How important is "Network TV" to our sport?

jamma10
Posts
10573
Joined
8/24/2008
Location
Bristol, GB
7/2/2013 2:22am
Toste wrote:
I could be dead wrong, but I can't envision any scenario in the future where traditional broadcast TV isn't a dying paradigm. The expression "rearranging deck...
I could be dead wrong, but I can't envision any scenario in the future where traditional broadcast TV isn't a dying paradigm. The expression "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic" comes to mind.

For MX, appealing to the "casual viewer" is a bit of a unicorn chase. TPTB in American moto would be wise not to base any of their decision making too heavily on that particular demographic. Supposing that Charlie Channelsurfer actually does happen upon the TV broadcast, what are the odds he stays tuned to endure the frequent, repetitive commercial breaks...or the ad content very thinly masquerading as "features" (I'm looking at you, animated Kawasaki track map before every single moto)? I can barely stomach it myself, and I have been a motocross fan my entire life.

I prefer the MX-Life subscription/PPV format. I know all the arguments against it, and it may not be perfect, but it is a lot less commercialized, and can be watched at any time, at any place that has an internet connection.
Very well said.
7/2/2013 3:26am
ocscottie wrote:
I saw these stats posted at the bottom of this [url=http://www.vitalmx.com/news/press-release/JGRMX-Southwick-Results,16081]JGR Southwick PR[/url] [i]Attendance at last week’s Budd’s Creek pro national was 21,600. There were [b]60,698...
I saw these stats posted at the bottom of this JGR Southwick PR

Attendance at last week’s Budd’s Creek pro national was 21,600. There were 60,698 live stream stats. The first motos aired live on Fuel TV with viewership of 29,000, the second 450 moto was live on NBC with 432,000 watching.

That is the first time i have seen hard #'s of the TV viewing audience. For NBC to bring in almost 500k, that is doing pretty damn good in my book.

I remember when the Ultimate Fighter series started and the UFC/Dana White were pretty stoked to hit almost half a mill....and it was a huge milestone when they broke their 1st million. (they have now far surpassed those humblers) but i was just using that as a reference.

So, what say you? (and yes i am prepared for the onslaught of differing opinions, some good, and some probably not so good lol)
The web is more important in my opinion but only if you can get a high quality stream through to your large screen TV - it reaches way more people and can stop the advert forwarding trend that we all do when watching from a planner/DVR whatever, i presume this annoys sponsors/advertisers.

But TV for me is way more reliable and the way i prefer to watch - it simply works.



Only 21,600 attended? WOW.
7/2/2013 3:28am
So true



TOSTE

I prefer the MX-Life subscription/PPV format. I know all the arguments against it, and it may not be perfect, but it is a lot less commercialized, and can be watched at any time, at any place that has an internet connection
Spartacus
Posts
2269
Joined
5/20/2011
Location
USA
7/2/2013 4:50am
Well, last night I canceled our Direct TV service after about 17 years. To us it's just not worth paying over $1000 a year to have it as there is so little we watch. Additionally much is available via the Internet/You Tube any way.

Clearly network coverage isn't important to us.

The Shop

Walter
Posts
375
Joined
8/21/2008
Location
Tucson, AZ, USA
7/2/2013 4:52am
Because if he/she wants to get paid to ride bikes, the TV numbers are very important.

Sponsors look at impressions. The more impressions, the more attractive the sport or other activity is to a sponsor. Network TV just draws more numbers. Some cable/sat channels draw more than others. TV racks up far more impressions than live attendance and print media. The internet is starting to gain more traction in those calculations.

There are companies in motorsports (and other activities) that track the number of times a sponsor logo is seen and those figures, right or wrong, drive marketing decisions.

It matters to a teams trying to get sponsors, to a manufacturer deciding how much to support participation in a sport, and to the rider who wants to get a ride. It also matters to an event trying to get sponsorship. That is why bodies like NASCAR bought their own time when they got started and resold ads on the secondary market...and why MX is doing the same now.
7/2/2013 5:14am
That is why I am shouting so hard regarding the coverages.

The data shows that less than 100k are hard core fans, a base that can also erode since the coverages are a burden to watch.

