Secretariat has nothing to do with the sport’s core constituency. Yet, the industry from top to bottom – from racecourse operators to readers who write comments to HorseRaceInsider.com – believe everything revolves around how much the bettors wager. Despite occasional exceptions, the majority of horse racing has concentrated on the now, not the future.
Understandably, as providers of the revenue that covers the costs and produces the (rare) profits, horseplayers are considered the most valuable customers. Why, then, the enthusiasm for a movie that’s been made for somebody else? The people that are going to see Secretariat are families, horse-lovers, history buffs and romantics – hardly the profile of those with a Jones for a parlay. If they went to the track, they wouldn’t bet. “Oh, Happy Day?”
This assessment appears brutally harsh, of course. But there’s plenty of evidence around that supports the conclusion that horse racing cares more about increasing the revenue produced by its base than on building for the future. It’s been years since the sport advertised. When the NTRA chose Lori Petty to be the face of the game, it was sabotaged. When the Breeders’ Cup threw a party at which geezers couldn’t hear above the din of Maroon 5, traditionalists cringed…well, in any case, they exited the Palladium.
No, the screenplay of Secretariat was written by Ozzie Nelson; the sport’s operating manual by Jean-Paul Sartre. One promotes squeaky-clean fiction; the other, existential behavior. Is Secretariat the horse racing its operatives want? Apparently. Is Secretariat the horse racing the public wants? Let’s hope so.
Horse racing will disappear if it’s not introduced in a favorable way to people unfamiliar with what the sport offers. In this regard, the best thing about Secretariat is that it’s an advertisement. Few horse racing people and businesses spend money on long term investments that don’t produce instant results. Everyone jumps on the bandwagon when someone else writes a book or makes a film that advances the industry. This sycophantic tendency, at the very least, proves that hope still exists for the game.
“If I owned a racetrack, I would weigh marketing communications according to the estimated lifetime value of the customer,” advised Don Brashears, the co-managing partner of a Chicago-based ad agency named Tom, Dick & Harry. “Because the frequent, high-value customers are likely easier and less costly to reach, you could allocate an equal or greater amount of the budget to attracting new customers,” he suggested.
Brand strategist Bob Killian, whose white papers on killianbranding.com are used by graduate schools of business as part of their marketing curricula, agreed with Brashears that it’s unwise to ignore prospects. Killian said, “The bulk of the branding effort and budgets should be directed at the bullseye targets. However, racetracks that ignore other audiences are at peril.” The life of a good brand, after all, continues on long after its customers have passed.
Generally, businesses use advertising to intrigue people to try their products. They turn to television, radio, print and Internet media to create an image, explain features and pitch benefits, develop curiosity, exaggerate and showcase brands in front of customers who are prone to buy products of similar description or purpose. A promotional strategy, on the other hand, is implemented when trying to extract greater response from the people who have already discovered your products or to reward faithful users. A reliance on promotions in lieu of advertising has affected the current size of horse racing’s customer base.
“Unless you go to the track or experiences the sport in some other way, how are you going to know that you’ll like it?” asked Steve Krawczyk, a consultant who believes that Secretariat is painting horse racing with positive imagery. “There’s a lot of human interest in the sport – the agony, the ecstasy, the expense – but you’ve got to expose people to that,” he said. “Getting the general population interested in horse racing increases your odds of getting people to come out to the track and increases your odds of making them bettors,” he added.
“Businesses that keep going to the same customers will slowly die,” Krawczyk warned, as if his conclusion should be obvious to everyone. Sooner or later, a competitor comes along and steals a few customers away. People die or they disappear, or they’re kidnapped by some other brand-owner. In the case of horse racing, let there be no mistake about who is needed most in the fold now. It’s not the guy betting daily who will be there no matter what, but the person who has yet to discover what horse racing offers him.
The most significant effect that the movie Secretariat can have would be to rally the horse racing community to believe in the reasons that brought them to the sport in the first place. Once the community has its optimism back, it can begin the process of selling the sport to people who haven’t tried it. For the time being, no person that claims Secretariat is good for the sport can ever again say that people who don’t bet aren’t worth going after.
