When the film Secretariat was released in theaters, a standardbredcanada.ca poll revealed that only 7% of readers expected not to see it. Earlier in the year, a poll on the site found that 92% of visitors planned on watching the Kentucky Derby.
Both Secretariat and the Derby probably transcend a loyalty to a particular breed of horse racing. If you are a racing fan, you can likely appreciate both. But when the spotlight fades from the Disney movie and the Run for the Roses, do the aims of harness racing conflict with those of the runners?
There surely is no shortage of harness racing customers who have switched much of their viewing or betting to the thoroughbreds. Our products reside in teletheatres, on screens side by side, tempting customers to choose one over the other.
Like opening the cooler at your local convenience store and choosing Coke or Pepsi, we all have preferences. Many of us buy both – Coke one week, Pepsi the next. Others maintain strict loyalty.
For years, one of the primary measures of how our sport was doing was its position against the thoroughbreds. There was a long period – not too many years ago – when standardbred betting in Canada exceeded thoroughbred betting. In some provinces it still does.
When interest or handle drops, we look to the thoroughbreds for our first clue as to where it went. Often we get our answers.
For this reason and others, standardbred loyalists are often upset at the notion that harness racing should do anything to promote the other breed. “They won’t talk about the Little Brown Jug,” they’ll say, “so why do we talk about the Kentucky Derby?”
Their point has much validity. Let’s face it – thoroughbred racing is one of our rivals, and it does, on certain days, cost us fans. When big thoroughbred tracks switch their post times to evening slots, we take a hit. When we attempt Saturday or Sunday afternoon racing, essentially going head to head with the runners, we take an even bigger hit.
But despite this reality, thoroughbred racing and harness racing have far too much in common to ignore. They may not be willing to learn from us, but we can not pass up the opportunity to learn from them – from both their successes and their failures.
In 2010, despite a major motion picture and a superstar like Zenyatta stealing headlines, thoroughbred betting in the United States dropped by $903 million – a slide of 7.33%. While this was actually an improvement over the $1.3 billion plunge the industry suffered in 2009, it was far from encouraging.
So what did we learn? Hopefully it’s this: not Disney nor Zenyatta, not Barbaro nor Seabiscuit can reverse the fortunes of a business that won’t help itself.
A few months back, Stacy Bearse, the former editor of The Blood-Horse magazine wrote a column on the eve of his retirement from the thoroughbred publication titled Racing, Promote Thyself. “I’ve thought about this column for 20 years now,” he began. “What thoughts should I share on the eve of my retirement from The Blood-Horse?”
“There is no real alternative,” he wrote. “We won’t reverse the decline in the public perception of racing without dedicating significant resources. Bottom line: If we each bleed a little bit, we can heal this sport. The consequences of ignoring a national marketing initiative won’t be pretty. The declining fan base is depriving the industry of essential capital. Without ambitious fan development, racing and breeding will remain trapped in an ever-tightening spiral that will lead to a catastrophic end.”
Bearse chose his final column to make a desperate plea to the thoroughbred industry to put together $100 million for the promotion and marketing of their sport.
I’ve got $100 that says his plea will be ignored.
Is it possible that the standardbred industry might be more likely to learn from the experience and wisdom of others, and consider Bearse’s advice from afar?
I suppose stranger things have happened.
Darryl Kaplan
[email protected]