Breeders' Cup Implications - by Peter Land

re: Breeders' Cup Implications - by Peter Land

a fan — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:06:25 GMT

Ladyinsilver - Zenyatta has raced against Ginger Punch on dirt. She won the Apple Blossom at Oaklawn in April by 4 1/2 lengths over Brownie Points. Ginger Punch was third, 3 1/2 lengths behind Brownie Points. Plus Zenyatta has run on multiple types of synthetic. I don't think surface matters to her.

re: Breeders' Cup Implications - by Peter Land

CRob87 — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 21:49:24 GMT

Synthetics are here to stay and "Breeders" will either adjust to it or die out.

And I believe that they "Will" adjust to it.

re: Breeders' Cup Implications - by Peter Land

ladyinsilver — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 14:05:45 GMT

The Breeders Cup at Santa Anita may have been successful from a fan and marketing standpoint, but let's look at the result as it relates to thoroughbred horse racing's championship day. Running the Breeders Cup "dirt" races on the synthetic Pro-Ride surface did not "level the playing field" for Europeans as many racing writers have asserted. Instead, it gave a distinct advantage to European turf runners and rendered the results for American dirt runners largely irrelevant. When a horse of Tiago's caliber (a synthetic specialist) outruns Curlin, you know something isn't right. And all credit to Zenyatta - she is a great filly - but she would have had a much tougher task on a dirt track. Hystericalady and Ginger Punch had superlative seasons, but they were decidedly sub-par on the synthetic track. I would love to have seen Zenyatta take those two on at Churchill Downs or Belmont Park. I predict that next year any top American thoroughbred who does not run well on synthetics will skip the Breeders' Cup, making next year's result even less relevant than this year's. How long do you think American breeders will pay into a system that works against American horses?

re: Breeders' Cup Implications - by Peter Land

Bellwether — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 10:25:42 GMT

ps...STONE COLD...Steve & Bellwether need to hook up SOON & we we will...SMART MAN!!!

re: Breeders' Cup Implications - by Peter Land

Bellwether — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 10:22:26 GMT

cut & dry...Mr. Steve Stone has his ACT together...he's thinking right up our ALLEY...its about TIME we found someone like HIM... we found a few like him in Md...they will help us pull off the rise of HORSE RACING back to the TOP of the SPORTS world where it rightfully belongs...we did a beautiful(collectable)POSTER of the UNREAL..."Peppers Pride"... that Zia Park will give away on Nov.9th to her fans as she goes for #18!!!...Long Live The King!!!

re: Breeders' Cup Implications - by Peter Land

Steve D — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 02:07:31 GMT

Peter Land's comments are borderline delusional, and I'm sorry for the industry that he holds the position that he does.

I'm looking at my wife's US Magazine and on page 19, there is a picture of two "celebrities"--Jamie-Lynn Sigler and Jerry Ferrara--raise your hand if you know who they are! The picture is about 2 1/2 inches by 1 1/2 inches. Way to go, Peter! How this can be a measure of success is beyond me.

As for ticket pricing, the attendance and handle speak for themselves. How was attendance in 1991 & 1992? What about after Sept. 11? Those were tough economic times, too. Price tickets to get the maximum attendance and handle. Maybe you could even set aside some tickets to reward big bettors who put it through all year long?

As for Santa Anita Round 2, my expectations are low. What I want to be sure of is that the Breeders' Cup marketing types do not take credit when handle and attendance explode at Churchill in 2010.

In the end, I just don't see how the Breeders' Cup is supposed to attract new fans to the sport. They have to be brought in by superior experiences and customer service at their local tracks, OTBs, and ADWs. The Breeders' Cup should serve its purpose as the racing fan's dream day and focus new fan development on the Triple Crown and the everyday racetrack experience.