You're invited to read more form Vic Zast at Facebook.com/viczast and Twitter.com/viczast.


18 Oct 2010 at 02:40 am | #
There were only three comments of reader interest written last week, and each was a winner. When Dan Needham chimed in with his Comment No. 5, I was certain that nobody would match it. But Comment of the Week goes to Top Turf Teddy for Comment No. 6, which confirms Dan Needham’s point, expands on it and adds history.
18 Oct 2010 at 04:47 am | #
A few of my beefs on the inaccuracies:
They should of at least made the counterfeit racetracks look like Aqueduct, Belmont, and Saratoga. Shooting the Belmont Stakes at another track is like filming the Pride of the Yankees at Ebbetts Field!!
When was the last time you saw a bunch of reporters writing in their note pads in the winners circle at a maiden special weight race!!
And since when did Sham win the Wood? Although they never actually say it they sure implied it.
And nothing about the bettors that bet Secretariat in the Wood getting saved by Angle Light who was coupled with Secretariat.
While not being a movie critic, (I basically only watch old black & white flicks on TCM) I guess it’s a good movie for non-racing fans. But I guess with so many inaccuracies they could have changed all the names as they did in Inherit the Wind!!
18 Oct 2010 at 07:47 am | #
VZ,
Indeed the game can be and should be enjoyed on many levels, and enthusiasm for the sport is as critical as enthusiasm for its revenue producing aspect. Your point was well-made despite the extension of your distaste for horseplayers to all responders in your audience. How else should one interpret your placement of “readers who write comments to HorseRaceInsider.com” at the “bottom” of the industry? If, in fact, the racecourse operators at the “top” of the industry believed “everything revolves around how much the bettors wager,” chances are that the revenue-depressing horseplayer dissatisfaction would disappear, and we would once again serve as the game’s most effective recruiters and marketers.
Although you appear well-educated in marketing, this column seldom serves as an advertisement for the game and participation in it on any level, which is probably what attracts me to it the most. The real Secretariat was an awesome advertisement for what was good about racing at the time with the possible exception of steroid use that surfaced at the beginning of his stud career. As an actual observer of many of his races, and a stickler for the details long ago provided by Nack and others, I’ll wait until there’s less fanfare to have my fading memories assaulted. In the meantime, I hope the industry reaps all the benefits anticipated from the free advertising the movie provides.
18 Oct 2010 at 07:52 am | #
If betting on Horse Races was a good bet then racing would thrive. The truth is that anyone giving it a try not only finds it too hard to read the PP’s they find that very few people actually win. Takeout should be no more than 15% and 20%. There really shouldn’t be different takeout rates for different bets. What’s that about other than misleading the customer? Printing the takeout on each ticket would wake a lot of people up.
Again if Horse Racing was a good bet then people will flock to it for the money they have a legitimate shot at making. Everything else is a fantasy. Plain and simple.
18 Oct 2010 at 08:44 am | #
The industry has gone full circle. Prior to the late 70’s there were no marketing departments within track operations. Gradually jobs were dedicated to promote a sport once thought to sell itself. It seemed that even hard boots were giving an ounce of credit instead of cynical lip service. Now its back to organizations built strictly for those “who will come anyway”. Appetite and budget for marketing-related projects are now displaced by more quantified aspects of day-to-day operations. A convention of industry marketing “executives” can now be held in a single hotel room. Even regular bettors seem to have little concern for the industry’s long-term health; caviler blog comments of excessive take-out are absent of any empathy for the struggle to produce a product those “fans” claim to be so passionately behind. The irony is that silver screen producers and television writers apparently have more faith in racing’s relevance than those running tracks. On that, this week’s MENTALIST episode (CBS I believe) deals with a racing theme.
18 Oct 2010 at 09:02 am | #
Vic
Spot-on!
18 Oct 2010 at 09:16 am | #
Vic--
I think this is the best column of your’s I have ever read. It is beyond well written.
They could use it at Kellogg as the entire marketing major. I have sent it to our people at our tiny company as the only text they need on marketing and sales.
Regards horseracing and marketing, I am not yet anxious for most of the indutry to intelligently market the sport because—most of our product is absolutely terrible. Run down facilities, shabby presentation, crummy to inexistent customer relations.
You can attend almost any pro sport in the US at almost any level and the entire experience is vastly superior to that available at all but a small handful of US racetracks.
Racetrackers don’t really notice. Non-racetrackers do not come back. I am personally hoping that marketing—at a Zast level—focuses on those few venues and several annual events that sparkle before we attempt attract people to places and presentations they’ll never want to return to.
18 Oct 2010 at 09:44 am | #
Great article, Zast, you tackled the issue. Here’s part of the problem: If I go to Santa Anita on Saturdays and Sundays throughout the year (Santa Anita simulcasting when Hollywood or Del Mar is running, that’s 104 visits a year. Factor in $5 to park, $5 admission and $6 for a racing form. That means I’ve spent $1,664 BEFORE I MAKE MY FIRST BET. Those costs are part of my bottom line. Then I have to battle an average take out of 20%. Now the geniuses who run this game: NEVER HAVE TO PAY FOR PARKING, NEVER HAVE TO PAY FOR ADMISSION AND GET FREE COMPLIMENTARY FORMS IF THEY WANT ONE. And most of them don’t bet on the races anyway! THEY SIT IN THEIR OFFICES DOING THEIR BUSINESS. THEY ARE SO FAR REMOVED FROM THEIR CUSTOMERS, IT’S LIKE THEIR CUSTOMERS COME FROM ANOTHER PLANET. That is why the horse racing game is failing. There are a few track owners who do understand. The guy who runs Oaklawn is an example of that. I’ve heard good things of the guy who runs Tioga Downs Harness. These are people who are focused on their customers and how to keep them coming back. The people running California tracks now only want to squeeze more out of what little customers they have left. It’s a sad state of affairs out here. I look forward to your insight. If you’ve been to Las Vegas, Circus Circus was the only place that was kid-friendly. And when those kids turned 21, guess what? They returned to Circus Circus with dough in their pockets and hit the blackjack tables instead of the circus games upstairs. Is there a lesson to be learned here? And most race tracks have an opportunity to get them when they turn 18, not 21.
18 Oct 2010 at 10:12 am | #
Vic, congratulations on this column. There is really nothing to add, save Mr. Reingold’s important caution that the quality of the product needs attention before it is shown off to potential customers. Rather amazing, isn’t it, that Americans love sport and love to gamble but the one readily accessible entertainment option that offers both is on life support. Your piece helps us to understand how that could have happened.
18 Oct 2010 at 10:14 am | #
Great post,Markinsac. You are right on! At Saratoga this summer, after the biggest race they have to offer, the Travers, they kicked us out of the picnic area. Mind you there was a big race in California, Pacific Classic?, I think, and with all the Sam machines there in their paddock area, we could not bet the race unless we went inside. How silly. Look at the money they all lost because of this. Every night it is the same thing. The machines (picnic area) close down as soon as the last race is run. Some days before they cross the finish line. That is NOT fan friendly and besides the silly picnic table rule of the past few years,it’s just another slap in the face for the fans. What they forget is, the fans are dwindling. Do they care? Evidently not since they don’t even promote their sport from the get go.
Keeneland, is also a great track for the fans. We can stay upstairs and bet until racing from Cal. is over. They can’t be more accomodating. Machines always are working or being fixed immediately if a glich,amazingly clean facility, food is reasonable,track kitchen is a great place to eat and view trainers etc.,track employees are friendly and helpful. They always are trying to improve on any problems that might have been an issue the year before. The parking lot has a place for people who want to drink,party and play games with their own betting windows which keep them away from the general public and kids. They advertise and send out emails all year,once you sign up on their website. During race days, they tell you what has been done to the polytrack,turf course, whether it was mowed, how high the grass is and of course the condition for the day. Their website has a racing handicapping analysis for free every day.
Which shows, there are tracks that do offer a fan friendly base.
18 Oct 2010 at 12:11 pm | #
A little late to the party Victor, but better late than never. I had thought the NTRA was established to market the sport outside the choir. Why did they stop doing that????
18 Oct 2010 at 12:54 pm | #
The NTRA lost the funding of several key contributors and budgets were slashed to the point that effective advertising became no longer possible. The contributors pulled back on their funding for several reasons - some didn’t think the results were coming fast enough, others wanted greater control than a national organizing body presented them with, others just didn’t have the money.
The current NTRA strategy is to pick key important areas that are centric to the sport’s needs and do a good job in these areas, thus the emphasis on the Safety and Integrity Alliance and the push for a national compact. A revitalized NTRA could play a role in helping the sport gain new fans. Attendance and handle were at an all-time high during the days of a commissioner and “Go, Baby’ Go” advertising. But duplicating that success under the banner of the current NTRA (because of politics, not personnel) doesn’t seem likely.
18 Oct 2010 at 01:35 pm | #
txs for reply. The NTRA is the viable national organization that might conduct any marketing campaign. the fact that it is unable currently due to lack of funding certainly is partly political. i strongly suspect without know that a more important contributing factor is unimaginative unagressive leadership. The NTRA #1 has nothing that they sell.
How about, for openers, establishing at NTRA a marketing model for small tracks. An ADW model that might be easily adopted by an understaffed marketing dept. A funding approach to other branches of the industry, breeders, owners, who do have an interesting in national marketing. How about an NTRA plan to save one race track at a time, etc. etc. And, the absolute no-brainer, how about a proposal to somebody to use that nice Zenyatta video on ESPN. How much would that cost?
18 Oct 2010 at 04:30 pm | #
What was the point of this article? Do you think Secretariat The Movie was good or bad for racing’s future? Should we be selling out to make racing look more like a fictional account suggested by a great horse of years past? Or should we be lamenting that horse racing currently couldn’t possibly live up to the fantasy of a Disney movie?
All the marketing course crap...what’s the point? People have been saying since the 1950s that racing needs new customers. We keep saying it over and over to new audiences year after year.
Seabiscuit came along seven years ago and was supposed to do the same thing - advertise racing and create new fans. It’s been a mixed bag since then.
It’s great to bring on ad execs and professors to talk about branding and marketing, but what do they propose for a campaign?
18 Oct 2010 at 06:23 pm | #
Ann, your post about Keeneland was educational. Somewhere in their hierarchy are horseplayers. I know Keeneland also is the only track that I know of that has 50 cent pick-3s. Plus only Keeneland and Woodbine have those floating numbers at the bottom of the screen so you always know where your horse is during the race. Imagine that, letting the horseplayer know how their investment is doing. Try figuring where your horse is during a snowstorm at Hawthorne in December . . .good luck! Keeneland also is the most beautiful asthetically. The green fields behind the backstretch is great to look at. Many tracks have the barn area on the backside where you can see horse laundry hanging. The polytrack there has been tweaked so that it is playing more fair to front runners. In years past, it was a stretch-runners’ bonanza. Unfortunatly, Churchill Downs is now more focused on slot machines. They are buying tracks that have slots and bringing in the bacon. That’s OK, but are they becoming too corporate? Is racing taking a back seat to slots and profits?
The best meets in the country are also short meets. Saratoga, Del Mar and Keeneland are what racing needs more of. Philadelphia Park (Parx) is a year long grind. The purses are great, but horse racing in Philadelphia is NO BIG THING to the locals. And when Aqueduct gets it’s slots, it will be a boon for N.Y. horsemen. But what about the bettors? With all this new slot revenue coming, you would think they could reduce the takeout and make racing more competitive as other gambling choices. NYRA, are you listening? I’m already preparing myself to boycott California tracks starting December 26, when the takeout increase takes effect. Us bettors do have choices and we can choose not to be gouged.
18 Oct 2010 at 07:32 pm | #
Markinsac, what you said about Aqueduct getting the slots is so true. I would be satisfied if NYRA just cleaned the birdsh#t off the seats before even thinking of reducing the takeout!!
18 Oct 2010 at 08:32 pm | #
In my experience, “racetrack marketing executive” is an oxymoron.
The is no relationship to an individual’s love of horse racing and their ability to covey to others why they are love it and chose to earning a living around it.
There should be a Tea Party movement in horse racing - those currently in charge continually have proven over DECADES that they have no idea how to stop the decline of a great sport and, in fact, have accelerated the decline.
19 Oct 2010 at 08:35 am | #
Vic, as a former owner in horse racing for decades and as a marketing man, I have gleaned these elemental truths:
(1) No one in the industry knows how to create new customers.
(2) Advertising in not the right marketing answer because it’s not possible to create a believable appeal within the oonfines of brief commercials.
(3) Other marketing disciplines need to be used.
(4) An enormous obstacle exists: If a potential new customer is brought to the races, how do you explain that nobody is in the grandstand?
19 Oct 2010 at 09:48 am | #
First off, where the venue is “value added” racing does draw crowds. It’s difficult to create more of this, but in limited circumstances, such as Friday night racing, it can be done. Outside these limited confines it’s counter-productive to try to get people to the track. There is no value, especially when racing lends itself so nicely to the internet. That’s where racing should focus like a laser. The approach should be two-ply. Ease of use and availabilty are key. Certain suppliers are doing a good job in this respect. I can watch just about any track on my computer (NY what are you doing?) and I get my pp’s for free. I’ve even started to bet on my smart phone, although I can’t get video and pp’s on my phone. That’s one area I hope they will expand quickly. As for actual marketing racing needs to take its cues from off-shore gambling and poker sites. Pretty much that boils down to direct marketing and bonuses. It’s not rocket science. It just requires a little realism on racing’s part.
19 Oct 2010 at 10:08 am | #
Many of the comments to this week’s column are exceptional. It’s too bad that we’re not given the time, space and opportunity to turn some of our ideas into actionable plans.
Regarding the specific four points made by dustin stones in comment number 18, here’s my thinking:
(1) I believe “not many” would be more accurate that “no one.”
(2) The last time handle and attendance increased was in the two years of the “Go, Baby, Go” television campaign. (That said, my wife constantly reminds me that coincidence is not causality.)
(3) Sounds like you’re trying to sell horse racing on something, dustin stones. Which marketing disciplines are you pitching?
(4) Agree with this point entirely. Was Frank Stronach on to something when he down-sized Gulfstream?
19 Oct 2010 at 10:38 am | #
Mr. Stronach rebuilt GP with the knowdledge that slots would be an intregal part of the new track,however when the construction was finished still had no concrete plan of where the machines would be placed.He was on to nothing exceptr bankrupting his shareholders.
19 Oct 2010 at 11:38 am | #
Good points from #18. But in my opinion advertising can work if it’s well-crafted and put in front of the right eyeballs. NBC and CDI have succeeded in promoting the Oaks/Derby to women on Bravo and men on CNBC. I’ve long thought that “racing” should go hard after NFL fans. That’s a huge group but still targeted for the right reasons. The pics that are circulating of Terrell Owens mugging with Mike Smith and Zenyatta are pure gold. Your last point is tough to argue with but the sport does still feature crowded grandstands on big days and throughout the “lifestyle” meets at Saratoga, Keeneland, and Del Mar.
19 Oct 2010 at 12:08 pm | #
I agree with you as I have seen it firsthand. I have attended at least 90% of racedays at Gulfstream since relocating to South Florida 6 years ago and, although they don’t track attendance, I can see first hand that is it much higher and younger over the past 2 years. This is despite the recession and extremely cold weather last year. However, they have increased advertising AND promotions during this time with such things as $1 draft beers, etc. Once young people became aware of free attendance and entertainment and $1 draft beer, they showed up regularly. I doubt that these people bet much but if even 1 or 2 become regular large, churning players that do it on track, it was worth it. Even if they don’t, it adds something to handle and creates a better atmosphere.
19 Oct 2010 at 02:44 pm | #
Correction:
The bigwigs in racing “KNOW how to reverse the decline in racing”. They just won’t do the obvious, for one reason or another. In large part they are each sitting around waiting for somebody else to do it first.
20 Oct 2010 at 07:20 am | #
First of all, MARKINSAC makes some great points in his comments. Being a long time regular at the So.Cal Tracks; I have flip flopped on why this sport is in decline. Here are a few things I do firmly believe in now.
