Quote:
Originally Posted by sprint38racer
But it's like that on any network. advertisers pay for time which allows for the coverage of baseball, football, nascar, etc. It's no different for sprints etc., a group of advertisers pay for it. My question is why doesn't any of that money come to race teams like it does to baseball teams, football teams,Nascar teams, etc.? As i stated earlier the Thunder Series and the other programming that was on the past didn't seem to pass on any of the money downt he line like the rest of the sports.
|
I love it when you guys talk tv! I know way more about tv than I do racing. I have been in the business for over 10 years now, from on-air to p.r., to sales for the last 6 with FOX. Television, like racing, isn't what it used to be. Gone are the days where you produced a local show and businesses would support it knowing it was a good product and there was an audience for it.
There are three types of sports in television, network (NASCAR, NFL, NBA, MLB), regional (NCAA, local college teams, regional circuits), and independent (high profile high school, local series, misc.). Advertisers will support all three, however, as a television station or network you make far more money on the first two. They are almost guaranteed money-makers for the station thus the decision to invest in airing the sport. I currently sell both types, NFL, NASCAR, MLB, and SEC football and basketball and UK football and basketball. The station I work for has to sign a contract with ESPN and Raycom Communications to air the SEC and UK sports. We have to pay them a certain amount of money to air their sport and they allow us to sell a certain amount of commercials in the program. We are guaranteed a certain amount of games, including a certain amount of high-profile games. We make this investment because we *know* we will see a return on our investment in the sport. I personally make more money selling UK athletics than I do MLB (including the World Series). There is a long-history in the sport, it has great brand recognition, there is a built in passion from the fans that are willing to support it and it is that combination that makes it attractive to advertisers. If the station/network could make no money off airing that particular sport there would be no reason to air it. It is a loss for the station and that is a poor business decision.
Airing anything as the third category (an independent series) which is where I believe USAC would fall into right now because they haven't been on the air in a while is a tremendous gamble for the stations. There is no *guarantee* you will see a return on that investment, that advertisers will step up and support it, and that it will draw a significant enough audience to justify the advertisers cost. Advertiser costs are determined by ratings, which is eyeballs if you're not familiar. And if you don't have enough eyeballs......advertisers won't pay.....and you have two hours you could have sold for a higher dollar down the drain.... Speed and VS are a different animal.....they have a much, much, much, smaller audience (I can get you specifics if you want them) and so your ratings (eyeballs) are fragmented again, thus an even smaller cost you can justify to the advertiser.
Let me put it to you another way...if you can't get these big brands to sponsor the show live...how can you expect them to gamble on a televised event that has no gurantee.
Television would be great for the drivers in helping them secure better more high-profile sponsors, but is not necessarily going to work wonders for the sport unless the sport makes the investment themselves.....you're just not going to see anyone offer to pay the money to drivers/series like they used to unless there is a guarantee they will make money off it themselves. That's just business.
The other part to this puzzle you have to consider is that it's not just the air-time you have to consider in the cost outlay. The most expensive part of television????? The production. Because if you put a product on the air that looks like crap then thats a reflection of the quality of your sport. So you have to invest in high-quality (now digital) production, have an experienced sports production team to shoot the events, and a well spoken, somewhat attractive on-camera personality to add to the business plan. And if it rains??? Throw all that money away. You can set up your own production company to do it or hire one but the cost is about the same.....and it's ridiculously more expensive than the air time.
Web based tv is the future, once the quality gets there, for these independents. They can capture their niche market, do it on a much more cost-effective scale, and still have some of the *sizzle* of television. But network television is still king......capturing more eyeballs (which is what the advertisers want) than every other form of advertising combined.
I think it would be beneficial to the series, but you have to look at it from a business model.....Anyway that is my two cents for what it is worth.
Now if any of you would like to buy some commercials, I have some great deals for you!
Thanks,
Sacha Pasquino