Re: HANA Member Survey [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

CBedo

10-28-2009, 08:09 PM

I just took the survey, and wanted to make a couple comments.

First off, everyone take the survey! The more accurate information we have about our group as a whole, the better HANA can serve us.

Secondly, thanks to whoever put this together. I've put together focus group surveys in the past and they aren't as easy as you would expect. Trying to ask things you assume, but don't know, without bias can be tough experiment design.

Third, the main thing I wanted to mention was that I might not be giving horse players as a group enough credit, but I feel that most of us have somewhat short attention spans and I thought the survey was a bit long. Maybe others don't agree, but I would have rather had a shorter survey that got our feelings on overall issues, and then possibly over time, further in depth surveys on specific issues. Don't assume what the issues will be. Let the base survey and HANA membership lead HANA into further studies.

Lastly, I'd love to see the aggregate information for average age and years of betting horses (which I was surprised weren't back to back questions). Getting a picture of the overall demographic of HANA members relative to overall horse racing demographics (and possibly even PA demographics) might give us some ideas of where the industry is, where the group is, and where it might need to go to drive membership growth. It's ironic that I literally have a draft of a "how old are you" poll that I was going to post here at PA sometime tonight.

Keep up the great work,

Chris

Murph

10-28-2009, 09:02 PM

DeanT

10-28-2009, 09:52 PM

Hey Murph, and anyone else who is a member who happened to not receive an email invite, please email info@hanaweb.org with the email you signed up to HANA with and we can double-check it. We'll make sure you can fill out the survey.

speculus

10-29-2009, 02:09 AM

HANA just sent me a member survey via email. HANA neglected to list NORTHLANDS PARK (my home track) in some of the survey choices. Please make this amendment, then I'll complete the survey.

Thanks,

T2W
For a personal reason, I wish to know about the format/contents of this survey. I am not qualified to become a member because I am not an American, so can someone help me with this if it is not in any way against the policies of HANA? MY mail address is gosavi@mid-day.com . Thanks in advance.

Indulto

10-29-2009, 02:31 AM

Since I haven’t received a few of the more recent emails announcing HANA blog entries, I had assumed my e-mail address had finally been scratched by the powers-that-be, but I did get a survey invitation, and figured maybe I got it in enlightened anticipation that I would critique it, and so I completed it.

First the good news:

1) The survey did ask for prioritization of seven issues HANA is working on.

2) The survey asked to what extent responders were concerned with a variety of issues HANA is at least considering; some of which overlapped the issues to be prioritized

3) The survey asked whether responders agreed with specific positions on various other issues.

4) The survey did ask for information to enable it to determine how the membership breaks down demographically, where and when they bet, and which tracks they prefer.

5) The survey did allow a decline to answer option when appropriate

Now the not so good news:

1) While HANA did address the takeout issue from several perspectives, when asking about rebates it didn’t distinguish between rebates based on volume and fixed rebates. Thus all such questions didn’t allow for additional possible answers and effects. Because there was a question on high rebate thresholds, and because there was no question about whether effective takeout should be equal for all players, one must assume that the only rebate strategy in which HANA is interested is wagering volume-based.

2) The survey did not ask the respondent to prioritize the wager types they prefer. Nor did it ask for the preferred minimum for each wager type.

a. The survey did address a change in minimum as a “new wager,” but the only option that interested me was the $.50 Pick Five. There was no option for a $1 Pick Six, a $.50 National Best Six, or even OTHER with a write-in.

b. The first time “new wager with reduced minimum” was mentioned, there was no indication that the term could also refer to an existing wager type with a reduced minimum. Consequently, I didn’t prioritize it as highly as I might have initially, and then forgot to go back and change it after I understood what was intended.

3) The survey asked for responses regarding whether the industry should spend the money to enable updating of odds in real-time, but no mention was made of the cost involved, nor whether we should wait and see how 0 MTP works out.

