SlotForum banner
1 - 3 of 3 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,791 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just setting my alarm clock for the Japanese GP... old habits die hard.

Mind you, I don't suppose it's going to have much on last weekend's Nextel Cup race at Talladega... a total of 44 lead changes, with the winner in 11th place with four laps to go.

I've just finished watching it for a second time and I'm still laughing aboout loud, whistling through my teeth and high fiving my children.

They started two wide, went to three wide and... stayed that way for 188 laps. Still, Ron Dennis says it's boring.

With apologies to 'McLaren' that has to be the most gratuitous case of the pot calling the kettle black that I ever saw. Or, as Ron would have it, "the optimal interface between one boiling utensil and another with relation to their respective carbon deposits."

Funny how Bernie goes quiet on NASCAR, and falls back on 125cc bikes as a sport where 'there's lots of overtaking but nobody watches it.'

Yeah well Formula 3 is pretty important to Formula One, but nobody watches that either... paying punters in the UK are around 1000 per event and the TV figures don't actually register.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,883 Posts
I think there is a fair bit of chicken and egg syndrome at work with most of these things.

TV exposure can inject interest into whatever the TV people decide to expose their audience to. Once interest is aroused, there is a fair chance that live attendance will increase as some of the newly aroused TV audience become curious enough to taste a live sample. As live attendance grows, then so can the TV audience increase and, as these things occur, so the event organizers/owners see the chance to maximise their income by increasing ticket prices AND TV fees.
Eventually their greed bursts the bubble and TV pulls out. Without the TV exposure and the hype that usually accompanies it, the particular event/sport will probably also lose live attendance and gradually sink back to the minority interest it once was.

Who should pay whom for what is a minefield of spurious 'logic' and opinion.
For instance, in one sense, it makes perfect sense for the TV people to ask the competititors/organizers for fees in exchange for the publicity and exposure that they have created by broadcasting on TV! It's rather like the old arguments about whether a full size car manufacturer should extract licence fees from model manufacturers or whether the model manufacturers should demand free licences or even be paid by the manufacturers for the publicity that their models create
for them and which would have cost large amounts of money to have obtained by advertising on TV or other media.
Both sides of the argument hold water - it's just a pity that vast amounts of money hinge upon what is, in the end, personal opinions, as there is no universal, absolute 'right' or 'wrong'.
 

·
Scott Brownlee
Joined
·
4,275 Posts
Sorry, but be it sport or model cars the answer is dead simple. If you have something someone else wants they you can charge a price for it.

If you want someone to let you do something (say, screen your race series, let you use their brands and products as models to make a profit for yourself), you pay.

F1 and NASCAR are, to my knowledge, the only two forms of motorsport not paying to be on TV.

And as for MASCAR being unpredictable, please explain why it is the same few top funded teams who are in the running for the championship.
 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
Top