Poor TV ratings for AGP

[Head Rev]

Interesting to read that the AGP had poor TV ratings and the Morgan report goes onto to say "With the Melbourne Grand Prix's future in question these audience figures make interesting reading," pollster Gary Morgan said.

Go across to foxsports.com.au for more info. What do people make of the article??

[Oaksnaf]

Bearing in mind these stats are only based by those who have a box in their TV which allows these ratings to be conducted.

Crowds were down by 67,000 thousand across all four days (if i remember correctly). Which does show the lack of general interest in the event.

Of course the launch of the AFL season, and the end of the Commonwealth Games impacted on this event.



"The telephone poll surveyed more than 650 people across Australia. "

Which information was based on this poll. I mean 650 people in the whole of Australia is close to nothing.

[Head Rev]

Originally Posted by Oaksnaf

Bearing in mind these stats are only based by those who have a box in their TV which allows these ratings to be conducted.

Crowds were down by 67,000 thousand across all four days (if i remember correctly). Which does show the lack of general interest in the event.

Of course the launch of the AFL season, and the end of the Commonwealth Games impacted on this event.



"The telephone poll surveyed more than 650 people across Australia. "

Which information was based on this poll. I mean 650 people in the whole of Australia is close to nothing.

Exactly my thoughts as well, these so called Polls are often off the mark, remember the last 3 Federal Elections - the Polls were no where near the mark for those. 650 people across Australia plus those who have the 'box', is that a true indication? Don't know, maybe someone here on the forums has a better idea on this matter than me - again, your thoughts.

[Robert Ryan]

There has been a tendency, admittedly gate counts collected by anti-GP supporters , for the patronage to be dropping, over the years.
So this "snapshot" done by FOXTEL might indicate that their is trouble with attendance.

[RotorFan]

Originally Posted by Head Rev

"With the Melbourne Grand Prix's future in question these audience figures make interesting reading," pollster Gary Morgan said.

Is it really up to the one conducting a poll to draw conclusions like this? Shouldn't it be interpreted by the consumers of the poll?

[Head Rev]

Originally Posted by Robert Ryan

There has been a tendency, admittedly gate counts collected by anti-GP supporters , for the patronage to be dropping, over the years.
So this "snapshot" done by FOXTEL might indicate that their is trouble with attendance.

Where does Foxtel come into this!!! It was an article on Foxsports web site and the article was quoting info from the Morgan Poll - nothing to do with Foxtel

[Guest]

[kramer]

Yes, but I'm sure the gate for the V8s was a record.

Sorry. Couldn't help myself.


Kramer

[Robert Ryan]

Foxsports web site

Same organisation...We will soon know how correct they are when the 2007 race comes around. It was obvious on the Saturday there was less people than normal. Crikey .com has commented on the same issue on its site.

[storyline]

Whether we agree with the results of these polls, the truth of the matter is that those that matter DO use them and DO take action based on them - again, whether we like it or not, statistical samples do provide a surprisingly accurate refelection of the community as a whole.

However - look at a few things here and you may see where Morgan is coming from.

Yes - Melbourne did suffer from the Commonwealth Games - crowds WERE down at the AGP to the extent that Ron Walker made mention of this on more than one occasion on the Sunday and few days after the AGP.

But - with numbers down (costs most likely being the major contributing factor keeping people away) the expectation would be that TV ratings should have been higher than they actually were. The reasoning, here, being that if they can't afford to go to the event, they would at least prefer to watch it on TV - or so the AGP Corporation was hoping for.

But - this didn't happen either - so what was the problem? Was it 10's abysmal telecast refusing to show supporting categories such as F3 and only the one Carrera Cup race and over concentrating on V8's?

Or was it apathy towards the event being 'Gamed' out by the previous two weeks?

Or was it more a case of F1 having reached its peak and it, like Europe, is on a downward trend particularly given all the messing about with the formula in the last 2-3 years (qualifying, tyres, qualifying, engines and qualifying).

What will be interesting in the coming months will be to keep an eye on ratings and attendance figures for V8's (and to answer the obviousl question here - no I can't get hold of the actual rating figures broken down beyond the top 20 programs any more).

[Robert Ryan]

From Crickey.com
http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/20...-postgpx1.html
From Crickey

5. How much is too much to lose on the GP?


By Stephen Mayne

We won't know the exact figures until shortly before the November 25 Victorian election but with the smallest crowds since 1998, this year's Formula One Grand Prix will almost certainly post another record loss for taxpayers and next year's ban on tobacco advertising will probably cause another record loss in 2007.

The warm glow from the Commonwealth Games that still hovers around Melbourne and the feast of other sport and politics to digest will probably smother any possible debate about the deteriorating economics of the GP.

