electro a rebuttal containing verification that fans are not double-counted could also be put forward rather than a "No, he is wrong." satement.

By the way, no one has said anything here about "conspiracy theories." Attendance has been fudged for years. I remember when the Pittsburgh Condors played in the NBA here in Pittsburgh. Attendance for a game would be announced at 5 or 6 thousand when the actual turnstile count was literally 15 or 16 hundred.

[Snrub]

The one thing that was interesting about TO this year was that I could not see an empty seat on TV, whereas last year there were a few. If I'm recalling correctly the attendance figures aren't substantially different though...

[Tim Northcutt]

There were a few in the lower rows of the grandstands across from the pit lane, but a crowd of 73,000+ on race day and 160,000 for the weekend is an excellent crowd....congrats to the Series and the promoters for doing a great job....

[Electrocuted]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

NO I disagree. This thread is about champcar attendance and tv ratings, not conspiracy theories about it. So far no one has offered any conclusive proof of any fudging of any numbers this year. When you all you do, please post it.

Mountainstar,,,, "fluffy" numbers give false hope,,, and plays fans for fools. When the real numbers come out,, or the effect of the real numbers are reflected in the lack of REAL corporate sponsorship,, the fans are thrown on that ol roller coaster ride of high's and low's. Why not avoid avoidable low's,, and be truthful and call it as it is from the begining??

The below quote in bold I'll freely admit isnt PROOF of anything. It's just another statement that ties-in, through the back door, that workers and track personnel and team members and press passes and 1 = 3/6 and other "fluffy" calculated conclusions are real.

From another board.... (changed a couple of words so it isnt 'theft'.. )
Does this mean that they include the team personnel in the attendance numbers?
"Don't forget, when they're running with 18 cars ... my second year running the race we had 32 or 33 cars. That alone will put another 700 to 1,500 on site. So I think they've done a hell of a job."

Seems like someone from Canada is excusing the drop of 4000 race day spectators to an 8 year low attendance, on fewer team members?? IF,, IF,, IF,, the statement is accurate.........

The link is thestar.com I think.

[macdaddy]

Semantics, as far as I'm concerned.

Personally, I couldn't care less if the numbers are "fluffed" by 700+ because of team personnel. This is something that I'll leave to the sponsors and promoters to be concerned about. And it doesn't seem as if they are.

What's important to me is the fact that the sponsors, both team and event, seem to be increasing with every passing week. We've got a network TV contract, and I don't really care who's paying for that. And the fans are filling the seats, no matter how you count them.

"Build it, and they will come."
OWRS is a new company. Even McDonalds didn't serve 10 billion burgers in their first couple of years.

The product is great. The attendance is great. The talent is great. The sponsorships and television are quite strong.

Let the accountants worry about attendance. I'll concern myself with what happens in T1.

[/rant]

[Mosport67]

Toronto took out a grandstand this year. There were a few empty seats in our silver grandstand (right in front of us which was nice).

There certainly seemed to be a good crowd even on Friday afternoon as the walk down Thunder Alley was quite crowded.

I wouldn't be all that concerned about a 4,000 drop in race day attendance. The show was good and the prices reasonable. A solid 70,000 is a very good number.

As to fluff we have numbers from 1986 onwards. About 60,000 on race day that year. Providing the same system of counting is used the numbers seem to be good for ChampCar.

[Snrub]

I think it is important not to fluff the numbers. It doesn't do anyone any good for false numbers to be produced. Frankly I don't know what to think about the topic of how prevasive fluffing is. I don't think it matters if the small percentage of people like us on forums think the numbers are impressive. Normal fans probably couldn't even guess an accurate ballpark figure and they probably don't care. Where it matters is sponsors. Sponsors aren't going to get involved if they suspect they're being lied to. If existing sponsors believe they were sold a bag of goods they'll bail.

Traditionally I haven't cared who the sponsors are, etc, but the fall of the series has caused these issues to impact what happends at T1. To some degree I've become interested in the business situation behind all of it.

I agree with macdaddy that things seem to be picking up sponsorship wise, but I don't think it's at the stage that that we can call it good. Good would be when a majority of the cars have solid sponsorship that doesn't limit their ability to perform and the vast majority drivers are paid at a level that reflects their talent. The TV coverage is a good step, but it's not there yet. I also agree that it's unrealistic to expect massive sucess overnight. What's important is that we continue to see forward progress.

[JohnSSC]

macdaddy, no offense, but semantics is the study od the meanings of speech forms, especially the development of and changes of meaning of words and word groups.

The discussion electro has going here is to actually define the number of bodies present for an event. In this case we are discussing how sanctioning bodies count and ultimately publicize race attendance.

However one may view the "importance" of this issue to fans like myself the actual "true" attendance is a measure of how much the Series (OWRS in this case) has recovered and further how it has improved it's ability to attract sponsorship.

