Symposium: attracting & retaining fans

[RXB]

http://www.drf.com/news/racing-sympo...us-opening-day

[Stillriledup]

Why would you want to attract new fans if the current fans arent happy? Isnt it better to make sure you have great "word of mouth" before you "ignore" the current customer base and go and try and recruit new "fish"?

I don't know about you, but if i plan on trying out a new restaurant, i check out Yelp, you know, to see what other people thought of the place, the service, the food, etc.

Racing industry needs to stop treating customers like they're stupid. You're not going to "Trick" current customers that everything is A OK and those current customers are not going to tell their family and friends to "give the track a try, its fun".

[Robert Fischer]

the media seems like a great tool for reaching the masses

[burnsy]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Why would you want to attract new fans if the current fans arent happy? Isnt it better to make sure you have great "word of mouth" before you "ignore" the current customer base and go and try and recruit new "fish"?

Its probably best to treat ALL of your customers well......you know.....especially if you are losing 2 percent per year in overall customers as stated by the jockey club. Overall handle down from 15 billion to 10.9 in 5 years time.

Yeah, aiming for women and younger folks is a great idea but there is a learning curve to this game...its complex. You don't slide in a few bills and push buttons. Why would you increase overhead costs (for the fan or bettor) when people are intimidated before step 1? Does this Kay character even understand women? They see an admission fee, parking fee and the price for a form....The first thing out of their mouth is..."I could of taken my chances and put 20 or 30 in a machine without reading or thinking about it." I know so many women and younger people that don't even care to learn how to read a form...some even say its too much work and a jumble of crap. So, the data base, rating deal is probably a great idea but what are they going to charge for it? They should of had someone say....."Stop nickle and diming everyone at every turn BEFORE they even make one bet." Theres step one. Get horses to run more, Especially the good ones...step two. Promote GOOD food at a GOOD price...step three. The simulcasts should be attractive and offer service...step 3. My girlfriend loves the casino side of the Saratoga Harness......Upstairs the simulcast is a dump...she calls it the MORGUE...no lie. Step 4. They put about 20 million into that place and the horse betting side is the same dump it was 30 years ago...no lie either...... Thats a start. Oh yeah, and get it through the "Talking heads"...these people will never open an account online in a million years.......they are just not that serious about it. They are looking for occasional action and fun.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by burnsy

Its probably best to treat ALL of your customers well......you know.....especially if you are losing 2 percent per year in overall customers as stated by the jockey club. Overall handle down from 15 billion to 10.9 in 5 years time.

Yeah, aiming for women and younger folks is a great idea but there is a learning curve to this game...its complex. You don't slide in a few bills and push buttons. Why would you increase overhead costs (for the fan or bettor) when people are intimidated before step 1? Does this Kay character even understand women? They see an admission fee, parking fee and the price for a form....The first thing out of their mouth is..."I could of taken my chances and put 20 or 30 in a machine without reading or thinking about it." I know so many women and younger people that don't even care to learn how to read a form...some even say its too much work and a jumble of crap. So, the data base, rating deal is probably a great idea but what are they going to charge for it? They should of had someone say....."Stop nickle and diming everyone at every turn BEFORE they even make one bet." Theres step one. Get horses to run more, Especially the good ones...step two. Promote GOOD food at a GOOD price...step three. The simulcasts should be attractive and offer service...step 3. My girlfriend loves the casino side of the Saratoga Harness......Upstairs the simulcast is a dump...she calls it the MORGUE...no lie. Step 4. They put about 20 million into that place and the horse betting side is the same dump it was 30 years ago...no lie either...... Thats a start. Oh yeah, and get it through the "Talking heads"...these people will never open an account online in a million years.......they are just not that serious about it. They are looking for occasional action and fun.

I think the lack of "new fans" to the game has nothing to do with the learning curve, it has to do with what "horse racing" makes people do to make a wager.

If you know nothing at all, and you enter a 7-11, you see a sign that says "Megamillions and then they show you the "carryover" of 400 million". Then, they actually permit you to purchase "quick picks" so there's no learning curve there, you just hand the cashier money and away you go, you're involved, you're part of the action.

BUT, if a bettor wants to "get involved" with a huge carryover at Santa Anita (for example) how do they go about even HEARING about it? There's no sign in the window of 7-11 saying "Pick 6 carryover at SA, 100k" there's no way to wager on that bet either, unless you physically drive to Arcadia, Ca, pay 5 bucks to park, 5 bucks to get in and then what? There's nobody there that will help you wager on this bet or can even explain what it means.

Go find 100 random people on the street in Los Angeles and ask them "have you ever heard of the horse track Santa Anita park". I would say most of them would say yes they've heard of it. Than, ask them this "There's a wager there called a pick 6, can you explain to me what the pick 6 is, how much it costs and what is required" and i'll bet very few would be able to tell you.