4) “Lack of on-track perks for high-volume bettors” should help identify such bettors in the survey results, but there is no corresponding option for bettors who would prefer a level playing field and enable their numbers to be reflected.

5) A good portion was devoted to HANA sponsored events and a possible convention, but no mention was made about how to conduct feedback on a regular basis or to facilitate direct communication between members with similar interests and/or concerns.

Observations:

1) There is no OTHER/write-in option to the question “What is the main reason you take breaks from betting on horse racing?”

2) I was surprised that the question “If a certain track would reduce its takeout rate to a level at least 5% less than the takeout rate of the track you currently play, would you be willing to move a portion of your play to that track?” wasn’t followed by the three tracks least likely to be played under such circumstances.

3) I’m not well-versed on this issue, but how does the option “Individual horses should be suspended for drug positives along with the trainer or owner” benefit horseplayers or apply to changes of ownership?

Ray2000

10-29-2009, 07:38 AM

I believe HANA wants Harness Players on their rolls but there was no way to skip the first few questions about favorite/closest track, (Had to lie:liar: )

banacek

10-29-2009, 11:36 AM

but there was no way to skip the first few questions about favorite/closest track, (Had to lie:liar: )

That is a problem. As Hastings isn't there, I'm not doing the survey, as I would be "lying" too. There is no point to doing the survey (or compiling the results) if the data is incorrect. (Still a fan of HANA, but as a statistician having to lie on a survey would cause me to lose sleep :) )

chickenhead

10-29-2009, 11:42 AM

I think the question said "Closest of those listed, favorite of those listed"..no lying required, and the data would be correct. :) There are US tracks not listed as well (including the one closest to me), it is not a slight against Canucks.

banacek

10-29-2009, 11:55 AM

I think the question said "Closest of those listed, favorite of those listed"..no lying required, and the data would be correct. :) There are US tracks not listed as well, it is not a slight against Canucks.

The data would be correct for the question, but not for what question we should want answered. If we want to know the habits of the horseplayers, it would seem that getting it right would be imperative. I play 90% of my bets at Hastings. Hastings is on the HANA list of tracks on the takeout report ..hey I'm not talking Sagebrush Downs here. If we want to really know what's going on, we need real results. If I put Santa Anita down as my favourite track, it messes up the results. If I put down that I bet $200 a race and the track I am betting it on isn't there, it messes up the results.

Again, this isn't anything against HANA. If they can't change the survey, then I believe it is the best course of action. I think by me not doing the survey that the results could be more accurate, as I would mess them up. The results could be better for "the tracks listed below". And it isn't a slight against Canada..as I said Assiniboia is there and it's handle is way way less than Hastings..heck Stampede might have bigger handle and it didn't race this year :)

banacek

10-29-2009, 12:12 PM

chickenhead

10-29-2009, 12:34 PM

An example to try to make my point. Say you are a Boston Red Sox fan. And you do a survey which asks "Of the teams listed below, who is your favourite team?", and only 20 of the teams are listed..and no Red Sox. Do you think there is any purpose in the Red Sox fan answering the question..like he would:lol: .

Or which Hollywood actress would you most like to sleep with... and Jessica Alba isn't there.....;)

I think on both the entry and exit page it says this:

If there is a question or topic you would like to respond to in greater depth than the answer options provides, please answer the question on the questionnaire to the best of your capability and then please feel free to send us an e-mail with you additional comments at: horseplayersassociation@gmail.com

Fits this to a tee, no?

"I put Woodbine, but it really should have been Hastings, which was not listed. Whatsammata with you guys."

I'm only bringing it up because to me those are probably the two least important questions on the whole thing...probably having to do with potential HANA day at the races sites. It's a shame to NOT give your opinion on all the other stuff.

