The Real Reason for the decline in Indycar racing?

[Teretonga]

Theres a a good article by Anthony Schoettle in the Indianapolis Business Journal (Feb 23rd) re tobacco money and sponsorship revenues for open wheel.

10 years ago the sponsorship money coming into Indycar was $60 million a year ($635 million) more than Nascar ($575 million).....
Now is a dribble compared with that amount....

If you can't support the teams then racing will dry up...

[mountainstar]

Don't get me started.

[Canada ALMS fan]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

Don't get me started.

Don't worry we all know your sentiments and I am 100% in your camp!

[luke]

Where's indycool these days?

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by luke

Where's indycool these days?

Dunno he bizarrely disappeared from here practically the day Champcar closed up shop.

It's a mystery as to why.

JohnSSC vanished as well.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Theres a a good article by Anthony Schoettle in the Indianapolis Business Journal (Feb 23rd) re tobacco money and sponsorship revenues for open wheel.

10 years ago the sponsorship money coming into Indycar was $60 million a year ($635 million) more than Nascar ($575 million).....
Now is a dribble compared with that amount....

If you can't support the teams then racing will dry up...

If that's the real reason, why aren't F1 and NASCAR also a pale shadow of their former selves?

[ptclaus98]

I talk about this every month, hell, me and my friend just talked about it today.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by miatanut

If that's the real reason, why aren't F1 and NASCAR also a pale shadow of their former selves?

Read the article.
It gives the sponsorship revenues for both CART, IRL and NASCAR in general and how each organisation tackled the loss of tobabcco money. It's the way the respective organiations organised themselves and their repective series, who they targeted for commercial support and what the consequences were for each of them.
It makes sense and has some very good points the IRL could learn from. Whatever the past, you need to learn the lessons from past events if you are going to be successful in the future. Open wheel in the US has a big mountain to climb but Everest is big and people climb that every year .simply for the challenge.
Open wheel has a future if the right decisions are made but you will not reurn to the haylacon days of the 80's/90's overnight.

Secondly its not about blame. Its about learning what not to do and not repeating mistakes, neither your own past mistakes nor anyone elses.

[JagtechOhio]

message boards

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Read the article.
It gives the sponsorship revenues for both CART, IRL and NASCAR in general and how each organisation tackled the loss of tobabcco money. It's the way the respective organiations organised themselves and their repective series, who they targeted for commercial support and what the consequences were for each of them.
It makes sense and has some very good points the IRL could learn from. Whatever the past, you need to learn the lessons from past events if you are going to be successful in the future. Open wheel in the US has a big mountain to climb but Everest is big and people climb that every year .simply for the challenge.
Open wheel has a future if the right decisions are made but you will not reurn to the haylacon days of the 80's/90's overnight.

Secondly its not about blame. Its about learning what not to do and not repeating mistakes, neither your own past mistakes nor anyone elses.

I don't think it was loss of tobacco or any other segment of sponsors that was the main cause. That was merely an effect of other things that happened.

For your average fan, sponsors and all involved, people want to be where the hip and cool action is. The split spilled a vat full of negativity over the whole sport and year by year people and sponsors left for pastures anew. tony george had to have total absolute control at all costs and no one out there either wanted that or wanted to be a part of that.

I remember in business school we learned about the downward business spiral. As business goes down, you pare off this and that to survive and eventually you are in a hole and not likely to get out because you have lost so much ground. Indycar is in the bottom of the toilet and I don't know if it can make it out. Too much damage has been done.

I am someone that believes in blame. Without knowing who and what is at fault you cannot learn for the future.

[climb]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

I don't think it was loss of tobacco or any other segment of sponsors that was the main cause. ...

Yes, but if the tobacco ban was cancelled, many a company would surely come back, and the whole industry (not only Indycar, nor mainly) would benefit from that.

[JagtechOhio]

Climb. I'll apologize for not recognizing the flag under your name, but your statement has nothing to do with reality in the U.S.

If Delta Wing vehicles race on Mars, they won't need rain tires.

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by climb

Yes, but if the tobacco ban was cancelled, many a company would surely come back, and the whole industry (not only Indycar, nor mainly) would benefit from that.

Actually there is no tobacco ban!

The reason they don't sponsor racing cars or anything else is due to a self imposed ban as part of an agreement with the US government. And part of it is political correctness and PR.

Who knows all that could come back someday.

