SUN: Racing's media makeover paying off

[Scav]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

This is very narrow. It is thinking like this that limits the sport. You can't make statements like "99%" of anything based on the limited sampling of people in which you have come in contact. Its a big world out there Scav.

I am bringing a $1000 to the Preakness on Saturday. Yeah, its not break the bank money but it will be enough to play pick 4's, three horse exacta boxes and maybe some tri's in the bigger fields and yes I will keep firing until the last race.

Some of what you say is true. Book club is not exactly packed with horseplayers or girlfriends that would even know how to make a wager. At the same time, I run into plenty of women that are either into the sport in some fashion or would LIKE to be.

I would love some demographic breakdowns on poker, table games or even lotteries. I would bet (more than $2 scav) that the percentage of females in these gambling endeavors is rising. Forget just gaming, look at the way the NFL markets to women. Is it just a coincidence that the meteoric rise of the NFL as the overwhelmingly dominant sport in the US coincided with the way the sport marketed to women? How about Nascar? How about professional poker? Look at what hockey is doing during this renaissance.

Steve said it perfectly. Do you guys really think that the trends of women and minorities as sports fans and gamblers is going to suddenly begin to revert?

Listen, I am not saying that there are not woman out there that don't go nuts at the track. There obviously are.

I don't disagree what Steve has said from the start of this website, if you get people to the track, they will come back because they end up liking it.

But to focus an entire or partial marketing push on 18-30 year old woman is absolutely a waste of money, in an industry that is already being bled dry.

I am of the belief that you have to solidify your account base before you can attract new customers. Horse racing's 'base' is far from solid. They are losing big bettors daily to greener pastures.

[richard]

It seems women like the slots so they can easily transfer some fun bets to horses at a racino. After all, the women can relate to the fillies, female jockeys, female trainers , female owners.

[philcski]

I'd love to see a Scuds-style psychoanalysis of this thread.

Oh boy...

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Scav

Listen, I am not saying that there are not woman out there that don't go nuts at the track. There obviously are.

I don't disagree what Steve has said from the start of this website, if you get people to the track, they will come back because they end up liking it.

But to focus an entire or partial marketing push on 18-30 year old woman is absolutely a waste of money, in an industry that is already being bled dry.

I am of the belief that you have to solidify your account base before you can attract new customers. Horse racing's 'base' is far from solid. They are losing big bettors daily to greener pastures.

I hear what you are saying. I just think that we don't agree on the point. In my opinion, the old model is hopelessly flawed. Why is this "base" you speak of not solid? How do you win back those "big bettors" leaving for greener pastures? Could you label the sport as "successful" even with this base of big bettors?

Racing needs to re-invent itself and it is refreshing that the powers that be are actually taking new ideas into consideration. Thinking about "big bettors" and solidifying a dying fan base is small thinking. Trying to put racing back to a national pastime is where we should be going.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by richard

It seems women like the slots so they can easily transfer some fun bets to horses at a racino. After all, the women can relate to the fillies, female jockeys, female trainers , female owners.

Really? Do you relate purely to colts, male jockeys, male trainers and male owners?

Its not the misogynist crap that really bothers me in this thread as much as the narrow 1950 view of the world.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by philcski

I'd love to see a Scuds-style psychoanalysis of this thread.

Oh boy...

Richard would no doubt be a turk.

[Cannon Shell]

I still think that people who are the "Bravo demographic" are not ever going to become gambling racing fans. The fact is that racing has never effectively targeted the demographic that it should be going after which is the 45+ male.


The results of the Annenberg Public Policy Center’s 2005 National
Anneberg Risk Survey of Youth indicate that the likelihood that young men
will gamble on card games continues to increase.
According to the latest estimates, approximately 2.9 million young people
between the ages of 14 and 22 are gambling on cards on a weekly basis.
Over 80 percent are male. Those who play cards are also more likely than
other gamblers to gamble

http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/addiction/...s-gambling.pdf

[joeydb]

In line with Steve's original post, I am glad to hear ANY good news about racing at this point. If the younger people or the women are showing up or tuning in for reasons other than the race, that's fine. Some of those will discover the sport too, and at least some new fans will be coming into the fold.

[GenuineRisk]

There is no pleasing racing people, is there? First it's, no one is watching the races. Then it's, oh more people are watching the races? But they're not the RIGHT kind of people. Then it's, the gamblers need more dumb money from casual bettors coming to the track. But get the chance for those and then it's, oh but casual bettors won't become serious (educated) bettors, like we gamblers. (I am not including myself in that "we;" I'm a terrible handicapper)

People talk about the past (as they do about anything) and how much better things were then, but I find it hard to believe that those packed racetracks of yore were filled with serious gamblers.

