Perhaps I am looking at this all wrong but I don't understand the resistance to trying new things.
There seems to be some dissatisfaction with the state of racing but I don't see anybody actually doing anything about it. There are good ideas but where is the implementation?
Most agree takeout is too high but when presented with the idea of systematically affecting handle, all I hear are crickets. If a product is unsatisfactory and one keeps using it, what signal does that send to the provider? Does anyone imagine that Original Coke would have made it back if the consumer said, 'This New Coke sucks my ass but what the hell, I'll buy it because it's all there is'?
Open source is an amazing thing and cooperation, on a grand scale, is possible in this day. What is the downside to trying it out?
I'm asking.
Theory is nice and all but it doesn't really get anything done. Any endeavour is, at its core, a series of tasks. Deploying resources in the most effective manner, i.e. where they will do the most good. 'Getting there firstest with the mostest' if you will.
Implementing a wagering blackout might not be the best idea.
But it is actionable.
Posts
4 comments:
You might as well as why General Motors didn't cut its product line and seriously shake up its business model until it was deep into bankruptcy. Despite some only moderately painful bankruptcies so far (NYRA and Magna), the industry hasn't been hit hard enough -- yet -- to shake up the inertia in the board rooms. Churchill has figured out how to make money while letting the slide in attendance and handle continue (put most of your eggs in the ADW basket and use your market power to bully those who resist), and NYRA is a not-for-profit that's used to dealing in the political realm more than in the business arena. Perhaps we'll see some innovation coming out of the Magna bankruptcy sales. I'd love to see the Chickasaws try to integrate Remington Park with a full-scale casino and see if that model works, and I'd love for Jeff Seder/Blow Horn Equity to get the Maryland tracks and start experimenting with fan-friendly ideas. It's going to take outsiders, and the enforced discipline of the bankruptcy process, to effect much change.
I thought the Self Appointed Fan Committee did a good job of sounding out concerns. I understand that participation dropped off after the initial months, but think the data would still be useful.
And sorta think that a lot of steam and support was diffused when the NTRA said 'we're listening, we want your input' and sucked in TBA'ers.
Anon - thanks for the SAFC nod. That data is still out there for anyone to use:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pt-vT4xqH_R6xLmZ_fD2obw&output=html&gid=0&single=true&range=B1:I150
Participation definitely dropped off and honestly never picked up in the way that I thought it would given the high level of grousing around the internet about racing's ills. That was a bit of a disappointment, especially given that many places (NTRA, CDI, BC) were happy to receive the reports and seemed to take them seriously. Whether anything could have come of it is an entirely different issue but open dialog is better than nothing.
One thing that I found notable was that SAFC was invited to sit down with the BC in 2008. We got the word out about the meeting and asked for people submit their BC ideas, complaints, issues, etc. We got a whopping total of about 27 submissions. Hard to make case to folks we spoke to for anything with numbers like that, let alone ask them to internally make a case and "sell it" from within... b/c as Steve points out, many of these places are corporate.
So it goes both ways, it's easy to complain that racing's leaders are directionless idiots who don't see the picture but it's much harder to organize in any meaningful way. It's ironic, or perhaps not, that it's just as hard to get fans and players to agree on a direction as it is various racing organizations.
I like HANA's approach so far, when they were doing their pool parties, I think they definitely got individual tracks to take note and enter discussions with them. They did an extensive year end survey of their membership and part of it was a ranking of issues. While I don't think they've released the full results of the survey, I thought that approach was a great way to find consensus and prioritize action.
At any rate, welcome back WG!
Steve-My intent here is to try something from the bottom up. To see if there is the will to actually DO something. I was hoping this blog could serve as a forum for discussion. A project management workstation if you will.
Anon-I agree with you. The easiest way to get someone off your back is to pretend you care about what they are saying.
Dana-Thanks! As much as I enjoy blaming management, I know much of the fault rests with fans. It IS easy to sit back and name call. As I wrote to Steve, I was hoping this could serve as a forum for something better.
I wanted to get ideas going and then triage them into a hierarchy of actionable items. Cooperating with HANA, PR, HRF, SAFC and similar sites. To really get some coordination going and present a cohesive front to those in control. Show them, as you did with SAFC and the sit down you had a year ago, that we did have valid issues and a method of addressing them.
I still think this can serve as a functional medium. It will just require a clearer expression on my part.
Thanks all.
Post a Comment