Rod Street of Racing For Change

[Posts: 10789Joined: 10 Feb 2003, 15:43Location: Scotland]

I'm delighted to report that Rod Street of Racing For Change has agreed to take open questions from TRF members.

So, if you have questions on any aspect of Racing For Change this is your chance to put up or shut up.

I'll leave this open for a week and send the questions to Rod next Sunday evening.

[Posts: 2166Joined: 06 Dec 2003, 19:04Location: Luton]

Mr Street , do you really think that moving the Champion stakes from its original home to Ascot will make one jot of difference, and if so why


Sir if you really believe a horde of new racegoers will turn up for that day , then perhaps racing and your outpost deserves all it gets



Ricky

In isolation no, but as part of strategy to better promote the season’s best Flat races, yes.

The idea of the British Champions Series is to shine a brighter light on Flat racing, create a world-class finale to the premier element of the season and, over time create a stronger package of sponsorship and media rights, both of which will help to underpin the sport.

Let’s not forget that Ascot will be staging a £3m race card – the richest ever - and that, as not only a world class venue but an accessible one, it is likely to attract a bigger crowd of racegoers – some of whom we hope are new.

The series has had a good start, attracting a brand new sponsor for the sport and the broadcast rights to Qipco British Champions Day have been bought by BBC Television.

This is all a long-term strategy of course. We don’t expect racing audience to change overnight but it has a chance to grow and develop if the financial and broadcast foundations are strong.

Mr Street

1. If you look back through Racing's history, it is apparent that throughout the 20th and early 21st centuries racegoing has always tended to appeal more strongly to older people with a little spare cash and plenty of spare leisure time.

This is the model that has served leisure activities with a similar profile (such as golf and the classical music industry) well for many years. So why has so much effort been put into attracting younger crowds to come racing, when they have so little spare time (except at weekends) and so little spare money?

2. And why has so little time been spent attracting and improving the experience for older, potentially more lucrative newcomers to the sport?

3. Finally - as a subsidiary to this - RfC seems to be making every effort to move the big races and big meetings onto Saturdays, with an excessive number of good races taking place in an hour or two, regular clashes, and increasingly few Group races taking place during the working week.

Yet why has no effort been made to improve the generally very poor quality and quantity of Sunday racing? Apart from the 1000 Guineas, no Group 1 flat race is run on a Sunday. Why push everything into Saturdays, when Racing has to compete with nearly every other major sporting event, and ignore the development opportunity offered by Sundays?


That’s a lot of questions in one!

First-up, RfC was created to broaden the appeal of the sport, based on solid evidence that it was losing relevance (loss of market share of betting, diminishing broadcast rights fees, Radio 5 giving up slots, non-existent regional coverage, amongst other things)

Yes, there has been a focus on the younger generation, simply because we believe a generation of racegoers was in danger of being lost. Let me give you a practical example:
Twenty years ago, if you had the propensity to bet, you had a fine chance of being educated on racing as it was the core product in betting shops (that and greyhounds). For years, racing had the market all to itself. Fast forward to today and the average eighteen year-old stepping into the bookies is more likely to be tempted by a football bet or a gaming machine.

Racing has to find different ways of communicating with an audience that now has far greater choice. We accept this is hard and that it is also unrewarding in the short-term but, taking a long-term view, it is crucial that initiatives such as student racing clubs and syndicates for younger groups are promoted to sow the seeds for a lifetime’s enjoyment.

That said, we totally agree that there are other opportunities for racing beyond the younger audience and, indeed, the ‘baby boomer’ generation is likely to be more affluent, have more time and probably the last of the remaining final salary pensions!

We do not exclusively promote to the younger generation. Our revival of the Mirror Punters’ Club and the numerous big feature articles we have placed national newspapers are far more likely to resonate with an older audience.

But of course it’s not just RfC promoting the sport: Sixty racecourses, nationwide, are busy marketing their socks off to attract every type of audience possible.

With regard to your question about the fixture list I’ve recent written a blog about this to explain racing’s overall strategy on fixtures. You can find it here http://www.therfcblog.blog.co.uk

[Posts: 1699Joined: 07 Sep 2006, 10:32]

Dear Rod

A commentator can make or break the enjoyment of a race meeting for me, would it be possible for the scheduled commentator of each meeting to be published on the BHA website from the 48 hour decs stage and also appear in the Racing Post course details on the day?


