- This topic has 101 replies, 40 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
- Total Posts 17716
One of the oddest things about this "rebranding" exercise is its quaint conservatism, in so far as it seems to start from the premise that "Racing has to pull in the youth market".
Now this of course is a fundamental economic gaff. Given the demographics of the UK, where year on year an ever decreasing percentage of the population falls into the "under 35’s" bracket, and where the group with significant spare cash and weekday time to spend it is the "over 60’s", you might hope that any review would start by looking at ways to increase the take from this huge older potential audience, rather than waste money and effort chasing the ever-diminishing youth market.
After all, there is a constant supply of new, old people. The fact that a percentage dies off every year is hardly a problem, as golf has clocked full well!
Why has this false premise not been seriously challenged by the £250,000 consultancy exercise? I’m afraid the reason is obvious: the largest group of marketing consultants and assistants are themselves under 35. And of course – being marketing consultants and hence devoid of any serious talent or imagination – they believe that their own demographic group is the only one that matters.
I’m not being cynical about this, or self-interested (as I’m not in the older group myself) but really, any organisation which employs such people to do its "rebranding" for it, really deserves everything it gets – which in this case, it seems, was not very much apart from the suggestion to form a lot of extra committees and keep talking about how to capture the youth market.
A phrase involving pigs and flight occurs to me. Impossible, and undesirable.
In fact, all the BHB needs to focus its efforts on is reversing the dilution of the fixture list, raising prize money to attract owners. It’s brutal to say so, because of a lot of self-interested parties will be offended by this, but the truth is that only owners’ enthusiasm amounts to more than a hill of beans in the Racing world. If you’ve got a strong and wide owner base, and good competition between horses – unlike at the moment, where it’s Coolmore against the rest – all other goods, including those larger attendances, will naturally flow.
"Rebranding" (even if it were meaningful in such a diverse sport/business/industry as Horse Racing) is as unnecessary as it is impossible. The BHB have wasted their £250,000.
Just a quick one for the Temperance Society.
Pimlico banned racegoers from bringing their own beer onto their infield for the Preakness on Saturday. This (partially) contributed to a drop in year on year attendance of around 30,000 racegoers (100,000 – 72,000). The Preakness is Baltimore’s Party and the MJC spoilt it for thousands of people who watched it on TV instead. In spite, for many Baltimoreans.
Like it or not (and I don’t), horse racing is not enough on its own any more. What entertainment do we supply in between races apart from ale?
- Total Posts 17716
Excellent post, Pinza.
I’d be interested to know what our resident BHA representative has made of this discussion so far.
Picking up on Pinzas point regarding the conservatism exhibited.
A radical approach would be to ignore the as-is situation, target the 90% of the population for whom racing means nothing and create a raceday experience for them. If that alienates or loses any of the current audience then too bad.
I’m unclear on the objective of this working group. Is it to improve the raceday experience for existing racegoers, or to create a raceday experience for a whole new audience??? They are different questions demanding different approaches. Perhaps our BHA friend could tell us what terms of reference exist for his working group, and what he would see as a successful outcome of their deliberations?
Finally, I’ve said this elsewhere and will continue to do so; successful change requires the leadership of a dynamic, charismatic individual and I just don’t see where this is coming from
- Total Posts 17716
Finally, I’ve said this elsewhere and will continue to do so; successful change requires the leadership of a dynamic, charismatic individual and I just don’t see where this is coming from
The last ‘dynamic, charismatic leader’ was one Peter Savill, and he’s greatly responsible for the mess racing finds itself in at the moment.
Screw the bean counters, let’s have someone to give us our sport back.Finally, I’ve said this elsewhere and will continue to do so; successful change requires the leadership of a dynamic, charismatic individual and I just don’t see where this is coming from
The last ‘dynamic, charismatic leader’ was one Peter Savill, and he’s greatly responsible for the mess racing finds itself in at the moment.
Screw the bean counters, let’s have someone to give us our sport back.I don’t know enough to say whether Savill is responsible for where we find ourselves today, but does that mean we don’t need strong individual leadership? It still needs to be doing the right things.
Your final sentence seems to sum up the dilemma though; is the way forward a sport with the horses or a business with the bean counters?
A quote from owner Andy Stewart at the NH awards yesterday, as reported in today’s Guardian:
…Yesterday, he said that he had "no solutions" to the question of how to improve racing’s appeal, though he felt strongly that the raceday experience was too expensive for many.
"A family of four, if they were to go into an average track, before they even actually sit down, it’s £70. When they get there, mum wants to feed the kids, a Coca-Cola’s £3, she can buy it in Tesco’s for 45p. The food’s crap and it’s a ridiculous price. Everything should be brought back to the consumer level to try and pull that up…."
He’s right.
I would love to see a greater time gap between races, 30 minutes is not enough,40 minutes would give one more time to look at the parade ring,get a bet on, grab a drink etc.I could spend more money if i had the time but you have to rush around so much.
Lose the concerts after racing,horrendous !
open the tracks earlier and provide racing/equine themed entertainment prior to the start of racing,e.g during the nh season get a flat trainer in for a Q&A session and talk.
when the school holidays are on loads of kids entertainment, nothing worse for a racing fan than dragging a couple of kids around who are bored.
