The Great Derby Paradox

[asudevil]

I'm sitting here and reflecting upon yesterday. Great story lines, the winning connections, etc. and all that despite a horrific weather day. I digress....kudos to those here who scored big. MMSC and Point come to mind with the Oaks/Derby punts. I believe I'm one of the many who said after the race, "if I only put Golden Soul in the 2nd position, as well as 3rd and 4th."

Today the data has been pouring in. Second largest handle ever (good weather would have pushed it to a record). Best NBC ratings in 21 years. Good pub earlier in the week from two 60 Minutes segments. You know where I'm going with this. Why then does the sport continually have challenges throughout the year? Obviously I'm not including BC, Saratoga, Del Mar, and I guess Keeneland to some extent. The marketing of the Derby has certainly helped widen the appeal. The purists may not love the celebs, red carpet, the mansion, etc...but it is sure working to the event's advantage. Apart from this, I guess the derby is part and parcel to what's become an ADHD society. The need for star studded events with a splash of instant gratification. Who knows if that's it?

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by asudevil

I'm sitting here and reflecting upon yesterday. Great story lines, the winning connections, etc. and all that despite a horrific weather day. I digress....kudos to those here who scored big. MMSC and Point come to mind with the Oaks/Derby punts. I believe I'm one of the many who said after the race, "if I only put Golden Soul in the 2nd position, as well as 3rd and 4th."

Today the data has been pouring in. Second largest handle ever (good weather would have pushed it to a record). Best NBC ratings in 21 years. Good pub earlier in the week from two 60 Minutes segments. You know where I'm going with this. Why then does the sport continually have challenges throughout the year? Obviously I'm not including BC, Saratoga, Del Mar, and I guess Keeneland to some extent. The marketing of the Derby has certainly helped widen the appeal. The purists may not love the celebs, red carpet, the mansion, etc...but it is sure working to the event's advantage. Apart from this, I guess the derby is part and parcel to what's become an ADHD society. The need for star studded events with a splash of instant gratification. Who knows if that's it?

Because the sport is on 7 days a week 365 days a year and wipes out the folks who love it enough to engage it daily.

[blackthroatedwind]

I'm not sure this is a paradox. The Derby is mainstream Americana. A lot of effort was made to publicize it. People are attracted to things that celebrities are doing. Handle in horse racing has been going up ( despite the cries to the contrary by the ill-informed naysayers ).

We still need to educate the public about what is fascinating about this great game if we expect to create viable new fans. I'm not saying I have the answers as to how to do this, but I would say that identifying your potential new fans correctly, or responsibly, is probably a good place to start. I do, however, think ignoring the gambling aspect of the game is not likely to allow you to turn the casual viewer into a productive participant in the game.

I should hope that the marketers behind major productions like the Triple Crown races know how to attract peoples' attentions. My question is whether or not you think the celebrity/human interest stories are being effectively counter balanced with some sort of productive fan education elements. I can't offer any specific thoughts in this instance, as I did not see any of the NBC coverage. I am actually curious.

[asudevil]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I'm not sure this is a paradox. The Derby is mainstream Americana. A lot of effort was made to publicize it. People are attracted to things that celebrities are doing. Handle in horse racing has been going up ( despite the cries to the contrary by the ill-informed naysayers ).

We still need to educate the public about what is fascinating about this great game if we expect to create viable new fans. I'm not saying I have the answers as to how to do this, but I would say that identifying your potential new fans correctly, or responsibly, is probably a good place to start. I do, however, think ignoring the gambling aspect of the game is not likely to allow you to turn the casual viewer into a productive participant in the game.

I should hope that the marketers behind major productions like the Triple Crown races know how to attract peoples' attentions. My question is whether or not you think the celebrity/human interest stories are being effectively counter balanced with some sort of productive fan education elements. I can't offer any specific thoughts in this instance, as I did not see any of the NBC coverage. I am actually curious.

Despite some of the usual fluff, I thought NBC continues to improve the telecast. Racing regulars must keep in mind that the network has to keep it real simple (dumbed down) for the general public. Their informational graphics, for instance, are always improving. Example...A side by side explanation of who has run in the slop and who's pedigree favored off tracks was very clean and easy. Hammond, Bailey, and Moss look very comfortable. Although some may find her annoying, Michelle Beadle's piece on race calling was great. Folks got to see the perspective from Larry's booth where they actually had him calling a live race. I do agree that a little more gambling education, incorporated into the broadcast, could be a facilitator for potential players.

