IRL Races Are Time Buys

[chop456]

But...but.... :gomer:



According to industry television sources, whereas FOX and NBC/TNT must pay NASCAR for the rights to broadcast its races, IndyCar must, in fact, pay ABC.

IRL races are glorified ad-buys, so they can afford to work with preexisting partners to offer the side-by-side coverage.

NASCAR.com (http://www.nascar.com/2006/news/opinion/09/07/tv.ads/)

[Spicoli]

Some splendid meltdowns occurring today at your local gomer boards. :laugh:

In fact, at gomer-central, they are wagering when his "retraction" will be issued.

[Al Czervik]

Technically, the IRL doesn't "buy" their TV time. However, the negotiations probably went down something like this:

TG/BB: How much will you give us to televise the I-500?

ABC exec: $x million

TG/BB: How much for the whole series?

ABC exec: $x million, and you have to guarentee $y million in ad buys (where y < x)

TG/BB: No problem, we'll make Chevy, Honda and Toyota buy ads or else they can't race.

Then again, I'm not a media insider, so what do I know?

[chop456]

In fact, at gomer-central, they are wagering when his "retraction" will be issued.

So if there's no retraction or libel suit, I guess it's true? Certainly they wouldn't take it sitting down if it wasn't, right?

Nothing but a constant stream of bad news for the hapless irl as of late.

Quite the opposite for Champ Car.

[Andrew Longman]

So help me out.

Al's scenario seems about right. Given the ratings, how could Disney justify to stockholders paying for the IRL season unless it was just "thrown in" with the 500? The price for ad time is pretty well set by formula based on ratings, no?

Add to that what I understand as "fact" that manufacturer and tire participation requires by contract a degree of marketing support, almost certainly meaning ad buys on broadcasts. This was given as a key reason engines had to be badged.

It all makes a ton of sense and given where the IRL is (and where it came from) its not to dumb.

So eight months ago another journalist made the same claim and then retracted it.

Why is this coming up again and is it still not true?

My guess is that it probably is true, but perhaps not technically so if you look at the contracts.

The price paid to the IRL reflects the real value of the 500 plus the ad buys for the IRL season. It may not actually say the IRL has to buy the time but it may give ABC an out if they don't.

The IRL contracts with Honda and Firestone say they must buy ads

But the supplier and ABC contracts may or may not actually be linked and so the reporter (or his fact checker and editor) made him retract the story.

Just my guess

[RacinM3]

Because right now, commercial break means bathroom break, beer break, bratwurst break.

Not in my house. Commercial break means "hit the FF button on the TiVo".

Did he really put a Fred Durst reference in that column? :saywhat: