- This topic has 106 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 170
Some very interesting points betting boy and I agree with a lot of what you say.
There was a thread on here recently from the guy who went to Bath (Tuffers?) and watched 8minutes of action for his £16 entry fee. If your going at a fiver a race and a couple of beers, a bite to eat, along with parking and an entry fee – you are not going to have much change from a ton.
its no good saying that people should not have to bet to enjoy racing – for 97% of the population would have to and I would guess, 85% of the race goers through the turnstyles would not watching racing ala Dubai if they could not have a flutter.
its intrical to to sport. This does not mean, that we should be breeding gambling – just that, its fact that its indisputably linked.
The price to enter race courses has to be lowered for an ‘average’ meeting. Towcester seem to have kept the bank manager happy….
I also agree that it was a ridiculous and costly decision to remove racing from You Tube. It causes hype and interest in the sport – something it needs. Especially to younger generations.
I thought of a billboard poster campaign that would be very effective in getting 18-30s going racing: A group of sexily dressed female racegoers being followed along by some suited young men with their tongues hanging out. Then, in big letters: YOU DON’T SEE THIS DOWN AT MILLWALL ON A SATURDAY AFTERNOON… That should sort it…
Sounds repellant.
.. the whole idea that there will be some sort of change or turn around in racing is just a mind game. The sport is geared up for bookies and they don’t give a **** about racing, they are just greedy capitalist, opportunist pig-dogs. Anyone who says anything else is either a poorly informed idiot or a part of the scam.
The whole industry is awash with Toff Troughers who’s only interest is where the next free lunch is coming from.
- Total Posts 17716
Without betting, racing is dead – period!
The vast majority of racing’s interest, and the bulk of its income, is generated purely from the gambling opportunity it provides, and without that it would be as popular as a pork pie at the proverbial. Anyone who can’t take that on board is in cloud-cuckoo land, but where’s the inducement, or even the recognition of that basic truth, anywhere in these proposals?
What have our glorious industry done to facilitate the interest of the people they need the most, recently?RUK, in their wisdom, have killed internet interest by insisting ‘their property’ is removed from Youtube.
The Racing Post have hidden betting forecasts, (until 9.00am) from those unwilling to pay £8 a month for the privilege.
The bookmakers have formed their own cartel to ensure ripoff sp returns that reflect nothing like the on-course prices actually available.
The racecourses allow the on-course bookmakers to alter each way terms and betting to whatever suits them individually.
The BHA have diluted the product in the interest of the bookmakers, at the same time as deliberately screwing punters with their farcical safety limits reducing ew opportunities.
There’s one common thread through all of the above, and within lies racing’s simplest solution. Not once, when these decisions were taken, was the punter represented or even consulted, and, as with the latest think-tank, the lifeblood of the industry is completely left out out of the equation.
When – if ever – the BHA gets out of bed with the bookmakers, and takes the side of its real customers, there might be some positive changes.Like most others, I won’t be holding my breath.some suited young men with their tongues hanging out
Since humans have the ability to sweat, I don’t see why it would be necessary for said young men to regulate their body temperature by panting.
And, since this isn’t the 1970s, I’m not sure a Benny Hill style advert in which a group of men chase a group of women would have the desired effect. Sounds like you’re targetting the 65-75 age group.
Personally, aside from hungry lions in the paddock and a free flesh-eating virus with every admission, there is nothing more likely to deter me from a day’s racing than the prospect of bumping into large crowds of ‘suited young men with their tongues hanging out’.
Given the choice, it would be Millwall every time.
On the wider issue, whilst it would be intriguing to see racing cut itself loose from its bookmaker dependency, I think it would require a marketing strategy of epic proportions to persuade significant numbers of non-racing folk to take an interest in the sport.
The only hope is to forget all this tinkering with the fixture list and attempt to catapault racing into the public conciousness by focusing on the racing itself. If you can persuade people that a horse race is an exciting thing or if you can lure them into caring who wins a particular race, then the battle is won. Create the impression that racing is a sport everyone enjoys, get some celebrity endorsements, whatever it takes, but aim big and aim to get people interested in the sport for its own sake. And if that involves Max Clifford, then so be it.
But, like Reet and many others here, I fear that, without the betting angle, to most people, racing is just a sport for wealthy, tweedy or rural folk and, deprived of bookmaker support, it would sink to its rightful place in the sporting pecking order, probably somewhere below snooker and darts.
Since humans have the ability to sweat, I don’t see why it would be necessary for said young men to regulate their body temperature by panting.
And, since this isn’t the 1970s, I’m not sure a Benny Hill style advert in which a group of men chase a group of women would have the desired effect. Sounds like you’re targetting the 65-75 age group.
Personally, aside from hungry lions in the paddock and a free flesh-eating virus with every admission, there is nothing more likely to deter me from a day’s racing than the prospect of bumping into large crowds of ‘suited young men with their tongues hanging out’.
Given the choice, it would be Millwall every time.
Yes, I thought it was the tongues. In only included them to drive home th point. In the actual advert you wouldn’t need men at all.
I’m sure that if you were not so intent on appearing to be a sort of Wodehouse-ian prig you would have appreciated my point: that there is more to see at a prestigious race meeting than equine legs and that the spectacle is a selling point in racing’s favour. Nothing is more likely to deter you from a day’s racing than the prospect of bumping into large crowds of young men in suits with their tongues hanging out? Since they constitute a fair portion of racegoers already I take it you don’t racing very often, old boy.
It is a pity, bettingboy, that you are unable to discuss ideas without taking criticism personally or resorting to insults. But hey, if that’s your thing, then knock yourself out.
Using sex to try and sell a product is an old idea and, I would suggest, a rather tired one. Most racecourse websites are already covered in pictures of well-dressed young women.
Your idea would also only seem only to be aiming at 49% of the 18-30 age group. But even if you supplemented it with another advert featuring attractive young men being leered at by young women in suits, I don’t see that approach being a long term solution.
If you can persuade people that racing is worth watching for its own sake, then that will secure the sport’s future.
Nothing is more likely to deter you from a day’s racing than the prospect of bumping into large crowds of young men in suits with their tongues hanging out? Since they constitute a fair portion of racegoers already I take it you don’t racing very often, old boy
No, I simply give them a wide berth. All that saliva is not good for the shoe leather. Old boy.
It is a pity, bettingboy, that you are unable to discuss ideas without taking criticism personally or resorting to insults. But hey, if that’s your thing, then knock yourself out.
To observe that a person who finds a mildly humorous and mildly lascivious advert for horse racing ‘repellent’ is acting rather priggishly is not much of an insult, in my opinion, more a statement of fact. The whole tone of your responses have been self-righteously moralistic and superior, which, incidentally, is the definition of priggish in the Oxford English Dictionary. I don’t think you can really
mind
this since it is obviously the effect you seek. Otherwise you would not write what you write the way you write. However, if I have offended you I apologise.
You observe that selling things using sex appeal is an old idea – no s***, Sherlock! You observe that pictures of attractive racegoers appear on racecourse websites. True. But once people are looking at the websites they have already had their interest piqued – what we are talking about is finding
new
audiences and my advert idea, which was frivolous but still, I’d bet, more effective than any BHA effort, was for billboards.
Please remember that personally, I can rub along with racing as it is. I don’t wish to see it football-ized (perish the thought!) and trying to make more of a ‘narrative’ won’t work, in my opinion. The narrative is already there in racing – it’s called racing.
…….. it would sink to its rightful place in the sporting pecking order, probably somewhere below snooker and darts.
and would that be a problem?
Is all this exercise to revamp the sport an attempt to bury heads in the sand and failing to accept racing is not a major sport – especially when compared with the likes of association football, cricket, rugby etc.
Instead of being something it isn’t, racing needs to accept it is a minority sport and always will be.
If racing has to depend on gambling to survive and it cannot survive as a sporting spectacle in its own right, then the question needs to be asked – does it deserve to survive?
I apologise unreservedly if my writing style causes you offence. I had no idea that such an inoffensive combination of verbs, nouns and prepositions was capable of inducing such disapprobation. I shall endeavour to do better.
However, I do take exception to the suggestion that my writing was moralistic. No matter how fiercely argued the debate, I hope I would never stoop so low as to bring morals into it.
As for the now-legendary tongues advert, I had assumed that in offering up that advert for our perusal, you were inviting opinions, even, dare I say, reactions. Had I known that it was a purely rhetorical flourish, I would have refrained from telling you what I thought of it. A gentle warning though: if you continue to post on a public forum, I fear it is inevitable that others will wish to reply.
On the question of narratives, I agree wholeheartedly.
Yours, as ever, Mr.S.Holmes
Using sex to try and sell a product is an old idea and, I would suggest, a rather tired one.
Billionaires, Richard Branson, Tony Fernandez, Vijay Mallya would all disagree you with Andrew.
Instead of being something it isn’t, racing needs to accept it is a minority sport and always will be.
A sport that employs directly and indirectly over 80,000 people, a sport that has billions gambled on it each year, a sport that sustains a multi billion pound bloodstock industry. Hardly minority imo.
For those that missed it, or who don’t bother with the Racing Post these days, the paper had an advertising feature in it yesterday for "Racing For Change".
It included an e-mail address for "thoughts and comments" from "racing fans and those employed at all levels of the industry", namely:
info@racingenterpriseslimited.co.uk
I suggest people compose and clarify their thoughts and suggestions – including many of those above – and submit them. It is not often that those within racing invite such feedback.
It’s minority in terms of public interest though, Cav – that much you must concede.
Celtic or Rangers will probably get more people through the gates in a couple of games each, than the combined attendance at all five Scottish tracks in a calendar year.
PS. Top jousting by Andrew and Bettingboy. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword
Its important to distinguish between those employed by the racing industry and those who enjoy racing purely as a social occasion or a hobby. I understand what you are saying Cav, Racing is quite a big industry in terms of employment. There are Trainers, Jockeys, Valets, Stable Staff, Breeders, Bookmakers (and their thousands of employees), etc, etc. Racing probably "employs" lots more people than football does.
However, the point of the rebrand is to encourage people to attend racing, become interested in racing; not to make a living from it. Obviously we need the latter. Without the stable staff etc the sport would be dead. I’m not trying to belittle their importance.
If you consider racing aginst other sports (which is essentially racings competition for enthusiasts), racing comes well down the pecking order. One of the reasons is because racing can struggle to gain the attention of the younger audience, of children. You cant go and "play" racing as a kid in the same way you can play football, rugby, pool/snooker. And as racing is run by the bookies (as many on here keep telling us), its never going to attract children who frankly have no interest in gambling, do they?
Racecourses maybe need to have more "open days" for children. Why don’t racecourses forge links with primary schools, let kids see behind the scenes, let them into the weighing room, let them meet racings characters. Have kids clubs where youngsters can feel involved, get badges, give them racing toys, introduce them to the Frankies, the Hayleys. Build up an interest that stretches way beyond betting. That’s what will sustain into adulthood where these once open eyed youngsters will have disposable income and the ability to make choices. Under 16’s get in free when accompanied by an adult, and yet I imagine many of the youngsters who come racing do so because they must rather than because they want to. That’s what the sport needs to change. It would be a long old road, no overnight fix or results but once hooked it’s a hell of a sport to enjoy.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.