That won't allow Peter Land to rub elbows with C-List celebs, but it will help the racing industry out of its current doldrums.

re: Breeders' Cup Implications - by Peter Land

a fan II — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 23:01:03 GMT

The wagering handle on the Breeders' Cup races seemed disappointing to me. The minimum of three million dollars for the Pick 6 pool wasn't even met. None of the marketing efforts will ever have the betting handle reach its full potential until the purple saddlecloths are tossed and the color-coded saddlecloths are implemented.

re: Breeders' Cup Implications - by Peter Land

Mel — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 21:52:17 GMT

I attended the BC at Santa Anita this year - my first live BC. Stellar job BC/Oak Tree! A beautiful venue and a warm welcome from the city and the track. I hesitated on the ticket pricing at first, having to buy both days for 2 years. Like most, I didn't come alone - so my investment was 2 grandstand tickets per day for 2 years, vacation days from the job, airfare, hotel, transportation, parking, meals, and betting $$$. I hope that there will be some price adjustments for 2009 for those of us making the 2 year commitment. That said - it was MY trip of a lifetime. I saved for 2 years after learning the BC would be back on the west coast. I'm just a fan, not an owner, breeder, or big bettor. Everyone who asked about my vacation heard about the excitement and thrill of the BC. I'm doing what I can to build the interest in our sport and the stars: the horses, jockeys, and their connections. I did not talk about ticket pricing, food choices, event naming/division. I made an investment, and unlike most in the stock exchange - I enjoyed a rich return on my investment.

re: Breeders' Cup Implications - by Peter Land

unemployed — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 18:42:24 GMT

I have had my fill of reading the moaning, "everyone is working on Friday afternoon." One would think that a years notice would allow a true fan enough time to plan. I have yet to read, "I work on Saturday can you move it to Tuesday night?" Now about the name Ladies Classic...

re: Breeders' Cup Implications - by Peter Land

NM — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 18:13:02 GMT

Happily, I have heard very few complaints from fellow fans who attended this year's Breeder's Cup. The Breeder's Cup and Santa Anita did a super job - ticket prices aside.

What concerns me however is the return to Churchill Downs.

At the last Breeder's Cup held at CD, I was the guest of a huge fan and horseplayer who shelled out big bucks for a nice table on the 6th floor. Among our group were some newcomers to the sport - wealthy, younger types that our sport is dieing to recruit.

The service was dismal. Our waiter quit in the middle of the day, they ran out of bottled water and wine. When two ladies in our group went downstairs to find something to eat, they were told by the elevator attendant that they couldn't bring food upstairs. Needless to say,our host was terribly embarrassed and angry. The "newcomers" were hardly impressed with the show that racing put on for it's biggest day and most certainly won't be back for more.

I implore the Breeder's Cup to insist that CD do a better job. We can't afford to have them do otherwise.

re: Breeders' Cup Implications - by Peter Land

BrokersTip — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:46:18 GMT

My fondest dream is for a 2009 Triple Crown champion whose owner decide not to run the Classic because it is so biased against dirt horses.

(I wonder how good the ratings would have been this year had Jackson made the wise decision about Curlin?)

So, go ahead and make some contingency market plans. Promote the heck out the foreign invaders, and see how much Americans care anymore about the BC.

re: Breeders' Cup Implications - by Peter Land

a fan — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:09:07 GMT

Peter, you make some interesting points, but I think they are based in flawed logic, or rather, what a friend of mine likes to call “lying with statistics.” It’s not untrue, it is just presented in a way that is meant to distort reality.

1. More people did not see Zenyatta, no matter how you want to present the amount of articles written about her. Yes, ratings were slightly up, but slightly up from the worst ratings in the history of the event isn't much to be proud of. Friday got a rating of .3, compared to Saturday's highest rating of .9. I am sure Zenyatta doesn't care when she runs, but her fans do. And at 3 p.m. on a Friday, when most are at work, is not fair to her or the fans, and the numbers reflect that.

In 2006, the number was .9, and it was 1.7 in 2005. The 2005 figure is from when it was aired only on NBC. And that was the lowest ever at that point, but it was still almost twice as much as what you got this year.

2. People weren't upset about you messing with "tradition" by moving the fillies to Friday. They were mad about segregation. You sacrificed the filly and mare races, and the ratings reflect that. And as a heads up, “separate but equal” usually doesn’t go over well.

3. I'm not against the two days, but the Ladies day concept is insulting to women. Even if you don't understand it, the fact that many women were deeply offended should be enough for you to realize it was a bad idea.

