Football, TV, Crowds, and Wateskiing

[boarditup]

 From the December 19, 2010 NY Times:  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/business/media/20ratings.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1292936508-Gl1rxBf0T8L/1wuGZAlqfg

 

Football has for decades been declared the ideal sport for television, because of its high quotient of action and natural breaks for commercials. But network sports executives say that the viewing experience continues to get better, with the most obvious visual advance coming with the introduction of high-definition television, which has made the game and its players stand out as never before.

“HD has been the dollop of frosting on top of everything else,†Mr. Ebersol said. “If you think about it, the game is rectangular anyway, and now you buy this big rectangular screen.â€

Eric Shanks, the president of Fox Sports, cited improvements in camera lenses and locations — especially the overhead camera that tracks plays from above and behind — and in audio as well.

Fox began the season by using microphones on players in the middle of the action, which undoubtedly influenced the early perception of this season as probably the most physically intense — and violent — in memory. (In later games, many players declined to wear microphones, which Mr. Shanks said prompted Fox to develop even more sensitive microphones on the sidelines.)

Mr. Ebersol cited the owner of the New England Patriots, Robert Kraft, who, he said, first compared N.F.L. games to another popular television form. “Bob said, ‘We have the greatest reality show in all of the medium,’ †Mr. Ebersol said.

Mr. Shanks leaned toward a different comparison. “It’s kind of like going to an action movie every Sunday,†he said. He emphasized the star power among the league’s leading men. “Quarterbacks drive ratings,†Mr. Shanks said.

Fox has an inclination to take the movie comparison to the next level. For the last two weeks, on regional games with smaller audiences, the network has played a musical score in accompaniment with the coverage of the games. The idea, Fox contends, could be the next big innovation in television football coverage because the audience is growing more accustomed to having music with every form of entertainment.

****

So - what does this mean for us?  Are TV coverage and crowds important?  Can we pump up the action quotient?  How do we move forward in our sport?  Age old questions, but they deserve another go around with some more information.

[9400]

So how do we get reality TV and waterskiing to merge. There are some great personalities in waterskiing.  Jamie, Seth, CP,  Marcus, Natalie and Fred, Lucky and whoever he's yelling at are just a small sample of some of the great personalities in water skiing. I know there are tons more. Look at how famous crab fisherman are in Alaska now.  Anybody know any TV people that can make this happen?

[eleeski]

I hate poker. It has displaced all the minor sports on non prime time TV.

Football is a spectator sport. Drinks, gambling and competition for the best tailgate  party define football. Few actually think that they can play the game (of course, everybody can coach or manage a team - hence fantasy football). Football happens during the time of the year when there aren't too many activities to actually participate in (it's even raining in California today). Finally, football is violently competitive - fans can vicariously enjoy the competition without putting themselves at risk.

Waterskiing is a participant sport (with widespread participants). When I tell people I am a waterskier the normal response is "I went skiing on the river last summer. I got up on one ski!" Then they give me a funny look and ask "how do you compete at that?" Waterskiing is barely a competitive sport - it is a performance sport. You are going to go out and do what you are capable of - the other skiers performances are irrelevant. Much more like dance (or ice skating) than boxing (or football).

Now, Olympic skating is the most viewed Olympic event so there is hope for our performance based sport on TV. But ESPN has cut the skating for poker tournaments. So I guess there really is no hope for waterskiing on ESPN.

But our sport is a wonderful family sport. Huge numbers of the population waterski casually. It is a lifelong participant sport. The competition aspect is fun. There are some characters in the sport. Waterskiing is a worthy sport.

Sell it for what it is - not as a substitute for football. Sell the family fun. Sell the parties (college skiing!). Sell the artistry and skill of the athletes.

32 Accounts and Edged in the Water are steps in the right direction but we need a Warren Miller or Endless Summer adventure presentation.

