Following Talladega and comments by NASCAR spokesman Ramsey Poston on his blog, there has been a lot of discussion of the coverage of NASCAR races; more importantly how that coverage is shaping the audience’s perception of what they’re seeing.
All I can say is, it’s about time. Earlier this year I took up the topic of NASCAR and perception. No matter your feelings on the state of the sport, it’s undeniable that the color of coverage shapes what people feel.
Dustin Long interviewed Brian France on the issue of TV coverage. He touched on this issue. He said:
If you’re truly being honest with yourself, unless you’re out gathering news, where you get your news or in this case your racing coverage, is going to shape how you feel about it. For instance if you watch the local TV station that is big into covering local crime, chances are you’re going to believe crime is higher in your city. Likewise watching Fox News over MSNBC is likely going to shape how you see issues.
How many times in the last two seasons have you heard about ratings declines, or sagging attendance? The fact is attendance is down in the NFL and ratings are down 6% for MLB on ESPN (we’re no worse off than any other sporting event). If you hear something enough (like this race is boring) though you’ll start to believe it, it’s human nature. The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
I personally found the coverage a little much. I doubt the brass at ESPN was thrilled with it. They’re only driving away the audience for programming ESPN’s already paid for.
The NASCAR writer for the Oakland Press wrote a blog post giving kudos to ESPN for standing up to NASCAR. What are they standing up to NASCAR about? At the end of the day they’re only hurting themselves. ESPN is spending $270 million a year or $2.16 billion (from Sports Business Resource Guide) over the life of their contract for the rights to broadcast NASCAR races. Now you tell me, is it in ESPN’s best interest to say, “hey this product we’re broadcasting is really boring?” I don’t think so.
A couple of weeks ago Dustin Long did a wide-ranging interview about the state of the sport with Larry McReynolds, Kyle Petty and Jimmy Spencer. One of their big criticisms was the negativity that comes out of the sport’s media. While I think this was a pot calling the kettle black moment (they went on to criticize the sport pretty heavily) they made a good point.
Larry McReynolds said:
From time to time I like to watch old races and I’ll be honest with you, it really doesn’t look all that different. There aren’t constant battles for the lead, races do sometimes get spread out, and sometimes one car just dominates. The one big difference is you don’t hear Eli Gold or Ken Squier or Bob Jenkins criticizing the product. If you don’t believe me, track down a race from 10 or 15 years ago.
I don’t mean to suggest that NASCAR fans are more susceptible to this. But I do believe that this negativity runs rampant around here; more so than in other sports. When was the last time you were watching an NFL game and heard Joe Buck say how boring it was?
I think just like in every other sport, announcers need to walk a fine line. Criticize the league or sanctioning body for controversial decisions, fine; don’t drive fans off though by criticizing the product.
Loading ...
on Nov 9th, 2009 at 7:09 am
Personally I think what makes the racing appear boring on TV is that unless the car is the front five or six, or if a star gets caught in the back of the pack, you rarely hear about any of the other racing or other drivers. I have been to the Daytona 500 and the Homestead race only to watch it on TV later and realize that they missed most of the real racing that went on with mid-pack and back-pack drivers.
All the networks have to stop doing this. And, as we have been told, unless the sponsor pays a fee, their names will not be uttered. One only has to remember when the sponsor names were blurred out during coverage because they had not paid a fee. And there was another race recently where the station would not call it by the “whatever name 500″ and instead used the track name or what ever it was that they used.
Start acknowledging the other drivers and the racing that is going on in the middle and back of the pack and the audience will see how exciting racing really is.
on Nov 9th, 2009 at 7:49 am
My bigest complaint is the abouncers trying to make he story.
I agree with safemark1.
At the track it is so much different. But on tv, it is like they have an agenda to promote.
You guys brin a breath of fresh air to the many news sources available.