4. So, what exactly is a Ladies’ Classic? Distaff isn’t that hard of a word to learn, and it is used in races throughout the year. Fans of a new sport learn the terminology. A new fan to football with figure out what a full back does, so why don’t you trust them to learn what distaff means?

4. You were deluding yourself with ticket prices.

5. I thought Santa Anita got the event twice in a row because no one else would/could take it at the time. Churchill wanted more money and NYRA was having its bankruptcy issues.

re: Breeders' Cup Implications - by Peter Land

lauri — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 03:43:18 GMT

I went with a friend on filly Friday and quite enjoyed it. I thought that I would not like the separation of days, but I think it turned out well and should be continued. The ticket prices were steep, however. Definitely would like lower prices next year. I also love the fact that there were no breakdowns this year. Could be coincidence, but if it is related to the synthetic, then I am all for it. Racing will lose fans rapidly if we continue to have the number of breakdowns seen recently in high profile events.

Loved the day and I will go again next year on filly Friday (Less crowded and more laid back).

PS: Could we get better food next year?

re: Breeders' Cup Implications - by Peter Land

Eddie Felson — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 02:36:43 GMT

Peter, Welcome to horseracing where everyone is a marketing expert. The highest rated Breeders' Cup was the first one and the ratings went down every year after that (until this year -- congrats) and people are worrying about ratings. Enough already.

I do think you need to re-think the ticket prices and, to Paseana's point, encourage more on-site handle in the process.

As for Filly Friday, you have to the group the races some way. This seems to make as much sense as any format and I agree -- can't see Zenyatta getting all that love on SportsCenter if she ran Saturday. I do think you should have stuck with Distaff, though.

re: Breeders' Cup Implications - by Peter Land

TurfRuler — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:02:50 GMT

Until more of these new fans learn how to select winners, they will not play the handicapping game as if it were lotto. Your biggest payoff of the day, the reason that fans showed was the SupereHigh 5 in the Classic. How many fans on-track, off-track got that right. It is foolish to believe that people go to the races and pay Super Bowl prices to see the pretty horses, especially if they can't interpret the running lines of the European thoroughbreds.

re: Breeders' Cup Implications - by Peter Land

Paseana — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:41:20 GMT

Peter, you say that the ticket pricing was in line with other championship sporting events in Los Angeles and elsewhere. But what you're doing is comparing apples to oranges.

Someone might spend $500 or more for a seat at a Laker play-off game, but after that, other than maybe another $100 or so for concessions and souvenirs, that's the extent of the outlay. You're asking that guy to pay those ticket and parking prices, get his hotdog and beer, and then still pump $1500 through the betting windows!

You're wrong! It's not the same thing at all, and I certainly hope that you will be looking at more than a minor adjustment for next year!

re: Breeders' Cup Implications - by Peter Land

Peter — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:28:07 GMT

Peter,

I appreciate your insight into the happenings of this year's BC. That said, I do have one point of contention and it comes in reference to your remarks regarding rating improvements on Friday in 08' vs. Friday in 07'. This is a lateral comparison and your point in well taken. HOWEVER! Relatively speaking, as pointed out by some other folks, more people watched the Saturday broadcast as opposed to the Friday broadcast. That is to say, if the ratings on Friday went from 100,000 in 07' to 110,000 in 08 (An increase of 10%) would the Distaff not be better served raising awareness on Saturday when a 10% increase would mean more than 10,000 (speaking relatively). Moreover, why can the increase in attendance on Friday be attributed to awareness of the event and an overall interest in better weather conditions and better racing. To what had the Breeders' Cup attributed these factors to the increase? The bottom line is, my belief is that the two-day format may or may not be a good thing but segregating according to sex makes very little sense and serves to undermine the entire showcase that the Breeders' Cup stands behind. Why not split it up according to purses or seniority? Why do the new races deserve any more publicity than the old races? (Speaking to the decision to put the Marathon and Turf Sprint on Saturday). Any insight you can provide me with would be greatly appreciated.

re: Breeders' Cup Implications - by Peter Land

brad — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:56:49 GMT

1)Brand development at one track has other problems: original vision of developing interest in various parts of North America gave me access to Woodbine, Belmont and Monmouth. I won't get to Texas or Santa Anita but others will.