However, across all the papers this morning there is some talk of falling crowds and Foster's dropping its $5 million naming rights sponsorship deal after next season. The spiralling losses over the past ten years have unfolded as follows:

Year Operating loss Parks Victoria subsidy
Pre-1996 $18.86m $1.31m
1996 $35.01m $1.76m
1997 $9.04m $1.76m
1998 $9.02m $1.76m
1999 $9.18m $1.76m
2000 $7.66m $3.02m
2001 $12.44m $3.02m
2002 $18.75m $4.01m
2003 $25.86m $4.01m
2004 $22.64m $4.01m
2005 $24.59m $3.95m
Total $184.03m $29.06m

Harry Hindsight probably thinks that John Brumby's original idea as opposition leader was right – the Grand Prix would have been much better around Docklands, just as it was for the walking events at the Commonwealth Games.

Sadly, taxpayers are now spending $23 million each year erecting the temporary track in the $526 million Albert Park, which is a hell of a lot of money to spend for a two hour car race through a public park that still infuriates and dislocates the locals.

At least the Commonwealth Games will leave some legacy assets, such as the rebuilt MCG. The Grand Prix legacy is just some juicy contracts for the likes of Halliburton and a couple of months work for a few hundred CFMEU members. If both sides of politics are really committed to keeping the GP in the longer term, then it is time to run the numbers over investing $200 million on a permanent track.

Making a direct loss on an event is fine if you can demonstrate marketing spin-offs or broader economic benefits. The NAB spent $20-25 million marketing itself throughout the Commonwealth Games and most observers reckon it was a stunning success.

The problem with the Grand Prix – and many other major events – is that the economic benefits are grossly exaggerated using dubious assumptions. In the case of the Grand Prix, these have been designed to distract attention from Ron Walker's original broken promise in December 1993 – that the event would cost $5 million to establish and then make a profit each year.

The Bracks Government's own economics adviser, Peter Fitzgerald, was quoted as follows in The Age on Friday responding to claims the Commonwealth Games generated $1.5 billion in economic benefits and 13,000 jobs.
I believe that's an over estimation of benefits by threefold and an over estimation of jobs by many thousands. We must get rid of the spin, the counterfeit dollars, the exaggerated benefits, and the political fictions about losses and costs and savings.

And that's coming from the man who the government employed in 2004 to review public private partnerships. At last, someone prepared to call it as it is.

Unlike most major sporting events in Melbourne such as the Australian Open tennis and the Spring Racing Carnival, the Grand Prix is a financial lemon but we're yet to see how much is too much for the politicians when it comes to the financial loss each year. Surely a budgeted loss of more than $30 million would raise questions about exercising the five year option beyond 2010.

Ron Walker turns 67 this year and the future of the event is still very much based on his relationship with colourful British billionaire Bernie Ecclestone. "I speak to Bernie every second day, he's one of my closest friends," Ron gloated yesterday.

Any why wouldn't Bernie like Ron when he's delivered bi-partisan support for almost $300 million in secret taxpayer funded licence fees to his companies since 1996.
Back to Top

[Oaksnaf]

Loss of money in terms of raw dollars is not an issue, because of the revenue it has brought to the general area of the City of Melbourne.

Even though the article is outdated: http://enhancetv.com.au/features/tou...0504events.htm

It does show that the amount earnt in revenue for Melbourne outweighs the cost of running the Grand Prix.

[storyline]

He got most things right in that article - one is wrong though - the liklihood of actual figures being released before November 25 - the Victorian Election date - the word around (and I posted this 2 weeks ago) is that the combined cost of the Commonwealth Games, the 2006 AGP and next years swimming championships in Melbourne is going to top nearly $600 million to the Victorian taxpayer - and the state government aren't about to confirm these figures prior to an election given that the taxpayer was told the C'Wealth Games would cost no more than around $150 million!

[storyline]

Oaksnaf - the problem is that the figures quoted in that article and by Bracks have simply not been holding up to scrutiny.

The number of 'interstate and international' visitors was based on all of them requiring some form of hotel or motel accommodation when it turned out that less than half the visitors actually paid for accommodation.

Similarly some of the 'economic benefits' were based on restaurants, food outlets providing services. If you go and talk to the owners of these establishments in the city are about the Games and AGP, you will find that (as in past years with the AGP) their patronage actually went down with many ending up closing shop during the last 4-5 days of the Games simply because they were not getting ANY customers through the doors. This also happened to establishments along St Kilda Road and even into St Kilda (during the AGP). Sure, some of them had patronage - but not up to the levels of non-Games and non-AGP periods.

Read the article about the 2000 Olympics and then listen to Bracks and Maddens 'predictions' about how the influx of athletes will help the 'Melbourne economy' - but the truth is they lived in a self-contained village with everything provided for them - food, drink, sexual abuse (some got caught), condoms and reading material! There simply wasn't a flow on to Melbourne itself as 'promised' by the organisers.

[Oaksnaf]

So is the 'GST' merely a hidden aspect to help cure the costs of running these events. Although I must mention that the constant focus on the 'coperate' identity is only going to continue to be a detremint to crowd attendances. The Commonwealth games suffered due to the total lack of focus on general admission ticket payers.

