NBC beats Fox for Derby rights

slotdirt · #1 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 · #2 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 · #3 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 · #4 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 · #5 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.

Dahoss · #6 10-08-2010, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaTH716

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.

I agree with some of your points, but why can't they have both? The puff pieces have their place, because people want to see them. But, if they get someone like Beyer on to discuss the race or races it can't hurt. Teaching people how to bet, or why certain people like certain horses can only help.

More knowledgable people are more likely to bet more. The better informed you are, the more likely you'll do well. If people just view gambling as a losing prospect, we'll never get the kind of fans the sport needs. But with the right people, keeping it simple and showing people that you can win betting, I think it could be effective.

MaTH716 · #7 10-08-2010, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dahoss

I agree with some of your points, but why can't they have both? The puff pieces have their place, because people want to see them. But, if they get someone like Beyer on to discuss the race or races it can't hurt. Teaching people how to bet, or why certain people like certain horses can only help.

More knowledgable people are more likely to bet more. The better informed you are, the more likely you'll do well. If people just view gambling as a losing prospect, we'll never get the kind of fans the sport needs. But with the right people, keeping it simple and showing people that you can win betting, I think it could be effective.

I personally think that's one thing that hurts the sport. Think about how long you handicap, reading the form, charts, watch replays and with all that it's still a very hard game to beat. It's one of the reasons people pefer other forms of gambling. Instant gratification, with no need to do any sort of research. It's unfortunate for the game because I really think it hurts possible future players. But on the flip side, that's what makes the game so great for people who love it. Trying to put that puzzle together and the feeling you get when you do.
Also when it comes to cappin, I personally think the Derby is the worst/hardest race of the year to cap, just because most of the horses have the same running lines. For it to work, you would really need like a handicapping for dummies pre show. But we all know that would never happen. Sure it helps to have guys like Beyer talking about the race, but if 80% of the country have no idea who he is, then you would almost be better off served having a recognizable person giving his or her analysis. You would probably have a better chance of the audience not changing the channel.

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).

ARyan · #10 10-08-2010, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

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).

Theory didn't hold a drop of water then...