[Race Promoter]

It is basic business knowledge that it costs 8 to 10 times more to gain a new customer vs. retaining a current one. So many businesses review their retention rates ( big in health club industry ) and know exactly how many people they are gaining or losing in a given month. You need to do both, but racing seems to forget about the value of retaining current customers.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Some of the current players in the racing game are on too good a deal and need to be brought back to the pack. And this does not entail hobbling these people but simply taking away their current unfair advantages

With trainers, you currently have some super trainers who owe their great number of wins more to their use of chemicals than training skill. So better drug policies will help (maybe locking up horses for 24 hours before the race). Along with maybe a salary cap idea for owners and trainers. Limit the number of horses a trainer can have under their control and perhaps even have a salary cap based on the yearling sale values of the horses in the stable. Hong Kong has limits on trainer numbers I think. Now of course HK has a limited number of horses but even so limiting the number of horses per trainer has merit in improving competition between trainers. Salary cap ideas work OK in football codes from what I have seen

With bettors, you currently have a few bettors making a killing not due to superior handicapping skills but due to bigger rebates and other deals. This is entrenching the power of those older more experienced players with the biggest rebates while shutting out new players who will generally begin the game with no rebate. This is part of the reason for too many old players and not enough young players. Rebates need to go to make the game fairer

So I would target the super trainers to bring them back to the field and target the biggest bettors to bring them back to the field. Both groups are currently making a mint out of the game. Make the game fairer and they will make less while others can make more. This will spread the wealth around and make the game healthier

There is a lot of talk in the DRF article about racing needing "stars". Now I agree that stars are good for racing. But more than stars racing needs great CONTESTS. Creating good contests on the track (between horse, jockey and trainer) and good contests off the track (between the bettors) should be racing's goal. Star horses are good but if they are winning soft races against no opposition it gets boring fast and turns fans off the game. But even better than one star horse is a good race with multiple good horses in it where nobody can be sure before the race who the winner will be. This type of race will create great interest both on the track and off the track between bettors. Even better if it is a major G1 race

Every year on this board the most discussed race is the Kentucky Derby. Now part of this is because of the history behind the race. But the other reason is the Kentucky Derby is a good contest pretty much every year. Sure the quality has dropped somewhat in recent years which is a slight negative. But in a relative sense the race is still a good contest where you can make a case for several horses before the race is run and then you often get a truly fought race out on the track

I contrast this recent world racing "stars" Zenyatta, Frankel and Black Caviar. All 3 horses engaged in way too many no contest races. This made for lots of boring races where the winner paid 1-5 or lower. It also created lots of negative discussion before the races about these horses dodging competition etc etc. Sure these horses all generated some media coverage for racing in the wider news media. But they also caused angst among regular racing fans. Zenyatta did redeem herself somewhat in her last race because she took on the challenge of a top field on dirt and the race was a good contest out on the track fought right to the wire

Racing needs to focus on creating better contests both on track and off track. This should be the core principle

[PhantomOnTour]

Seems like we have this discussion every two weeks or so - doesn't matter what we (the bettors) say, scream or do...they ain't listening.

Done

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Seabiscuit@AR

Some of the current players in the racing game are on too good a deal and need to be brought back to the pack. And this does not entail hobbling these people but simply taking away their current unfair advantages

With trainers, you currently have some super trainers who owe their great number of wins more to their use of chemicals than training skill. So better drug policies will help (maybe locking up horses for 24 hours before the race). Along with maybe a salary cap idea for owners and trainers. Limit the number of horses a trainer can have under their control and perhaps even have a salary cap based on the yearling sale values of the horses in the stable. Hong Kong has limits on trainer numbers I think. Now of course HK has a limited number of horses but even so limiting the number of horses per trainer has merit in improving competition between trainers. Salary cap ideas work OK in football codes from what I have seen

With bettors, you currently have a few bettors making a killing not due to superior handicapping skills but due to bigger rebates and other deals. This is entrenching the power of those older more experienced players with the biggest rebates while shutting out new players who will generally begin the game with no rebate. This is part of the reason for too many old players and not enough young players. Rebates need to go to make the game fairer

So I would target the super trainers to bring them back to the field and target the biggest bettors to bring them back to the field. Both groups are currently making a mint out of the game. Make the game fairer and they will make less while others can make more. This will spread the wealth around and make the game healthier

There is a lot of talk in the DRF article about racing needing "stars". Now I agree that stars are good for racing. But more than stars racing needs great CONTESTS. Creating good contests on the track (between horse, jockey and trainer) and good contests off the track (between the bettors) should be racing's goal. Star horses are good but if they are winning soft races against no opposition it gets boring fast and turns fans off the game. But even better than one star horse is a good race with multiple good horses in it where nobody can be sure before the race who the winner will be. This type of race will create great interest both on the track and off the track between bettors. Even better if it is a major G1 race