But surely if everything was so negative costs wise, why would Melbourne want to host such an event when talking economics?

[storyline]

Because the expected it to be a winner and believed Ron Walker. The problem is that the cost of physically putting this type of event on is becoming too high and, consequently, the cost for anyone going to see it is starting to become astronomically high - so they end up staying away in droves. The talk is that Brisbane is now talking about having yet another shot at hosting the Commonwealth Games!

There again, there was also discussion, during the games, that the games in India may well be the last of the 'big budget' games because the number of countries that can now afford to stage them is becoming so few that they are not prepared to shoulder the cost every 12 or 16 years!

[hoffy]

OK, OK, I'll admit it, I come from Adelaide, so I'm going to be a little biased here. And OK, my memory on this situations is becoming hazy (jeez, 11 years now.....)

I know that not every year that the AGP held in Adelaide made a profit, but there were years where it did. I suppose this was due to the fact that Melbourne theoretically priced the competition out of the market with there take it or leave it extrodinary bid back in 93. Therefore pre-95, licencing for the race may have been substantialy less.

The other issue is for the general population of Melbourne, the GP is just another event. For the population of Adelaide, the GP was the only event. Adelaide didn't just fill the hotels, it totally over subscribed them. Can anyone remember the Billet program that used to happen, where O/S & interstate visitors stayed in peoples private homes?

I always stated that unfortunately, the when the GP went to Melbourne, that after its useful life has expired there, the Australian F1 gp will be no more.....

[MickAU]

If you talk to the cab drivers in Melbourne about the Comm Games vs the Grand Prix, the verdict was unanimous - the Commonwealth Games were a disaster financially for business in Melbourne (despite the chest beating).

Cabs were basically ruled out of business due to the free public transport and 1500 Toyota's that ferried people about and restaurants fared pretty poorly also.

The Grand Prix is good every year for the cab drivers (as most people are interstaters that will use cabs), although on the Sunday night after the GP, Lygon St was unusually quiet - which may have something to do with the event not being held on a public holiday in Melbourne.

One of the cafe/hotels in St Kilda did a month's figures in the Grand Prix weekend, so one can only conclude that it's still a good weekend all round for business in Melbourne, certainly attendances were down, but not to the point to cause considerable alarm when you take into account everything else that has been happening in Melbourne in and around that weekend.

[Chucky]

Originally Posted by storyline

Similarly some of the 'economic benefits' were based on restaurants, food outlets providing services. If you go and talk to the owners of these establishments in the city are about the Games and AGP, you will find that (as in past years with the AGP) their patronage actually went down with many ending up closing shop during the last 4-5 days of the Games simply because they were not getting ANY customers through the doors. This also happened to establishments along St Kilda Road and even into St Kilda (during the AGP). Sure, some of them had patronage - but not up to the levels of non-Games and non-AGP periods.

And yet all the Lygon St/Brunswick St/north end of town restaurants were packed all through both events. Three mates who run cafe's or restaurants in that area were run off their feet during the period you claim that Fitzroy St restaurants were closing.

Are you sure that the event drove crowds off or did St. Kilda?

[Robert Ryan]

This also happened to establishments along St Kilda Road and even into St Kilda (during the AGP). Sure, some of them had patronage - but not up to the levels of non-Games and non-AGP periods.

"Frend of mine has a business in inner Melbourne and he reported a drop in patronage as well.

[Chucky]

"Making a direct loss on an event is fine if you can demonstrate marketing spin-offs or broader economic benefits. The NAB spent $20-25 million marketing itself throughout the Commonwealth Games and most observers reckon it was a stunning success."

These guys are great at making their own spin! Don't forget what the founder once did ina previous life.........

He goes on to say how Ron Walker overstates this and bases figures on heresay and invention and yet his own statements are full of anonymous sources and a distinct lack of reference.

[storyline]

Originally Posted by Chucky

And yet all the Lygon St/Brunswick St/north end of town restaurants were packed all through both events. Three mates who run cafe's or restaurants in that area were run off their feet during the period you claim that Fitzroy St restaurants were closing.

Are you sure that the event drove crowds off or did St. Kilda?

Take it or leave it - I am only repeating what we were told by operators who we deal with in the area - advertising budgets were virtually stoped during this period and when we enquired why this is what we found.

We weren't the only ones to find this either.

[1200Datto27]

I was watching the sap's "count" people coming into the circuit at Gate 1 on the Sunday, and there is no way that they could get an accurate count of people coming in the gate, as they where only counting people coming in on foot under the rail bridge. Anyone getting off of the trams wasn't counted.

I got called by the Morgan pollsters, and the questions that where asked where very leading to make you answer the question in the negative, with things like "did you move away from the Tv at anytime during the GP?" So if you went for a pitstop during a ad break, then it was counted as you not watching the whole show.

[pete55]

When VESA announce their crowd figures everything will look rosy.

[kmsport]

drop the GP for a V8SC race at Calder