I visited my parents over the weekend and we took a night to visit Penn National/Hollywood Casino- they shuffled off to the slot machines and Angelika (my friend who adopted the Paragallo yearlings) and I went to the track to watch some races. Anecdotal observations to follow:

Saw one couple on a date- the girl explained everything going on to the guy.

Much better food options than at Aqueduct and Belmont (NYRA, I'm looking at you. And frowning at Sbarro's).

Not a lot of people, but of those, quite a few were families with small kids. Anything that happened close to the audience, the kids were riveted. They liked watching the horses walk around the ring; they liked watching the track vets check the lip tattoos and the 1m70 race loaded the horses not far from the finish line and the kids were fascinated. And it was a long load, as one of the horses had a meltdown and had to be scratched.

My uncle said back when Penn National had Sunday afternoon racing, if you didn't get to the track an hour before the first race you'd have to park way out on the grass and walk a quarter-mile or more to the entrance. Racing would probably be better served to race primarily at night and on weekends. Inconvenient for the horse people, yes, but it's a sport, and sports are entertainment, and entertainers need to work when the rest of the country is not working and looking to be entertained.

I wish TV coverage would find a middle ground in between the on-air handicappers talking above the average viewers head and the moronic "Top Chef: Kentucky Derby" fluff. In the end, it's two hours of coverage for a two-minute race and I wish they'd take that time to prep the audience so that the non-racing fan can feel like they understand what's going on. Explain (in a fun, entertaining way) different running styles and rather than Bailey solemnly saying, "Pace makes the race" and leaving it at that, take the time to explain what that actually means, and why the fractions are important. Help the casual viewer feel smart while they watch the race, and they'll want to watch another one. Gambling is good for the sport, but useless for network coverage since their money is from advertising- they just need eyeballs on the screen, and the more of those, the more races they'll cover.

As a female, with purely anecdotal evidence, I also think you have a lot fewer female gamblers and the casual female bettor spends less gambling. But for TV coverage, that's not a disadvantage, as the TV audience is comprised of more women than men and consumer spending rates are about the same (advertisers' concern). Advertisers could care less if viewers are gambling. Unless they are selling gambling.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Scav

For a couple million please?

me too

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

I just don't see it. When my wife and I were dating, she had a great job and enjoyed to gamble. We both used to go to Atlantic City often. Then I started taking her to Monmouth in the summer and she liked it. But it was more of a day out type thing. She would look at a program and pick names. She wasn't spending minute's/hours capping races and sequances. She wanted to pick her horses and go back to her magazines that she used to bring. Even when we were home and I would bet by phone, she really couldn't care less about it. And she had the base as well. Meaning her father and brother played the horses and her mother works at OTB.
Now that I really think about it, I think the number is way under the 1/3rd that Riot is looking for.

that could get touchy! I do think that lots of people (women too) sign up for accounts to bet the Derby or something.. so i could see the sign up list being 1/4 women.

If you go by daily active accounts, which I feel is actually gambling.. its probably 1/10 or higher..

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Scav

It is more like 1 in 20 or maybe even 1 in 30.

The thought that woman are going to take a 1/4 of their paycheck, spend the night before handicapping, get to the track before the first race for their favorite area, get a voucher, send in some $24 P3 tickets, and focus all day at the track is absolutely nuts.

Don't get me wrong, I love woman at the racetrack but 99% of them are there for one or many of the following reasons

1) Nothing to do in the area so they can go be outside and have some drinks
2) Their group of guy friends are going out there and they are tagging along
3) It is a 'big deal' day and they get to dress up and look all hot, thus gathering massive amounts of attention all day
4) They are taking their family out there to show the kids the jockeys and the ponies
5) They are getting dragged out there by their boyfriend
6) They are on a date out there (actually a great idea for anyone that hasn't tried this, just go to a different track then your local hole)
7) They are there because they actually like racing, and they are betting, but in small amounts

I think even the girls on this board will admit they are not rolling to the track with $300 ready to go apeshit the whole day. I have been to the track with both Sightseek and Uncly. Sightseek was all dressed up and all about the horses, including repeativitly telling me how awesome She Be Wild was, when I didn't use her at all, and she maybe bet $50-$60 the whole day ..Uncly went and had a beer with me and was yelling exactas and win bets at this kid and bet all of maybe $60 the whole day and she was happy as pie.

Both of these girls have decent jobs, can handle themselves in a horse racing conversation and are completely competent with a Form, more then probably 90% of the woman in this world, and they are still aren't firing away.

its because I know and learned early that betting lots of money was a sure way to lose lots of money. its more of a fun time for me. If I bet $60 and win back $40 I'm only down 20 bucks and had a blast. If I'd bet $300 and win back $150 i'm down $150 and pissed and I'm not in the mood to struggle with bills. I've been going to the track for half my life now (yeah i know i'm only 27) but i've seen many degenerates lose lots of

Like I said in the other thread.. its the responsibility factor that keeps women away from the windows.