Regarding the 300k extra viewers, we must precise that it could be just the beginning of an audience based on a program that is not yet fully complete, MX races are not made for live TV coverage so far, in comparison to supercross. In other words, this audience can increase if everything is made towards that direction.

Now the 300k extra viewers are potential customers, and even though 2 to 5% finally buy a bike, it would still do a 6 to 15% market increase. That what the sport needs each year Smile
uk125250
Posts
3947
Joined
10/4/2009
Location
Gnome, AQ
7/2/2013 10:22am Edited Date/Time 7/2/2013 10:25am
Walter wrote:
Because if he/she wants to get paid to ride bikes, the TV numbers are very important. Sponsors look at impressions. The more impressions, the more attractive...
Because if he/she wants to get paid to ride bikes, the TV numbers are very important.

Sponsors look at impressions. The more impressions, the more attractive the sport or other activity is to a sponsor. Network TV just draws more numbers. Some cable/sat channels draw more than others. TV racks up far more impressions than live attendance and print media. The internet is starting to gain more traction in those calculations.

There are companies in motorsports (and other activities) that track the number of times a sponsor logo is seen and those figures, right or wrong, drive marketing decisions.

It matters to a teams trying to get sponsors, to a manufacturer deciding how much to support participation in a sport, and to the rider who wants to get a ride. It also matters to an event trying to get sponsorship. That is why bodies like NASCAR bought their own time when they got started and resold ads on the secondary market...and why MX is doing the same now.
I meant the average guy that rides a dirt bike. More people riding could have a negative impact. Bikes become a bigger nuisance, more land closures, more injuries, etc
holeshot100
Posts
1176
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Billings, MO, USA
7/2/2013 10:45am
Weege wrote:
One part of the TV ratings equation that often gets forgotten is the influence on sponsors that support the teams--and ultimately pay the riders. We all...
One part of the TV ratings equation that often gets forgotten is the influence on sponsors that support the teams--and ultimately pay the riders. We all want to see more money for the riders, and we usually think of that as purse money, but look at it this way:

Bigger TV ratings means an outside sponsor, like Rockstar Energy Drink, will spend more money supporting a team. Thanks to Rockstar, Ryan Sipes, Davi Millsaps, Nico Izzi, Blake Wharton and Jason Anderson make a salary to race professionally in this sport. More ratings equals more sponsorship money which means more money for them. Nearly every team out there has an outside sponsor now--if Monster wasn't impressed with TV ratings, maybe Pro Circuit goes from its current seven-rider lineup to four. Maybe GEICO cuts its funding and Wil Hahn is out of a job. Maybe RAM doesn't back RCH Suzuki, and Broc Tickle is out of work. Maybe Discount Tire doesn't back Chad Reed. Maybe N-FAB doesn't support its team, and Nicoletti and Blose go without rides. You can go on forever with this equation. Remember, back in the 1980s when the sport didn't have this kind of exposure, there were probably 8-10 good paying rides total in the entire paddock. Now there's probably triple that. It's not a coincidence. No doubt sponsors are thrilled to get 500,000 on network TV compared 29,000 on FUEL TV, and that sponsor money works its way into riders pockets, and prevents them from becoming privateers. Think about it.
This post should be a "sticky". Thanks!
Toste
Posts
489
Joined
5/24/2009
Location
Pahrump, NV, USA
Fantasy
7/2/2013 11:33am
Walter wrote:
Because if he/she wants to get paid to ride bikes, the TV numbers are very important. Sponsors look at impressions. The more impressions, the more attractive...
Because if he/she wants to get paid to ride bikes, the TV numbers are very important.

Sponsors look at impressions. The more impressions, the more attractive the sport or other activity is to a sponsor. Network TV just draws more numbers. Some cable/sat channels draw more than others. TV racks up far more impressions than live attendance and print media. The internet is starting to gain more traction in those calculations.

There are companies in motorsports (and other activities) that track the number of times a sponsor logo is seen and those figures, right or wrong, drive marketing decisions.