THANKS
on Nov 9th, 2009 at 8:24 am
I totally agree with SafeMike. If you listen to the guys in the booth you will hear the same storyline over and over. It seems rehearsed and gets totally stale by the end of a race. I don’t think they feel comfortable talking about other drivers because they haven’t done their homework and don’t have a script ready for it. Every driver on those tracks has a following and their fans enjoy hearing about them on occasion. Drivers drop out and the only way you know that is to look at the running order. And a driver working his seat off trying to stay on the lead lap is ignored or put down for being in the way of the lead car. There are thousands of little struggles going on during the race but you have to be aware of them in order to pass them on to the audience and the commentators don’t demonstrate any of that awareness. There are new drivers on the track that we haven’t been introduced to. Some of those stories would fill in the times when the race might otherwise be “boring”.
on Nov 9th, 2009 at 8:30 am
i agree w/safemike1: the racing live, at the track, is still good, if not sometimes great. but most fans don’t get to the track and have to rely on what’s being broadcast on tv.
and that, in my opinion, is horrible.
and so, folks come to believe that the actual racing is substandard when it’s not. i understand covering the leaders during a race but i don’t accept that ignoring the majority of the teams during the race is professional coverage or informative.
as for the media: i am interested in reading what’s out there and i read reporters from all points on the spectrum: unabashed supporters of all things nascar thru unapologetic detractors. from that and from my own experience in being at races and watching them on tv, i form my OWN opinion. i don’t buy into anyone’s single perspective and i dont believe that makes me unusual in the nascar fan base.
i’m disappointed in the performance of the COT in non-safety areas and that is my single biggest complaint against nascar since the introduction of that vehicle. for me, the bulk of the complaints about nascar are not really new and these, and much stronger complaints, were levelled against big bill and bill jr.
but the latest france’s administration of nascar is, for me, inept, confused and disconnected and it shows. when young mr france unashamedly tells a reporter that he didn’t even watch the ‘dega race, it gives me pause. he is the head of the company, he admits to not watching the race and he’s not embarassed by that? he couldn’t even make up some sort of excuse?
there is no direction from the highest level and it’s chipping away at our sport. love ‘em or hate ‘em, the earlier frances cared about our sport and did what they thought was right for it. i don’t think young mr france shares that insight and foresight.
on Nov 9th, 2009 at 8:41 am
[...] talk of NASCAR coverage, this time from NASCAR [...]
on Nov 9th, 2009 at 9:22 am
You give journalists and commentators far too much credit for influencing the perception racing fans have of NASCAR.
If I’ve been going to the same restaurant for years, it’s because I think the restaurant is good… and I’m not going to let McReynolds make me think otherwise, I’m far more likely to think the critic doesn’t know what he’s talking about. And if I like Jr., it doesn’t matter how many announcers tell me he sucks, I’m still going to like him. analogy: some NHL fans like the fighting and they’re not going to change their minds because announcers and the league tells everybody fighting is bad.
likewise, give NASCAR fans some credit, they’re capable of deciding for themselves whether they like what they see. we rely on TV and reporters to show us the race and provide information, we’re able to decide what to make of what they show us.
on Nov 9th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Yes, I agree that it is pretty dumb for the TV coverage to point out that the product is boring. I think even the casual fan after watching Daytona, Talladega, or California will realize pretty quick that these tracks are boring to watch without the talking heads telling us. I mean, what does a new NASCAR fan think when he or she turns on Daytona & watches drivers fall back to the back for the entire race in order to avoid the big one? This is racing??? Unfortunately they may get the impression that all NASCAR races are like this & may miss the excitement of short track racing.
The announcers don’t need to point out the obvious but should make do with what they have. It’s like being stuck on a long car trip with a passenger who is complaining about how long the trip is the entire way. Yes, we know it’s boring but why not make the best of it without reminding us how boring it is.
I choose not to watch plate racing so I didn’t hear exactly what the announcers said, but it’s just common sense not to criticize the product you are trying to sell. Billy Mays must be rolling in his grave.
on Nov 9th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Excellent article. Just one question. They still have MLB? Quit watching after their last strike in the 90’s and I was a die hard fan of the sport..watched on TV and attended games. My point is that the players sucked when they pulled the rug out from under the fans.
