NBC beats Fox for Derby rights

Merlinsky · #1 10-07-2010, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunder Gulch

“We’re excited to extend our relationship with the Derby and our business partnership with Churchill Downs, a partnership that is one of the finest examples of two organizations coming together to build an event,” said Dick Ebersol, the chairman of NBC Universal Sports and Olympics, in a statement.

"Build an event." That's insulting.

Not really, that's why the Derby is even the race it is today. It was built into an event, thankfully before "reality tv" ever existed. I just don't want to have to look at anyone from the Jersey Shore cast before the race. Col. Wynn got women to see it as the place to be. It's not so farfetched for Bravo to do the same. I'm just frustrated that we can't have the races on the same channel. It's hard to get NBC to hand it off to ABC even if the Belmont is on the line. They're just not going to work too hard to up another network's ratings. At least on ABC, we get ESPN pulled in for actual coverage of racing. When Bravo's involved, it revolves around food, fashion, and taking wagers on how many gay men who've never been to a racetrack are going to be on television that day.

Travis Stone · #2 10-08-2010, 08:10 AM

The Derby is watched by the most people in a long time this year... how can that be a bad thing? I know I've posted about this before, but we as core horse racing fans and handicappers cannot look at the major horse racing broadcasts (even, to some extent, the Breeders' Cup) as extensions of a simulcast signal. Totally different audience. Which is why, in my opinion on a different topic, the funky camera angles are okay... most people we are trying to reach in those broadcasts likes them. The rest of the core horse racing fans are not going to not watch or quit the game because of a blimp view on the far turn.

slotdirt · #3 10-08-2010, 08:28 AM

Derby was watched by the most people in a long time because it poured down rain the greater Louisville area. I don't think that's a coincidence.

Travis Stone · #4 10-08-2010, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Derby was watched by the most people in a long time because it poured down rain the greater Louisville area. I don't think that's a coincidence.

You're overestimating the power of the weather in the greater Louisville area and what impact it has on national TV ratings.

slotdirt · #5 10-08-2010, 08:43 AM

Really? I'd love to see the ratings in the parts of the country - including Louisville - where it rained on Derby day last year compared to places where it didn't. I think you're overestimating the power of celebrity stories and Donna Brothers in drawing Joe Schmoe to his television set to watch a horse race.

Thunder Gulch · #6 10-08-2010, 09:15 AM

My points above.
1. Showing celebs is fine, but it won't bring one single new fan to the game. I need more evidence before I declare it increases ratings.

2. The Derby was an "Event" long before Ebersol and his buddies showed up to "Build" it.

MaTH716 · #7 10-08-2010, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunder Gulch

My points above.
1. Showing celebs is fine, but it won't bring one single new fan to the game. I need more evidence before I declare it increases ratings.

2. The Derby was an "Event" long before Ebersol and his buddies showed up to "Build" it.

Do you honestly think that mainstream America (the people who bets probably less than 10 races a year) would tune in to watch discussions on Beyer and Speed figures for two hours? I'm guessing no. They need all their features to keep people interested until they get to the race. Otherwise people aren't going to tune it in until the horses are getting in the gate.
Obviously it sucks for the die hards, but let's face it we are really not the target audience they are looking to attract.

As far as the event goes, obviously it has always been one. But I really think he means turning it into more of a social event than a sporting event. Almost like Mardi Gras in Kentucky. Probably not the best scenario for the game, but hopefully it will be enough to attract more people.

ARyan · #8 10-08-2010, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Really? I'd love to see the ratings in the parts of the country - including Louisville - where it rained on Derby day last year compared to places where it didn't. I think you're overestimating the power of celebrity stories and Donna Brothers in drawing Joe Schmoe to his television set to watch a horse race.

Louisville is the 50th largest TV Market. Just ahead of Buffalo and WBS. It is 0.582% of the total US Television Market. If the % ratings went up was only six tenths of a percent, then maybe this theory holds some water.

Travis Stone · #9 10-08-2010, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARyan

Louisville is the 50th largest TV Market. Just ahead of Buffalo and WBS. It is 0.582% of the total US Television Market. If the % ratings went up was only six tenths of a percent, then maybe this theory holds some water.

In 2009 the ratings were 16.3 million, the first year the Oaks was shown on Bravo. 14.8% increase. This year, the ratings were the highest in 18 years with 16.5 million for a 1% increase. The bump into 2009 was way more than one market, and the increase to this year would represent more than one market if we assumed that zero growth occured everywhere outside of Louisville. Plus, 156k attended the race versus 153k in 2009, so the weather couldn't have been that bad to where every single person in Louisville was watching the race on TV and not anywhere else (including the track).