Thanks
yeats


That seems such a sensible suggestion that I can’t believe it doesn’t happen already!

I know there is a commentators’ roster, so this should be straightforward.

I’ll see what I can do with this and put it on BHA and LovetheRaces.

You’ll get a credit in the RfC newsletter if it comes about.

[Posts: 10789Joined: 10 Feb 2003, 15:43Location: Scotland]

Rod, this is the stated objective of RFC -

To broaden the appeal of racing, reaching a wider consumer audience and maximising participation through betting, racegoing, ownership and all forms of engagement with the sport—in order to increase betting turnover on horseracing, other commercial revenues and general media coverage

I've looked at all the 'Current Status' info messages on the site and there are lots of bits and pieces about what's been done (i.e. the activity) but not a lot about the measurable impact of the changes/activities (i.e. are you making any difference.)

The things I did see were -

The week of free racing was a highly successful promotion, attracting 40,000 additional racegoers compared to the previous year. Over 60% of these were new to the sport. We captured fresh and relevant consumer data during the week.

.

The campaign has put particular emphasis on creating wider public awareness and interest in the sport’s main racing festivals and top race meetings. Average attendance is up almost 4%.

Are you going to report (and, indeed, are you measuring) the impact you've had on other key measures such as betting turnover, levy payments, commercial revenues, quantitative and qualitative media coverage data (key being TV coverage I'd suggest) and ownership stats, all of which are mentioned in your stated objective? When can we expect to see those measures published?


We have clear measures in place and where no baselines exist we are creating them with new research.

They are:

Attendance
Commercial Income (media rights & sponsorship)
Broadcast coverage – by viewers
Betting performance - racing’s share of gross win
Public awareness and attitudes to racing
Reaching a younger audience

You can see how we did in 2010 by going to www.racingforchange.co.uk/info/library.aspx and downloading our 2010 Annual Review.


What have your employers indicated are the measures your own performance will be evaluated on (presumably those measures outlined above)?

That’s correct but it’s a bit more complicated than that! I also do another job within Racing Enterprises Limited, which is developing its data income. REL, under licence, sells the list of runners and riders to the media. It is this income – about £1m per year, which funds RfC*.

*This income, under agreement between RCA and Horsemen cannot be spent on prize money or racecourse projects. It was designed to be used for the overall promotion of the sport and is the only fund available to do so.

Meeting those business targets also form part of my performance measurement.

What is the timeframe for the RFC initiative?

Our racing 2015 Survey rather gives the game away!

At the outset, we said racing needed a five-year plan to increase interest in the sport, reverse the decline in key revenues, improve its media coverage and lower the average age of the audience.


What is the strategy for 'post RFC'?

I believe that’s up to racing’s many stakeholders. We’re not an arbitrary body, making decisions independently (as some people steadfastly refuse to believe!). RfC is an output of the industry’s many different stakeholders – the RCA, the Horsemen, the BHA – even the Levy has played a role.

Senior representatives of these stakeholders will no doubt dictate the direction but I sincerely hope greater emphasis is given to the customers’ views going forward. Despite the turbulent ride RfC has had, I don’t believe any racing organisation before it has ever engaged so much and so often with the wider public.


Do you see such initiatives as the provision of sectional timing and the on-course weighing of horses (both of which have long been on the wish-list of many who engage with racing as punters) as important to the growth and health of racing or as peripheral 'nice-to-haves'?


The thing about peripheral nice to haves is that, if you do enough of them, they make a big difference.

Most successful customer-focussed businesses base their success not on one whiz bang thing but on a succession of lots of small things done well.

In isolation, sectional timing* may or may not make a difference but if it’s sectional timing, friendlier gate staff, better food offerings, larger number cloths, improved PA announcements, better presented race cards etc. – then the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

* I’m personally very keen on sectional timing. Most other sports share basic data with viewers. Racing is behind the game on this.

Do you feel that the betting and racegoing public have an adequate voice within the industry and, if not, what do you think could be done to remedy that? (I should state that I believe one of racing's major issues as an industry is that it fails to recognise or to understand the, admittedly diverse, needs of its customers.)

I have come to believe that they don’t’.