As individuals we need to be more active. Contact the local news whenever you or somebody in your community does something special ( http://www.fox5sandiego.com/sports/local/kswb-go-connie-morris-10-26-10,0,1580987.story )(this just took a phone call to set up).  As skiing gets more local airtime it will become more attractive nationally.

Maybe ESPN will never drop poker but PBS might replace some of the ridiculous old English mysteries that fill its late night with waterski tournaments if we emphasize the right characteristics.

Or maybe VH1 will do a series on college tournaments?!

Eric

 

[jdarwin]

I believe televised sports (and sports in general) are personality driven.  Back in the 80's, Hot Summer Nights focused on personalities as much as the actual event.  Sammy, Andy, Camille - these became household names.  Not only due to their athletic achievements, but also from the coverage they received on a personal level.  If we begin to market the athlete rather than (or in addition to) the sport, I believe we can begin to regain our foothold in televised media.

[walleye]

Hit the nail on the head J....gotta hav e celbrity driven athlete to get tv....Hmmm any takers to create a scene outside of the self centerened  look at me crowd.

[disland]

Jump needs to be marketed as an extreme sport. No way those guys jumping 30 feet on a half pipe compare to 240 feet off a ski ramp but TV makes like its extreme.

 Jump has gotten caught up in the boring 3 event arena. If it came out today as a stand alone event and was marketed correctly it could be huge. A similar situation like Bull Riding. They broke away from rodeo and marketed more as an extreme event and it has gotten huge.

[Bulldog]

Bring on the WWE….Look at what they did for monster trucks!!

[bmiller3536]

"No way those guys jumping 30 feet on a half pipe compare to 240 feet off a ski ramp but TV makes like its extreme."

Those guys jumping 30 feet on a half pipe are also jumping above solid ground and doing a 1040 while grabbing the board and oh yeah their feet are not attached to the board. Jumpers go straight and then circle and go straight again.  Not saying jump is an easy at all but after watching 3 or 4 guys do the same thing I am ready for something different 

 

[MattP]

How about having a event with freestyle mixed with traditional jumping and ski fly? I think this what would be the right direction to go to get skiing back on TV and having the same attraction as the tricks as the skate boarders do going off a pipe. Also include a hand pass trick event as well.

[eleeski]

I don't think that inventing a new variation of the sport is the answer. It has been done repeatedly - freestyle skiing, wakeboarding and skiflying. Nothing is still getting TV airtime.

Our sport is pretty fun. Keep it that way and present it for what it is.

Jdarwin is right - the characters add the intrigue.

Of course, beer and condom marketing could help college skiing along. And scotch and naproxen as sponsors for the traditional 3 events. TV and pro events follow sponsors.

Eric

[DW]

Another element that fuels the football craze, and I agree with the points listed, is the direct connection to college football.  Just look at all the supporters at the college level, not only do actual graduates "wear the garb" and root for the team, but millions of non grads or even non attendees root for college teams.  Then on Sunday, they can root for the "home team" where those college stars play for legit $.  JD is right on, the celebrity makes a huge difference, compare a similar scenario in motorsports, Danica Patrick / Dale Jr.  Even JTH is hooked on Dale Jr!

Hot summer nights was a very successful way to propel water skiing as a tv watchable sport.  It will be much more difficult now to recapture that with all the other competition for the tv dollar, particularly from the much cheaper to produce type of shows (poker, reality. . . ).

[GAJ0004]

I loved watching Hot Summer Nights on ESPN during the late 80's. I was so excited to see my sport on TV. Unfortunately, water skiing is boring to watch for someone who does not participate in the sport. I miss watching Bob LaPoint and Andy Mapple duking it out on the slalom course, Carl Roberge, and Sammy Duvall chasing after the overall titles. I liked when they showed all 3 events, slalom tricks and jumping, both the men and the women. I did not like trick skiing getting swept under the rug, when wakeboarding came out. My favorite event of all time was the 1987 Worlds. Watching Sammy win the jump title on one jump, and then the overall title(his 4th). He could not hold back the tears on his victory lap. The only people who would be interested in watching water ski tournaments on TV are other water skiers. I think the webcast is the way to go.

