I thought the “Go Baby Go” campaign was very catchy. The positioning of this ad could be debated, but more importantly it was a consistently used across the country. It did have some traction.

To me, “Go Baby Go” meant that the players were in the action in horseracing. This is also a nice positioning for the game.

The NTRA also did some follow up market research and I remember racing moving ahead of many other sports in the market rankings.

Did it bring more revenues? I am not sure, but this is where Dean’s point comes in.

The last campaign that the NTRA produced was the “Who do you like today” ads. It got a little play, but it seems that the NTRA was in its last stages of being the central message maker for the game.

This campaign was directly aimed at the idea of racing being a thinking person’s game, IMO.

So, what does this all mean? Well, I thought the NTRA as the central message maker of our game was a good idea and it did work to a large extent. I think it would be wise for the racetracks to go back to that model. I think racing was on to something, but the racetracks gave up on the idea too quickly.

This also irritates me. Why are we running in the winter anywhere else but Florida, California, or Louisiana? For example, I don’t see why NYRA can’t run:

Aqueduct – March, April, November
Belmont – May, June, July, September, October
Saratoga – August

Why race in New York, Philadelphia, Illinois, or even Kentucky in December, January, and February? It makes absolutely no sense to run horse races in sub freezing weather and sometimes in the snow.

Thanks again.

D

Excellent post. I agree with 99.99% of it. The only part I disagree with is where you say: “I believe the NTRA and others should work on an industry wide marketing program that filters from the top, all the way down to each track and organization.”

First, let’s put aside the difficulty of getting all the various track owners to go along with a top-down marketing program. While the NTRA can certainly help with some components of an effective marketing program, the NTRA is in no position to perform a variety of marketing functions. Sure, they can help with some industry-wide promotional items. But they are poorly equipped to offer the product to racing’s target market in each individual location where horse racing currently exists. Furthermore, the NTRA is in no position to perform the customer service functions that are required to ensure customer delight, so that the customer keeps coming back for more.

As a result, I believe that tracks need to play a bigger role in offering their product to the consumer. When the racetrack’s sales & marketing team knows who in their area they are targeting, they can more effectively present their offerings to the marketplace, and perform the often overlooked customer service functions.

Now, in addition to some industry-wide promotion, the NTRA can help with some market research. After all, we need to know a great deal of information about these puzzlemasters: what do they read, how do they spend their free time, what products do they buy, what causes them to buy a product or service, what makes them spend/invest money, what do they watch on TV, what types of radio do they listen to, what do they do on the internet, etc. etc. etc.

Most importantly, finally someone has discussed the marketing of horse racing in a thoughtful, intelligent manner. Well done Dean. What can we as R2 Collective readers do to help?

1. Racing currently cannot compete with what I believe to be its closest competitors–poker and sports betting–on price. All things equal, wouldn’t a rational consumer rather bet into a pot with a 5-10% rake, or bet with a bookie with a 10% vig?

2. Expert horseplayers stress the importance of “value”, but fixed odds on horse races aren’t available to North American bettors. A card sharp can calculate what the pot odds are and determine whether or not calling would be a sound bet. A sports bettor knows he is getting four points or odds of +130. A horseplayer, however, might think a horse has a one-in-three chance of winning and will make a wager on a horse at 5-2 because he thinks he is getting “value”, but might see the price plummet to 8-5 after the last round of money comes in. At that price, the bettor is destined to lose money in the long run.

Perhaps racing’s biggest advantage over those two forms of gambling is how easy (RELATIVELY SPEAKING) to make a large or even life-changing score. While it is possible to have a windfall score in poker and sports betting, each race provides the chance to make a big hit. It’s easier said than done, of course, but horseplayers are only a trifecta, superfecta, pick three, pick four, or pick six away from a windfall.

What I’d like to see: Most money wagered on horse races in North America is bet into exotics pools. For price sensitive customers, how about fixed-odds win wagering with a 10-12% takeout? (It CAN be done, according to this column: http://www.harnesstracks.com/2007DRF/drfjanuary102007.htm). Those who would rather aim for a windfall score could continue to bet into the exotic pools, and tracks could keep those takeout rates higher. I think this would be a good compromise between the price-sensitive horseplayers and track management/horsemen who are worried that drastic takeout cuts would negatively effect their bottom lines.

Thoughts?

Very well reasoned and thought-through. I have been trying to sell to friends in the business a new handicapping paradigm that dovetails nicely into your message. Perhaps we should talk.