A guide book should be made of racecourses,nothing too glossy just giving you pertinent information,about facilities.
admission charges are on the whole okay,especially when compared to a football match,racing is far better valueWhat I don’t understand is the amount of authority the BHA actual has. What powers do they have to impose any of this Bill & Ben bollocks on the management of individual courses?
What happens if the course management tells them to **** off with their ideas?
What I don’t understand is the amount of authority the BHA actual has. What powers do they have to impose any of this Bill & Ben bollocks on the management of individual courses?
What happens if the course management tells them to [expletive] off with their ideas?
They ultimately licence the courses and without the licence the course cannot host race meetings, so they can exert a fair amount of indirect influence.
Having said that it would be interesting to see what would happen if the RCA (which represents all the courses bar Towcester) did decide to flex its muscle and stand up to the BHA.
Although that organisation is also driven by politics. It also needs to be remembered the majority of courses are controlled by three organisations (Arena, Northern and Jockey Club) and if those three accept whatever is proposed, there would be little the independents could do, unless they went along the Towcester route of complete independence from the RCA.
That’s fair enough Brian, I accept the ‘indirect influence’ point along with the theory that the final proposals will be such that the courses themselves will willing implement them.
However, I can’t see how the BHA can take responsible for many of the specific points raised in this thread and act upon them. Much of what constitutes a ‘bad raceday experience’ seems to me the sole responsibility of the courses.
Maybe I’ve just missed the point – it won’t have been the first time
However, I can’t see how the BHA can take responsible for many of the specific points raised in this thread and act upon them. Much of what constitutes a ‘bad raceday experience’ seems to me the sole responsibility of the courses.
Agreed but again the BHA can issue General Instructions, which effectively become part of the rules and licence conditions which force teh courses to take action.
Remember the courses have conflicting interests – the profits from the booze sales are massive, so without "pressure from above" will they be willing to restrict that income stream?
From The Guardian (in an article which top jumps owner Andy Stewart has some harsh words for those responsible for managing flat racing in this country and which those inetrested in re-branding will no doubt find interesting reading). I thought these paragraphs were worth highlighting.
The rebranding of racing will follow the path outlined by the consultants Harrison Fraser last week, despite much subsequent criticism of their approach by those within the sport, according to Alan Delmonte of the Levy Board.
"We had a meeting this morning of the steering group," he said, "and there was very much a view that, because there’s so much work that’s gone into getting us to this stage, you’ve got to keep going with what you believe is the right thing to do."
That’s a bit like heading for the iceberg and refusing to bother changing course because you’ve already crossed most of the Atlantic.
In a sense Alan Delmonte is right because at the moment its the only party in town, but to justify it on the grounds of the work that’s gone in so far, is ludicrous. So, as more and more effort goes in, the courses of action identified are, by definition, justified? No matter how wrong they may be? Here comes that iceberg.
There have been several references on this thread that suggest the BHA are the ones behind this exercise, but that isn’t quite right.
Here’s a press release from Nov 2008 :
Consultancy marketing agency Harrison Fraser has been hired to create a brand for British horseracing.
A strategic review will be presented to Racing Enterprises in mid-March, with Harrison Fraser aiming to be commissioned to implement a certain style for the brand, which would be manifested through a name, logos, signage, and the on-course and in-betting-shop experience.
The main goal of the project, which is worth a six-figure sum, will be to create a consistent image as well as stimulating interest for the sport.
‘There are 50 million people in the UK who don’t register the sport,’ Jonathan Goodridge, client director at Harrison Fraser, said, adding, ‘If you Google British horseracing at the moment you come up with something different every time.’
Chris McFadden, chairman of Racing Enterprises, agreed: ‘We are a fragmented industry and have not had a great record with initiating and implementing change.’
And here, from another source, is a list of the objectives of Racing Enterprises Ltd :
(i) To develop and assist others with the development of racing commercially in all aspects, across all platforms and jurisdictions.
(ii) To assume the commercial functions of the BHB, subject to suitable warrantees and indemnities.
(iii) To support the efficient working of the BHA and the Horserace Betting Levy Board (HBLB).
(iv) To consult with BHA and the HBLB regarding the funding of the BHA budget.
(v) To enhance the quality of British racing and its international status and attraction through effective promotion as appropriate.
(vi) To maximise income for the benefit of all the stakeholders within the industry, including prize money and racecourses.
(vii) To help each of the bodies that form the Horsemen’s Group to maintain and enhance their respective memberships for the overall benefit of the racing industry.
(viii) To encourage the quality and prosperity of all British racecourses and to assist the RCA in maintaining effective relationships with racecourses.
Which begs the question – who or what is Racing Enterprises? Well this is a list of their directors:
Board of Directors
Chairman: Chris McFadden
RCA: Sarah Horden, Rod Street, David Thorpe
Horsemens’ Group: Paul Dixon, Rachel Hood, Robert Waley-CohenThe RCA represent the racecourse, but what’s the Horsemens Group:
The Horsemen’s Group is owned in equal shares by the Racehorse Owners Association (ROA), National Trainers Federation (NTF), Professional Jockeys Association (PJA), National Association of Stable Staff (NASS) and Thoroughbred Breeders Association (TBA).
No wonder there are so many committees !
I’m left wondering where the £250k came from ……
AP
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.