1. Most new customers are brought to the track through word of mouth, something that racing execs cant seem to build on.
2. Most marketing and racing execs are looking for short term solutions that help themselves personally than what is good for the long term growth of the game.
3.Racing is about gambling,so unless you can run Zenyatta every weekend, focus needs to stay on the gambling aspect of the sport(less takeout,etc.).
4.No industry takes its present customers for granted more than horse racing (at least in So.Cal).
20 Oct 2010 at 09:28 am | #
Vic, when I say no one knows how to create new customers for horse racing, I’m referring to the national establishment and excluding exceptional venues like Keeneland and Del Mar and I’m excluding the Five Faves, the 3 TC days and the 2 BC days. It’s all been tried or suggested, from “leagues” to “challenges” to GO BABY GO and all the short term promotions. The problem is that potential fans are given NO APPEALING RATIONAL OR EMOTIONAL REASON TO WATCH A LIVE HORSE RACE. (As far as selling simulcast or internet betting, they’re only for existing customers). What is needed seems so impossible and daunting that whatever brainpower exists in the establishment simply shies away from addressing it. Think a horse that refuses to go in the gate. There is a disconnect between America’s “love of horses” and any interest in horse racing. Yes, there’s the enormous population of work and pleasure horses in this country and the wide commercial use of their grace and beauty in advertising. But that doesn’t translate into interest in horse racing. The reasons are well known. So what is needed is a reawakening of people to THE PLEASURE OF GETTING CLOSE TO THE ANIMAL ITSELF, as in bygone times. It’s possible that this could be accomplished by (1) the reconfiguration of racetracks to make them--all of them--truly open and accessible areas. Think the Delaware (Ohio) county fairgrounds on harness racing’s Little Brown Jug” Day. Think a throughbred training center. Think betting stations everywhere on the premises, as Stronach probably had in mind in his original Gulfstream community development dream; and (2) the pouring of millions into the hidden and often maligned marketing discipline of public relations. Costs for PR programs are mimuscule compared to advertising programs. For obvious reasons, I am pessimistic. The logistics of attaining universal racetrack reconfigurations are impossible. As would be the ability of the establishment to grasp either of the 2 concepts. To paraphrase H. L. Mencken, never underestimate the stupidity of the American horse racing powers.
20 Oct 2010 at 10:37 am | #
The idea of open area racecourse configurations really appeals to me. The flip of that would be simulcast venues that deliver an audio-visual experience that’s unavailable anywhere else. These locations would feature dedicated in-house apps that enable customers with smart phones to augment their visits with an unending information stream. Good suggestion, dustin stones.
20 Oct 2010 at 01:57 pm | #
probably nothing more that most of these posts indicates the disconnect in this sport regards marketing. sorry dustin stones. You’re living in a dream world and have probably never owned a horse.
if you care to watch closely dustin you’ll see at most race tracks that watching a bunch of junior high school graduate trainers and their stall baby out of condition abused horses is hardly a treat for anybody that’s got a normal antenae. Even if what you presume is true, that there’s some kind of magnetic attraction of an old time horse and horse race, that works maybe once or twice, that’s all.
The one or two posters got it right imo. The attraction for the lay person in horse racing is gambling and the opportunity to make money. These days this is (or should be) marketed via the INTERNET--see Twin Spires and where their 43% uptick in profit comes from. it would be 143% if they’d market the thing.
20 Oct 2010 at 03:42 pm | #
Hey, my friend fb0252, your quarrel is not with me. Of course, there are awful trainers who abuse their horses and race them out of condition. Write your ideas about getting that fixed. I said nothing about the attraction of “an old time horse and horse race.” You’re imagining something I didn’t write. If you think today’s backstretch is not a place for race fans, okay. Then think backstretch the way you think it ought to be...and if you think it can’t be transformed, ignore my suggestion. Of course, betting is where it’s at--and always will be. If you think the fix for horseracing is better marketing by Twin Spires, okay, who wouldn’t support that? BTW, I’ve bred and owned dozens of racehorses and could write a book about admirable trainers and about some of the kind you’re referring to.