It matters to a teams trying to get sponsors, to a manufacturer deciding how much to support participation in a sport, and to the rider who wants to get a ride. It also matters to an event trying to get sponsorship. That is why bodies like NASCAR bought their own time when they got started and resold ads on the secondary market...and why MX is doing the same now.
uk125250 wrote:
I meant the average guy that rides a dirt bike. More people riding could have a negative impact. Bikes become a bigger nuisance, more land closures...
I meant the average guy that rides a dirt bike. More people riding could have a negative impact. Bikes become a bigger nuisance, more land closures, more injuries, etc
That's one way of looking at it, but my experience in life is that there is almost always strength in numbers.

Look at golf. There probably isn't a less defensible activity out there in terms of waste and negative environmental impact, but a shitload of people play it (including many people in high places) so every podunk town in the country has at least one golf course.
FreshTopEnd
Posts
13296
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
7/2/2013 11:52am
TV, not the internet, is critical to pro racing. I don't know that carries over to local racing one way or the other. The value is being able to attract sponsors, particularly non industry sponsors.

I don't think there is a pro sport to watch on an internet feed without the TV foundation there to bring in team support.
Toste
Posts
489
Joined
5/24/2009
Location
Pahrump, NV, USA
Fantasy
7/2/2013 1:00pm
That isn't the point. There are ample reasons for golf courses to get shot down by city/county planners, but they don't because of the sport's sheer popularity.
Eddie_E
Posts
167
Joined
4/23/2013
Location
Framingham, MA, USA
7/2/2013 1:08pm
I'm surprised nobody mentioned that one channel is shown in HD720P and the other is shown in 480i low def . I really prefer to watch in HD.
Sully22
Posts
2021
Joined
9/9/2009
Location
USA
7/2/2013 1:10pm Edited Date/Time 7/2/2013 1:18pm
I've posted this link in other areas, the following paragraph was in a press release from Fuel TV regarding last years High Point National, dated June 28th, 2012....

The Saturday live airings of the Lucas Oil Pro Motocross Championship motocross races have emerged this month as an incredible complement to the UFC programming. On June 9, the FMF High Point National, the fourth stop of the Lucas Oil Pro Motocross Championship, drew 214,000 total viewers and 105,000 men 18-49, ranking as the network’s second most-watched program ever and third in the target demographic. The following race on Saturday, June 16 was the network’s tenth most-viewed program ever with 141,000 total viewers.


http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/06/28/fuel-tvs-ratings-bloom-in-j…

sucks to see the numbers drop to 29,000 this year when they were much higher last year at 214,000 and 141.000
FreshTopEnd
Posts
13296
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
7/2/2013 1:12pm
Eddie_E wrote:
I'm surprised nobody mentioned that one channel is shown in HD720P and the other is shown in 480i low def . I really prefer to watch...
I'm surprised nobody mentioned that one channel is shown in HD720P and the other is shown in 480i low def . I really prefer to watch in HD.
Both are in HD, and Fuel's HD actually looks a little better.
Eddie_E
Posts
167
Joined
4/23/2013
Location
Framingham, MA, USA
7/2/2013 1:13pm
I have RCN and Fuel is in low def only in my town.
JW381
Posts
10638
Joined
7/21/2009
Location
Harrisburg, OR, USA
7/2/2013 1:15pm
Toste wrote:
That isn't the point. There are ample reasons for golf courses to get shot down by city/county planners, but they don't because of the sport's sheer...
That isn't the point. There are ample reasons for golf courses to get shot down by city/county planners, but they don't because of the sport's sheer popularity.
True, but: people who play golf and own golf courses don't have the negative reputation that people who ride MX and own MX tracks do. Golf courses are equally destructive, if not more, really; it's such a waste of water and natural vegetation, but because golf is seen as wholesome sport, not a bunch of uneducated hicks riding loud ass dirtbikes with blown out silencers, there's no outcry for golf. I think that's what uk was trying to say. It's not about sheer popularity, it's about how each activity is perceived by the public or city/county planners.
Toste
Posts
489
Joined
5/24/2009
Location
Pahrump, NV, USA
Fantasy
7/2/2013 1:29pm
Toste wrote:
That isn't the point. There are ample reasons for golf courses to get shot down by city/county planners, but they don't because of the sport's sheer...
That isn't the point. There are ample reasons for golf courses to get shot down by city/county planners, but they don't because of the sport's sheer popularity.
JW381 wrote:
True, but: people who play golf and own golf courses don't have the negative reputation that people who ride MX and own MX tracks do. Golf...
True, but: people who play golf and own golf courses don't have the negative reputation that people who ride MX and own MX tracks do. Golf courses are equally destructive, if not more, really; it's such a waste of water and natural vegetation, but because golf is seen as wholesome sport, not a bunch of uneducated hicks riding loud ass dirtbikes with blown out silencers, there's no outcry for golf. I think that's what uk was trying to say. It's not about sheer popularity, it's about how each activity is perceived by the public or city/county planners.
I don't disagree with any of that. Our image with the general public is dogshit compared to golf. Also, water is wet. I wasn't really trying to make a direct comparison there.
Corey_Tallent
Posts
200
Joined
7/21/2011
Location
Douglasville, GA, USA
7/2/2013 1:55pm
8 million nascar viewers heh? Damn thats a lot of REDNECKS!
JW381
Posts
10638
Joined
7/21/2009
Location
Harrisburg, OR, USA
7/2/2013 2:05pm
8 million nascar viewers heh? Damn thats a lot of REDNECKS!
Everytime I see those numbers I think "HOW??!"
Toste
Posts
489
Joined
5/24/2009
Location
Pahrump, NV, USA
Fantasy
7/2/2013 2:18pm
I get what you're saying, but I feel like that's a separate issue/discussion.