2)The synthetic races aren't really championship races. Two bad years.

3)Glad to hear you will rethink the two-day tickets.

4)Branding that includes non-ESPN television coverage and uses the win and you're in races could help build an audience interest.

re: Breeders' Cup Implications - by Peter Land

JoeDeRo — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 04:00:05 GMT

Wake Up ! You are heading in the Wrong Direction and taking the Breeders Cup Down with you. Trying to get new fans while forgetting the loyal fans is a recipe for disaster. I wonder how you will spin the 2009 BC when the Handle Plummets even further down and can be compared on an apples to apples basis....Perhaps you can blame it on President Obama...Your Prices are a disgrace as they were in 2007 and to blame to "unforeseen economic climate" is a blatant lie and Running the CHAMPIONSHIPS on the Used Tires Track and making the dirt horses in USA look like Chumps does nothing to help ...other than that keep up the good work

re: Breeders' Cup Implications - by Peter Land

Kevin — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 02:59:51 GMT

I would think that people actually watching the race would be the goal not just reading about it or seeing highlights...am I missing something here? I am pretty disgusted that Peter Land has "zero doubt" that the decision was a good one because of the print coverage and clips on Sportscenter. The ratings for the actual races on Friday were dismal.

re: Breeders' Cup Implications - by Peter Land

dana — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 01:41:45 GMT

I agree with Cindy and think Zenyatta would have been Saturday's big story if the schedule would have remained the same as last year.

I don't think a F&M championship day is without merits, but I think for it to be anything other than feeder day it's got be on a Saturday so it's a standalone. This would give the fillies & mares the spotlight they deserve. Obviously Sunday isn't an option but perhaps 2 Saturdays in a row is.

re: Breeders' Cup Implications - by Peter Land

CRob87 — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 00:46:32 GMT

Maybe it's just me here, but...Couldn't the higher Friday ratings this year be due to the fact that last years event was at Monmouth Park. A not so premier showplace when compared to a Santa Anita ???

And also last years event was held during some of the worst weather ever seen during a Breeders Cup ??? And that the weather at Santa Anita is Always perfect ???

I mean what average viewer wouldn't prefer to tune into something bright and beautiful compared to something dark and gloomy ???

Couldn't that have been a good reason for the difference in ratings ???

re: Breeders' Cup Implications - by Peter Land

Cindy Owens — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 23:42:06 GMT

Zenyatta may well have received more coverage with her race on Friday, but if fewer people saw her than would have on Saturday, what did good did that do? You don't create many new racing fans by telling them about something after the fact.

re: Breeders' Cup Implications - by Peter Land

THE ROCK — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:00:13 GMT

Peter,

I read in an article on drf.com that the BC was looking into taking on some sponsorships to help cover the Airfare & Hotel costs for all related connections to a horse participating in the BC. I've been pushing this idea along for awhile on some other blogs around here, but what's your "pitch" as far as getting this to happen? Also, the Dubai World Cup is known for its top of the line festivities and entertainment prior to and in between their races. Any chance of the BC implementing something similar to that? I'm 25 and am obviously into horse racing and the only way I can get my friends out to the track was when Del Mar had an A-list band or performer on the grounds (Gnarls Barkley, The Bravery, etc.) It seemed to work out pretty well for Del Mar attendance wise and I'm sure in the beverage area. Maybe something like that at the BC where the band performs after the races or in between (extend post times) can bring more of a youth movement out to the BC...? Good luck on next year!

re: Breeders' Cup Implications - by Peter Land

Rggc — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 21:59:41 GMT

Hi Peter,

I would just like to say that I was a volunteer at Monmouth last year and I feel we didn't get the kudos we deserved. Because of the really horrible weather, Monmouth didn't get a chance to show its stuff and really shine. Everyone worked hard and unfortunately the attendance was not up to the usual standards. I think it wasn't just the weather, but also the pricing was beyond a lot of the fans here. Maybe if we get the chance to do this again we could have some more price choices. I loved volunteering and I cherish the memory of that day.Thanks for a great couple of days this year and last.