Social media – blogs, forums, Twitter, Facebook – is providing a tremendous opportunity for racegoers and punters to share their views and as you know, I am a devotee!

Despite the odd bumpy moment, I try very hard to both listen and interact with people. I’m never frightened to have good debate or take on suggestions and see what can be done.

In terms of how punters get a voice, it’s really hard. One might argue that punters are truly the customers of bookmakers who, in turn, are customers of racing. Racegoers, of course, are customers of racecourses and can vote with their feet to show how they feel.

However, I feel it is really more complicated than that and believe that better representation would be helpful but - BUYER BEWARE – I have had enough feedback from members of the Horsemen’s Group, RCA and other industry bodies to say that their views are not accurately represented by their leaders. A ‘Punters Forum’ could soon fall foul of the same accusations!

Better, then, that the industry opens itself up to feedback and acts on it and this is where Social Media is more powerful.

Personally, I also believe that some of racing’s key constituents could be less defensive and more transparent. Life isn’t perfect, things do go wrong and even the best led organisations have bad days, but it’s how they handle things that count and, done properly, they can give the customer greater confidence in the sport’s management.

What do you believe are racing's USPs over competing sporting and non-sporting entertainments?

We have loads:

1. Our tradition and heritage are very attractive: our iconic events such as the Grand National, Royal Ascot and the Derby, our language (betting and racing), our many customs. We often feel misunderstood on this issue as some people suggest we do not value it but couldn’t be further from the truth. Making racing more accessible to people does not mean we have to lose our identity.

2. The intimacy. Try and get close to the pit lane in F1 as a punter. You can’t. Try and get into the players’ tunnel at Old Trafford. You can’t. Racing is incredibly accessible – the jockeys often walk through the crowd. The horses and spectators are only separated by the flimsiest of white fences. Owners and Trainers watch racing alongside punters in the grandstand. It’s one of the last remaining sports of the people.

3. Our sport is very easy to understand at a basic level- Horses run round a track – the first one wins – anyone can have an involvement on that- whether they’ve studied the form all night, been given a tip or have simply chosen a colour they like.

4. Racing lends itself to such a wide audience. You can go alone or with the crowd, have a picnic, dress up, dress down and everyone seems to like a flutter – be it based on painstaking research or simply the thrill of involvement is the race. We are also, perhaps only with tennis as a rival, incredibly female friendly – which means a bigger potential audience. One aspect not to be under estimated is that, at a racecourse, you can move around – unlike stadia port which fixes you to a seat.

5. Horses are beautiful animals. A hundred years ago they were integral in our lives – in cities, towns and villages. People see less of them now but they still, in my opinion create a visceral reaction with people. The queues to get up close and personal at the new ‘Meet the Racehorse’ areas on British Champions Series fixtures are the most practical proof of this.


Finally, one of the 4 cornerstones of your strategy has been to differentiate the premier events and to promote the sport primarily through these. I'd agree that this has worked for many sports (motor racing, football, rugby, cricket, tennis, etc) so I can see the appeal. However, do you think you have been innovative enough here, given that we've had several attempts at a 'Champions Day' before, both at Newmarket AND Ascot and that the 'Champions Series' seems to lack a meaningful narrative, by which I mean one that the media and/or public will engage with (it has seemed a damp squib to date IMO). A large cross-section cares how the Formula One season unfolds, for example, because events are naturally linked by the narrative of the championship, primarily because poeople care about who will win it. There is no such natural narrative with the Champions series on which to 'hook' the whole idea. Would you agree with that view and, if not, why not?

I completely agree that the series is not yet compelling enough but we had to start somewhere.

The Danger was that we never got started because so many obstacles were in the way. Over time, we hope we can add more meaning to the British Champions Series and how it looks in 2015 might not be how it looks today. But it was a brave move by racing to try something new and, in any case, the promotional focus on the Flat season, a new sponsor and a record prize money day on BBC at Ascot are unlikely to harm the sport.

There are restrictions with racing that other sports do not have –because we are dealing with horses, which are fragile, plus we have to take into consideration ground conditions, the over-
arching plans of breeders and the plans of trainers. It’s not like F1, where you have 12 contracted teams and an agreed calendar of events.