I can overlook bad TV commentators and still enjoy great racing. Just skip the 30 mins of pre-race infomercial, mute the volume and tune in to MRN or PRN if that’s what it takes.
on Nov 9th, 2009 at 10:21 am
and rick? that’s EXACTLY what it takes now and precisely what i was doing for each cup race. made it possible to at least watch the broadcast.
but these last 2 cup races are dead to me following sunday’s fiasco. even w/the radio on my laptop, 2 leaderboards and 3 “social media” sites, the images coming across the screen weren’t even close to telling the story.
so, i now have the next 2 sundays back and will find other ways to fill ‘em. i just can’t wait for 2010.
on Nov 9th, 2009 at 10:31 am
I’ll watch, but it will be a dvr version…..fast fwd works pretty good
on Nov 9th, 2009 at 10:55 am
I agree with Steve and window. The announcers aren’t swaying my opinion..I know what I see. Some races are more boring than others. It’s NASCAR. Ah, the invention of the DVR…
First of all..being actually at the track and watching it on TV are worlds apart. The best coverage in the world can’t convey the experience of actually being there. However, the coverage IS terrible. The announcing, the interviews, the camera work and the awful timing( save the tech stuff and interviews for cautions!!) are not good.
As far as the announcers trashing the sport? I think they forget who they work for. ESPN must have been cringing..
on Nov 9th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
One problem (and we’ve even seen it here on this site) is that if a writer or sportscaster actually defends or praises NASCAR, he’s called a puppet.
on Nov 9th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Ross: Definitely true. I can’t speak for other writers though, but myself and Journo aren’t afraid to take that on. If people want to call us homers, bring it on! We ain’t skerrrd.
on Nov 9th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
“For instance if you watch the local TV station that is big into covering local crime, chances are you’re going to believe crime is higher in your city.”
People take away what they want. Excluding sports and weather, if you do…say…15 stories in a local newscast and only 2 of them are crime related, I guarantee in a focus group you’d still hear “Why do you only cover the bad things??”
People focus on the negative. So when a broadcaster says the race is boring, that’s what the viewer hears — even though the guy may have said tons of positive things too.
on Nov 9th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
I form my own opinion. It isn’t the media who has made me think the racing is boring. It’s the racing itself. I almost fell asleep at the track a couple of times — when the lead car gets a 5 second lead and no one can catch up and pass — that’s boring. However, going to a race is such a different experience than watching it on TV under the current set of broadcasters, it is night and day. At the track, except for the ones over a mile and a half, you can usually see the whole track and follow the racing action. Having a scanner helps when the field gets muddled up with lap cars and listening to the radio broadcast is MILES ahead of what I see on TV.
I’m with Red, I’m done for the season. I hadn’t planned to watch Texas because after the Talladega debacle it wasn’t worth while to me and it was a beautiful weekend weatherwise. I skipped the pre-race, watched the start and saw Johnson wreck, so that opened things up for a better chase (maybe), but still the coverage was so scripted that I just couldn’t waste a beautiful day to stay inside. I came in and checked what was going on once in a while using my computer more often than what they were showing on TV since who can tell who’s running where. They show a ticker that gives the top 10, go to commercial and you have no idea what’s what. Johnson may not clinch at Phoenix but this chase is done IMO, so like Red, I’ve got 2 weekends back to do other stuff.
The way TV shows the action is TV is part of the reason that fans think it is boring. The IROC car is also a component. Love the safety factor, hate the way it races. Wasn’t this supposed to fix the aero push issue so that the cars could race side by side and pass? How has that worked out? NOT!
on Nov 9th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Excellent article once again, Journo.
I’m a relatively new fan- started really getting into NASCAR in 2007. However, I always watch NASCAR Classics on Speed and ESPN Classic.
The old races were not that different from today honestly. At least not to the level that most bloggers seem to think.
I’ve seen some damn boring races with 2-3 cars on the lead lap, and some exciting bumping and grinding to the finish.
Yes, some things have changed- that’s part of all sports.
Still- I hear people complaining about “the COT aero package puts the leader out of reach, clean air, etc. etc.”
But look at any race from the 1980s-1990s. Same thing!
on Nov 9th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Whether you are at the track or watching on TV, a boring race is a boring race. At least when you are at the track and you have with you a scanner,a pair of binnoculars, a nose and a sense of feel, you can watch and listen to whatever your little heart desires, smell burning rubber, fuel and brakes and feel the ground pounding. That way at least a boring race is still a spectacle.
IMHO I’d rather have a seasoned commentator state that it was a boring race, than put up with the dumbed down coverage trying to make the race out to be more than it is. Seems to me that since Bill Weber hasn’t been around, coverage has been marginally better.
