Derby tv ratings highest in 20yrs up 1%, 155,804 show up live in the rain

[Foolish Pleasure]

16million TV viewers, 23% of all TVS turned on at the time were watching Super Saver.

another 155,804 show up in the rain live,

couple hundred thousand elsewhere attending tracks, OTBS et al-


and they can't convert any of this into sustainable forward looking business?

It is appalling, only reason the sport is not doing well is the people in charge,
the public is still interested even after 140yrs of being crapped on. It is obvious from the interest on big days and amongst other things Hollywood's repeatedly using racing as backdrop.

The failure to convert is in the executive offices.

[Igeteven]

16million TV viewers, 23% of all TVS turned on at the time were watching Super Saver.

another 155,804 show up in the rain live,

couple hundred thousand elsewhere attending tracks, OTBS et al-


and they can't convert any of this into sustainable forward looking business?

It is appalling, only reason the sport is not doing well is the people in charge,
the public is still interested even after 140yrs of being crapped on. It is obvious from the interest on big days and amongst other things Hollywood's repeatedly using racing as backdrop.

The failure to convert is in the executive offices.

People love horse racing, this proves it,

[Jasonm921]

155,000 is a crazy number. I was at Belmont for the Big Brown debacl and that was 96000 or so and that was wayyyyyyyyy to crowded for me.

[Robert Goren]

Maybe because Tiger didn't make the cut, golf fans decided to watch horse racing. :rolleyes:

[johnhannibalsmith]

What makes it really hard to grasp is that it was really a year that unlike several recent years, had no real built-in story line or compelling horse or rivalry or human element or anything. It was just a jumbled up bunch of three-year-olds compared to other years that was most alluring as a wagering proposition and not as a theatrical event. I've tried to really understand the rationale for increased viewership and I can't figure on anything that makes a whole lot of sense.

[Bruddah]

What makes it really hard to grasp is that it was really a year that unlike several recent years, had no real built-in story line or compelling horse or rivalry or human element or anything. It was just a jumbled up bunch of three-year-olds compared to other years that was most alluring as a wagering proposition and not as a theatrical event. I've tried to really understand the rationale for increased viewership and I can't figure on anything that makes a whole lot of sense.


The primary difference this year was the advertising leeding up to the big day. A lot more of it, and well placed, by both ESPN and NBC. (JMHO)

[letswastemoney]

What makes it really hard to grasp is that it was really a year that unlike several recent years, had no real built-in story line or compelling horse or rivalry or human element or anything. It was just a jumbled up bunch of three-year-olds compared to other years that was most alluring as a wagering proposition and not as a theatrical event. I've tried to really understand the rationale for increased viewership and I can't figure on anything that makes a whole lot of sense.
Borel is the story isn't he?

[kenwoodall2]

And the fact that about 15 horse's odds were likie 7-1 to 15-1 meaning everybody running had a shot, did not matter? Or that a female was running?

[jonnielu]

What makes it really hard to grasp is that it was really a year that unlike several recent years, had no real built-in story line or compelling horse or rivalry or human element or anything. It was just a jumbled up bunch of three-year-olds compared to other years that was most alluring as a wagering proposition and not as a theatrical event. I've tried to really understand the rationale for increased viewership and I can't figure on anything that makes a whole lot of sense.

Maybe what brings people to horse racing in the first place is the idea that anyone can win, rich or poor, smart or dumb. Who knows what could happen if racing had the guts to put 12 horses in the gate and let them run, instead of trying to engineer predictable chalk parades with 6 horse fields.

jdl

[gm10]

16million TV viewers, 23% of all TVS turned on at the time were watching Super Saver.

another 155,804 show up in the rain live,

couple hundred thousand elsewhere attending tracks, OTBS et al-


and they can't convert any of this into sustainable forward looking business?

It is appalling, only reason the sport is not doing well is the people in charge,
the public is still interested even after 140yrs of being crapped on. It is obvious from the interest on big days and amongst other things Hollywood's repeatedly using racing as backdrop.

The failure to convert is in the executive offices.

No offence, but the coverage of the Kentucky Derby was atrocious. It was simply irritating, bad TV. They should have a look at how the BBC covers big races.

I'm not being patriotic: I'm not British and happily acknowledge that American TV coverage is sublime for some other sports.

[RichieP]

Who knows what could happen if racing had the guts to put 12 horses in the gate and let them run, instead of trying to engineer predictable chalk parades with 6 horse fields.

jdl

Sharp post :ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

[johnhannibalsmith]

Borel is the story isn't he?

Yeah, after the fact he certainly is. But it wasn't exactly much of an overriding story with mass draw prior to the race that would have captivated a greater audience share than normal.

[Bruddah]

Yeah, after the fact he certainly is. But it wasn't exactly much of an overriding story with mass draw prior to the race that would have captivated a greater audience share than normal.

Unless Bo-Rail doesn't have a mount next year, for whatever reason, Bo-Rail will be the story line leeding into next years Derby. If not, the networks will be bigger idiots than we all think they are now.

[BluegrassProf]

People love horse racing, this proves it,Not exactly...it proves people love Derby.

What matters is are the hundreds of "in-between" days. People need to love racing then, too.

[Robert Goren]

Borel is the story isn't he? Well, he is for the Preakness anyway.

[castaway01]

Not exactly...it proves people love Derby.

What matters is are the hundreds of "in-between" days. People need to love racing then, too.

People love big events in all areas...it's a big party and they want to be part of it. Unfortunately it doesn't carry over to the rest of the year. This Derby was also well advertised and promoted (though the coverage itself was awful).

[joanied]

Let's hope the trend will continue. No doubt the Preakness will draw another huge veiwing audience...if not for Super Saver trying for the TC, then for Calvin himself.

[W2G]

16million TV viewers, 23% of all TVS turned on at the time were watching Super Saver.

another 155,804 show up in the rain live,

couple hundred thousand elsewhere attending tracks, OTBS et al-


and they can't convert any of this into sustainable forward looking business?

It is appalling, only reason the sport is not doing well is the people in charge,
the public is still interested even after 140yrs of being crapped on. It is obvious from the interest on big days and amongst other things Hollywood's repeatedly using racing as backdrop.

The failure to convert is in the executive offices.

Question: Who are these executives that are in charge of leveraging the increasing popularity of the Kentucky Derby/TC to push casual fans along the path to becoming core fans?

[rastajenk]

No doubt the Preakness will draw another huge veiwing audience...I'd take that, if it were offered as a bet. A Derby Party is practically a brand...Preakness Party, eh, not so much. Calvin on a Derby winner helps, no doubt. But I don't think it makes it huge. TV-wise, I mean.