[rpncaine]

I also enjoyed the NBC coverage (sans Costas). My mom, wife and son didn't even bitch about it being on every TV in the house :-) and were invested in the races all afternoon. I noticed several Facebook friends that I never thought would be interested that also enjoyed/commented about the race. Some even said my posts and also the wife's posts peaked their interest. One actually opened a Twinspires account and hit the exacta. Not to jinx it, but if Orb can make a Triple Crown run, it will really peak the interest. Hell I sit on an isle at work with a lot of traffic and I get people who stop by that I don't know who want to talk horses. The interest is there in a lot of folks, we just have to mine it.

[10 pnt move up]

I thought Bailey was better this time around.

I do not remember seeing much of Randy Moss until the actual Derby telecast, which was surprising.

It seems to me NBC is moving further and further away from the handicapping/gambling aspect of the game and focusing on the pageantry of the event.

Even in Fridays telecast they spent much less time covering the races than in the past, it would be all Derby stuff, then two minutes before post they would go to the upcoming stakes race.

[Clip-Clop]

We have an Irish pub in town that became an OTB about three weeks ago. Owner told me that it had been very quiet until Saturday. People were outside waiting at 10am and stayed/wagered all day. Tellers were having to explain how to bet to a lot of people but he said they did about 24K over 6 hours. Not too bad for a city where almost no one knows we have a track!

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by asudevil

Despite some of the usual fluff, I thought NBC continues to improve the telecast. Racing regulars must keep in mind that the network has to keep it real simple (dumbed down) for the general public. Their informational graphics, for instance, are always improving. Example...A side by side explanation of who has run in the slop and who's pedigree favored off tracks was very clean and easy. Hammond, Bailey, and Moss look very comfortable. Although some may find her annoying, Michelle Beadle's piece on race calling was great. Folks got to see the perspective from Larry's booth where they actually had him calling a live race. I do agree that a little more gambling education, incorporated into the broadcast, could be a facilitator for potential players.

I 100% disagree with the highlighted part. NBC chooses to dumb it down. In my opinion, this is the exact opposite of what we should be doing as an industry. John Madden explained football to the masses. We could do that as well. A ten minute segment, with a telestrator, taking apart key points of the Derby preps, would have greatly enlightened viewers, and enhanced their viewing pleasure by making them understand what was going on. The most interesting part of our game are the actual races, which is especially true of a 20 horse KY Derby, yet we don't even give the audience a chance to understand what they are watching.

Is the concept that a fast pace hurts the horses up front, and thus helps the horses from way back, too difficult for viewers too understand? I don't think so, but unless we take the time to explain this, and demonstrate it, we won't even get the audience thinking about it. In my opinion, we waste a lot of time by both incorrectly identifying our potential audience, and failing to take any advantage of the opportunity to educate them. We will never truly grow our fan base in a meaningful way by continuing in this direction.

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

John Madden explained football to the masses. We could do that as well.

Very true. Football is anything but dumbed down on TV. I would argue football is even harder to understand than horse racing when you factor in the terminology the analysts frequently use.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I 100% disagree with the highlighted part. NBC chooses to dumb it down. In my opinion, this is the exact opposite of what we should be doing as an industry. John Madden explained football to the masses. We could do that as well. A ten minute segment, with a telestrator, taking apart key points of the Derby preps, would have greatly enlightened viewers, and enhanced their viewing pleasure by making them understand what was going on. The most interesting part of our game are the actual races, which is especially true of a 20 horse KY Derby, yet we don't even give the audience a chance to understand what they are watching.

Is the concept that a fast pace hurts the horses up front, and thus helps the horses from way back, too difficult for viewers too understand? I don't think so, but unless we take the time to explain this, and demonstrate it, we won't even get the audience thinking about it. In my opinion, we waste a lot of time by both incorrectly identifying our potential audience, and failing to take any advantage of the opportunity to educate them. We will never truly grow our fan base in a meaningful way by continuing in this direction.

I agree with alot of what you are saying but my question is how much control of the content of the show do racing people have and does NBC (or another network potentially) care enough about racing to consider trying it? It isn't like they don't have 1 1/2 to kill anyway.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I 100% disagree with the highlighted part. NBC chooses to dumb it down. In my opinion, this is the exact opposite of what we should be doing as an industry. John Madden explained football to the masses. We could do that as well. A ten minute segment, with a telestrator, taking apart key points of the Derby preps, would have greatly enlightened viewers, and enhanced their viewing pleasure by making them understand what was going on. The most interesting part of our game are the actual races, which is especially true of a 20 horse KY Derby, yet we don't even give the audience a chance to understand what they are watching.