None the less, we could go further. Points systems, ualifications and bonuses might help, not to underestimate the kudos. Prize money at Royal Ascot was £4m for five days, whereas British
Champions Day is £3m for just one afternoon. But people want a Royal Ascot winner BECAUSE it’s Royal Ascot. Who’s to say that a winner on Champions Day will not have the same kudos in years to
come.

[Posts: 4153Joined: 20 Jan 2006, 11:28Location: The Ainsty of York]

The 'free racing week' trials are generally considered to have been a success.

What have you learnt from this experiment and what plans, if any, do you have to repeat or expand it?

Free racing week / month is a superb promotional tool. Alton Towers used to give free tickets away by the hundreds of thousands on the back of cereal packets, as they built the park’s reputation. They do less now, as the brand is well established and sought-after.

Free racing is not the answer for racing but is a great tool to introduce new people.

I remain, firmly of the view that, if you repeatedly give your product way the message is ‘its worthless so we must tread carefully here and use it as a promotional tool.


Welcome though free entry has obviously been, do you believe, as
I do, that there is a case for experimenting with reduced (much reduced in some cases) entry at more racecourses for a longer period of time rather than free entry at a few for a short period of time

If so, do you think this is a practical idea?

This is a matter for the racecourses. I believe initiatives such as free racing has opened-up their thinking and they seem more disposed to positioning their businesses differently.

Ultimately, customers vote with their feet and racecourses’ success will depend on not only their pricing strategy but by the overall experience provided to the customer.


Does RFC hold much sway over the racecourses?

The opposite is more accurate! We are a function of the RCA, among other groups, such as the Horsemen and rely on their support.

However, I feel we’ve built respect with them and I do find the majority of racecourses to be open to ideas and trials. Also, the share of information between tracks has never been better.


Or is it a case, like so much in racing, of you wanting one thing and they wanting another resulting in an impasse and compromise that is actually of no particular benefit to either party?

There’s a lot of that to be honest.

Whether for better or worse, it would be a whole lot simpler if we were British Racing PLC with one board and one boss.

But we’re not, were a grouping of diverse stakeholders, all with different needs and some diametrically opposed. There’s a good reason why our blog is called Herding Cats!

From the outside, I can see how leaden-footed racing can look and one reason is its complex structure.

[Posts: 1304Joined: 01 Oct 2009, 20:13]

I hope this is ok..........

How have your stated aims been affected by the Levy issue? For example, many quotes feature "broadening the appeal to boost betting turnover," which also included claims from some of racing's leadership RfC's work was more urgent due to the Levy slump.

I am saddened by racing’s decline in income from betting.
It goes against the grain: More people are coming racing. More people are watching racing. There is more coverage in the media. All measurable. All true. And yet we are getting less back from betting.

Whether this is due to a either a reduction in market share, non-payment of Levy by off-shore operators, lower margins or, more likely, or a combination of all of them, the model is clearly not working and racing needs to address this, constructively, with the betting industry.

This is not, directly, a RfC output, although we work hard as a conduit between the parties.

In recent times we've seen the launch of various racehorses for particular groups. Does the money come directly from the RfC budget and are more planned?

Yes and yes!

The reason is that syndicates are an incredibly cost effective way to promote the sport and engage with a big audience. The Soccer AM horse put us on Sky’s prime Saturday morning show and got us coverage for a few thousand pounds that a brand would have paid six figures for. The triple benefit is that we are also promoting the racehorse and the excitement of ownership.

The Peopleshorse www.peopleshorse.co.uk is our latest venture – using the power of Twitter to tell the story of a horse, its jockey and a small yard, whilst giving people a closer involvement in the sport. We are delighted that on Tweet Lady’s first two runs, we have had both existing and brand new fans.

One bloke was so excited to be INSIDE the parade ring for the first time he nearly cried!


What was the RfC reaction to the BBC offering shortened coverage on Oaks day?

Deeply disappointed and it shows why we have to work so hard to make racing a switch-on sport not the opposite.

The McCoy SPOTY campaign was interesting, largely based on a RfC campaign initiated after the Grand National win. Did engaging in a popularity contest, one which could be won via redial vote, produce positive benefits for racing more than it did for boosting McCoy's own personal profile?

I am afraid I disagree with your assertion. I think McCoy’s win reflected not only the desire of racing’s audience to see him get the recognition he deserves but also the wider public identifying with a true champion and their fatigue with overpaid and frequently failing footballers.