CBedo

10-29-2009, 12:37 PM

one must assume that the only rebate strategy in which HANA is interested is wagering volume-based.You know what happenss when you ASSume....;)

banacek

10-29-2009, 12:48 PM

"I put Woodbine, but it really should have been Hastings, which was not listed. Whatsammata with you guys."
.

You are correct (but not Woodbine:lol: ), but since tryingtowin brought up the problem here, I put in my 2 cents (1.90 cents Canadian). I was just trying to explain one of the problems with the survey..I didn't mention some others because I thought it was inappropriate here. Perhaps I have made a mistake by wearing my statistician's cap , but I deal with this type of survey problem regularly, so I thought I'd mention an obvious problem. I was probably overstepping, but if anyone at HANA would like any help in a survey design in the future, I would be pleased to assist..and I am betting that there are a few other statistician horseplayers on this board who would as well.

chickenhead

10-29-2009, 12:51 PM

see, now that's what I'm talking about. :ThmbUp:

I am sure there are problems, oversights, biases...please, everyone answer it as best as possible, and use the feedback link provided for feedback.

HANA *WANTS* to hear from you.

DeanT

10-29-2009, 01:07 PM

The email is working overtime this morning. There are a lot of folks giving feedback. :ThmbUp:

For Hasting's players or Northlands players if you choose Stampede we should be able to cross reference that with the BC at Alta "home province" questions.

Just looking out for my countrymen. After all, we won the War of 1812. :jump:

Indulto

10-29-2009, 01:12 PM

You know what happenss when you ASSume....;)If you think my assumption is incorrect, I'll be happy to debate it with you.:jump:

W2G

10-29-2009, 02:27 PM

I was just trying to explain one of the problems with the survey..I didn't mention some others because I thought it was inappropriate here.

banacek,

I'm helping HANA with the survey. Seems that the track lists could have been a bit more exhaustive. There's a bunch of ways we can handle that including identifying your response set and changing those answers. I can also modify the live questionnaire, but it's best to shut down the survey to do so -- very early in the AM would be the best time to do that.

Chickenhead is right, you can answer the offending questions without lying and complete the questionnaire. Or wait till tomorrow after revisions are made. Above all don't refuse to participate based on your home track's unintentional exclusion.

What else do you consider to be methodological problems? If you'd rather, feel free to private message me to discuss.

banacek

10-29-2009, 02:32 PM

banacek,

I'm helping HANA with the survey. Seems that the track lists could have been a bit more exhaustive. There's a bunch of ways we can handle that including identifying your response set and changing those answers. I can also modify the live questionnaire, but it's best to shut down the survey to do so -- very early in the AM would be the best time to do that.

Chickenhead is right, you can answer the offending questions without lying and complete the questionnaire. Or wait till tomorrow after revisions are made. Above all don't refuse to participate based on your home track's unintentional exclusion.

What else do you consider to be methodological problems? If you'd rather, feel free to private message me to discuss.

I already did the survey..chickenhead talked me into it. I put none or other for the tracks. The methodological problems are minor and likely arguable, so I'll be quiet on that front for a change :) .

W2G

10-29-2009, 02:49 PM

I already did the survey..chickenhead talked me into it. I put none or other for the tracks. The methodological problems are minor and likely arguable, so I'll be quiet on that front for a change :) .

Ok, but I'd still love to get a fellow practitioner's feedback. :ThmbUp:

Space Monkey

10-29-2009, 03:51 PM

I didn't think the survey was too long. If its interesting, the longer the better. I found it interesting. If my small town track was omitted I'd be pissed, but it wouldn't stop me from participating. Think big picture. There were options and the feedback link at the end. So take it and write a book on the feedback if you like. I'm sure there are many here who would have no problem doing that :lol:

Indulto

10-29-2009, 04:02 PM

banacek,

I'm helping HANA with the survey. Seems that the track lists could have been a bit more exhaustive. There's a bunch of ways we can handle that including identifying your response set and changing those answers. I can also modify the live questionnaire, but it's best to shut down the survey to do so -- very early in the AM would be the best time to do that.