Every year on this board the most discussed race is the Kentucky Derby. Now part of this is because of the history behind the race. But the other reason is the Kentucky Derby is a good contest pretty much every year. Sure the quality has dropped somewhat in recent years which is a slight negative. But in a relative sense the race is still a good contest where you can make a case for several horses before the race is run and then you often get a truly fought race out on the track

I contrast this recent world racing "stars" Zenyatta, Frankel and Black Caviar. All 3 horses engaged in way too many no contest races. This made for lots of boring races where the winner paid 1-5 or lower. It also created lots of negative discussion before the races about these horses dodging competition etc etc. Sure these horses all generated some media coverage for racing in the wider news media. But they also caused angst among regular racing fans. Zenyatta did redeem herself somewhat in her last race because she took on the challenge of a top field on dirt and the race was a good contest out on the track fought right to the wire

Racing needs to focus on creating better contests both on track and off track. This should be the core principle

You take another opportunity to cry about rebates and spew stuff that nobody except you thinks is true. Rebate or not, you have to be an incredible handicapper and bettor to win a small amount of money, nobody who's getting a rebate is winning unless they're great, there arent average horseplayers out there cleaning up just because of the rebate, anyone winning is winning because they're in the elite 1% of players.

I dont think capping the amount of horses a trainer can have, i like writing in the conditions that trainers with certain win percentage at the current meet not eligible to certain races. The game has to be "fair" enough for enough people to want to participate. If you are an owner or prospective owner and you dont have a horse with Baffert, Jacobson, Pletcher or the other 1% of the greatest trainers on the planet, you have to feel you have no chance....and that needs to change, people who DONT use these supertrainers need to feel they have some sort of shot, there needs to be incentive for owners to learn the game and not just open up the newspaper to see which trainer is batting 45% and making the phone call to give that trainer horses.

Racing doesnt need "Stars". Those people who painted their faces and went to the track to See Zenyatta didnt bet. Well, maybe they bet 2 dollars to show, but they werent bettors...those "fans" who come out to see the "starts" arent doing a heck of a lot to fill the betting pools with money.

[Track Phantom]

A lot of these ideas are good and should be pursued but the question is where does "horse racing" invest the majority of its marketing budget to make a sustainable impact.

There are multiple steps in the process.

1. Conduct a thorough, complete psychological profile of the "hard core" players. We already know they are in their late 40's to early 50's, some college education and above the national average in income. What we also need to know is what similar psychological traits us dedicated players have.

2. Once the profile is identified, an analysis must be done to determine which pond these types of people normally swim in. What types of jobs, hobbies and interests do these people have.

3. Once #1 and #2 are accomplished, you'll have a more focused group to market to. If the end result is 50-55 years old, making 70k or more, strategy-oriented, left-brain types that work in fields like insurance underwriting, stock trading, and spend their free time playing golf, reading and playing chess, then a marketing plan and serious investment should be made to expose the game to this hyper focused group.

Once the above is accomplished, then secondary initiatives should be formulated to retain these players. There are hundreds of great ideas listed here and other spots. Some require a large investment of time and capital and others are of simple common sense and free.

I doubt anyone in a position to make a difference has approached the problem in this way. All too often, these difference makers listen to people that solely want changes in the game that benefit their own agendas. They need to disregard this "noise" and focus on getting to the kinds of changes that matter. (While I've been a longtime advocate for going after trainers that use PED's, it has virtually no relevance on finding or retaining players).

I certainly don't have all the answers but I absolutely cringe when I read about marketing the sports biggest horse racing stars, finding ways to make it easy for new players to understand how to bet and handicap, needing a Triple Crown winner and on and on. Some of these types of things sound good but are either not sustainable, can't be done or have little long term effect.

The big name horses can be promoted but only as opportunity presents itself. It should only be an enhancement to other more important initiatives. There just aren't enough stars any longer due to retirement. By the time the public gets to know who these runners are, they're gone.

Work hard at simplifying learning handicapping and wagering but don't sell it as an easy game. It's not and that fact will be discovered quickly by newbies. Instead, market the fact that, like golf, lots of practice and study, can significantly improve your game.

One of the best things going for horse racing is the fact that the Triple Crown is so elusive.

Finally, leverage popular endeavors that people invest serious time and money into. March Madness, Fantasy Football, etc.

If I were track management, I would stand up a free season long online contest. I would offer the contest to anyone online AND an additional entry for ontrack players via a kiosk on site and an MVP card.