I keep hearing the word “fiasco” associated w/ Talledega. I thought it was entertaining. Sure I’d rather scrap the plates and COT’s, but it is what it is!
on Nov 9th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
I can’t say I have enjoyed the coverage..but I don’t see much difference between ESPN ABC FOX or any other… I prefer to watch the race..not gophers, tech shops, fixing a car in the garage to get back to the race for over an hour, not replay after replay after replay, not just the top 3 cars, not the “point update as of that very second”. I don’t need 6 analysts, commentators or whatever they are. I appreciate the effort put into going to the tech shop and showing us exactly what is happening..springs, valves, drivetrain, potty break..whatever! That’s nice..but show it later..make a half hour show and have it as a weekly staple. I would rather see more on track racing…all 43 positions..then all the “fillers” they seem to have to come up with. Did I mind Dega when the commentators were wondering what the heck was this 43 car train running around the track…no..not at all..And TRUST ME..the commentators didn’t make me feel this way..I have a brain! I would have thought they lost theirs if they had gone on “OH! What great racing..look DJ..they’re running nose to tail..how exciting!” Give me a break! And Texas..hey I was thrilled to see JJ wreck…at least something happened! And why shouldn’t the announcers show emotion too? These are commentators of a race on for entertainment…not the 7:00 p.m. hard news. Come on..it’s needed to keep us interested. If YOU think the media .. written and TV…sway us fans..you are sadly misguided. Fans have drivers, teams, and manufacturers they follow. I read alot online..but it doesn’t change how I look at the drivers or the races. AND trust me Mr. France..it doesn’t sway how I feel about the state of NASCAR. NASCAR has it’s problems because of ITSELF..not because the fans are being swayed by some “rogue media”! I think most fans are smart enough to read about and watch NASCAR races and form their own opinion…. It seems to me unless we march to the beat of Mr. Frances’ drum…we are considered morons. It would be SO SO out of line if because NASCAR doesn’t like what has been said or done..that the media change their approach….THEN we do have a problem…a BIG one.
on Nov 9th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
I totally disagree with Darrell Waltips analogy about!
‘ if you go to a restaurant and you been going to the same restaurant for years and read in the paper its a bad restaurant even if they change cheif you will stop going to the same restaurant!”
Lets put that in Nascar Logic, “If I was going to the same restaurant and was that loyal for years and the food was still great and no problems I would still go back nomatter what the newspaper said!!!!!!!!!!! Now if the food and service started to get bad then I wouid stop going, or if the cheif “Nascar” started to tell me the food was great even though I didnt like it as before because somthing was different and I was using the same taste buds as before then I would stop going!!!!!!!
on Nov 9th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
I am biased. I have been a fan since RP ran the hemi and once tried to convince my now ex-wife that a yellow superbird would make the perfect family car. I love the sport, warts and all. What galls me is that I find there is a substantial part of the media that is always finding fault with NASCAR – everything is at least bad, if not worse. Honest criticism is one thing, but it is another thing to constantly bash NASCAR, apparently to attract attention or satisfy a grudge. I’ve been a fan long enough that I have learned the writers who I find to be grossly slanted and now I just no longer waste my time reading them. I do believe that the constant negativity of many writers does influence some potential fans, or at least reinforces the negative perception of a certain segment of those that have some interest in the sport.
on Nov 9th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
I give ABC alot of credit telling the fans that the racing sucked because that’s the truth. That race did suck! Maybe Nascar will wake up and see that their product is going in the toilet if a few high profile people start speaking their mind a little bit. As far as Brian Frances interview with Dustin Long, his answers made about as much sense as Miss South Carolina . “I personally believe….”
on Nov 9th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
I seem to recall several Monday night football games when Frank Gifford would sing-song, “Put ou the fire and call in the dogs, this one is over” indicating to viewers that there was no sense in staying up any later, the outcome was decided. That’s not being negative (though I doubt it helped ratings), it was just being honest. A 21 point gap and five minutes to play? It’s over.
Anyone who actually thinks that the media determines how fans feel about a race greatly overestimates the power of the written word and the intelligence of stock car racing fans.
MPM
on Nov 9th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
If the race broadcast is mediocre, as EESPN’s has been most of the time, and then some supposed media experts write that the race was boring, some fans are going to be convinced that the race was boring, especially those fans who did not get to see the race – and of course the broadcasters can made a race boring if they cover it poorly.
on Nov 9th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
MPM, do you remember Don Meredith singing “Turn out the lights, the party’s over!”
