So just a quickly today before I go walk the dog: I came across this 4100-word TOME of a Q&A with IndyCar honcho Mark Miles by Marshall Pruett and SPEEDtv.com. Read it here. OMG. After just a third of it, I was breathing into a bag, and I had to rush to alert you.
Just one of the many statements from Miles that had me giddy:
I'm really excited about this work the consultants are doing and I'm not usually a very patient person but I think this process is long overdue and we need to get through this thinking before we reach any conclusions about who we need to do what.
Are. You. Shitting. Me? That's real business leader stuff there. That's not just asking five friends and two kids about what IndyCar should be and then just doing that. That's not just saying "this worked in the Pro Bull Riders Association so let's give that a shot here in IndyCar." And it's NOT saying "we don't have time to take a scientific, systematic approach here."
All I can say is ... hosanna.
IndyCar is a business. It's a big business. So thinking you can just walk in and toss around some wild ass stuff from the hip and make it up as you go is not the way to go. And saying "we don't have time for a systematic approach" is ... bullshit. Because, every single time, when we say we don't have time, we cry some ill-conceived crazy stuff -- because we have to do it right-effing-now -- and it fails. Then, two years later, we are in the same exact EMERGENCY SITUATION we were before, but have squandered two years that could have been invested in doing it right.
This scenario has played out so often in so many kinds of American business you'd think people would recognize that it NEVER WORKS to get in a huge hurry and just wing it. It's like heading east to get Indianapolis without knowing where you are at the start. Maybe you get lucky and get there, but more often than not you don't and you waste a lot of time and resources in the process of not getting there and finally get yourself a map.
So read the Q&A here and be encouraged. I am more encouraged about IndyCar's future than I have been in a very long time. As long as the board backs this methodical approach Miles at least says he's on, we're on the right track. Sure, as we all know things can change in a day in IndyCar, but here's hoping the board knows and supports a real business-like approach to improving IndyCar when it sees it.
You and I see it exactly the same way.....I work as a business consultant....and if you don't understand where you are...you can't prepare for the future.
My hope is that the consultants will understand the differences between sports....Golf and Tennis are up close competition between individuals, and in an event that has historic importance. IndyCar racing is between CARS with individuals that are almost invisible, and when at the Speedway, historic as well. The one difference is that the CARS which provide the visual and audio appeal to the viewers...both in the stands and on TV.
That difference has been all but ignored...by a formula that makes each car the same (SPEC), and thereby taking one important element away from a sport that really must live on INNOVATION. THE CAR!
If the product anyone sells is too costly the product must be modified or it fails. 300,000 TV viewers demand just so much sponsorship money. In order to increase the audience...the product must be cost appropriate, and attractive to the buyer.
I hope the consultants look at the formula, it's cost, it's lack of openness, and it's limited attractiveness to the younger potential fan. No matter how the TV contracts or the promotion of drivers is improved without a more attractive product things will not improve...!!
Posted by: Ted Wolfram | December 18, 2012 at 11:00 AM
I thought Miles nailed it when he talked Wimbledon as a bit of an example for Indy. Wimbledon has managed to keep all its ancient and royal-ness but evolved in other areas to meet changing customer demand. His comments about keeping the historic and tradition vibe in the brand but not freezing everything in the 1960s was very exciting to me.
Posted by: pressdog | December 18, 2012 at 12:56 PM
I take issue with this analogy of kids on computer games.
The problem,having two children the roughly the same age as Mr. Miles, is the disconnect between the instant gratification of gaming, which does not take any real world skill or appreciation or acumen, and the desire to proffer a platform borne out of the advancements of TV, the Beatles and a moon landing.
His desired demographic are more concerned with playing in a cosy anonymous fantasy world, (with 'real' names and perceived talent values all gleaned in their periphery) than anything that takes an investment of attention,learning and consideration outside of the need for the muscle memory of which buttons to press.
Their world is so frickin' narrow, so easy to manipulate, it ain't funny. They haven't the facility to wonder anymore. It's all done for them. I worry about these children's rational development..and make no mistake, they are still children. My observation is not syllogistic but I can't tell you how much further along in life I was at their age.
But that's a whole other kettle O' fish.
Jp
Posted by: Jp | December 18, 2012 at 01:07 PM
Well I read it Dog and I can only say that apparently it does not take much to make you giddy.
I thought your remark "This worked in the Pro Bull Riders Association, so lets give that a shot here in IndyCar" demeaning to Randy Bernard. I don't believe Randy's approach to the job was that shallow.
So now we have a new guy talking about what worked with tennis and what his kids watch on the computer. WOW. A festival of giddiness.
Posted by: Ron Ford | December 19, 2012 at 12:24 PM
When I first read this article before your posting I thought that it was bafflegab & quit halfway through.
I'm still not sure. Maybe it was just the Glenlivet.
Posted by: S0CSeven | December 19, 2012 at 11:58 PM