Champ Car Television to be on ABC/ESPN for 2007/2008

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by indycool

Believe what you want to believe....a sporting series that drew six 0.1s on SPEED, including a 0 share and only 54,000 households at the season closer in Mexico City, that was on a time buy for THAT network, is going to get a rights fee? How much sense does that make? A series that doesn't have its complete schedule yet but has a TV contract in place is getting a rights fee? How would ABC/ESPN even determine what to pay for it in that circumstance? On the other hand, ABC/ESPN can say it's "X" dollars an hour when our hours are available, sign the contract and collect the money.

Well, you are taking the glass is half empty approach. Successful investors find properties with potential to buy low and reap the benefits in the future. They are looking at the potential of champcar for the future. The series is gaining in support and stature again. We've got talented drivers, new and existing sponsors, good teams, some great races around the world, it's bursting with potential. This TV deal is a sign of the continuing development and growth of champcar. If that was not true a deal would not have been signed, right?

In any case, it's a done deal, it's a better tv package for champcar and there is no way to knock it.

[norman-normal]

No one ever mentions CC racing on TV in other parts of the world. Is that free? Do those households not count? It would seem like someones stacking "the deck"
When I look at the front page of the forums, I see two or three times as much action for Champ Cars as I do for the IRL. I get to thinking: someones trying to pee on my leg and make me think, its raining.
The other thing I get to thinking is that there must be a profit motive for them to do this.

[racinthestreets]

I say who really cares. OWRS has made a decision and moved on it. If it costs who really cares. They have made many good decisions and I expect this is another one. We will see where the naysayers are sometime in 2008. I believe that by mid 2008, this series will be seen as America's best open wheel series. Bring on the Panoz and 2007. Las Vegas is 18-19 weeks out I am ready now!

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by norman-normal

No one ever mentions CC racing on TV in other parts of the world. Is that free? Do those households not count? It would seem like someones stacking "the deck"
When I look at the front page of the forums, I see two or three times as much action for Champ Cars as I do for the IRL. I get to thinking: someones trying to pee on my leg and make me think, its raining.
The other thing I get to thinking is that there must be a profit motive for them to do this.

Nor do they mention Race Director which as I see it is money for free because you already have all the cameras going and you are simply diverting the feed to people paying a subscription. With data transfers costs being very cheap these days(compared to a few years ago), I'm sure all the fans signed up for RD are contributing to the bottom line.

Yes there is a profit motive involved as last I checked ABC was not in the charity business but the television business. It's obviously a deal to the advantage of both parties or the deal would not have been done. Also one needs to remember the new deal will likely generate revenue in other areas, such as sponsorship. With an increase in exposure, teams and drivers will be able to secure better sponsorship, the series may gain a title sponsor and trackside advertising will probably grow as well. All resulting in a increase in revenue for champcar and it's participants.

All in all this is a positive development for champcar. The knocking of this deal is simply desperation on the part of a known few much like those in hitlers bunker in April 1945, still moving non existant armies around the map, when everyone knows on the outside the russians are coming and the game is up.

[Snrub]

In case anyone was wondering, Robin Miller is not exactly anti-CC and he is employeed by CC to write articles for the series website!

I wonder if the truth isn't somewhere between CC paying $10M or receiving something for the broadcast rights. Is it not conceivable that ABC/ESPN may pay nothing and CC simply gets to be on network TV? Is is not conceivable that CC may have to pay a much smaller amount and that they will not have to find all of the advertising (let's say that ABC runs an ad or two from their sponsors and then CC runs 4-5 from sponsors that they have found)? Or that CC pays ABC a small rate of cash and ABC runs all of the ads?

[JohnSSC]

A negative article by Miller or realistic? If Forsythe is saying that "I can remember when we used to get paid to be on television" than we can fairly safely presume that this is again a buy.

Now some here are making presumptions such as "the time sold on broadcasts offsets the cost" with the implication being that it offsets all of the costs. When you are reaching 50,000 households or less than there is not a big demand for advertisers to place their product in front of the viewer. Lack of demand = low price. It is simple economics - if the supply of a product exceeds the demand than the price will go down.