Is the concept that a fast pace hurts the horses up front, and thus helps the horses from way back, too difficult for viewers too understand? I don't think so, but unless we take the time to explain this, and demonstrate it, we won't even get the audience thinking about it. In my opinion, we waste a lot of time by both incorrectly identifying our potential audience, and failing to take any advantage of the opportunity to educate them. We will never truly grow our fan base in a meaningful way by continuing in this direction.

While I totally understand your point, I feel like there is a huge segment of the audience that just doesn't care about the nuts and bolts of the racing. They pick their favorite names, jockeys and colors. They play their kids birthdays, addresses and favorite numbers. These people just want the fluff pieces and pagentry. Even if someone paid attention and picked something up, there is no way that they can capitalize on it because their bets are already in.

Maybe NBC should dedicate 2 channels for the pre-race show. One could be the nuts & bolts handicapping, with pace discussion, track bias talk other race on the card talk, etc. Then you have the fluff show for the people who bet their dogs name and are at a party watching the race. You would think that this would be a win win situation for everyone. The bettors/people looking to learn, might pick something up and still have the ability to get a wager in. While the fluff crowd could learn how to make the perfect mint julip.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

While I totally understand your point, I feel like there is a huge segment of the audience that just doesn't care about the nuts and bolts of the racing. They pick their favorite names, jockeys and colors. They play their kids birthdays, addresses and favorite numbers. These people just want the fluff pieces and pagentry. Even if someone paid attention and picked something up, there is no way that they can capitalize on it because their bets are already in.

Maybe NBC should dedicate 2 channels for the pre-race show. One could be the nuts & bolts handicapping, with pace discussion, track bias talk other race on the card talk, etc. Then you have the fluff show for the people who bet their dogs name and are at a party watching the race. You would think that this would be a win win situation for everyone. The bettors/people looking to learn, might pick something up and still have the ability to get a wager in. While the fluff crowd could learn how to make the perfect mint julip.

It wouldn't be the first time that some people didn't pay attention to part of a television broadcast, but you might be surprised how many in a captive audience might have their attention grabbed.

Once again, I completely disagree with this mentality. In fact, I basically base my professional life, which every day seems to be more of my entire life, on this concept. If we want people to become more interested in our game we need to at least offer them the opportunity to understand it.

[asudevil]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I 100% disagree with the highlighted part. NBC chooses to dumb it down. In my opinion, this is the exact opposite of what we should be doing as an industry. John Madden explained football to the masses. We could do that as well. A ten minute segment, with a telestrator, taking apart key points of the Derby preps, would have greatly enlightened viewers, and enhanced their viewing pleasure by making them understand what was going on. The most interesting part of our game are the actual races, which is especially true of a 20 horse KY Derby, yet we don't even give the audience a chance to understand what they are watching.

Is the concept that a fast pace hurts the horses up front, and thus helps the horses from way back, too difficult for viewers too understand? I don't think so, but unless we take the time to explain this, and demonstrate it, we won't even get the audience thinking about it. In my opinion, we waste a lot of time by both incorrectly identifying our potential audience, and failing to take any advantage of the opportunity to educate them. We will never truly grow our fan base in a meaningful way by continuing in this direction.

I agree with you in theory. The Madden analogy is right on. But the reality is that this is NBC. The programming on the major networks is geared toward a "low brow" population. Look at these reality shows. The celebrity judges can barley speak coherent sentences. I know that football does a good job, but there's nothing that comes remotely close to the popularity of the NFL in this country.

[Calzone Lord]

The only people my age who like to go to the track and bet horses are people who care about sports.

They're usually deeply into fantasy football, they're always general sports fans, and they always have a job, and most of them dislike Poker. The rest are poker players who get bored with poker.

Most of them that show up a few times a week at the track redboard stories of success in some fantasy site called 'Fan Duel' more than they ever redboard on tickets they've cashed the last few days betting horses.

My girlfriend just hasn't gotten into racing at all. She enjoyed Saratoga, and even Mountaineer, and likes hanging out with me at the track here for live racing.

She has no interest in betting or handicapping.

My brother Dave is a year younger than me, same parents growing up (both trained thoroughbreds for fun) same grandfathers growing up (both bet horses for fun) -- he doesn't care about general sports and doesn't care about horse racing. When he goes to the track a few times a year, it's to drink beer and screw around.

The focus needs to be on attracting people like the ones I see, who gamely show up and try to figure out the game and take a beating.

If you're marketing to people my age who aren't into fantasy sports or poker, you're wasting your time and money. You're going after people like my girlfriend and my brothers.

[Sightseek]

Article regarding NBC's coverage of the Derby and going forward:

http://www.drf.com/news/jay-hovdey-b...ething-new-fan