JagBro, I think your answer to others is your answer to yourself.

Until ratings drop, cutting back on NASCAR (big money, big fan base) to show Any other kind of racing (far fewer fans, far less money) is simply bad business. As with the reality garbage, I have to assume the NASCAR non-race shows are getting big ratings - else they'd be replaced by reality shows.

I am with you - show NASCAR races, and a couple NASCAR shoes, and then show other kinds of racing and other racing shows (I like F1 Debrief, and wish there were similar shows for every series.) Sadly, because GREED-TV cares Only about the bottom like, and will broadcast anything that will make a profit, it is unlikely that programming will ever improve.

Look at MTV. From all, to less, to some, to a little, to No Music Whatsoever.

Expect GREED-TV to be nothing but reality and talk shows in a couple years. To FOX, only money matters.

Maelochs - 10 June 2009 09:07 PM

JagBro, I think your answer to others is your answer to yourself.

Until ratings drop, cutting back on NASCAR (big money, big fan base) to show Any other kind of racing (far fewer fans, far less money) is simply bad business. As with the reality garbage, I have to assume the NASCAR non-race shows are getting big ratings - else they'd be replaced by reality shows.

I am with you - show NASCAR races, and a couple NASCAR shoes, and then show other kinds of racing and other racing shows (I like F1 Debrief, and wish there were similar shows for every series.) Sadly, because GREED-TV cares Only about the bottom like, and will broadcast anything that will make a profit, it is unlikely that programming will ever improve.

Look at MTV. From all, to less, to some, to a little, to No Music Whatsoever.

Expect GREED-TV to be nothing but reality and talk shows in a couple years. To FOX, only money matters.

Agreed, the solution of the problem applies to me as much as it does to anybody, which makes it a common problem. That does not, however, change the realities of the situation. NA$CAR is a cash cow and Fox is obsessed with cash cows - and if they can't promote NA$CAR on Fox, where regular programming would suffer, they can on Speed, where they'd have a bigger audience anyway.

If I'm encouraged by anything, it's The Grid and its ability to keep the fan informed about other forms of motorsports. But even that won't make a dent in Speed's NA$CAR coverage. I'm also a bit encouraged by the fact that, given how much it's been pushed over the last few weeks, Wrecked may be losing its audience and will have to be replaced. On the other hand, no prizes for guessing how it will be replaced.

swb31763 - 30 May 2009 10:27 AM

Abso-freaking-lutely! Give us more SCCA, GP2, formula 3, touring cars and semi trucks from Europe, Australian (some of those mates are nuts!),......
i remember racing for pink's and i'll be damned if anyone ran more than once one run give up the car,and what's up with the car length's,if you can't compete leave it in the driveway
I am so sick of NASCAR's BS and the over-the-top coverage that SPEED gives to it that I rarely watch any of the races.


ALMS, Koni challenge and Rolex are, without a doubt, the best racing series I have seen on TV in 15+ years.

SPEED: why don't you create a spinoff channel for all your other filler programs

Pinks has to be the dumbest show I've ever heard of. You have a Christmas tree, use the @#$%^&* *&^%#@!@ thing. Don't give me some lame host flapping his arms.

Also, why don't you get some real reporters like Bob Varsha, David Hobbs, Dave Despain,... that have actual knowledge and/or experience in racing. Leave the darn eye candy, just-out-of-journalism-college cuties to the over the air networks.


Anything available on Dish Network or Direct TV that is racing 24/7?

Why not move the PINKS, CCRs, Unique Whipes to Fox Reality Channel so more progamming and viewer time can be devoted to racing?

The NASCAR Race today was sooooo boooooring for 199 laps that I fell asleep three times while watching. I saw more action on the Koni Challenge Race on Speed (which was the first time I'd seen an actual race on Speed that wasn't NASCAR related thank god) than I saw in the SLOWSCAR race today.

That drifting Subaru Legacy was Ten to da good in my book!!! YEAH!!!! SPEED PLEASE GIVE US MORE KONI CHALLENGE, SPPEED TC/GT, etc. Anythiing but more Slowscar.