Now it has also been implied here that the folks at ABC/ESPN are being like "successful investors" and getting in on the ground floor. Well, successful investors do at times get in on the ground floor and ride the wave so to speak, but most often they find established concerns that have value and continue to create value. The current state of open wheel, despite Indy and despite the new Panoz is that no realistic investor looks at either Series as "established." If one or the other set of deep pockets goes away then so does the respective series. No one is going to heavily invest in advertising using open wheel as something that the consuming public will identify with - open wheel may or may not be here next season based simply on GF/KK or TG deciding to stop writing checks. If I am Home Depot then I will continue to send my $$ where I know I will get identification, association and recognition. Just becaus KK has a "business plan" does not mean there is a guarantee of success.

Lastly, it is funny that Miller is described as unreliable because he works for Speed but conveniently forgotten is that he works for CC as well. If we are to believe that "Oreo" has the straight scoop because he works for ESPN, how can we not believe that Miller has the straight scoop since he works for CC?

[D.R.T.]

Originally Posted by JohnSSC

If we are to believe that "Oreo" has the straight scoop because he works for ESPN, how can we not believe that Miller has the straight scoop since he works for CC?

Dare I suggest the ESPN employee is closer to the cut than the CC/Speed Journo.

All that said I like RM and he is usually on the money.

[JohnSSC]

And maybe he is, D.R.T., but I was not referring to you specifically.

Sometimes in journalism it is easier for those outside of an organization to report what is going on inside another than for someone who is inside that organization (even if that person is al;so a reporter). For example, it might be that a reporter could find out things about the company I work for that I would have no knowledge of as I am not privy to the details of deals that are made/contemplated.

Accepting as fact what Oreovitz (sic) writes simply because he works for ESPN is a bit weak. Just like anything else, if we seek the "truth" in any matter it is best to question and verify.

[indycool]

IMO, Oreowicz would be no closer to the deal than Miller. Both are pseudo-members of Forrest Bond's so-called "Gang of Four" with David Phillips and Gordon Kirby, working for CC while masquerading as journalists on the side with various media outlets. Oreo would be no closer to the dealmakers at ABC or ESPN than the others.

[norman-normal]

We have those who are, "masquerading" as Fans, if we didn't know who they are, it be much more difficult sifting through all the BS to get earnest info.

I guess some feel compelled to carry on the traditions of the worlds oldest profession.

[coyote9999]

Talking about visibility, journalism and so on. Any body know who Jan Shaffer is and what he does? I'm just curious. Lots of talk on other forums these days.

[2112]

Originally Posted by coyote9999

Talking about visibility, journalism and so on. Any body know who Jan Shaffer is and what he does? I'm just curious. Lots of talk on other forums these days.

Good question. And one that should be answered honestly, since fans usually don`t turn a race thread into an attendance thread.

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by coyote9999

Talking about visibility, journalism and so on. Any body know who Jan Shaffer is and what he does? I'm just curious. Lots of talk on other forums these days.

I think he's part of the "gang of three" with Jim Wilke and Mr. Defender.

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by JohnSSC

And maybe he is, D.R.T., but I was not referring to you specifically.

Sometimes in journalism it is easier for those outside of an organization to report what is going on inside another than for someone who is inside that organization (even if that person is al;so a reporter). For example, it might be that a reporter could find out things about the company I work for that I would have no knowledge of as I am not privy to the details of deals that are made/contemplated.

Accepting as fact what Oreovitz (sic) writes simply because he works for ESPN is a bit weak. Just like anything else, if we seek the "truth" in any matter it is best to question and verify.

In this case how do you have any verification since we do not have the contract in hand?

[norman-normal]

Honesty doesn't come easly to some people. (It's not just one).

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by JohnSSC

A negative article by Miller or realistic? If Forsythe is saying that "I can remember when we used to get paid to be on television" than we can fairly safely presume that this is again a buy.

Now some here are making presumptions such as "the time sold on broadcasts offsets the cost" with the implication being that it offsets all of the costs. When you are reaching 50,000 households or less than there is not a big demand for advertisers to place their product in front of the viewer. Lack of demand = low price. It is simple economics - if the supply of a product exceeds the demand than the price will go down.

Now it has also been implied here that the folks at ABC/ESPN are being like "successful investors" and getting in on the ground floor. Well, successful investors do at times get in on the ground floor and ride the wave so to speak, but most often they find established concerns that have value and continue to create value. The current state of open wheel, despite Indy and despite the new Panoz is that no realistic investor looks at either Series as "established." If one or the other set of deep pockets goes away then so does the respective series. No one is going to heavily invest in advertising using open wheel as something that the consuming public will identify with - open wheel may or may not be here next season based simply on GF/KK or TG deciding to stop writing checks. If I am Home Depot then I will continue to send my $$ where I know I will get identification, association and recognition. Just becaus KK has a "business plan" does not mean there is a guarantee of success.

Lastly, it is funny that Miller is described as unreliable because he works for Speed but conveniently forgotten is that he works for CC as well. If we are to believe that "Oreo" has the straight scoop because he works for ESPN, how can we not believe that Miller has the straight scoop since he works for CC?

I don't think we can presume anything since this is a brand new deal of which we do not have a contract to examine. Again for the tenth time, regardless of whether this is a time buy or not has no relevance to the fact that champcar will now have better television coverage. That is what is important for growth "BETTER TELEVISION COVERAGE".

"Just becaus KK has a "business plan" does not mean there is a guarantee of success"
There is no guarantee of success with anything in life or business, last I checked. However the fact that in less than 3 years champcar has built a solid foundation for itself and has a plan for the future certainly shows this is a not a fly by night operation.

I'm not going to say Miller is unreliable, but he has been wrong at times. My problem with what he wrote is that it had a very negative tone, which to me makes no sense.

[coyote9999]

Here Here to that!

[JohnSSC]

It is refreshing to not have a response where anyone with an opposing viewpoint is likened to those who were in Hitler's bunker. Perhaps you just may, mountainstar, reconsider what type of brush you are painting with. You brook no discussion that may be contrary to your views and paint those who hold them with a term that is absolutely uncalled for and worse than disrespectful. Some things just are not funny.

You owe it to yourself and the other members of the forum to apologize - publicly - for using that term.

I let it pass earlier hoping you would be called on it but that apparently wasn't going to happen.

As far as responding to my posts - please go back and read them without making an a priori assumption as to what I am saying. I am simply noting, for discussion purposes that it is a time buy. Forsythe's own words confirm this. No, I have not seen a contract stating that - I will go out on a limb and presume that you have not seen a contract stating ESPN/ABC is paying CC to be there either. For further discussion purposes, I never said that it would not be better to be on ESPN. I did say, that with the ratings they have been getting, advertisers are not going to be beating down the door to buy time to offset the cost of CC buying time on any network.

Thank you also for verifying that there is no guarantee of success in this business. While I will agree things are better than they were three years ago, a Series that is, by all appearances being run out of the Series owner's checkbooks is not possessed of a firm foundation. It only means that for now they are willing to write checks. When that stops, so will the Series. I believe that to be just as true for the other Series.

[The Snout]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

I don't think we can presume anything since this is a brand new deal of which we do not have a contract to examine. Again for the tenth time, regardless of whether this is a time buy or not has no relevance to the fact that champcar will now have better television coverage. That is what is important for growth "BETTER TELEVISION COVERAGE".

"Just becaus KK has a "business plan" does not mean there is a guarantee of success"
There is no guarantee of success with anything in life or business, last I checked. However the fact that in less than 3 years champcar has built a solid foundation for itself and has a plan for the future certainly shows this is a not a fly by night operation.

I'm not going to say Miller is unreliable, but he has been wrong at times. My problem with what he wrote is that it had a very negative tone, which to me makes no sense.

Pretty much says it all. Making an assumption based on one sentence with no context quoted in the middle of an article is dodgy at best.

But beside that small stuff, what really matters in a better TV deal, and this certainly seems to be that.

[The Snout]

Originally Posted by JohnSSC

I am simply noting, for discussion purposes that it is a time buy. Forsythe's own words confirm this.

IYO

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by JohnSSC

It is refreshing to not have a response where anyone with an opposing viewpoint is likened to those who were in Hitler's bunker. Perhaps you just may, mountainstar, reconsider what type of brush you are painting with. You brook no discussion that may be contrary to your views and paint those who hold them with a term that is absolutely uncalled for and worse than disrespectful. Some things just are not funny.

You owe it to yourself and the other members of the forum to apologize - publicly - for using that term.

This is a champcar section of this forum and it seems those select few on the anti champcar slant repeatedly enter here and slam every single deal champcar does. Why would you not expect your ideas to be challenged if you repeatedly post negative views on champcar in a champcar forum?