And dont expect Bravo to change that.. history usually repeats itself.. and for history this has been mostly a male dominated sport. And its not at all sexist to feel that way.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by DerbyCat

Well, I guess I'm not the typical DT chick, I buy the form regularly from the local smoke shop, I take hundreds with me to the track (lost $250 Sunday) and I fire with both fists at P3's and P4's. I love this game but if I didn't have disposable income I could never afford it. I also collect racing art and other memorabilia, donate to rescue groups and listen to Byk's radio show But I know I am the rare female fan.

you are... of course there are others out there too. A lot of female racing fans would do all of the above except wager $1000 + a week...

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Really? Do you relate purely to colts, male jockeys, male trainers and male owners?

Its not the misogynist crap that really bothers me in this thread as much as the narrow 1950 view of the world.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Scav

It is more like 1 in 20 or maybe even 1 in 30.

The thought that woman are going to take a 1/4 of their paycheck, spend the night before handicapping, get to the track before the first race for their favorite area, get a voucher, send in some $24 P3 tickets, and focus all day at the track is absolutely nuts.

Don't get me wrong, I love woman at the racetrack but 99% of them are there for one or many of the following reasons

1) Nothing to do in the area so they can go be outside and have some drinks
2) Their group of guy friends are going out there and they are tagging along
3) It is a 'big deal' day and they get to dress up and look all hot, thus gathering massive amounts of attention all day
4) They are taking their family out there to show the kids the jockeys and the ponies
5) They are getting dragged out there by their boyfriend
6) They are on a date out there (actually a great idea for anyone that hasn't tried this, just go to a different track then your local hole)
7) They are there because they actually like racing, and they are betting, but in small amounts

I think even the girls on this board will admit they are not rolling to the track with $300 ready to go apeshit the whole day. I have been to the track with both Sightseek and Uncly. Sightseek was all dressed up and all about the horses, including repeativitly telling me how awesome She Be Wild was, when I didn't use her at all, and she maybe bet $50-$60 the whole day ..Uncly went and had a beer with me and was yelling exactas and win bets at this kid and bet all of maybe $60 the whole day and she was happy as pie.

Both of these girls have decent jobs, can handle themselves in a horse racing conversation and are completely competent with a Form, more then probably 90% of the woman in this world, and they are still aren't firing away.

While I am not betting as much as you and others, you are really underestimating how much I bet. On track, I bet less, especially at a track new to me that I don't normally play, but my Twinspires account gets much more action than you think. Just because I'm not posting in the selections thread, don't think I'm not spending my Saturdays "like a guy" enjoying the racing and betting.


Steve - I really appreciate the open mind on women and horse racing and gambling.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by DerbyCat

Well, I guess I'm not the typical DT chick, I buy the form regularly from the local smoke shop, I take hundreds with me to the track (lost $250 Sunday) and I fire with both fists at P3's and P4's. I love this game but if I didn't have disposable income I could never afford it. I also collect racing art and other memorabilia, donate to rescue groups and listen to Byk's radio show But I know I am the rare female fan.

And that is the key here - male or female, it more matters how much disposable income you can lose if gambling on the races is something you enjoy. Would I love to fire away with a couple thousand for the Breeder's Cup? Hell yeah.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by philcski

I'd love to see a Scuds-style psychoanalysis of this thread.

Oh boy...

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Really? Do you relate purely to colts, male jockeys, male trainers and male owners?

Its not the misogynist crap that really bothers me in this thread as much as the narrow 1950 view of the world.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Scav

You were part of the 1% that do. I know how you roll..

But seriously, let me ask you this, how many other woman roll that way at your local OTB?

I am not saying it is impossible, and matter of fact I know of one woman at Arlington that is in her late 30's that regularly is there with a brick of cash, but she is the ONLY one there.

The biggest reason I don't walk into an OTB is 1) I have a Twinspires and NYRA account; and 2) nearly every person in there has a close minded viewpoint towards woman. Saying stupid stuff like "Can you read that?" while pointing to your Form. I bet around $400 this past weekend, is marketing to people like me (who yes, enjoy dressing up and love horses ) really not worth it? Sure there are people betting TONS more than that, but trying to attract numbers of woman like me, is not a bad thing!

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

And that is the key here - male or female, it more matters how much disposable income you can lose if gambling on the races is something you enjoy. Would I love to fire away with a couple thousand for the Breeder's Cup? Hell yeah.

And the thing is, you will be able to in the not too distant future as will many other women and minorities.

You are a single, independent (i always spell that wrong) woman in your thirties on the cusp of your prime earning years. Flashback 30 years ago-how many of us were there? Scav- do you want to bet there are a LOT more today? and that being the case...