IF what electro posits is true (and I have seen no one rebu from a factual basis) then if I were to go to Toronto, buy a race ticket and a Paddock Pass then I would be counted as two people. Since many folks do this and often over multiple days, this would be more than just "fluff" if the crews and press are also counted. It is a good subject and since we are not "regular" fans here it makes for some interesting dialog.

[macdaddy]

John...

Nowhere did I mean to intend that this subject isn't worth discussion.
Quite the contrary, as I believe it is. Very much so.

I used phrases like "As far as I'm concerned", "Personally", and "What's important to me". I do not speak for anybody else but myself. All I'm trying to do is express my own viewpoint, as a fan, just as everybody else is. Perhaps I misread, but I got the impression that you thought I was wearing a "mod-hat", when in fact that is a hat that I seldom wear.

What is obvious to me is:
- The attendance is fantastic. Nobody can argue that.
- The events with poor-attendance are no longer on the calendar.
- The sidepods are slowly filling up, even if some are only for select events.
- The promoters are finding sponsors of their own. Some are finding tons.

From my own experience, I find that a rather small percentage of raceday ticketholders purchase pit/paddock passes. Otherwise Toronto would have had over 73,000 people roaming the garages.

My misuse of the word "semantics" is... well... semantics!


Go ahead and discuss this relevant topic, but don't take me to task for saying "I don't really care"!

[JohnSSC]

Apologies, macdaddy! I got so carried away with the definition that I did not clarify that my comments were not directed towards you but rather other posts in the thread.

Mea culpa, mea culpa mea maxima culpa!

[Electrocuted]

Originally Posted by Mosport67

I wouldn't be all that concerned about a 4,000 drop in race day attendance. The show was good and the prices reasonable. A solid 70,000 is a very good number.

Ditto.

I've said it before,,,,,, I dont go hunting for a LOW number,,, just an ACCURATE number. I have a hang-up about fans being played for fools,,, and avoidable roller coaster ride lows. Lord knows US OW racing has had plenty of lows,,, no need to not tell the truth and avoid yet another low.

Snrub,, good post. We're on the same page.

[Tim Northcutt]

I think that both Series have work to do...both have their good and bad events....

Attendance at Portland and Milwaukee were pathetic.....Mexico was great..the place had a great crowd....

Milwaukee will probably go away...OWRS may be stuck with Portland for two more years.....unless OWRS has an escape clause....and I do not believe that the ALMS will "partner" with them there....despite what Robin Miller says....

Cleveland had 40,000 on race day, and it is a mostly-self-promote event.....it is also very costly to set up and operate since it is not a purpose-built facility for racing....

Long Beach allegedly lost money this year, according to other posts in this Forum...yet they bought the event for $15 million......another high-cost-set-up event....

I'm glad Toronto had a great crowd...and a 4,000 person drop wouldn't worry me, either....but they also dropped ticket prices 20% according to the Toronto Star....so they had less total revenune by 20% from sales, plus 4,000 less people......

As a CEO, that would cause me concern......

Our overhead is going up, because we are dropping events that have ready-made facilities in favor of events on streets or airports that require us to set up a ton of infrastructure and they are not even permanent venues that can remain consistent from year to year......the old Long Beach course, as an example, was a better one for racing than what the current one is...IMO.....

The "company" is buying "Time Shares" in municipalities that are costing them money to set up and operate...I'm sure that the cities are picking up various costs, but it has to be costing the Series "something" to shut down streets or airports to do them.....plus grandstands, barriers, catch fencing, etc....some costs are shared....some are assumed by the respective entities involved...

I also wouldn't be turning cartwheels over the fact that a number of teams have had "musical chairs" drivers for many events due to money issues, and others like Jensen had a total throw-away pilot at L-B, and really haven't been back since.....even on their home turf....

Sorry, but that is not healthy to me.....

This does not look "brighter" to me...forgive me if I do not put on the shades....

Torch me if you wish...I just call them as I see them....

[Snrub]

Originally Posted by macdaddy

From my own experience, I find that a rather small percentage of raceday ticketholders purchase pit/paddock passes. Otherwise Toronto would have had over 73,000 people roaming the garages.

That brings up a good point. Do we have any numbers to suggest how many pit passes are sold? Regardless, what would you guys estimate is an accurate number? mosport67 makes some good points and seems to guess 4k. He strikes me as being capable of making a decent estimate.

Also, at a track like Portland with lowish attendance, is the crowd made up of mostly diehard fans who would buy pit passes or is it the same as any other venue, just smaller numbers? The reason I'm asking is beacuse let's arbitrarly say 5k out of 73k people buy pit passes at TO (I haven't a clue what the right number is). That means there's really 68k attenance. If another track was 20k race day and had 5k buy pit passes, perportionately it effects the attendance a lot more.