KW

Knightewolfe - 15 June 2009 02:18 AM

The NASCAR Race today was sooooo boooooring for 199 laps that I fell asleep three times while watching. I saw more action on the Koni Challenge Race on Speed (which was the first time I'd seen an actual race on Speed that wasn't NASCAR related thank god) than I saw in the SLOWSCAR race today.

That drifting Subaru Legacy was Ten to da good in my book!!! YEAH!!!! SPEED PLEASE GIVE US MORE KONI CHALLENGE, SPPEED TC/GT, etc. Anythiing but more Slowscar.

KW

I've watched few if any road races I can say I've been bored with. When the racing's not close, I see strategy; when the cars just seem to be droning around, I can see patience and sticking to the game plan.

All I've ever seen in NA$CAR is mindless running around in circles.

I don't really buy the argument that Wrecked, Pinks, et al bring in large amounts of money to Speed and thus help pay for the racing.

They utilize many of their advertising spots on F1, MotoGP, NASCAR, etc. to advertise these "reality" shows. These advertising slots could be sold to external advertisers to bring in real money to the network and could be sold for a premium. The "reality" shows do not have enough advertising slots in them to compensate for the slots used to advertise the shows. Also, the advertising rate for getting your ad on F1, MotoGP, NASCAR etc would be much higher than the rate you'd pay to get your ad on the "reality" show. Who in their right mind would pay more to get an ad on Wrecked then on a NASCAR race or program?

So by advertising their reality show they consume high-value advertising slots that get exchanged for low-value advertising slots on the "reality" shows themselves. Therefore the shows are costing them more in lost revenues from the shows that people actually want to watch. Also, the amount of effort they spend advertising these "reality" shows tells me that the shows are not very popular and that they don't naturally draw in viewers. They have to pound the show into your head in the hopes that a few people will tune in. Do they need to advertise F1 or MotoGP to the same extent to get viewers? No, of course not, those shows attract people to the channel itself and automatically attract the viewers who tune in specifically to watch the racing.

The only way the "reality" shows could contribute to the bottom line is through accounting chicanery by claiming the costs of advertising the shows as legitimate expenses to offset any profits the channel itself makes so that they can avoid paying taxes.

When Speedvision became SPEED, or as its turned into, the NASCAR Network...it seems like whenever i turn it on its either NASCAR, promotion of NASCAR, or one of their stupid reality shows, give me a break....they want constructive critisism at the network: how about showing racing,racing that doesnt suck!

Pink_Freud - 15 June 2009 10:05 PM

I don't really buy the argument that Wrecked, Pinks, et al bring in large amounts of money to Speed and thus help pay for the racing.

They utilize many of their advertising spots on F1, MotoGP, NASCAR, etc. to advertise these "reality" shows. These advertising slots could be sold to external advertisers to bring in real money to the network and could be sold for a premium. The "reality" shows do not have enough advertising slots in them to compensate for the slots used to advertise the shows. Also, the advertising rate for getting your ad on F1, MotoGP, NASCAR etc would be much higher than the rate you'd pay to get your ad on the "reality" show. Who in their right mind would pay more to get an ad on Wrecked then on a NASCAR race or program?

So by advertising their reality show they consume high-value advertising slots that get exchanged for low-value advertising slots on the "reality" shows themselves. Therefore the shows are costing them more in lost revenues from the shows that people actually want to watch. Also, the amount of effort they spend advertising these "reality" shows tells me that the shows are not very popular and that they don't naturally draw in viewers. They have to pound the show into your head in the hopes that a few people will tune in. Do they need to advertise F1 or MotoGP to the same extent to get viewers? No, of course not, those shows attract people to the channel itself and automatically attract the viewers who tune in specifically to watch the racing.

The only way the "reality" shows could contribute to the bottom line is through accounting chicanery by claiming the costs of advertising the shows as legitimate expenses to offset any profits the channel itself makes so that they can avoid paying taxes.

Then the same logic should apply to all reality programming on any network?

If the slots available during race broadcasts of any kind can be sold, at premium or standard rates ... they are. They are unsold and therefore utilized in the manner described. Standard practice in the industry.

Speaks, perhaps, to the reason for the "other" programming.