Is Less More? - Or: How I learned to stop racing and love the off-season

There was a rumor flying about at the Nebraska Cup and likely is about to become reality as there are plans to run a non-wing sprint show at Eagle on Fridays next season.

Sprint driver Jeff Lowery posted on dirtdrivers.com an announcement for an open practice session for anyone who would like to try out the "non wing" experience in 2007 at the October Enduro event on the 29th.

Lowery made valid points about the current state of the technology and its impact on the costs of racing; the large wings wear out tires, are hard on motors and ruin racetracks, creating one-groove racing.

But what concerns me here is that promoters do not address the true cost of racing, the one that is most easily controlled: the NUMBER of races run.

Aw, man. Here comes Jason ruining our fun again.

This will sound obvious to some, but it's oblivious to most promoters. For a racer, the single greatest cost of racing (the sport) is RACING (the action). Once you build the car, your expenses are pretty much done. It's when you get the car on the track that costs go up - fuel, tires, wear on parts, and this assumes you don't wreck. The more you race, the more the costs increase. Since a racing team's purpose is to race and not just have the car sit there, it's safe to say that these races ARE part of the fixed costs.

One response would be, "well if they can't afford it, don't race." And that's absolutely true. In fact, that's also the argument I use when racers demand purse increases because their costs have gone up.

But, do racers always have a choice? In the purest sense, yes - it's always their decision to race or not. As my High School English teacher said, the only two things you have to do in life are die and make decisions.

In the practical world, the choice may not always belong to the racer. Sponsor commitments may dictate attending a certain number of races - usually by CALENDAR YEAR, and not number of races unless it's not humanly possible (such as driver injury). For the vast majority of racers, at any level, some sponsorship is required.

So, by scheduling these snowstorm-to-snowstorm seasons, promoters have effectively increased the fixed costs to the racers as they have to run these shows.

For most racers, what is the most difficult part of racing? Is it the elusive dry-slick setup? Is it finding the right combination between horsepower and durability?

No, unless they are wealthy, choose to run up their credit cards, or live check to check, the hardest part is going out to get sponsors. And, with the increased demands on the racer's budget to be competitive and offer the sponsor something for their money, it gets harder to either 1. get more money from the sponsor or 2. find more sponsors to make up for the shortfall in cash.

So, what's my answer to this problem of reducing fixed costs?

Simple. Run fewer races.

THERE HE GOES CRAPPING ON OUR FUN AGAIN!!!

Think about it: fewer races would reduce costs for the racers and it would reduce costs for the promoter.

Take a cue from someone we KNOW makes money - oil companies. If they are losing money because of reduced demand (like after the summer travel season), what do they do? Decrease supply! It's the simplest form of supply and demand economics, folks.

Do you think the Daytona 500 would draw the throngs of fans if they ran it every week? Would the Chili Bowl be the same if they ran it every week in January? If the Rolling Stones played the Qwest Center each week would they sell the joint out every night? I doubt it. Even the most die hard 'Stones fan would not be able to shell out concert ticket money each week.

But I bet the 'Stones would charge the same amount to the concert's promoters regardless! See what I mean about fixed costs? You want that level you have to pay whether it be band fees or a class purse.

So why not increase your demand by reducing supply? It's a win-win deal. For a promoter it increases the likelihood of good crowds since they know they have limited time to see the shows. Look at a Fan Appreciation night. Yes, the fan goes because of the low price, but they also fill the joint on less-than-ideal nights because there are only so many nights you get that show for reduced admission.

For the promoter it helps because they're reducing their fixed costs and for the race fan since the number of shows is limited it reduces the chance of promoters calling a show on the first raindrop since their opportunities to make money are limited.

With reduced costs, you have more tracks able to run and that healthy competition gives fans choices, and makes promoters and racer deliver better products, which helps them out in the end.

Promoters can now work with each other to schedule specials instead of stepping on weekly shows. Racers who CHOOSE to travel now can pick and choose. I'm talking about GROWING the base and the sport, not sucking the blood out of it like we're doing now.

My problem is that promoters have this warped idea that the more shows they run, the more money they make. Really? This panoramic from Friday night's Neb. Cup show at 6:52 PM says different. Go ahead, and click on the photo. I'll be here waiting...

