My Cactus-Based IndyCar TV Ratings Rapprochement

IndyCar?

In international relations terms, a “rapprochement” (it’s from the French, so give it that “ra-ˌprōsh-ˈmah” schwerve) is “the development of friendlier relations between countries or groups of people who have been enemies.”

Me and TV ratings, we’ve had a long running “discord.” For at least five years, I’ve thought TV ratings were a Sign of the Apocalypse for IndyCar. When 300,000 people in the whole country watch your program, that’s like having the tumor pathology report come back “CANCER.”

Or so I thought. I’m changing my view. It’s possible IndyCar is the cactus of sports.

Stay with me: IndyCar’s TV ratings have been so low for so long — 0.3, 0.4, 0.5 — that maybe they really don’t matter, or at least they're not crappy vital sign I've taken them to be for so long. I know! I’m doing a 180-here on TV ratings. Well, let’s take a look at what we know:

Ratings for IndyCar races on both network (ABC, ESPN) and cable channels (Versus, NBC Sports Network) have been putrid for years. We can bust out the calculators and run the algorithms and parse the ratings down to markets and time in a Festival of Uncontrolled Anality, but the upshot for me is this: TV ratings for IndyCar — including the Indy 500 — have been flatlined for years.

Yeah, you get an uptick on some races in some years, but then along comes the next year and it’s a downtick. For a long time I couldn’t see the desert for the cactus. But just this morning it hit me:

If ratings are some sign of cancer in the IndyCar body … why is it still alive? I was like an oncologist looking at a report (TV numbers) every year for five years and scratching his head saying: “this guy should have been dead years ago.”

It’s possible IndyCar is a mutant … or a cactus. Consider the cacti: they are super-adapted to conserve water and therefore can live in the most arid conditions. They’re also super-adapted to absorb water like a sponge when it does come along. Per Wikipedia (so it must be true), some cacti can absorb as much as 200 gallons of water during a rainstorm. In the plant world, nobody DRINKs, ye BASTARDS like the cacti.

Based mainly on its refusal to die, I now think IndyCar is the cactus of American sports. How else can you explain its survival on droplets of TV viewers for all but a few network-televised races? How else can you explain how they can make a TV rating for the Indy 500 (3.7 last year) that’s averageish for NASCAR (Martinsville a week ago earned a 3.8) and use that to keep themselves alive for an entire year?

Like the cati, IndyCar seems to soak up maximum benefit from the rains that do come (Indy 500 TV ratings) and minimize damage from the ratings drought that plagues 95% of the rest of their lives.

So maybe IndyCar can get along just fine with the zero-point-something ratings. You can (and will) argue that it can't go on forever, but it's already gone on for five years (or more. I'm too lazy to research it). So how much longer? Five more? Ten? Forever? I have NO idea how IndyCar attracts so few eyeballs and yet manages to attract enough sponsors to keep going, but they do.

Maybe someday someone will write a Wikipedia-worthy explanation of IndyCar’s cactus-like ability to conserve the benefit or ratings. Something about having spines instead of leaves and enlarged stems and the ability to sense and inhale any water that does come along. The truth is, I now wonder how low IndyCar can go and still survive. It's like watching a marathon runner who seemlingly defies the rules of exhaustion and death. If the Indy 500 got a 2.5 and the rest of the season averaged 0.3, would THAT kill IndyCar? I've come to doubt it.

So my rapprochement is this: rather than expecting IndyCar to eventually, some year, starve to death from lack of TV ratings, I’m now fascinated by its plucky survival skills. You go, little spiny IndyCar! Zero-point-five and still alive!

Comments

[The Speedgeek]

Bingo. That's not to say that better ratings aren't desirable (they are), or that IndyCar should strive to get better ratings (they should), but I came to the decision probably 18-24 months ago that I wasn't about to lose a single wink of sleep over them (it's not my job to make them better, anyway). It seems like the big bump they get for Indy, plus the B-2-B networking potential of being present in the paddock at the same time as other companies, plus being able to use your sponsorship as a carrot for your employees (like what Honda does with the race at Mid-Ohio), plus being able to hand out samples or coupons for your products in the Fan Village equals enough value for some companies to keep coming back and/or new companies to take the IndyCar plunge once in a while. Of course, should TV ratings drop further (like, say, if Indy dropped to a 1.0 or something), or if the price for teams to compete suddenly vastly outstripped the current level of available sponsorship, then we've got a real problem, but those things won't happen overnight. In the meantime, it seems IndyCar has time to try to better its lot in life while keeping on keeping on in its current format. And I/we get to enjoy some excellent racing at the same time. Cool.

[pressdog]

The good news about my evolved view of IndyCar's lack-o-marketing (http://bit.ly/1kr6vci) and ratings (above) is that I no longer feel obligated to watch EVERY race. Especially re: ratings ... IndyCar doesn't seem concerned about ratings, so why should I watch primarily to help ratings? So I feel free to watch the races I want to watch and skip those I don't want to watch, which I gotta say has been liberating.

[H.B. Donnelly]

Your admitted one-eighty flip on ratings was a nice surprise; I had a different cactus analogy in my head that I thought you might go with (highly desirable product surrounded by a spiny exterior of fan-unfriendliness).

Hopefully Indycar can stay as a plucky, resilient cactus as we carry on and not have to be compared to the plucky, resilient microbes that have to live in 400-degree water or something...

[Ted Wolfram]

The reason the corpse is still around is the $1,000,000+ per team that the Hulman's pee away on 20 teams per year. The series has never broken even, and some sponsors are staying because of relationships with the team owners (AJ with ABC, Roger with Verizon, Chip with Target).

If the rumors are true the sisters have said turn the series into a profit...no more excuses.

You can pee up hill for while, but sooner or later it'll all stop!

The cactus lives because it adapted...IndyCar survives because of the "500" and the money Tony Hulman made, but it is running out, and when it does someone will finally admit that the product they are trying to sell is NOT what race fans want.

Race fans want different looking race cars, with loud, big, honking engines...not "spec" cars with little bitty engines that sound like a cat being run over with a lawn mower!!

[pressdog]

THAT is a also a genius analogy, H.B. Wish I had thought of it. We may get to a point where the heat-resistant microbes are apt too. It's like one big science project!!

[Chiefswon]

Great Analogy. Fun Read!

[Dennis]

As I get older, I find it easier to accept things as they are rather than to upset myself thinking of how much better things could be. I'm more of a NASCAR fan and there is plenty there to upset but I keep on watching and have come to terms with the series. IndyCar is the same kettle of fish for me. I expect the series will always be around in some shape or fashion. I'll continue to tune in and wish them all the best with their new sponsor.

[pressdog]

I feel exactly the same, Dennis. #Nailedit.

[Ron Ford]

Another epiphany by the aspargus? I am glad you have evolved.

Consider that IndyCar level racing survived when the only race on TV was the Indy500.
One reason for that is that there were many more races here in the good ol' U.S. of A that folks could affordably attend and take their families to.

At the rate that cable is losing viewers, I think IndyCar will outlast cable.

When I am at the Milwaukee Mile in august taking in the sights and sounds, will I be worried about the TV ratings? Yeah, right.

[GeorgeK]

I find it troubling that we now spend more time discussing/arguing things like ratings sponsorship and survival than we do about the races drivers and teams.

That is not a shot at you Bill, we know you have withdrawn from active race reporting, but your unwillingness to continue a full press(dog)reporting with your blog surely has something to do with the general lack of interest in the series.

Depressing, I know.