|
|
Post by pyechart on Mar 29, 2004 20:48:02 GMT -5
How can the sport of track and field be marketed? What causes the lack of interest in track by the general public?
With the strength of jogging as a pass time you would think there is a market that could be interested in track meets. If these meets were marketed or packaged in such a way to generate interest from a public that could already be sympathetic to the sport. Just think of how many runners enter local road races.
|
|
|
|
Post by Weston on Mar 29, 2004 21:20:38 GMT -5
Well if you think about it people really love watching sports they can keep track of, like hockey, football, baseball etc. with games every week and in basically every majour city in north america...It would be impossible for track to do this because it would be inconceivable for the atheletes to run 4 races a week in order to keep a strong audience.....just my 2 cents
|
|
|
|
Post by lacquement on Mar 30, 2004 5:25:17 GMT -5
Do they like the sport because they can really keep track of it? or do they keep track of them because they really like them?
If you look at golf, tennis, the tour de france, triathalons and stuff like formula 1 raceing, those people aren't competeing 4 times a week all season long (ok, so the tour is much longer than 4 days, and it's consecutive... but it doesn't cover much of the year).
One of the problems, is that track is not TV friendly. There is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay to much "dead time" during meets where there's simply nothing to watch. Also, finals and heats are all mixed together. Few people enjoy watching qualifying heats unless there's someone they really want to see, where as most people will enjoy a final no matter who is in - What this means is that meets need to change their schedules so that you have as many finals close together as possible. Yes, that would make it harder to double (or triple... or quadruble a la Mackenzie) but it would be more entertaining for the average person to watch.
We also need to have athletes that are good enough(ie: olympic champions/medal threats) and have the right personalites to get into the media spotlight and grab peoples attention. We also need big rivalries, preferrably things like canadians vs americans (remember the 150m race of donovan vs MJ??). Thank about hockey... the game is allways better to watch when it's some classic rivalry between the two teams.
Interest in watching track and field meets needs to be developped early. One thing that I think should have been done differrently when Edmonton hosted the world championships, is that a bunch of tickets should have been given away to young kids. Get them exicted about watching it, have them tell their parents how much they enjoyed watching it.. then maybe they would actually watch it on TV or go to a national championship if they had sparked interest in it (this also could have brought some more young talent into the sport....)
|
|
davidson
Full Member
"only the struggle makes it worth it, only the pain makes it sweet and only victory is the answer"
Posts: 131
|
Post by davidson on Mar 30, 2004 13:50:12 GMT -5
If you look at golf, tennis, the tour de france, triathalons and stuff like formula 1 raceing, those people aren't competeing 4 times a week all season long (ok, so the tour is much longer than 4 days, and it's consecutive... but it doesn't cover much of the year). I don't buy that argument. Golf tournaments do last 4 days, and are on most weekends. Tennis is on frequently as well. I don't think triathalons have that much support among tv viewers. One of the problems, is that track is not TV friendly. There is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay to much "dead time" during meets where there's simply nothing to watch. Also, finals and heats are all mixed together. Few people enjoy watching qualifying heats unless there's someone they really want to see, where as most people will enjoy a final no matter who is in - What this means is that meets need to change their schedules so that you have as many finals close together as possible. Yes, that would make it harder to double (or triple... or quadruble a la Mackenzie) but it would be more entertaining for the average person to watch. Yes, there is dead time, which is a problem. The olympics usually do quite a good job covering track by coming back to it in between other events. This poses a huge problem for individual meets, but the golden league format CBC has been using is good. Unfortunately, they are not anywhere near live broadcasts. I don't think you need to put all the finals together. I doubt many people could accomplish a quadruple in that short time frame. We also need to have athletes that are good enough(ie: olympic champions/medal threats) and have the right personalites to get into the media spotlight and grab peoples attention. We also need big rivalries, preferrably things like canadians vs americans (remember the 150m race of donovan vs MJ??). Thank about hockey... the game is allways better to watch when it's some classic rivalry between the two teams. Who needs to have athletes that are good enough? Are we talking about the sport or the Canadian sport? I think we do have some athletes who are medal threats. We have shown that in the past two world championship events (indoors and cross). Also, I don't think you need rivalries to be created. Any international competition will usually result in Canadians cheering for Canadians. Trying to make more of that is a step in the wrong direction I think. Should we put fighting into races too? That might do well with the 18-24 age group... Interest in watching track and field meets needs to be developped early. One thing that I think should have been done differrently when Edmonton hosted the world championships, is that a bunch of tickets should have been given away to young kids. Get them exicted about watching it, have them tell their parents how much they enjoyed watching it.. then maybe they would actually watch it on TV or go to a national championship if they had sparked interest in it (this also could have brought some more young talent into the sport....) This is where I agree with you. I'm surprised they didn't do that for Worlds in 2001. However, I remember the 150m race between Bailey and Johnson. Our school got free tickets (though I wasn't exactly young back then), as did a lot of others. That was not as good as it could have been I think. Getting kids involved in the sport is the best thing I think. My overall opinion though, is that we don't need to market the sport. Honestly, how many of you are in this sport to become rich and famous? I'm not. I just want to run and have some good times. Maybe the world would be better if track were seen as a bigger sport than auto racing, but who cares? If you have fun in the sport then that is all that should matter... just my $0.02 |
|
|
|
Post by pyechart on Mar 31, 2004 13:20:37 GMT -5
Heres what i want to i really want to know. Is it possible to package a meet in london or hamilton that could attract a "paying" crowd of 300 or more to watch a track meet that has nothing on the line, for example no medals or national titles on the line. It's unlikly that we could get world class athletes, so what going have to promoted is the ideals behind the sport and not the names of the athletes.
For example
meet directors could set up a meet that would be an hour long with event after event (no down time). Each field would be hand picked from the best high school, university and amature athletes in the area. For example a meet could promte an event with the best hight school athletes in the province(out side of ofssa), this could help create an maintain future rivalries. Any feild event, I think unfurtunately you would have limit the number of athletes to maintain crowd interest, the idea is to eliminate meaniless attempts(you need to keep the action going). I think the idea would be to keep the meet with in an hour, have compition you can promote ( minimize the athletes that don't belong) and with well run meet it could catch some public support and interest
|
|
|
|
Post by Eldridge on Mar 31, 2004 13:47:46 GMT -5
thats a great idea to hold a meet with select athletes from all across the province. but think of all the time it would take just to get a meet that u say should stay below an hour. it would take many more hours and many more people to do this.
and if a meet like this were to be held in lets say maybe toronto for example how many of the top athletes from like ottawa or sudbury or sarnia would come down to it just for an hours worth of meet?? i understand if there is only 1 heat for each race that it would go MUCH faster, but it would also eliminate the chance for a double-up in events by a single athlete.
well thats just wut i think but hey i cant be to far off.
|
|