I only brought up golf because it's a good example of people abandoning their so-called "principles" if there is sufficient demand ($) to push something through anyway. There are other examples of it too. Sometimes it even works the other way. People have been trying for decades to shut down the heavily used Oceano Dunes SVRA here in Central California. The local communities won't have it. They know who butters their bread...and it isn't the birdwatchers. If we had more cases like that on our side throughout the whole country, then maybe we would be getting somewhere. That's what I meant by strength in numbers.
hellion
Posts
1089
Joined
12/19/2009
Location
Westfield, MA, USA
7/2/2013 2:18pm
It is completely out of my ability to comprehend how there can be 8 million NECKCAR viewers and so few Moto tv viewers. It's the same to me with hockey vs. baseball. How can so many people love sports like NECKCAR and Baseball that are so utterly boring, when you could watch Moto or Hockey which are so much more action packed and real?
As for TV, I do love being able to keep up these days. Compared to waiting by the mailbox for Cycle News, well, it isn't comparable......But, as a participant, I think it was better before the TV money was a priority. I'm thankful that my pro racing days were in the 80's. I am aware however, of the rose colored glasses many of us look through especially when we look at our pasts. And because of this there will never be a fair answer to the question.
newmann
Posts
24437
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
USA
7/2/2013 2:45pm
Watching Fuel on Time Warner cable is comparable to watching the moon landing as a kid. Only in color.

FreshTopEnd
Posts
13296
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
7/2/2013 3:32pm
Eddie_E wrote:
I have RCN and Fuel is in low def only in my town.
That's a cable company issue, not a Fuel or TV Package issue IMO.
Bigshow
Posts
285
Joined
2/27/2011
Location
Jerusalem, OH, USA
7/2/2013 3:49pm
I DVR the races every week. If I watch the DVR recording I skip to the gate drop and ff every commercial. I will not watch a show with commercials live or aa a non recorded show, I refuse to watch commercials. Have been this way since the invention of the VCR. Now how I watch the races is a week behind when Alli puts them up on their web site and I can watch them at work. I love moto, but I watch everything I can at work on my laptop from Moto to Big Bang Theory. So when I am not at work I can being doing other things like riding/wrenching. Plus makes my night go faster.
Now as far as our sport becoming more popular: I went to my first SX this year since 1998. And I liked going alot better in the 90's than now. I do not go seeking autographs, I wanna see the bikes and talk to the mechanics. In the 90's I spent alot of time with Skip Norfolk when I went to the races, this year I could not even get a close up look at the bikes for the autograph line! Way to many people for my taste at a SX race now, but I am a small crowd type of guy. Used to be when I would go to the mall and I seen a No Fear, Fox, Thor, or other moto related cloths you knew the person rode. You could go up and talk Moto with them. Since the late 90's you can not depend on that. I walked up to a guy once in a Fox T shirt and said did you see that ride by McGrath and he asked with a dumb look on his face "who is McGrath". Knew then the sport was changing.
smeg
Posts
1096
Joined
2/13/2011
Location
Washington, DC, USA
7/2/2013 4:11pm
Irrespective of everything else in this thread. I cannot for the life of me understand how any of you believe that a golf course is more injurious to the environment than a motocross track. It's just absurd.