In terms of "hitlers bunker" it is a good analogy of those with a bunker like unrealistic view of what's going on, who are moving armies around on the map which no longer exist. If you read anything more into it, then you are creating a storm in a teacup.

[JohnSSC]

The forum exists to discuss CC, not agree with any one particular analysis of said deals. Questioning a deal, or positing a differing view is not "slamming" CC.

Insofar as your analogy, if you mean "bunker mentality" then say "bunker mentatlity." Adding "Hitler" to that and likening anyone who has an opposing view to not only a bunker mentality but also Hitler's own peculiar brand is specifically designed to create that tempest in a teacup without anyone having to trouble themselves with reading anything into it at all.

Further, if this is such a good analogy then perhaps the shoe should then be on the other foot and those that see only "good news" in every announcement could be likened to those who so desperately wanted peace in 1939 believed that a simple piece of paper guaranteed what was so obviously not going to happen. People who believed that war was inevitable were branded as "alarmists" and "war mongers." The announcement, therefore of a TV deal guarantees nothing in the way of success for CC.

Fortunately for us if Open Wheel collapses tomorrow there will be no evidence of tanks in anyone's neighborhoods.

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by JohnSSC

Questioning a deal, or positing a differing view is not "slamming" CC.

The announcement, therefore of a TV deal guarantees nothing in the way of success for CC.

No certainly not, but one wonders why particular individuals repeatedly take a negative slant on everything and anything about champcar and post in this forum. I mean why bother and to what end? I have over several years made posts in the irl forum, but i'm not in there in every thread, page after page posting negative themed essays about the irl.

Again, are there any guarantees of anything. No. But ultimately having the series on a more visible sports network and under one roof is more beneficial to having the series spread across multiple networks does it not?

[JohnSSC]

I do love dealing in "absolutes!"

Would you care to quantify your implication that I am in "every" thread?

I would also be curious to read any posts by someone with your viewpoint which have been supportive of the IRL.

Again, you insist on likening my questioning whether the king actually has any clothes on (which I do in the "other" forum) with being "negative." As this is a discussion forum only so far as it acts as a repository for statements that agree with yours it must be a very dull world indeed where no one ever challenges your premise. Are you so limited by being a "fan" that you can only paint in black and white?

You must admit that you have rarely missed an opportunity to slam the IRL & TG not only here but in the other forum as well. Your complaint of me or anyone else being "negative" is like the pot calling the kettle black.

[luke]

OK...I haven't posted here in a while but after reading some of these posts I just had to reply...

ON TOPIC this is great news Champ Car is back on ESPN and ABC. And 2008 on both full time for the whole championship. When the persistent likes that forever have a negative attitude towards Champ Car always look negatively at things it only gets annoying down the road. ....'Not just the half empty bottle approach...'
I'm not saying don't post anything you don't agree with at all, or if you feel something is being done wrong don't feel you can't say anything. And Champ Car is being reconstructed, and there is obviously going to be things that people don't agree with...But it’s always the same people who post negative stuff about Champ Car. Like I said fair enough if you agree with something’s, and fair enough if you don't agree with something’s. I'm not going to name names, but look at a few users who post here and you'll see all if not the majority of their posts are forever negative and sometimes even 'baloney' to quote a line...towards Champ Car.
Now John about you taking it off the topic about the great deal on ESPN about sometime about Hitler and the IRL. Mountainstar and others don't post every thread or every week negative stuff about the IRL. That's constructive criticism. I'm not the no1 IRL fan. I have a motto if you have nothing nice to say about something don't say anything at all. If there is something good to say then I say it, I just feel strongly about the sport I love and just say what I don't agree with within the IRL. I'm not going to name a name but for some users, internet forums are nothing more then places to stir hatred. I’m not saying they do, but when the posts are NEVER race related and always reporting the attendance has slipped etc, you do get that impression...

You do wonder sometimes if some people on internet forums are payed to forever posts negative stuff. hehe...

And to go back to go back on topic, I can’t see anything bad about this news. Champ Car finally having a good TV deal again. I think many people can now look at the World Series with a better face then what it was when it was on SPIKETV compared to ABC and ESPN....

Its just sad when some people IMHO always have to look at it as a negative and look at sources to prove this. AT the end of the day who should care? Its a racing series. Lets enjoy the racin'