The basics of the contest would be to select a winner and two alternates for every race for a race day. A mythical $2 to win, $4 place and $8 show on your top runner for every race (or alternate if top choice is scratched). At the end of the day, your total money returned divided by the number of races gives you a daily total (if your horses returned $500 in a 10 race program, you'd have a daily total of $50). You get your top 15 daily totals for a grand total. Thus, those that miss a day or two are not eliminated but it behooves you to enter every day. At the end of the season, the top 16 players based on combined totals qualifies for the "playoffs". This is a head to head, march madness type of format where 1 plays 16 and so on. The final 4 days of the season are the playoff days. At the end, you have a Champion with a significant prize.

If you list the top players daily and an ongoing leaderboard on the inhouse feed, you'd get these players excited. If it is run and promoted correctly, it will get a lot of eyes and attention to your track. That is usually the precursor to betting on the product.

[Stillriledup]

Great post Val!

I think that the #1 problem racing faces is that the tracks themselves don't "embrace" their customers as human beings. I went to a cafe the other day for a sandwich and i saw the manager in there, he didnt really recognize me because i'm rarely in there, but i recognized him and he was walking around, going up to tables, making sure everything was ok with the food and service, etc. You don't see that stuff in racing, tracks are big "concrete jungles" where you feel that there isnt any personalized attention, if you have a problem you have really nobody to talk to. Most security personnel and bet takers are old, grumpy people who don't smile and arent inviting, people who are new don't want to ask THEM for help or to answer a question, you just feel like there's nobody to turn to if you have a question about something.

While Valento has good points about marketing and whatnut, there still needs to be a complete overhaul in how tracks treat their customers. I'm not even talking about the exorbitant prices for admission, food, drink and parkiing that Las Vegas casinos do NOT charge, i'm talking about the personal attention and the warm feeling that you might have when you are patronizing a successful business, not this thing where you go to a track and all you see is broken down bust out old men down on their luck with holes in their shoes kicking over tickets on the ground hoping for a miracle. Young people don't want to see that. The times i've gone to the track with young and fresh faced people, most of the time i hear things like "its so depressing here" or "everyone is really old".

Young people dont want to be around old people, its hard to convince someone young that they should hang out in a dingy and depressing "old age home". Its a really hard sell.

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by Race Promoter

It is basic business knowledge that it costs 8 to 10 times more to gain a new customer vs. retaining a current one. So many businesses review their retention rates ( big in health club industry ) and know exactly how many people they are gaining or losing in a given month. You need to do both, but racing seems to forget about the value of retaining current customers.

It is hard for somebody to bet from inside a coffin. I think racing actually does a pretty good job of keeping its suckers hook as long as they are alive and outside a nursing home.

[Robert Goren]

I doubt that the profile of the current bettor is 45-55 and has above average income. I think he( the male part is right) is older and has slightly less than average income. Val's profile may or may not be what they want to reach, but it is not what racing has now.
I like the idea of promoting tournaments. The entry fees must be a lot lower for some of them. There has to be a way running them online. One day-one track $5 tournies could be very popular. I think a way of eliminating contestants after every race or two is needed. A tourney set up like this. 10 race card at Aqu. Pick the winner of the race. After 2 races, everybody without a winners is gone. After 4 races everybody without 2 winners. After 6 you need 3, after 8 , you need 4 after the tenth race everybody needs 5. is ranked by total amount of money won and prizes awarded accordingly. This keeps contestants from hunting longshots until they have 5 winners. You might pay out a small amount to everybody with 4 winners. These kind of tournament could be run for any kind of entry fee. You could have mixed fees in the tournament.

[Dave Schwartz]

... but Val's point is well-taken. Determine the demographics and go after them.




Problem for us is that what I think what matters (like with sports teams) is JUST the big money players.


I have a similar problem here in Reno when I go into a casino that is not doing well. Two in particular: Harrah's & Grand Sierra (formerly Bally's, Hilton, MGM).

I just want to scream things at them:

"Do you not see that you are wasting this property?"

"Do you really think people do not recognize a bad gamble when they see it?" (video poker payouts are out of whack, for example.)

"Maybe if you were willing to pay a marketing director more than $500 per week you could get some good ideas!"


Yup. That's the kind of stuff I would say.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Stillriledup

I am not having a cry about rebate players but simply stating a fact. Rebates have failed to grow turnover as their advocates promised they would. As such it is fair enough now to take the rebates away and see if racing works better without them. Rebates make it easier for those with the biggest rebates to transfer wealth not only from the players without rebates but also from the racetracks. Rebates don't grow wealth they transfer it and do so in an unfair manner

The end result is that the tracks now have 10 billion a year in betting turnover instead of 15 billion and are looking to raise takeouts to make up some of the shortfall. When you cop your next takeout increase you can thank all the rebaters