SUN: Racing's media makeover paying off

[Kasept]

Horse racing's media makeover is paying off
After courting new, younger and female fans, major events see TV ratings rise



A very interesting and encouraging piece on the dynamics behind the excellent Derby ratings.

One thing the media types saying this increase doesn't mean an increase in racing's prospects dont understand, is that it is firmly established that once you get 'new fans' interested in the sport/game, they invariably become horseplayers.

[Cannon Shell]

I have a hard time relating the ratings of one 1 1/2 period on a sleepy Saturday to the emergence of new horseplayers...but thats just pessismestic me!

[cmorioles]

Will these new, younger and female fans bet in the future?

[Kasept]

@CHUCK: You have to start a turnaround somewhere. Would it be better if the viewership had stayed even or dropped?

@CJ: The typical transition of intigued patron to horseplayer is that of someone introduced to the game at ages 18-30, and then is drawn into the sport more and more as they mature. With more leisure time and expendable income, those increasingly intrerested parties begin to bet more. I don't think that gender will mean anything long term, and that it's rather sexist and presumptuous to suggest that the young women that may be getting interested earlier in the sport now via Bravo or whatever are less likely to bet than young men. And in fact, I'd suggest that they'd be a lot MORE inclined to take up horseplaying than getting involved in trying to become sports gamblers where access is tremendously limited.

As I've suggested before on ATR, females, Afro-Americans and especially Hispanics are the areas of the potential patron/player growth the game has stupidly failed to court.

[Indian Charlie]

I like females.

I love lamp.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Will these new, younger and female fans bet in the future?

Women are financially self-sufficient, they have plenty of disposable income, they can access horse racing from the snuggly comfort of their homes, and they are far more likely to have successful gambling experiences than their male counterparts, IMO. You won't see a college girl lose the entire semester's financial aid in one drunken afternoon at the track, and swear off gambling forever.

I'd love to see YouBet or Xpressbet's demographics. I'd guess 1/3 are women.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by Riot

Women are financially self-sufficient, they have plenty of disposable income, they can access horse racing from the snuggly comfort of their homes, and they are far more likely to have successful gambling experiences than their male counterparts, IMO. You won't see a college girl lose the entire semester's financial aid in one drunken afternoon at the track, and swear off gambling forever.

I'd love to see YouBet or Xpressbet's demographics. I'd guess 1/3 are women.

I would take the under.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

I would take the under.

For a couple million please?

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by Riot

Women are financially self-sufficient, they have plenty of disposable income, they can access horse racing from the snuggly comfort of their homes, and they are far more likely to have successful gambling experiences than their male counterparts, IMO. You won't see a college girl lose the entire semester's financial aid in one drunken afternoon at the track, and swear off gambling forever.

Yes, but the difference is that the college boy won't swear it off. He'll be back the next semester reloaded.

[slotdirt]

The B-more Sun still has some of the better racing coverage around. While the Washington Post has just about completely removed horse racing coverage from their paper - save the occasional Andy Beyer piece - the Sun continues to provide solid accounts of not only the Preakness, but the overall fragile nature of Maryland racing. In fact, on big racing days such as the Derby and Preakness and Breeders Cup, the Washington Post actually runs Baltimore Sun coverage in their sports page.

[Cannon Shell]

I simply dont believe that people who are interested in Bravo's coverage are wired the same as people who become gamblers. There is a huge difference between getting a certain segment of the population to tune into a singular televised event and that same segment investing the necessary time, energy and MONEY into becoming a person that follows the sport with their dollars. While it certainly doesnt hurt and getting more eyes on the races and our top events isnt a bad thing, I personally believe that the industry and dopes that run it shouldnt try to read too much into a new wave of "fans" or gamblers being created. IMO the Derby's ratings were up chiefly because there was nothing else even remotely compelling on.

[Kingturf]

Steve and the rest of the D.T. family, I recently join this forum because I love talking about horseracing. But I wanted to add a comment that I wanted to make yesterday during the show (May 11th) about drawing new fans.

I understand the people like my late grandfather was the person who got me into enjoying horseracing. Born in Baltimore, I had the pleasure of going to Old Hilltop, Bowie, Laurel and for night racing to the bull ring at Charlestown. Yes it was the crowds of old men smoking and cussing on the rail even in my early teens before I was allowed to wager, I loved watching the horses and even handicapping races for my grandfather. I had the pleasure to see all three triple crown winners in the 70's win the Preakness live in person. And yes I was one of them fools running up against the inner rail from the infield to cheer as Secretariat pulled away from Sham.

But the real point I want to make; us current horseplayers are taken for granted, if the industry wants new fans they need to clean up the mess with medication and for the most part shorten race meets. You take 60 % of the tracks who runs meets for 6 months or more (Calder, Thistledowns, Woodbine and others) it's mainly the same horses beating up on each other. And with simulcasting, more focus is put on multiple tracks instead of the industry combining some of the lesser tracks to develop things like a super condense meeting. Going to the track years ago was an event. Today when you see some of the tracks on your simulcast feed you can barely hear anyone at the track and when they show the crowd you may see a handful of people watching races unless it's a big event.

I understand the investors who buys the horse is key and maybe the tax breaks that were taken away in the 80's should be reinstated. And if you want the younger crowds fine! But let's remember the easiest way to attract people is; give them an opportunity to have fun but in the words of one of most favorite movie of all time " let it ride"....there's no racing without betting!

People don't want a race card filled with chalk, or given waterdown beer for $1 and a hotdog that taste like it's been in water for 10 days straight. Gulfstream did it right, they combined the race track in the daytime with dinner and clubs at night time. Even in the off season they are still able to get a crowd. Yes they are adding high in shops like most gambling places.

I hate to say it, but maybe NBC was on the right target. For most men like myself we would go to the live meet if I knew plenty of ladies was there having a good time and looking great....shhhh don't tell my wife though lol