Chickenhead is right, you can answer the offending questions without lying and complete the questionnaire. Or wait till tomorrow after revisions are made. Above all don't refuse to participate based on your home track's unintentional exclusion.

What else do you consider to be methodological problems? If you'd rather, feel free to private message me to discuss.Will early participants be able to modify their original submission?

chickenhead

10-29-2009, 04:18 PM

I think it's a bad idea to change anything on the questionnaire, too many people have taken it. Feedback can correct or expand on anything that needs it, and feed forward into next time.

Indulto

10-29-2009, 05:54 PM

I think it's a bad idea to change anything on the questionnaire, too many people have taken it. Feedback can correct or expand on anything that needs it, and feed forward into next time.If this were the U.S. Census, I'd agree with you, but there are only 1,300 members, and every one of them is a concerned player who is interested in the most accurate and meaningful survey that can be conducted.

Also, it won't take as much time to complete a second time around, and wouldn't most people be interested in seeing what changes were made? How hard is it to save a new completed file over the old one with the e-mail address as the key?

Jeff P

10-29-2009, 06:30 PM

I think it's a bad idea to change anything on the questionnaire, too many people have taken it. Feedback can correct or expand on anything that needs it, and feed forward into next time.
I agree.

We've seen a very good response rate so far...

In fact responses/completed surveys outnumber the unresolved complaints several hundred to one. I hope I'm not going too far out on a limb by saying we can live with that. :)

Some of the responses have been eye opening to say the least.

On the whole I'd have to say that we are getting some very clear guidance as to what areas of the game the serious horseplayer sees as critical.

I think that guidance gleaned from this survey will go a long way towards determining our direction going forward.

-jp

.

Indulto

10-29-2009, 07:09 PM

... Some of the responses have been eye opening to say the least.

On the whole I'd have to say that we are getting some very clear guidance as to what areas of the game the serious horseplayer sees as critical.

I think that guidance gleaned from this survey will go a long way towards determining our direction going forward. ....But will we ever find out what characterizes and/or constitutes this "serious horseplayer" who will be guiding HANA?

Murph

10-29-2009, 11:03 PM

I agree.

We've seen a very good response rate so far...

In fact responses/completed surveys outnumber the unresolved complaints several hundred to one. I hope I'm not going too far out on a limb by saying we can live with that. :)

Some of the responses have been eye opening to say the least.

On the whole I'd have to say that we are getting some very clear guidance as to what areas of the game the serious horseplayer sees as critical.

I think that guidance gleaned from this survey will go a long way towards determining our direction going forward.

-jp

.I'm still kind of miffed that I haven't recieved an invitation to take this survey. I'm not interested in signing up again. I want to know why I wasn't included in the original mailing. How do I determine my status as a member?

Am I "in" with HANA - or "out"?

DeanT

10-29-2009, 11:29 PM

I'm still kind of miffed that I haven't recieved an invitation to take this survey. I'm not interested in signing up again. I want to know why I wasn't included in the original mailing. How do I determine my status as a member?

Am I "in" with HANA - or "out"?
Hey Murph,

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=776319&postcount=6

If you would shoot us an email we can check the database.

DT

Murph

10-29-2009, 11:45 PM

Hey Murph,

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=776319&postcount=6

If you would shoot us an email we can check the database.

DTNO. Let's just forget it. I won't ask about it again.

PaceAdvantage

10-30-2009, 12:19 AM

Ooops...I thought for a moment I was in the "Private Message" section...:lol:

Murph

10-30-2009, 08:37 AM

Ooops...I thought for a moment I was in the "Private Message" section...:lol:I'm not sure why you thought that or why you find the topic so amusing? There is no news of a survey on their website, since I read about this here first I felt like it was OK to ask about it here. Maybe the demographics didn't include me in this sample or any of 100 other reasons. I have no way to know except thru additional inquiry. If this is such a joke, maybe making additional contacts with questions aren't the best use of my time.