[Dirt]

I think Joe and Eric are right. It is the characters. I was thinking keeping up with the Browns instead of the Kardashians. The Krista has a ring to it. A reality show starring Horton would be like that Ozzy Osbourne show but with a lot more hair. Skidawg has a terradactyl. Any film crew living with ShaneH is going to have high ratings. The travels of MS and Mrs MS. RDs crazy water ski winters. Any other ideas?

[alex38]

i dont know how to do it but fuel tv looks to be the best shot

[Horton]

I have thought about his a lot. At first thought a reality show seems easy. We need the most outgoing skier we know. Todd Ristorcelli seems like best option to me (Wacky – a.d.d., talented and funny). 
Now imagine you are a reality TV producer. You have the wives of NBA players, porn stars and the children of rock stars all wanting a show. Then you get a call about a funny magazine editor that water skis.  That dog does not hunt.

DogFish brewery has a show on Discovery. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogfish_Head_Brewery
The annual Pumpkin chunking Champs got huge coverage on Discovery this year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumpkin_chunking
We are more interesting then this stuff! Right?

If I am a Discovery Channel producer, I think water skiing is a hard sell. It is hard to understand. It comes back to the personality.  So we cannot compete with celebrity families on E! and it is not generally interesting enough for Discovery.
What I do think could work is a show on Discovery about fringe extreme sports. Perhaps all about the Tech of these sports.  On the other hand would I watch a show about Sailing tech? Maybe.

OK so what about a reality show that we produce ourselves and show on the web. Send a couple of camera crews to hang out with Matt Rini for a few weeks. A few thousand hard core skiers would watch every moment but that does not help us at all. It would not get us exposure outside our group.

If anyone is interested in promoting skiing: here is my marketing pitch to the ski industry. http://www.ballofspray.com/horton/749-water-ski-marketing  I  believe what I have written here but feel a little funny about coming right out and saying it. It ends with a pitch to use BallOfSpray but the first 3 paragraphs say want everyone in the sport needs to hear.

[boarditup]

John:

You are correct in this:  Money flows to concentrations of potential customers.  IF waterskiers can concentrate on one website.  IF sufficient numbers of waterskiers are present and will allow themselves to be tracked.  IF there is video-rich content that makes sense to non-skiers and occasional skiers.  IF some of the other IF's are identified, then we, the waterskiing community, will have some additional attention and money funded into it.  Ball of Spray is a great resource and I will support it as a skier.  I hope we can get a few good, well produced, videos on the site that are fun to watch and can seed the sport.  Look at U-Tube.  Some short, 5-minute or so, videos of some of the personalities and action of the sport will go a long way.  Of course, the best visited section will be the FAIL section of crashes.

Great idea!

[Horton]

I want to be clear that the link I posted is a maketing pitch for BOS. More generally the first 3 paragraphs need to be read by the industry - the last two are my sales pitch. The fact that one guy (me) who runs a site in his spare time has become major media player in the sport says something about how small the sport is. ( I would not hire me to do this :-)

I am sick everytime I hear about pro skiers skiing in front of a crowd of 20. There are a few events that make sense to me (Night Jam, 2010 Malibu, .... )  but generally the sport has failed in terms of self promotion. I am not saying that it is easy or that I have the answers but it somethimes seems like no one is trying.  

[DW]

JTH, well said and very accurate.  You are correct, waterskiing is a sport that hits a very small audience and is certainly far from mainstream.  Escalating costs, required equipment and "good" water access also limit the growth of the sport, in addition, I think that the general video addiction direction the general public is gravitating toward increase the difficulty of promoting and expanding the sport.

