Quote:
Originally Posted by RunForTheRoses
I thought it was good in that a fair mix of horses won not just SoCal specialists.
As far as it not being crowded isn't that a good thing for being an attendee? I see in another thread dilanesp arguing BC makes money on site, not sure about that, from the consumer end it doesn't matter, at least in the short run.
|
Live attendance is a lot more important than people here think.
It's important because BC sells a lot of expensive tickets and corporate hospitality suites and events, of course.
But it is also important because a big crowd is part of the marketing of the event. If only 15,000 people showed up at the Kentucky Derby, that would be very bad for Churchill Downs, because it would be terrible for their marketing, sending the message to the general public that their event isn't important.
This is why promoters paper houses and pad crowd counts. And it's why most BC's are at SA or CD these days.
Finally, no, a low crowd isn't a good thing for an attendee. It's a good thing for loner horseplayers who just want to stretch out and spend no money other than on coffee and wagering. But it's a terrible thing for all the people who pay hundreds of dollars for the ambience of a great live event. Would it be "good" for the attendees of Del Mar's opening day, who like to show up in beautiful dresses and drink margaritas and party, if they showed up one year and the place was empty? Is an empty bar or dance club "good" because you can stretch out.
The BC only gets a small cut of off track handle. They are putting on an event, and they need a critical mass of people to show up for it. For all sorts of reasons. The last two days diminished the event.