It also showed what racing can do when the stakeholders come together.


Most of the RfC initiatives that have received publicity have appeared gimmicky, imo. They're clearly likely to receive publicity as a result, but how realistic is it to think publicity of gimmicky ideas, including the infamous filly factor, are likely to deliver long-term new 'fans' to the sport?

Ah! I do know what you mean.

The thing is, we have to be creative, all year round, to get racing covered in the wider media. That often means doing things that are offbeat – it’s how the media works.

But rather than taking a single idea, why not look at the cumulative effect. Last year we placed over 1200 stories of which over 60% were off the racing pages. That is coverage other companies would die for and we do for it peanuts. The overall effect is that racing is getting talked about in different ways and the benefit seems to be coming through in racing attendance.
I think some people think that one high profile story and a bit of coverage on the One Show is job done for a year. It’s not – promoting the sport is a continual process needs a year-round strategy.

I refute that it’s all gimmicky though. The BCS is a serious piece of strategy. Free Racing week introduced thousands of new people to the sport, the consumer research we do is really useful to the sport. Our presence when TalkSPORT dropped racing was crucial in reinstating it in a better, more relevant format.

Also, we don’t trumpet every achievement, we just get on with it. When you open a newspaper and see a double-page feature on Hayley Turner or Sir Henry Cecil, chances are we’ve placed it.


Cormack's touched on the BCS point - i.e many who already care about the sport think of it as pointless due to (ironically) a lack of meaning, not narrative. It's been said British Champions' Day is aiming to compete with Arc day and the Breeders Cup. Purely from a quality of racing and horse point of view, how realistic is it to believe British Champions' Day can compete with Arc day?

I refer you to my earlier answer.

We’re not going to do it on prize money right now but we remain, imo, home of the best racing in the world and we shouldn’t underestimate the kudos of winning a race on QIPCO British Champions Day. It might take time to establish itself, but it’ll happen.

[Posts: 1507Joined: 05 Nov 2007, 21:58Location: Stratford-upon-Avon]

Almost uniquely in the modern world, the racing industry seems entirely devoid of merchandising. Is this an area you are looking to move into to improve the popularity and accessibility of racing and just as importantly racing's finances?

In my opinion it is of incremental benefit. Racing’s non-partisan status is the main reason. I am more likely to wear a football shirt so state this is MY team, as opposed to a jersey in the colours of Godolphin because it’s only SOMETIMES my team. We switch allegiances all the time in racing.

There is room for high quality merchandise though – Wimbledon does it brilliantly – but I think it’s a domain of the racecourses.

[Posts: 2819Joined: 31 May 2005, 21:40]

Mr Street.

Racing For Change is half way through its lifespan. What do you feel are the three main achievements of the project so far?

May I offer four?

There is now a formal PR resource looking outwards to the customer. Whether running AP McCoy campaigns, or getting TalkSPORT on air or persuading the sometimes bashful Sir Henry Cecil to do interviews in national papers, we are making an impact beyond the racing media.

British Champions Series was launched with a broadcast deal and a significant new sponsor. It has succeeded where other concepts have failed to get off the ground.

The Free Week/Month moved big numbers – existing and new in - both 2010 and 2011. It was effective and measurable.

Love the Races website is a big success. We wanted to create an entry point for new or occasional racegoers and we’ve had over a quarter of a million visitors this year. It’s not for the purist but it is driving big numbers and probably a younger audience into racing. Although, interestingly, the Ivor Herbert cartoon section is really popular.

[Posts: 211Joined: 11 Feb 2011, 22:25]

Mr Street,

What has RFC done/doing/going to do for existing racing enthuiasts?

The Raceday Experience

The Raceday Experience Pillar, launched by RfC is utterly customer focussed. The RCA for two years now has been working to introduce improvements to the racegoer experience in numerous ways – from broadcast on course, to catering and from parking to seating.

In 2010 it held the first Showcase Awards, where courses spent a day sharing their best innovations – with winners being announced in various categories.

It’s easy to identify what businesses don’t get right but I believe that there are many courses out there, working really hard to improve the experience of the customer.

In the end, though, market forces prevail. Courses that put the customer first will thrive. Those that don’t will find it harder.

