Could NASCAR's Weakness Turn Out To Be the TV Coverage?

I came across a fascinating article over on Frontstretch by Amy Henderson as she touched on how television coverage itself is part of the problem with TV ratings and sponsorships getting hard to find by teams.

I'm first going to recap and touch on her points, then I'm going to head off in my own direction looking at some what's and whys.  And can this be fixed?  Maybe.  Read on.

-

Amy makes some great points on the issue where she points out that the special coverage the top-ten teams get from the TV coverage hurts the other thirty teams.

She expounds on how fans she surveyed did note that though they might watch NASCAR, they do note that they may never see their favored driver unless they wreck.

And that's a great point.

Commenters also point out that it's not just TV but most media outside of TV also contribute to the problem.  But more on that later.

Amy correlates the idea that if fans aren't getting to see their drivers, then some may not tune in.  Also, with the mid-level to lesser teams getting no coverage, their sponsors aren't getting the air time they want.  This lack of TV coverage also makes their sponsorship dollars less valuable.  If that's the case, then why would sponsors be motivated to put their stickers on a car's hood or side panels?

And that's a great point that puts the glue in the association between TV coverage and possible sponsor problems for some teams.

The article shows that

"Primary sponsorship of a decent mid-level team is around $15 million for the season."

And that for that $15M to be cost effective, sponsors need to see about four minutes of total coverage.  That's looking at how much a TV ad can cost, per what a sponsor puts in and hopes to get.

And if you wonder how it's calculated, I've seen where teams of people are hired by companies to watch for and time a sponsor's amount of air-time exposure.  It's that important.

And when sponsors don't see their product out there, then what?  What's their bottom line motivations for sponsoring someone who isn't in the favored group of media darlings?  None, to be honest.  And then we start having problems with teams getting those financial backers.

Heck, we've seen winning truck teams take a dive and even good performing mid-level teams close shop.

She then compared how the TV coverage of yesteryear had fans feel like they knew many of the drivers in the field.  How many drivers can you say, you feel like that about today?

-

Items Not Addressed in the Article

-

With that said, it's a bit more convoluted of a relationship than I've put out here, but this is the gist of the situation.

But how does this get fixed?  And what about that point where all media cater to the top-tier names?

On the point about media catering to the top-tier names, it's another economical equation for print media... the mainstream drivers have a large percentage of fans and that percentage are who buy the print editions.

I am in NO WAY discounting or discrediting the fans of the mid-level or lower ranked teams.  But a print org has to consider, will the 10 fans of Bobby Labonte outweigh the 100 fans of Dale Earnhardt Jr.?

Sadly it's the same kind of economics that go into TV ratings and advertisers backing TV shows.  Ill-rated shows lose sponsors and get cancelled because NOT ENOUGH people are watching.

It's the same form of economics.

Again, with no discredit to folks who are fans of the bottom 25 drivers in the standings.

On the web-based media, it's not so much the economic balance as it is the web traffic.  But web traffic is like money.  And those 10 Bobby Labonte fans versus the 100 Dale Jr. fans tends to get the coveted web traffic.

Hence, the seemingly one-sided amount of coverage.  And yes, myself and many others on the web are guilty of this form of coverage.

(Man, I'm starting to feel guilty as I write this!)

-

So Can The TV Coverage be fixed?

Well, sort of.

We first go back to the infamous TV ratings and who is watching a telecast.  Yep, those same 100 fans are weighting the scales here too.  But if you think about those mere four minutes per team to give sponsors their monies worth seems somewhat doable.

There's thirty-six races in a season.  In an optimal piece of coverage, for this example, they're three hours long.  180 minutes.  If all 43 teams got themselves 4 minutes a piece, all by themselves, that adds up to 172 minutes of time.

Though this straight up math doesn't look good, lets' take into account that most camera work doesn't always show single car action, but multiple car coverage.

But let's not forget something... the pre-race coverage and maybe even the web coverage of a race.

When we have a few teams accounting for the majority of the field, those smaller teams definitely have an uphill battle.

And as I crunched the numbers, it wasn't looking good in my optimal example.  But then I thought, hey, the networks have the ticker going by.  Why not picture in a picture, showing the smaller teams and giving them screen time?  Sure, screen real estate is a valuable commodity, but it can be mustered up. 

It's just one suggestion/fix, but the networks need to consider how to give all the teams the exposure they need.

If you think about it, if a sponsor knew they'd get TV time each race, would the start-and-parks start getting sponsors also.  (Hey!  I just realized that as cars drop out of a race, the race to screen time ratio would get slightly easier to deliver that time needed on screen.)

-

So therein lies a fascinating issue that touches on the unique relationship between NASCAR, TV, and the media and the fans.  Cover the popular to get the expected demographic numbers and lose some numbers.  But over the long haul, is that best for everyone?

Kudos to Amy's article and I suggest you head on over to Frontstretch and check out what she has to say...  chime in here or over there.

-Bruce