I'd say if your revenue model was dependent on tobacco revenue you have a crap business model.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Read the article.
It gives the sponsorship revenues for both CART, IRL and NASCAR in general and how each organisation tackled the loss of tobabcco money. It's the way the respective organiations organised themselves and their repective series, who they targeted for commercial support and what the consequences were for each of them.
It makes sense and has some very good points the IRL could learn from. Whatever the past, you need to learn the lessons from past events if you are going to be successful in the future. Open wheel in the US has a big mountain to climb but Everest is big and people climb that every year .simply for the challenge.
Open wheel has a future if the right decisions are made but you will not reurn to the haylacon days of the 80's/90's overnight.

Secondly its not about blame. Its about learning what not to do and not repeating mistakes, neither your own past mistakes nor anyone elses.

I don't see a link anywhere.

If it's trying to make the case the IRL was uniquely dependent on tobacco money, so the loss of tobacco money forced decline, that's a pretty tough argument to make. Remember the Winston Cup? It became the Nextel Cup and now the Sprint Cup, and it is now a much bigger deal than it was in the tobacco days. Remember McLaren's sponsor during the great Senna/Prost battles? Those cars became Silver Arrows and continued to be quite competitive. If the IRL was uniquely dependent of tobacco and CART by comparison wasn't, why did K-Mart, Texaco, Shell, Valvoline, Miller, Bud, and all the other household name sponsors leave CART?

The Split. The Split is the only reason American open wheel went down the tube while other motorsports flourished.

So, as far as learning from past mistakes, what is there to learn?

I think what there is to learn is that the sport was at its best when it was run by the people with gasoline running in their veins. There were legions of fans like myself who in the mid to late '80's switched loyalty from F1 to CART as their favorite open wheel series because it was a series they could afford to watch in person from one to several times a year, and could walk the paddock and see cars not much slower than F1 cars up close and personal.

Then, somebody had to strangle the golden goose, so we are back to F1 fans, watching from afar.

The only hope for the future would be the people with gasoline in their veins taking the sport back. Something I hope the Delta Wing group does.

If that happens, I have absolutely no doubt the sport will climb out of the pit it's in. Of course if that happens, the argument will be it was because the economy improved, so that was going to happen anyway (conveniently ignoring the decline of the sport during the go-go mid '00's).

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by miatanut

So, as far as learning from past mistakes, what is there to learn?

I think what there is to learn is that the sport was at its best when it was run by the people with gasoline running in their veins. There were legions of fans like myself who in the mid to late '80's switched loyalty from F1 to CART as their favorite open wheel series because it was a series they could afford to watch in person from one to several times a year, and could walk the paddock and see cars not much slower than F1 cars up close and personal.

Then, somebody had to strangle the golden goose, so we are back to F1 fans, watching from afar.

The only hope for the future would be the people with gasoline in their veins taking the sport back. Something I hope the Delta Wing group does.

If that happens, I have absolutely no doubt the sport will climb out of the pit it's in. Of course if that happens, the argument will be it was because the economy improved, so that was going to happen anyway (conveniently ignoring the decline of the sport during the go-go mid '00's).

Definitely passion is a huge part of the sport and something that has been lacking for sometime. A lot of it started with tony georges monotone total lack of enthusiasm.

I don't think the delta wing per se will change things completely if you still have the same people in charge.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

Definitely passion is a huge part of the sport and something that has been lacking for sometime. A lot of it started with tony georges monotone total lack of enthusiasm.

I don't think the delta wing per se will change things completely if you still have the same people in charge.

Ganassi's the real deal. I remember when he started his own team and declared he would win the championship. I thought that was pretty brash, then he made steady progress and did it. I don't think his competitive fire has gone away at all and he's successful in the business side of things. I think his competitive drive and business sense are the reason he's backing this thing.

[JagtechOhio]

Trying my best not to editorialize, I think you only have to read Delta Wing's website to realize what a big deal this is.

This effort is not about the design of a concept vehicle, or a way to restructure the supply chain to reduce costs. Considering the backgrounds of the management involved, and the team owners who have endorsed it, this is the framework for a completely autonomous organization.

What direction this organization chooses to take is a question that very few seem concerned about. The Delta Wing vehicle is not at all likely to be accepted as the chassis platform by the IndyCar Series management. There are enough clues to point to a strong belief that IMS and IICS management have far more to gain by selecting an existing manufacturer who will build an Indianapolis facility to supply the next iteration of the series. Their are logical reasons to presume that an evolutionary race car will be far less disruptive to the way IICS currently manages competition.

Delta Wing has progressed past the point of IICS oversight; they have selected an engine independant of (non-existant) IICS rules; and they have timetabled construction of a prototype that will be completed long after the IICS has pledged to announce their selection of the sole chassis manufacturer.