RichieP

10-30-2009, 09:30 AM

There is no news of a survey on their website, since I read about this here first I felt like it was OK to ask about it here.

I am also awaiting the survey having sent my new email addy to H.A.N.A. yesterday morning :)

Horseplayersbet.com

10-30-2009, 09:52 AM

I'm not sure why you thought that or why you find the topic so amusing? There is no news of a survey on their website, since I read about this here first I felt like it was OK to ask about it here. Maybe the demographics didn't include me in this sample or any of 100 other reasons. I have no way to know except thru additional inquiry. If this is such a joke, maybe making additional contacts with questions aren't the best use of my time.
You were asked for an email address. There could be a problem, or you might have received it in your spam folder.
The survey was sent out to HANA members who gave proper email addresses.
I got mine. In fact, we've had a great response so far when it comes to the number of HANA members who have taken the time to fill out the survey.
It could have been our fault when originally inputting your email data. We found that we had around 6 email addresses wrong, and corrected the known mistakes.
I don't see the point of you complaining here when we are willing to send you out a survey to fill out immediately, if you just send us out an email address again.

We want as many HANA members to fill out the survey, and value everyone's input and we would love to see how you would answer the survey.

PaceAdvantage

10-30-2009, 10:46 AM

I'm not sure why you thought that or why you find the topic so amusing?I find it amusing because all of this could have been cleared up easily, quickly and neatly with a little private message exchange, or an email exchange.

Obviously, there is a reason you chose not to go that simple route.

That's what I find amusing.

Murph

10-31-2009, 05:19 PM

I find it amusing because all of this could have been cleared up easily, quickly and neatly with a little private message exchange, or an email exchange.

Obviously, there is a reason you chose not to go that simple route.

That's what I find amusing.HEY! I get it now! And it only took 3 days.

Jeff P replied to me with private message about my invitation within 15 minutes of my first posting. Now you may not believe this but I didn't see I had a private message until a half hour ago. (I haven't received a pm here in more than a year.) Had I simply responded to Jeff P's message there would have been no more public posts about it.

No organization could provide better service and response to my question and I totally missed it. No offense intended and I hope none taken.

PaceAdvantage

10-31-2009, 07:08 PM

Now you may not believe this but I didn't see I had a private message until a half hour ago. (I haven't received a pm here in more than a year.) Had I simply responded to Jeff P's message there would have been no more public posts about it.I believe you 100%. Sometimes the notification system when it comes to PMs isn't perfect here...

I apologize if my prior reply came off as a bit harsh...

CincyHorseplayer

10-31-2009, 08:56 PM

I just wanted to know where the progress and status of the united front to get concessions lowered was at??:cool:

Indulto

11-29-2009, 05:07 AM

Last Monday, the first installment of the results of HANA’s member survey was posted at the blog.

http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2009/11/hana-survey-tote-rake-and-poly.html (http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2009/11/hana-survey-tote-rake-and-poly.html)
HANA Survey - Tote, Rake and Poly
November 23, 2009

