Considering that the Nextel Cup is coming to ESPN/ABC this fall the question begs to be asked - Why won't they do a split screen during commercials like they do during IRL races? It makes no sense to me. I understand about the advertising dollars and stuff but most of the NASCAR advertisers also sponsor race cars? What's wrong with double advertising? Unless there is an incident why not have a camera focused on that sponsor. I am usually going to change the channel during a commercial. If you introduce the split screen for NASCAR I am going to stick around to hear your product pitch while watching the action on the track. I think this would be a great way to increase ratings.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Why can't NASCAR have split screen during commercials like Indy?
- Thread starter BDBopper
- Start date
They will for the Pepsi 400 on TNT.
From what I understand, NASCAR isn't keen on the idea and that's why it's not being done.
From what I understand, NASCAR isn't keen on the idea and that's why it's not being done.
This is an advertiser issue. The advertisers don't want their message competing with the race. I'm sure the advertisers were given a discount for the Indy race. The banner advertising on TNT or soccer games does not bring in nearly the revenue that a bunch of 15 - 30 second spots would. Considering what Fox paid for NASCAR I'm sure they have no interest in cutting the price of commercials for the sake of running the race during the ads.
Bottom line: unless it's full screen, the advertisers won't be paying full price.
Bottom line: unless it's full screen, the advertisers won't be paying full price.
tested said:
It's also a broadcaster issue from a standpoint of profiting against rights fees, right? If you pay big rights fees, won't charging discounted ad time jeopardize making money off the event? Between the half-screen spots and the rain-shortened race, and production and talent costs, will ABC take a bath (no pun intended) on today's Indy 500?
I seem to remember in 1986, when NBC had the soccer World Cup from Mexico, its spots were shown full screen, except for Budweiser. When it was time to, er, pitch Bud, the Peacock showed the action on a red-bordered screen with "Budweiser" at the top for 30 seconds.
ixnay
ixnay said:
Univision did the same thing for many of their soccer telecasts, at least in the 1990s -- when there's a goal, they shown an instant replay of the goal, within a Budweiser "frame".
As a matter of fact, Univision, aware of the fact that soccer matches couldn't take breaks, often shown animated messages for advertisers on the bottom of the screen, while the game's in progress.
M
MotoMuzak
Guest
"Has NASCAR given an explanation as to why they are not keen on the idea?"
;D Wild guess, but maybe Nascar doesn't want to run the risk of having Ricky Carmichael's ego getting even more swollen than it likely got during his MX years? If it gets so big he explodes imagine the associated insurance/injury liability that might follow.........
It's been scientifically proven that doing a split-screen of a single person, Heaven willing, will do this........ ;D
*snort*
;D Wild guess, but maybe Nascar doesn't want to run the risk of having Ricky Carmichael's ego getting even more swollen than it likely got during his MX years? If it gets so big he explodes imagine the associated insurance/injury liability that might follow.........
It's been scientifically proven that doing a split-screen of a single person, Heaven willing, will do this........ ;D
*snort*
T
toby
Guest
I just wonder why NASCAR can't be put on pay-per-view.
It is win-win for everyone.
It is win-win for everyone.
F
FACTman
Guest
Oh really? Like who?toby said:
And those who do not like NASCAR do not count.
Nascar actually tried that back in 2003. It was called In Car/In Demand or something similar, and was carried on digital cable providers only. (No satellite customers) It performed poorly and was discontinued in 2006. They now have a deal with Direct TV exclusively in the US and with Cable/Sat distributors in Canada and show races on PPV via "Nascar Hot Pass". More information on this topic is on the Internet via WikiPedia.
However, going strictly to PPV would not be a win-win situation. It may be working out well for Vince and his pro-wrestling mega-events, but I don't want to have to hit a BUY button just to watch NASCAR on tv--whether I'm a racing fan or not. They make too much off marketing and sponsorships, and I imagine that's so they don't have to hit the individual viewer up for it. NASCAR fans are also loyal to NASCAR advertisers, and so a positive, 'win-win' like relationship is already established between the two in that respect.
Byron
NASCAR tried PPV even further back than 2003!!! They tried it back in 1990 with the Fathers Day race at Pocono and it did pretty bad... It was not because it was not popular, but a lot of the mom and pop cable companies did not have the capabilities to do PPV at the time... It was $19.95 which by today's standards was pretty hefty... At the time the biggest market that got to see the PPV race event was all the C-Band VCII pirates... CC1
- Status