The Great Derby Paradox

[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.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

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.

I agree that the television audience is smarter than the network thinks; the catch is that the thrill of horse racing is gambling. Unfortunately, the average viewer is not going to set up an online betting account and play along. Horse racing doesn't get to benefit from the tribalism that being a fan of a team gives; the lure is making a pick and being right. If a network was unafraid to encourage that they'd set up a mock online betting thing on their own website so people watching could play along with pretend money and see how they do.

The other big challenge is that a horse race is only 2 minutes long, while a casual fan has a fair amount of time to watch a football, basketball or baseball game and get the hang of the sport. So yeah, more and better segments on understanding the race would go a long way toward making the race exciting for a non-racing fan. I think ten minutes is long for a single segment, but say, 5 two-minute segments, each on a different bit of information, could hold an audience (and keep them watching the entire broadcast). So that then if the first quarter then goes in 22 and change, they know what that means.

I haven't watched the full NBC broadcast yet, but I know a lot of my friends really liked the bit about which horses might run well in the mud, because it made them feel a bit smarter about the race. Doug's post on here about Derby races that give the illusion of a can't-lose horse was really interesting and that kind of thing could make for a great discussion in post-race analysis, and get an audience eager to come back for the Preakness.

[Calzone Lord]

I thought the NBC coverage was good.

The Human interest stories weren't annoying like they sometimes are. The girl who interviewed celebs and talked about fashion wasn't annoying. Her piece with Itsmyluckyday, Oxbow, and Lines Of Battle was cute.

The coverage by Randy Moss and Bailey was good.

Some of their announcers weren't on top of their game ... Rosie Naprovnik didn't give Bob Costas a pass when he told her she "would be riding Mylute in a race for the first time"

Bob Costas has huge prestige, but he always seems to bring his F game to the Derby telecast. Other than that, I think they did a fine job.

Donna Barton had a few good moments. They showed all of the right replays after the race. I'm not sure you could have asked for a lot better.

[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.

[3kings]

Originally Posted by 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.
I
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.

I agree with Doug that they need to market to other sports fans from ages 18 and up. I have been at the Derby the last few years and the people you meet,that are actually gambling, are all fans of other sports. Although fantasy sports never came up I'm sure many where involved in them. Most people you talk to are eager to learn more about how to wager. Over the course of the weekend people sitting or standing around me heard me discussing what we were wagering and later asked me questions. Most had no idea about how to play multi race tickets, what a Beyer or Tomlinson number etc... Everyone was eager to learn and to wager something more than win/place. I recommended Rich Eng's book to a couple of them while telling them not to be insulted by the title. People who like other sports and play fantasy football are definetly the correct target market. You need to educate them so they get the intrigue of the sport and so they can have some success.

[Calzone Lord]

I'm not sure why fantasy sports and poker have by far the best crossover to horse racing for people in their late 20's and early 30's.

Fantasy sports (and Poker to a lesser extent) is information driven, both require some basic skill in probabilities, and both are betting oriented games.

The people who play these games are generally much gamer than the ones who don't.

Anytime you bet horses, you're going to have some terrible days and you'll catch cold streaks ... I've seen these young guys lose $800 to a thousand dollars in a day betting horses, and they'll come back...even though they know their handicapping skills aren't good enough and their chances of winning long term are very low.

Those casual once or twice a year fan isn't going to bet nearly as much, and they won't bounce back from the beatings as well.

[Payson Dave]

Seems to me that a vast majority of racing fans are into the game because of the gambling aspect. Even relatively casual fans go to gamble as much as to party. I don't think very many people go to a racetrack or simulcast facility to see celebrities. On the big racing days there are obviously many people who attend/tune in for the social/party atmosphere. Most casual fans watching the network coverage on the big days don't have online accounts ...they may have dropped a buck in an office pool or are using the event as an opportunity to socialize/party. They are not likely to become serious fans of the game unless they have a desire to gamble. The lure of potentially making money along with the challenge of picking winners is what seems to keep the majority of actual race fans coming back. Educating the the casual fan and marketing the potential money making aspect along with the handicapping challenge aspect seems the most likely way to turn a novice/casual fan into more than just a big day fan.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by 3kings

I agree with Doug that they need to market to other sports fans from ages 18 and up. I have been at the Derby the last few years and the people you meet,that are actually gambling, are all fans of other sports. Although fantasy sports never came up I'm sure many where involved in them. Most people you talk to are eager to learn more about how to wager. Over the course of the weekend people sitting or standing around me heard me discussing what we were wagering and later asked me questions. Most had no idea about how to play multi race tickets, what a Beyer or Tomlinson number etc... Everyone was eager to learn and to wager something more than win/place. I recommended Rich Eng's book to a couple of them while telling them not to be insulted by the title. People who like other sports and play fantasy football are definetly the correct target market. You need to educate them so they get the intrigue of the sport and so they can have some success.

I hate sports and have never gambled on anything else in my life.

Racing is an interesting puzzle and requires a lot of research that can potentially pay off if you're right. You don't only have to be a sports fan to appreciate that.

[3kings]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

I hate sports and have never gambled on anything else in my life.

Racing is an interesting puzzle and requires a lot of research that can potentially pay off if you're right. You don't only have to be a sports fan to appreciate that.

I don't think I said that people other than sports fans could not become interested in horse racing. When you are spending marketing dollars you are trying to get the most potential new customers for your money invested. I think luring people from casino gambling, fantasy or other sports betting is probably the easiest conversion.

[art vanderlay]

I can't comment on NBC TV coverage because I was freezing in my barely undercover seats at Churchill. But I believe they missed out on the biggest entertainment story, people squatting in someone elses seats and the fights that nearly erupted trying to evict said trespassers.

[Sightseek]

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

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