Early Sunday morning, a subsequent HANA blog piece -- but not a second installment -- become the first to reference the earlier one. Up to that point, the latter had attracted no comments or any previous mention of it here at PA that I could locate. Since apparently the drawn-out, countdown approach employed in HANA's successful Track Ratings project will be applied to this one as well, I thought some early feedback would help maximize its impact:… Overall we were extremely happy with both the response rate and the demographic breadth. Virtually every state and province had at least one responder and the response to sample size ratio allows us to say that the survey results are statistically valid with 95% confidence. Both standardbred and thoroughbred players were represented, and we noticed a lot of cross breed play. The average HANA member - like most horseplayers - is dedicated, older, bets or watches several times a week and has been playing and watching racing for many years. We were happy to have representation of the under 35 set though, and were equally happy to see both smaller players and larger players having a say. …So far no profile of the "average HANA member" has surfaced (pun intended), nor any correlation with the “serious horseplayer,” i.e., that mythical member who would provide “very clear guidance as to what areas of the game the serious horseplayer sees as critical” -- and would “determine our direction going forward” -- according to HANA’s prez.… When we asked what your greatest concern was, and prompted you with six or seven possible answers, you chose “pari-mutuel takeout rates”. Only 3% of you said you were “not concerned at all” about this issue. …So far, this approach to summarization could be considered a disappointment, if not an insult, to horseplayers accustomed to looking at raw data and drawing their own conclusions. If this initial presentation is any indication, transparency will continue to elude the membership who might now expect to receive only the board’s unverifiable interpretation of the results; fed to them like pablum to infants instead of shared with them in an intellectual exercise for adults.… We will be reporting more and more about the survey as time goes on here on the blog and at industry conferences, and we thank every one of you who took time out of your busy days to complete the survey. …How often does one get up in front of an industry conference without supplying the actual numbers? Isn’t everyone who completed the survey entitled to the same respect, enlightenment, and -- as perhaps even GT might agree -- courtesy?

rrbauer

11-29-2009, 10:52 AM

[color=black]... If this initial presentation is any indication, transparency will continue to elude the membership

:lol: :lol:

Got to keep it opaque....mushroom theory you know!

chickenhead

11-29-2009, 01:41 PM

chickenhead

11-29-2009, 02:27 PM

In seriousness, I think its SOP for blogs to do this sort of thing -- unique info, dole it out, try to get linked to as often as possible (in our world that means Paulick and Equidaily), and raise as much awareness of it as possible. If 5 different days worth of links are possible, then webmasters generally go for that, rather than a one days worth of links. The traffic and awareness should be larger that way.

I think the goal is to get the results in front of as many people as possible. That said, displaying some nifty bar charts or something to show the results for whatever is being covered would be good -- visuals are nice.

DeanT

11-29-2009, 03:12 PM

You got it Chick. When we link a list we get linked back quite often, rather than one and out. Our conversion rate for new members through linking and community marketing is around 4%, so if we get 400 eyeballs one and out we will receive 16 new members. If we can do an encapsulating series we can hopefully get 10-15X the eyeballs and upwards of 200 new members.

We don't have much money, so this works out, and was exemplified on the HANA top 20 tracks. Linking that in twenty pieces rather than one, got us around 6000-8000 clicks. That generated upwards of 400 new members, looking to change racing. As you know our ads that we run are around 16 cents CPM, this is 0 cents CPM, so for a fledgling group not having cash to burn it is a good avenue.

This also helps with Search Engine Optimization because many of the issues that people are searching for will be linked on SERPS. We have done quite well with that so far.

We also hope to get more feedback in the comments sections so if we need to present tangible data to the industry we have some comment firepower behind the words.

We hope people follow it, and members share their thoughts on each piece. Time is tight but we hope to keep rolling with this and get some interaction and some new members. We'd like to get a new piece on demographics and stuff up soon, and move on from there.

Best,

Dean

Indulto

11-30-2009, 03:28 AM

I couldn't help but relate this to Thanksgiving dinner, I hope you behaved yourself Indy:

So far, this approach to serving appetizers first could be considered a disappointment, if not an insult, to people accustomed to gorging themselves as they will, on demand. If this initial presentation is any indication, full bellies will continue to elude the guests who might now expect to receive only crackers and cheese and small cured meats; fed to them like pablum to infants instead of the Turkey and full array of sides that I expect for a proper Thanksgiving feast.A more fitting analogy might be that the board is feasting on the meat of the Turkey while it passes out feathers to the membership.In seriousness, I think its SOP for blogs to do this sort of thing -- unique info, dole it out, try to get linked to as often as possible (in our world that means Paulick and Equidaily), and raise as much awareness of it as possible. If 5 different days worth of links are possible, then webmasters generally go for that, rather than a one days worth of links. The traffic and awareness should be larger that way.

