Typo in paragraph 3 should read-
>Anyone else who watches on TV or at the track is an added bonus.
Sorry,
Ben
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 9:03 AM
To: Track Listserve
Subject: RE: t-and-f: re: amateurism & teams (long)
First, Mats, thanks for highlighting the excellent performances of the last
couple days.
Second, I completely agree with GH about presentation, professionalism, etc.
Third, this notion of catering to "Joe Six-pack" is foolish. There is no
such thing. NASCAR does not market to "Joe Six-pack." NASCAR markets to a
defined audience. Anyone who watches on TV or at the track is an added
bonus. Track & Field in the US needs to identify an audience or two and go
after those. Saying "we want everyone" is a waste of time and money.
In the Internet application development business we try to identify who
potential users for a site or service might be and build applications to
their specific needs. If we didn't do this up front we would spend most of
our time and energy trying to be everything to everyone. Track & Field are
not that.
Track & Field can and should attempt to market itself to a broad audience.
However, we MUST identify a few key market segments to target. When a
client says "we want everyone to use our site" it severely limits what can
be done to enhance the experience for the users who are actually the most
likely to come to the site. I suggest that we follow some method to
developing our product. One standard product/software/website development
methodology is DEFINE, ARCHITECT, DESIGN/PROTOTYPE, and IMPLEMENT
T&F has hard decisions to make. Who are the top two market segments that
you want coming to meets and watching on TV? Do you want men 8-13, 14-18,
19-25, 25-35, 35-45, etc? Do you want women 8-13, 14-18, 19-25, 25-35,
35-45, etc? What income brackets do you want? Etc etc. Once you get them
to the arena or in front of the TV how do you satisfy them? AND HERE,
don't rely on some line NBC or CBS gives you about how they want it done.
Do the research yourself. Figure out how we as a sport want to present
meets.
TEST, TEST, TEST. Pick some meets to make try what you've come up with.
Tweak it, make it better. Then convince people you're right. (I say this
because after all of the highly critical radio commentary I heard on the way
Sydney was covered by NBC (personal stories crap and little competition) I
think it's time for us to do our own analysis.)
Then sell the concept to every damn meet director in the country. This
includes college and high school meet directors.
Right now I can see absolutely no method to the way the sport is marketed or
presented. One guy wants "Team Track" another wants disco balls and dance
music during competition and most of us just want to see a well run
competition, that runs on time, is compact, and one we can follow without
having to chart every event.
Our sport lives in a highly competitive capitalist market. It can and will
survive. However, for it to do more than just survive we must run the sport
like a business with a product to sell.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Michael J. Roth
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 7:23 PM
To: Track Listserve; Mike Rohl
Subject: t-and-f: re: amateurism & teams
Mike,
On the amatuerism/team topic we agree wholeheartedly, but that should
surprise no one on this list!!
This summer I had submitted a detailed proposal to score the Golden
Spike Tour along team lines. The proposal was given directly to Craig
Masback, who said he presented it to the Board of Directors. I'll take
him at his word, as there is no reason to doubt this. Basically, it was
shot down - I don't remember the details - and we got stuck with the
point system that is being used now for the Pontiac Cup thing.
My point was the infamous "Joe Sixpack" would understand the team
thing. It was to be done on a mixed-dual meet format so that each team
would go head-to-head with all others in the meet. I'd love to know why
the IAAF table scoring was used instead, as "Joe" has no idea what these
scores mean, nor does he care.
MJR