21 Oct 2010 at 07:45 am | #
Great posts by dustin stones and marcinsac. “Getting near the horse” is indeed a powerful interest generator from watching the saddling and post parade to viewing the race from the rail.
I agree that Saratoga, Keeneland, and Del Mar are what we need more of – in different areas of the country and at different times of the year. What a pity the opportunity to expose moviegoers to the beauty and majesty of Saratoga was wasted!
What we need less of, however, are racing dates at most tracks. The quality of being special is reduced by overexposure as surely as familiarity breeds contempt. The spring meet on Aqueduct’s main track is now greeted with relief instead of the anticipation that once accompanied horses returning with migrating birds. How many weekend warriors attended both days once New York racing expanded to Sundays?
Do the marketing experts have a handle on what percentage of customers attending multiple times a year, a month, a week? How does that compare to the percentages of players betting multiple days from home during each interval? Fewer tracks are necessary to feed the appetites of off-track bettors, but no venues can be spared to recruit them.
Is Del Mar’s ability to attract women repeatable elsewhere? Are men following them to Del Mar as a former New York racing franchise bidder once postulated?
Mr. Zast is definitely onto something in promoting new technology as an impetus for involving newer generations. It occurred to me that another app of interest might be one that could isolate the animal traveling the fastest at any point in time. It might also be useful in support of wagers on which starter ran the fastest quarter mile after the first one, or who covered the most ground over specific time intervals.
Has there been any success in enhancing interest with race-viewing through cameras mounted on jockeys’ caps?
21 Oct 2010 at 10:49 am | #
this myopic point of view (indulto) is part of what needs to be debated and sorted out. yes, let’s contract racing into Delmar and Saratoga. That way our good handicappers need not trouble themselves with other meets at other tracks,and our marketers, such as they exist, can concentrate their efforts on “attendance” at a couple 3 or 4 boutique tracks around the country.
the trouble with this is that it ends horse racing as we know it, and on the horse side limits the sport to a small number of deep pocket owners and breeders. Good for a few whale handicappers and wealthy owner/breeders that desire to control the sport in the manner of Nascar or the WWF. highly questionable for everybody else involved in this sport and the future.
21 Oct 2010 at 02:37 pm | #
f2,
It’s hard to respond to your comment as your remarks are too general to address specifically. I can only say that I don’t wish to see an expansion of dates at either SAR or DMR, and I hope DMR eventually follows Santa Anita’s lead back to dirt. Their attendance, however, should not be undervalued.
I don’t want to see tracks close, but I’m also tired of small and/or uncompetitive fields, and races devoid of soundness and/or talent. I’d rather see Oak Tree run at Golden Gate Fields than Del Mar and give Northern California residents a chance to see top horses perform.
I agree that internet wagering should be promoted to the fullest and expanded to meet the demand of the increasing numbers off off-track players, but since the location isn’t what drives that market, then live racing should be spread around to attract greater numbers of on-track players and recruit new ones. That should increase the off-track market as well.
I don’t think Saratoga needs any defense whatsoever. As for Del Mar, I personally preferred to play other tracks this year, but I’d have attended if I lived nearby. It’s hard for marketing to overcome travel time/cost and traffic complications together with less convenient eating and rest facilities. All that reduces the appeal for older customers and, consequently, their desire/ability to fill grandstands.
21 Oct 2010 at 02:50 pm | #
Indulto, some of the best most entertaining racing is at smaller tracks. there’s e.g. zero comparison between a racing experience at Remington Park, and the Old Blue Ribbon Downs in Salisaw OK. You want to be close to a horse, brush sleeves with the trainers, walk around the back stretch you went to Salisaw. If you want some pimped up immaculate facility where the horses are dots on a screen, you go to Remington. There is substantially the same excitement winning a superfecta on a $5000 claimer as there is the BC Classic. Same profit, same good feeling. Additionally, on the horse side, the “quality” of racing will long run depend on the sort of ubiquitous high participation democratic sport we have at present instead of a closed high society sport such as they have in Japan. You get great horses that are entertaining from numbers. Hence, my red flag to a bull response when i read your original post, and others.