I agree on the small crowd syndrome, certainly at this time the water ski community can not expect to attract or hope that an audience will put effort in to getting to a site to watch a tournament.  On the other hand, a very successful event was executed in SE Michigan, the night jump event put on by Skiers Pier.  Why was it successful IMO:  1.  the audience was already there and was captive (it was held in a park that caters to weekend campers, and lot of them, so the audience was waiting for the event to come to them).  1b.  the audience really had nothing else pressing to do other than hang out and enjoy the show as they were there camping  2.  there was an extreme element to the event, the jumpers not only did it at night but the landing was very close to shore so it added to the visual experience.  3.  viewing was from a very nice beach. The audience due to the structure of the event and the fact of being held at a national campsite was very mixed, from the ski addicts to the kids of the weekend camper just there to have a great time. 

[Dirt]

The Michigan event sounds like similar circumstances to Moomba. The crowd is already there for the festival and they used to run the Grand Prix at the same time.

[boarditup]

The rent-a-crowd mentality really does not get us where we need to be.  If you are spending your scarce business advertising budget, would you spend it on a secondary crowd of people or on your target demographic?  For example - holding a tournament at a crowded park with low-income people will not sell boats, skis, or boat insurance.  You will get some impressions and the soft drink and beer vendors like it, but it does not get money into the core of the sport - the athletes, sport specific equipment vendors and dealers.  If the rent-a-crowd is the target demographic, then it makes sense.  Camping is a decent cross-over to waterskiing - depending upon the site.  Other good demographics - small business owners, executives, professionals.  The trick is to sort people out or have then sort themselves out.  Ball of Spray has people sort themselves out - they navigate to it.  Lists of boat owners is an example of sorting people out.

IF we can get enough people here - sorting themselves out - we can parlay that into getting more money into the sport's core.  John needs some more sport specific content that will draw more people in - that is where we come in. Help John out and help the sport out.  More hits equals more outside the sport dollars.

[Horton]

Somebody buy Karl a beer!

[jipster43]

Why isn't there a ski tournament in every major city each year? Seattle used to have one on Green Lake every summer - and there were always big crowds, but that hasn't happened since the 80's. I don't understand why there can't be a Malibu Open in every major city that has any water at all. It seems to me that's about all it would take to create the exposure that may lead to even greater exposure. These tournaments that are held on private lakes far from the general public aren't doing much for anyone involved.

 

JP :)

[Horton]

I think it is lack of sponsor dollars.

[RichardDoane]

In Seattle, Greenlake comes under the Parks & Rec. Dept. and they have developed a "no powerboats" mentality for the Greenlake. 

[jipster43]

I believe the "no powerboats" policy was in effect back in the good ol' days as well, but they made an exception for one weekend out of the year. My beef is that there are tournaments being held on private lakes near major cities when they could possibly be run on water that would offer far greater exposure. I'm not dissing private lakes. Lord knows they are heaven, but they aren't providing any additional exposure. JP :)

[boarditup]

Exposure to who?

The '80's crowds were part of the "beach culture" that was a solid demographic and marketing group.  We now have much greater market segmentation and the fad has faded.  The real lesson of the '80's was that content and the show - the entertainment - was the critical component.  The crowd followed the entertainment.  Read the article - the crowd is following football due to the entertainment value.  They generate the crowds - you don't stage a football game at a downtown food festival.  No sport is successful with a rent-a-crowd - at least I cannot find an example.  Street performers, yes.  Sports, no.

 We are a participation activity that is also a competitive sport.  We need to package ourselves more like skateboarding, motorcycle racing, and NASCAR than a street performer at a festival downtown.  Targeted marketing by demographics with a solid entertainment value is the key.  Ball of Spray is a major component of the targeted marketing.  John attracts a virtual crowd that will attract sponsor dollars - if the crowd is big and affluent enough.

[Horton]

Stop man your makeing me blush.