If the mentality that the more my doors are open the more I'll make is true in all cases, then every department store would be open 24 hours, every TV station would show their prime-time lineup all night, and we'd have snowplows at racetracks.

What is open 24 hours? Wal-Marts and convenience stores. What are TV stations running? Programs that people pay them to put on, unlike network programming, which the stations pay for.

If these long racing seasons were necessary then we wouldn't have discussions on why there are problems getting crowds at races during the IDEAL times of the year. It would be like Wal-Mart thinking that they have to open up a new store because they have trouble getting people to shop on Saturday afternoons. Unless their customers are night owls or live 100 miles from the store, that's not the answer.

Promoters seem to think it is. They have the mentality that the way to prosperity is through "making it up in volume." But the last time I checked, unlike razor blades, giving away races to sell beer is not the formula for success. The problem with this kind of business mentality in racing is you're not dealing with suppliers who are making money every time they provide you with the product you're selling. Unlike razor manufacturers, racers don't make money every time they deliver product (racecars) to your store (racetrack).

In 2006, concessions don't cover the costs, they're gravy; it's the front gate first and foremost. Any promoter who wants to make money, to improve facilities, and build new clientele HAS to be getting more people in the front gate for EACH show - not making money at the back gate, and not milking the limited crowd for all the money you can at the concession stand. IT IS ALL ABOUT THE FRONT GATE!

My feeling is the time to add shows is when you are selling out the shows you already have. Until then, all you're doing is throwing money down a hole and placing burdens on racers and fans who support you each week because they want to do their part to keep things running.

If the answer to why all these shows in the cold of winter and fall are run is not about the mentality that the more my doors are open, the more I make, then what is it? Ego? Competition? Megalomania? I don't recall seeing these in business textbooks.

I'm not so naive to think that business doesn't have intangibles like competition and sometimes you have to do things that may not make money, but that is part of "investment" and "marketing," and needs to be thought of as such. If you're "investments" aren't panning out or your "marketing" isn't bringing in more people then once again, you're throwing money away.

Once again, these are all BUSINESS issues, otherwise you have issues that are best addressed by therapy and not accounting.

So what does this have to do with non-wing sprinters at Eagle? First, I have nothing against the idea of running 360 wingless sprints at Eagle, per se. But, these races are going to increase costs for promoters and where is the demand for non-wing shows? If they made money for Eagle, they'd still be there. The crowds for the two shows I saw at I-80 were weak, so I don't see a demand. Therefore, unless something else is done for the fans, this show becomes a back-gate moneymaker at BEST. And again, what track has survived, much less grown, off the back gate? Yes, you can be a back-gate promoter, but unless you just have a hole in the dirt, the price to build or buy today's tracks is far to great to hope to make it up with meager back gate profit.

The number of sprint cars is limited. The number of people who can afford a sprinter, wing or non-wing is also limited. So, unless you're creating a new pool of racers - these racers are being asked by the promoter to increase their fixed costs on behalf of whom???

And, again if you're drawing from a limited pool what happens when the money starts running out at the end of the season? When there's a Friday night title on the line for a car who sits in 20th place on Saturday, where are their priorities when it comes to limited funds? I'll bet that car isn't there the next night... If you don't believe me then why didn't you see Eagle's top two at the Brodix Tournament of Champions in 2005?

So, unless you're making money on Fridays, you're hurting your money maker or at least your best opportunity to make money by reducing your Saturday car counts.

The optimistic will call the Friday night show an investment. Most investments usually have a promise of return at the end. There's been no sign a non-wing show is a money maker, so I'll choose to call it a gamble. Either way if it pays off, then great! But, unlike an investment, gambles usually have a harder fall at the end, and in most cases it's not just the person who loses the gamble that suffers.

Instead of trying to run a weekly show on a night that hasn't worked for anyone in the past 10-15 years, why not run a limited schedule of specials or support events with the wingless cars and grow from there?

Have you noticed that every single new product release is started with marketing first, then product second? How much pent up demand is there for the Play Station 3? We’ve read plenty, we’ve seen what it will do, yet there isn’t one single console in the general public yet. But, places like Game Stop have already reached a limit in pre-orders!

Promoters need to realize they are providing a product and you need to build demand first and release product second in order to succeed.

-Jason