I think the goal is to get the results in front of as many people as possible. That said, displaying some nifty bar charts or something to show the results for whatever is being covered would be good -- visuals are nice.As you know, Chick, I’ve applauded HANA’s marketing strategy for the Track Ratings. My earlier remarks merely noted its redeployment. They were not critical of it. My concerns were the format, scope, openness, and validity of the results presented. So far you haven’t addressed them.You got it Chick. When we link a list we get linked back quite often, rather than one and out. Our conversion rate for new members through linking and community marketing is around 4%, so if we get 400 eyeballs one and out we will receive 16 new members. If we can do an encapsulating series we can hopefully get 10-15X the eyeballs and upwards of 200 new members.

We don't have much money, so this works out, and was exemplified on the HANA top 20 tracks. Linking that in twenty pieces rather than one, got us around 6000-8000 clicks. That generated upwards of 400 new members, looking to change racing. As you know our ads that we run are around 16 cents CPM, this is 0 cents CPM, so for a fledgling group not having cash to burn it is a good avenue.

This also helps with Search Engine Optimization because many of the issues that people are searching for will be linked on SERPS. We have done quite well with that so far.

We also hope to get more feedback in the comments sections so if we need to present tangible data to the industry we have some comment firepower behind the words.

We hope people follow it, and members share their thoughts on each piece. Time is tight but we hope to keep rolling with this and get some interaction and some new members. We'd like to get a new piece on demographics and stuff up soon, and move on from there.

Best,

DeanThanks for sharing those details and expectations, Dean. Here’s hoping the process winds up enhancing HANA’s credibility as well as its visibility.

chickenhead

11-30-2009, 10:15 AM

My earlier remarks merely noted its redeployment. They were not critical of it. My concerns were the format, scope, openness, and validity of the results presented. So far you haven’t addressed them.

Apologies. If you hadn't dressed your concerns with so much innuendo I might have understood your question better, I get distracted by that sort of thing. Something like:

Is HANA going to release the actual percentages and/or underlying data? I see the first post only had some generalizations, which I don't think are nearly as effective or interesting as seeing actual results.

And you probably would have received a simple yes as an answer.

DeanT

11-30-2009, 12:18 PM

HANA's General Demographics are up: http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/

Indulto

11-30-2009, 04:37 PM

HANA's General Demographics are up: http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/
Dean,
Interesting summary. Can you please provide more details like:

1) How many people completed the survey

2) How many people signed up just to take the survey

3) What % of the membership at the time completed the survey

4) How many members are actually in each state

5) Which states are over or under-represented based on

The population of the state
The presence of live racing in the state
The denial of internet access for wagering
Will there eventually be a way for members in the same state or other physical proximity to contact each other independently to hook up at the racetrack, etc.?

Thanks,
I

DeanT

11-30-2009, 07:11 PM

Indulto

12-01-2009, 10:34 AM

We got a big sample. I believe we needed 231 to make it significant with 95% confidence and did well over double that. We had very few signups after the period, so I doubt too many newbies, if at all. Jeff was watching that.

I honestly do not know about your other questions regarding populations of the states and so forth.

DI appreciate your response, Dean.

Assuming that all 1400 plus members received the e-mail requesting their participation in the survey, it appears that approximately 1 in 3 completed it. That may be statistically significant, but what that response tells me is that a majority of the membership failed to reward the board’s uncompensated efforts with similar dedication and follow through of its own; even under far more convenient circumstances.

It also suggests that most of the current membership may be content to let others do the work and thinking for them. (Could the response to level of education be skewed?) Maybe a survey on motivation and expectations would tell us why, but I’d hate to try and predict that sample size.

To the minority that did participate, you have my respect and gratitude.