[Horton]

Holy Crap

There is a show on TLC about .... EXTREME COUPONING. That is a TV show and water skiing is not.

[Mateo_Vargas]

Did you see any Radar coupons on the show?

[DW]

I certainly understand the concern on the crowd demographic when you bring an event to the people.  Absolutely correct, the crowd is not the "ideal" or targeted crowd one would desire.  On the other hand, tournaments playing to only hard core, small crowds have little chance of growing the sport where a diverse crowd might have a few potential converters lurking. 

If you look at modern stadium locations, including NASCAR, NFL, NBA, etc. the current trend is to bring the stadium back to the crowd or back to downtown.  The newest racing venues are mostly built near or in population areas (Kansas, Chicago, LA) at the expense of the tracks out in rural areas, the Iowa Speedway in Newton is a notable exception.  Interestinly, the exact same discussion is a hot topic in NASCAR circles as the sport has moved away from the hard core fan (although the hard core Nascar fan is not a participant or even close to one).  Ford Field in Detroit for the powerhouse Lions is in downtown, moved from the suburbs and the new stadiums in Atlanta, Seattle, NY are all near to downtown thus close to other entertainment options and the restaurant / bar scene.

I certainly agree that targeted marketing is a major key to optimizing one's budget but if you can reach that audience along with less ideal candidates within the same budget it might make sense to consider those options.  Based on the comments on this website, I would think the hard core audience will attend either venue.  Maybe the key question is how to maximize the entertainment value for the paying customer rather than how to maximize the value for the sponsor/promoter to end up in a win-win for both.

[boarditup]

"Based on the comments on this website, I would think the hard core audience will attend either venue.  Maybe the key question is how to maximize the entertainment value for the paying customer rather than how to maximize the value for the sponsor/promoter to end up in a win-win for both."

 Exactly right!  Sponsors follow crowds with the right demographics. 

[Ed_Obermeier]

DW wrote "Maybe the key question is how to maximize the entertainment value for the paying customer rather than how to maximize the value for the sponsor/promoter to end up in a win-win for both."

Speaking as someone who gets hit up all the time for potential sponsorship $$$'s.  If there is little or no obvious potential return on investment to the sponsor the sponsor isn't likely to want to put money into something that isn't going to generate enough NEW business or expand their customer base enough to at a minimum offset their investment in that sponsorship.  That's simply Business 101; you don't make investments that don't have a good chance of growing your business.  Unless you've got a crap load of money to burn and can use the tax writeoffs I suppose...  Budwiser can do that; EZ-Slalom can't. 

I'd love to be able to sponsor a ton of different stuff; being in a very small nitch market business with a very limited advertising budget, I have no choice but to try to strategically focus on the population most likely to be interested in my product and to do that as efficiently as possible.  Advertising to NASCAR types i.e. isn't going to gain me squat in increased sales.  So the perceived potential to the sponsor has to be as important as it is to the paying customer or the sponsor has no incentive to invest.  Both have to be in balance for it to work IMO.

Ed 

[Horton]

I mostly agree with the idea that there is not a lot of sponsor value to skiing in front of people who are not going to buy ski gear. But any time skiing is seen by 10s of thousands of people it is good for all involved. This is why many of us dream of skiing on TV again.

I was talking to .... somebody in the industry this week... about something .... they made the comment that for a $1 of sponsorship they give to an event, they think they need to sell $10 in product to get the investment back. (very rough / off the cuff numbers) For a lot of events that means selling a ski to everyone on shore. I mean if there are only 100 spectators. …. It is a waste of time and money.

Unfortunately web casts only help a little because they are basically preaching to the choir. If you are watching a web cast, you are most likely already devoted skier. I love web casts & would like see more of them but am not sure they are our sport’s silver bullet.

Clearly there are more questions than answers when the subject of marketing this sport comes up.

For any industry folks who read this. I am always looking for ways to promote anything positive in the sport. BallOfSpray is here to promote your boat, skier, ski or event.