I have no desire to get in a pissing match about this but I can assure you that you are sorely mistaken.
SethGator
Posts
2376
Joined
7/19/2010
Location
Tallahassee, FL, USA
7/2/2013 4:46pm Edited Date/Time 7/2/2013 4:47pm
don't know who owns it, but fuck it...Fuel TV. shit isn't available across the US, DC needs to get a deal together with NBC to air all of the motos be it on NBC or NBCSN. did I mention fuck Fuel TV, I thought that shit was going under anyway.
dkg
Posts
1885
Joined
9/12/2010
Location
Rancho Cucamonga, CA, USA
7/2/2013 5:10pm
Seems to me that we are juxtaposed between wanting things to remain old school and the desire to see changes that only come as a result of greater television exposure. For instance, every few months threads explore the issues of rider compensation, more available rider positions, teams folding, etc.

The honest truth is that for these issues to improve, the sport needs greater exposure which will result in more money in the industry. The best vehicle to accomplish this is television. Frankly, I see television and greater exposure as a necessary vehicle to resolve the other issues that plague us. Yeah it is going to change the face of SX/MX, we are going to have to put up with banners blocking views, tracks that are TV friendly, stupid commercials in the middle of heated battles on the track & even some T&A reporter that knows nothing about the sport describing things to us. Yet for things to progress, this is probably the way it is going to have to be.

Alternatively, we could go "old school", see racing out of box vans and watch the events on Wide World of Sports months later when the results are rather meaningless. If we want the benefits of greater exposure, it is impossible to pick and choose the things that come along with it.
holeshot100
Posts
1176
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Billings, MO, USA
7/2/2013 5:33pm
dkg wrote:
Seems to me that we are juxtaposed between wanting things to remain old school and the desire to see changes that only come as a result...
Seems to me that we are juxtaposed between wanting things to remain old school and the desire to see changes that only come as a result of greater television exposure. For instance, every few months threads explore the issues of rider compensation, more available rider positions, teams folding, etc.

The honest truth is that for these issues to improve, the sport needs greater exposure which will result in more money in the industry. The best vehicle to accomplish this is television. Frankly, I see television and greater exposure as a necessary vehicle to resolve the other issues that plague us. Yeah it is going to change the face of SX/MX, we are going to have to put up with banners blocking views, tracks that are TV friendly, stupid commercials in the middle of heated battles on the track & even some T&A reporter that knows nothing about the sport describing things to us. Yet for things to progress, this is probably the way it is going to have to be.

Alternatively, we could go "old school", see racing out of box vans and watch the events on Wide World of Sports months later when the results are rather meaningless. If we want the benefits of greater exposure, it is impossible to pick and choose the things that come along with it.
Great post! What are you doing on this forum?
Weege
Posts
26
Joined
1/1/2011
Location
Morgantown, WV, USA
7/3/2013 7:01pm
This thread is good and I think we made some headway here, but one thing I never get is this idea that some tracks are TV friendly, or decisions about tracks have been made due to TV. TV has zero impact on what tracks the series goes to, and I can't even think of a reason as to why it would. The tracks that were around and are gone now--Glen Helen, Freestone, Steel City, now Southwick, they were all covered on TV and there weren't any problems. I've even heard this strange "smooth tracks for TV" debate. Why would TV have any impact on how the tracks are prepared? What difference would that make from a TV standpoint at all? TV people let the track people do the track stuff. Yes, live TV has had an impact on a great many things, most notably the schedule each weekend (that's why we race on Saturdays), but I don't think it has had any impact on the tracks.
FIREfish148
Posts
5486
Joined
1/20/2009
Location
Kirkland, WA, USA
7/3/2013 7:23pm
I don't want moto to blow up too much Dry

Post a reply to: How important is "Network TV" to our sport?

The Latest