To the remainder I have to ask, was your inaction an indication of apathy, protest, or something else? Was there a question that inhibited you for some reason? I just want to understand why someone motivated to join the organization would decline this opportunity to show their support.

12-01-2009, 10:43 AM

I appreciate your response, Dean.

It also suggests that most of the current membership may be content to let others do the work and thinking for them.

You think this is unique to HANA? That is how life works everywhere.

DeanT

12-01-2009, 10:59 AM

We were told for a survey that size to expect less than 30% participation, but it looks like we will do closer to 50%, so we are extremely happy with the horseplayers who took time out of their busy day to complete the survey.

We are appreciative, and really stoked that they let their feelings be known, and can not thank them enough.

Dean

Horseplayersbet.com

12-01-2009, 11:09 AM

George Sands

12-01-2009, 12:21 PM

Was a recent post deleted from this string?

Horseplayersbet.com

12-01-2009, 12:54 PM

Was a recent post deleted from this string?
Yes. Just some reactionary humour that wasn't necessary.

George Sands

12-01-2009, 01:08 PM

Yes. Just some reactionary humour that wasn't necessary.

Who made the post?

Indulto

12-01-2009, 01:15 PM

Yes. Just some reactionary humour that wasn't necessary.Too bad I missed it. From all accounts, I would have had a field day with it. ;)

andymays

12-01-2009, 01:28 PM

Who made the post?

Not me!

But I liked the part about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer. Beware of those nasty Track Execs. They'll screw you every time!

Horseplayersbet.com

12-01-2009, 01:32 PM

Who made the post?
It was moi. But lets drop it. It was taken down for a reason.

andymays

12-01-2009, 01:42 PM

It was moi. But lets drop it. It was taken down for a reason.

If you change your mind I saved it. :lol:

Just kidding. :)

George Sands

12-01-2009, 02:38 PM

It was moi. But lets drop it. It was taken down for a reason.

What was the reason? Did someone decide that it would be a good idea for HANA to have members?

Indulto

12-07-2009, 08:06 AM

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/54293/perception-improves-but-work-far-from-over (http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/54293/perception-improves-but-work-far-from-over)
Perception Improves, But Work Far From Over
By Tom LaMarra December 6, 2009… The National HBPA believes horsemen and racing fans share common interests and should work together to promote Thoroughbred racing, but there is a challenge at the outset.

“In many cases, we have difficulty identifying who the fan really is,” said National HBPA president Joe Santanna, who represents the organization on the National Thoroughbred Racing Association board of directors.

NTRA senior vice president of communications Keith Chamblin offered details on the results of a 2009 online survey authorized by the NTRA and done by SocialSphere. The survey, which gauges the opinions of sports fans, core racing fans, and industry insiders, is in its third year.

… According to the survey of more than 1,900 individuals, the number of core racing fans that bet once a week was 57% in 2008 versus 43% this year, not a surprising drop given economic circumstances. The number of core fans that bet $200-plus went from 33% to 28%.

… Among core fans, 70% said they don’t believe there is “widespread cheating” in Thoroughbred racing—but that means three in 10 aren’t convinced.

… The work of the alliance apparently has taken root. In 2008, 18% of sports fans said Thoroughbred racing should be banned, and—surprisingly—12% of core fans said the same. This year, it fell to 4% of sports fans and 1% of core fans, according to the research.

… Among sports fans, 38% said they followed the exploits of the filly Rachel Alexandra closely, while among core fans, the number was 98%.

… “As popular as Rachel Alexandra was during the spring and summer, she still wasn’t as popular as Mine That Bird, and there’s one reason for that—the Kentucky Derby,” Chamblin said.

Michael Amo, chairman of Thorofan, said the group has grown from 250 members in 22 states in 2008 to 468 members in 30 states this year. Thorofan attempts to expose people to all aspects of racing, not just those involving pari-mutuel wagering. …