Krista Rogers and I brainstorm a lot about the marketing challanges in skiing. She has been instrumental in the growth of BallOfSpray this year. If you are looking for a marketing professional who understands water skiing, you should talk to Krista.

[jipster43]

It seems to me that the biggest problem with selling waterskiing is that our preferred demographic is pretty puny at the moment. Growing that demographic means getting more people interested who aren't currently involved in the sport. When those numbers grow the advertising will be much easier to come by, and the only way to grow those numbers is to increase exposure any way you can. I think. JP :)

[Dirt]

I don't get what some of you are saying. Most people that watch the NFL have never played football in their lives. They just like to watch and follow the sport. The sponsors don't have to have anything to do with the sport. That is why beer companies sponsor everything. What about motocross, freestyle motocross, scateboarding, etc? Can you picture the people that watch these events trying to actually do them?

[baja]

Dsmart is right on track. People watch tons of sports on TV that they could never do. Exciting action and personalities can draw an audience. It's embarrassing that Snookie, the Kardashian bimbos, Big Fat Porkers Trying to Lose Weight, and Celebrity Has Been Rehab Relapse all have audiences in prime time. These are the days of the $3000 broadcast quality HD and $120 Kodak Playsports video cameras. How about a reality show on the lifestyle of top skiers and boarders who like to party, hang out on cool boats with fit young people in bathing suits, hit the road to tournaments and crash at high speed in slow motion. Cool guys, hot gals, fun in the sun, all makes for a great day on the water.

[skibug]

Boarditup made a comment that "holding a tournament at a crowded park with low-income people will not sell boats, skis, or boat insurance"; but, Dana Reed told me that they sold 4 or 5 Malibus right on sight at the Malibu Open in Milwaukee.  I am not sure if they were sold to people in tune with the sport or newbees that were turned on by the event.  He said the crowd was in the thousands (not there solely for the ski event) and it was done in conjunction with the Parks and Rec department for the city.  It was a total success.  Dana commented that it was the "best event" he has ever been a part of.  You need more than just skiing to attract a crowd.  Exposure to a demographic that is not necessarily seeking a ski event is exactly what the sport needs to gain exposure and expand. 

[jipster43]

Amen to the previous three posts. JP :)

[boarditup]

Look what Dana did right in Milwaukee:

1.  Marketing - Park and Rec poured incredible resources into marketing.

2.  Demographics - the actual demographics were good - the crowd was largely suburban based and relatively affluent.

3.  Location - within 20 miles of a large population in an easy to find location.

4.  Entertainment - the event was entertaining for the crowd.  Momentum had been built up with previous events.

5. Media - Dana and crew managed the media very well for a week ahead of the event.

6. Crossover - there were several other things in the general area for people and families to do.

I have long proposed a 3-ring circus approach to waterski and wakeboard events.  The more total entertainment value, the better the event will be.  Most families don't want to watch endless sets of slalom on a hot shore for hours at a time.  At the same time, if the major draw is a food festival and a waterski tournament just happens to break out - who will sponsor the wateskiing?  They get their return from the food festival.  Milwaukee was successful because of the pre-planning and execution by Dana.

People are entertained by a few things:

1.  I can identify with that - played backyard football, overweight, can drive a car fast, skateboarding, etc.

2.  Beyond the reach - skydiving, inverted motorcycle jumps, inverted wakeboarding, I can't imagine doing that, etc.

3.  I want that - athletic bodies, first place, attention from the crowd, I want to be famous, etc.

4.  Train wreck - crime TV, Snookie, drama, you can't believe people live that way, crashes, etc.

 Waterskiing can give all 4. Packaged right, like Dana had in Milwaukee and in the '80's, it works well.  Without marketing money and the wrong message, we have the same results all the time - small crowds and little interest.  It takes resources and hard work. Dana is probably the hardest working man in waterskiing and has my respect.