Mirror Punters Club

RfC revived what was a once popular club – making ownership accessible to its racing readers (and racing has received significant editorial coverage as a result)

Also, it important to say we’ve done very little against them!
In fact the opposite is true. The whole purpose of making the sport more successful enables racing to put on the product its enthusiasts hold dear.

All of these high value pattern races, the big festivals, investment in facilities and the track are all incredibly expensive. The more popular and accessible the sport is the healthier are its finances. It really is worth remembering that all of these racecourse boards of directors, these owners and these trainers inputting to RfC are also big fans and, in the main, pretty traditional in their views.

Why is racing redirecting more prize money to the top level (e.g Champions Day) when the lower levels are struggling to maintain current levels?

The Champions Day is distinct and is based on strategy to improve racing commercial income streams and broaden in television coverage.

Beyond that, I do think that structures led by the best products offer the best chance of benefit. Most sports businesses are driven from the top down. The better we develop our premium assets, the more the benefit permeates throughout.

However, it’s not the top and bottom I worry about, it’s the middle. (And this is my opinion, as I’m not responsible for race planning and Levy!) I say the middle because the top can generally look after itself and the bottom tier works to a different model.

It’s those middle ranking races – the sorts put on by Hamilton, Pontefract and Salisbury, for example, that are threatened by a diminishing Levy and the current racing tariffs which often lead to a smoothing of race programmes – often affecting the middle tier races.

What will RFC do if Champions Day comes up heavy ground and some/all of the races turn up shock results? Will the winners be proclaimed as "Champions"?


You could say that of most meetings, every year. Upsets happen. There are years when we don’t have obvious stars. There are years when we do. Over an extended period, I’d be hopeful that Champions Day will throw up more than its fair share of very worthy winners. More often than not. The cream rises to the top.

Why have so many good meetings on Saturdays and minimal use of Sundays - why not split the good meetings and top races across the weekend?

I refer you to a recent blog on this subject www.therfcblog.blog.co.uk

Why does RFC not highlight the Key Festivals of the Flat season to a greater degree?

We do but have to bear in mind our budgets are limited and we try to compliment the work of the courses themselves. We also work very hard at getting relevant PR coverage around the festivals.

As mentioned earlier, we often just get on with things and there’s every chance a feature story has been placed by us. We also now gear the TalkSPORT guest bookings to the relevant big meetings.

What is being done to add more to the NH season, instead of the Cheltenham Festival being the totally dominant occasion?

This is something we are planning to address later this year. We simply can’t address everything at once. For an interim view, see the RfC blog entitled ‘does the Jumps Season Go Flat?

[Posts: 1030Joined: 24 Apr 2011, 00:59]

Mr Street

If Racing for Change means creaming off top races from courses, such as Newmarket,that cannot hold the capacity 80,000 crowd that Ascot can and encouraging fairweather racegoers who don't even take the time of day to look at a racehorse to go racing and prefer to remain in the bars watching all the action on the TV, then I think RFC has made a great error of judgement.

That’s not a question, it’s an assertion and one I disagree with.

Incidentally, whilst we want to attract new people I believe Champions Day will start with predominately, a racing audience.


Also can you please explain why young children and babies in buggys are allowed close to the Paddock Area at racecourses, when horses can sometimes get loose in the Paddock and jump the barriers.
I have seen children climb onto the hedges around the paddock and one youngster actually fall into the Parade Ring.

This is really a matter for the RCA to address. We’ve yet to extend our role to Health & Safety.

However, I would not want to make sweeping changes here. As mentioned earlier, racing’s accessibility is one of its great assets. It’s a balance between safety and enjoyment.


Do you not feel that encouraging children to go racing for free should only be allowed with restricted access to Paddock Areas and Bars.

The less restrictions, other than those led by licensing law, the better in my opinion.
Good behaviour should be encouraged , of course.

[Posts: 2652Joined: 16 Jan 2001, 18:51]

Hi Rod,

Your views on price rigging to the detriment of racegoers and punters please.

Specifically the variety discussed here:

http://www.theracingforum.co.uk/horse-r ... 85495.html

[Posts: 4415Joined: 14 Mar 2006, 11:35Location: Doha, Qatar and Co.Clare, Ireland.]

Hi Rod

In basic percentage terms what has RFC's input into the Champions Day project been?

Which of racing stakeholders have been the most resistant to your initiative and why do you think that is?