Journo, I know that I didn’t like Dega and for that matter all the races since it became a more or less done-deal that the 48 was going to clinch. Despite the crash in Texas, I still think he’s going to win big.
I didn’t like watching the peloton go around and around Dega. I give Dale Jarrett a lot of credit for calling the race the way it was. I thought it was dull, and if he had tried to ignore that, I would have thought he was a NASCAR shill.
West Coast Kenny
Alameda, California
on Nov 11th, 2009 at 6:26 am
When I first started watching NASCAR in the early 90s you never heard much negative from the announcers or writers. It seemed that they were all excited about the sport and that excitement carried over in their telecasts and articles. The sport never was and never will be perfect; it is live and unscripted and that is a good thing. The negativity from the people covering the sport now is amazing when you consider that they make their living (and probably a pretty good one) covering it. There was an article by Jay Hart Tuesday in which he stated that NASCAR should cut the schedule to 30 races and only have six 500 milers. I sent him an email pretty much asking him why he is covering a sport he apparently is sick of. The other thing is perception. With the internet and sirius radio any one with a computer or a telephone can prove to millions of people just how ignorant they are. Unfortunately negative people tend to want to voice their opinions more than positive ones. Love NASCAR, won’t miss a race and wish they still had a 500 miler at Dover. Go Martin.
on Nov 11th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
That some are attempting to recast the debate as “should announcers state the obvious” as opposed to having insiders discuss “the obvious” and fix it, is symptomatic of a much greater problem.
Sure, it’s stupid for those calling the race to actually say it’s boring. But the bottom line is they said it because it’s true.
And until the insiders come to grips with that reality, they are going to continue enjoying the current trajectory of declining popularity of the sport.
So in my humble opinion, the insiders need to ask hard questions that directly address the fundamental issue – which is that many if not most races are boring as viewed on TV – and that the chase format is boring when one driver dominates, all the more so when they dominate for several years on end.
First, broadcasters should have a true race person as producer. It is so painfully obvious that the producer knows nothing about racing when watching the televised event. Some networks are not as bad as others, but the chase network is not included among the “not as bad” in my opinion.
Second, the race format should *not* include fuel strategy. Change tank capacity on a per track basis if needed to avoid this. If I want to watch fuel economy I’ll watch Lance Armstrong, OK? I do give props for instituting the double file restarts.
Third, the car specs. This business of leaders checking out due to clean air has to end. People don’t want to watch a 180 mph parade.
Fourth the chase format. Adjust the points awarded to tighten up the points awarded spread. If you want twelve drivers to duke it out in post season, why are the points awarded relative to all drivers on the track? Why not award relative to the twelve only? Sure Johnson would probably win in that format too, but at least it would keep the others in it for a longer period of time…
Restrictor plate races…cap the top speed with gear ratios, not carb restrictors. If someone wants to over-rev and float a valve while trying to gain an advantage in the straights that should be their choice. Just let the cars with the best setup for the turns and the strongest engine for exit duke it out for the win. I’d rather see a bunch of blown engines on the final straight than a bunch of cars flying thru the air as if they’ve been clobbered by the mother of all bowling balls…
So here are some suggested items as food for thought. Maybe they lead to some better ideas or maybe some can help as-is and maybe they’re no help at all. But NASCAR please start thinking about how to fix the fundamental problem before it’s too late. You have a viable product, it just needs some tweaking to keep up with the current times in my opinion.
on Nov 13th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
I’m sure my memory is probably faulty, but I really don’t recall anyone writing that the seasons had become boring when Cale was winning 3 in a row.
It also seems to me that the media complaint that the season is too long is a recent phenomenon. I believe it has been 35 or 36 races for the last several years, but suddenly it’s too long. Could it be because the media folk are tired, or their travel budgets have been cut back? In any event, no matter how much media complaining there has been about the season being too long, I have yet to see any of the media so-called “experts” explain how to cut the season back and just whose ox is going to be gored. How many jobs would be cut if the season were cut by 2 races or 4 races? Which communities would lose jobs and tax revenue by cutting back on the number of races? Many in the media seem to love to complain ( because it’s easy?), but know they don’t have to be responsible for the hard decisions, which is not limited to just the media covering NASCAR.