Apololgies to those who look at this information as obvious, but few seem to recognize the significance. The Delta Wing will be built, the owners are behind it, and the IICS has more reasons to reject it than accept it.

Accompanying this initiative is the stated intention of the owners to establish control of the decision making for specifications. None of this reads to me like a cooperative effort between management and team owners: it's much more likely that battle lines have already been established.

IICS was fully represented at the Chicago Auto Show, and gave a public perception of interest and cooperation with Delta's presentation. This came after they had been blasted in the press in an article endorsed by Delta charter member and Panther Racing owner John Barnes.

The team owners don't seem to be concerned about what the IICS thinks, in my opinion. The Delta Wing vehicle was to be displayed, on Series partner Firestone's stage, whether IICS officials were in attendance or not. The vehicle will be built with or without the IICS rubber stamp.

This all works out fine if IICS completely caves to the demands of the coalition that is comprised by all of the significant team owners. Or sells the IICS to the Delta Wing group, and IMS simply negotiates a deal for their participation at the 500.

I don't see it working out any other way. IMS is not viable without participants, and an IndyCar Series is not viable without the 500. Team owners are united, and committed to their roadmap for the future.

The Delta Wing is not a choice, it is a mandate. Lack of public support may be of concern to potential sponsors, but will not substantially alter the roadmap that Delta will follow.

Apologies if you consider all this as an editorial. I think it is a logical conclusion, based on a read of how the alliances have been shaped from both sides of the issue. If you think it will all develop for the best, particularly in the context of the economic climate that surrounds IndyCar racing today, you are an optimist.

And I hope you are right.

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by JagtechOhio

Apololgies to those who look at this information as obvious, but few seem to recognize the significance. The Delta Wing will be built, the owners are behind it, and the IICS has more reasons to reject it than accept it.

I agree and as I have said before the delta wing is a trojan horse for a lot of other issues bubbling away under the surface.

I'm not even convinced whether or not this thing is even drivable matters all that much right now.

[miatanut]

Originally Posted by JagtechOhio

Apologies if you consider all this as an editorial. I think it is a logical conclusion, based on a read of how the alliances have been shaped from both sides of the issue. If you think it will all develop for the best, particularly in the context of the economic climate that surrounds IndyCar racing today, you are an optimist.

And I hope you are right.

I was half way through high school when the White Paper came out, and I cheered. I'm having a major sense of deja vu on this. We all know how things worked out the last time the team owners ran the show. I have no reason to believe it will be any different this time.

[Purist]

The "Law of Diminishing Returns".

[cthib10]

The real reason Indycar is declining is because nobody is watching it..

That being said I one of the 100,000 or so people that still do tune in each race. I really enjoy going to the race in St. Pete as well but I go mainly just to see the ALMS run but I still watch the Indycar race.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by cthib10

The real reason Indycar is declining is because nobody is watching it..

That's not a reason that's a symptom.

[cthib10]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cthib10
The real reason Indycar is declining is because nobody is watching it..

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

That's not a reason that's a symptom.

How do you figure?
If Indycar didn't have such terrible ratings on a major network it would still be there (instead of VS channel) not to mention sponsors would be jumping at the chance to bring their money to the sport. The lack of viewers is causing the problem in every possible way financially.
More viewers=more sponsors and money

The switch to VS channel really hurt Indycar but it only got to that point after the dive in ratings year after year which in turn caused most sponsors and potential sponsors to look elsewhere. There isn't a major network now that will throw out big bucks to show a series people aren't watching which is why VS ended up with Indycar because the investment would be terrible due to LACK OF VIEWERSHIP. You get people to watch the races and things will start to work themselves out.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by cthib10

How do you figure?
If Indycar didn't have such terrible ratings on a major network it would still be there (instead of VS channel) not to mention sponsors would be jumping at the chance to bring their money to the sport. The lack of viewers is causing the problem in every possible way financially.
More viewers=more sponsors and money

The switch to VS channel really hurt Indycar but it only got to that point after the dive in ratings year after year which in turn caused most sponsors and potential sponsors to look elsewhere. There isn't a major network now that will throw out big bucks to show a series people aren't watching which is why VS ended up with Indycar because the investment would be terrible due to LACK OF VIEWERSHIP. You get people to watch the races and things will start to work themselves out.

A symptom is a marker indicating the presence of disease. In the case of Indy Car racing, it is boring, there is no real competition. Spec car after spec car. There's nothing interesting about it except the variety of tracks. As a result fewer and fewer people will watch. Simple.

[JagtechOhio]

Yep

Exciting competition = interested viewers = repeat customers = development of fan favorites = increased value and effect of promotions = increased sponsorship investment = better competition