It is irrelevant whether you are trying to reach casual fans or supposedly hardcore fans. The worst possible thing you can do is dumb the sport down for a perceived audience of American housewives (a demographic that perhaps doesn’t even exist in reality anymore as an economic force.)
Regardless of the sport, fans (casual and otherwise) would like to be flattered and challenged with the language of the sport. What they DON’T need is to be patronized by paternalistic announcers that treat them like idiots. Can you imagine an NFL broadcast that says “now these men are going to THROW the ball, and if one catches it past 10 yards, that will allow them to run more plays on the offense.” But we get spoken to in this tone in the track world regularly.
As has been mentioned, Phil Liggett doesn’t talk to viewers this way. But the producers of track and field in the USA down through the years have passed on a received wisdom of infantilizing the audience. How’s that worked out for them? It’s marginalized the sport, and made their job worth less. (And when people in a position to do something about this had their opportunity over the last 30 years, they considered their self interest first rather than speaking up. I’m looking at YOU, Dwight Stones, et. al.)
So the solution is to follow both the Kentucky Derby model and the Tour de France model. The former focuses on competition, pageantry, and tradition rather than records. The latter focuses on competition, pageantry, tradition, and passionate presentation that challenges the viewer.
This isn’t as complicated as people are making it seem. I’m not saying it’s easy, but there’s a formula for relative success and the obtuse among us are refusing to acknowledge it.
I like that you have obviously put some thought into this but personally I think you overestimate the interest of people watching if you think that while watching sports (usually to relax) they want to be challenged. Re NFL broadcast people tend to know the rules. Whereas with track there are many rules as there are so many different events and quite honestly people often don't understand it. I've witnessed this myself when watching with a bunch of friends. They don't know how many attempts people get (things like long jump), why the order is changing etc. And sometimes think people have won when they haven't! Such as the screen has switched to track in the middle of the LJ. I don't think the commentator should be patronising but I do think it is different than NFL in so much as it is more complex (take something like decathlon scores for example).
I have loads of ideas but seeing as World Athletics is unlikely to use this thread as a reference point I feel like they would just get lost in the ether...
Track and field has the highest participation rates of all sports at the high school level in the US. It is not a niche sport.
Definitely. I always cringe when some 20something says Track will always be a fringe sport.
I want to say- You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
And, they're too young to remember when it was very popular. I always refer them to the 1971 Dream Mile between Liquari and Ryan- huge stadium crowd and live TV with knowledgeable commentators.
There's a solution that's rarely ever considered that could build professional track & field into a popular spectator activity: Make it into a true team sport, palatable to an average sport's fan's attention span. Two to two-and-a-half hour meets. Concurrent field and running events. A combination of relays and individual events. Team points for placing, as well as bonus points for tiered time and distance achievements.
Require, say, 20% minimum of the talent to be state/region-grown. Beer, hot dogs, chipotle bowls, sushi in the stands. Consider multi-team competition at each event, not merely dual or tri-meets; whatever is manageable. Start with say, 12 core teams: 2 from California, 1 Pacific Northwest, 2 Texas, 1 Mountain State, 2 Northeast, 2 Southeast, 2 Midwest, or some other configuration, and divide into two conferences, West and East. 6 'regular season' meets, 1 playoff semifinal meet each conference, 1 dual meet championship.
Build teams with enough talent and depth so that individual performers only have to compete in, say, half of the regular season meets to qualify as team members. Lease existing stadium space, get sponsorship money to pay athletes scaled pay for each meet competed, plus bonuses for individual performances attained, points contributed towards team wins (more for playoff wins). Lots of advertising on singlets, shorts, warmup suits, around the interior of the track, etc. Hire announcers with the chops of a Phil Liggett & Paul Sherwin duo to promote spectator awareness, knowledge, and excitement. Introduce performers before each meet (especially the stars) with some flourish.
For the meet-ending relay(s), allow top-paying spectators to enter the infield and root for their relay performers alongside the track, inside roped boundaries. Have a few security guards posted on site for good measure. Actually provide a track PA system that works.
Just a few ideas for starters. Yes, domestic and international meet schedules will be disrupted. Obviously. Work with those the best you can, think outside the box. The goal is to promote track and field for everyone, draw multitudes more fans to the sport. I mean, what is more basic to every human being and admirer of athletic form and performance than running, jumping, and throwing?
Shoot, the possibilities are endless. During the, say, 2 and a half hour competition, you could have team members racing the marathon distance on a circuit course video streamed to your phone that would be timed to end right after the last team relay event; marathoners chosen from a decent sized stable of runners each meet so as not to burn talent out. Imagine 3-4 male 2:13-2:16 type male and 2:30-2:38 type female marathoners each straining towards the stadium finish line to give their entire team that chance at a victory and a higher payday for their side. Exciting, huh?
For a team event to be plausible, they would have to train together as a team, at least in the same location. But distance runners tend to congregate at altitude and sprinters tend to congregate at sea level. Hard to build a team when they are half a continent apart.
Track and field has the highest participation rates of all sports at the high school level in the US. It is not a niche sport.
It then follows that there are more track alumni, more track parents and more people in every community who know a track runner. It is the largest untapped sports audience in the world.
When they call it a niche sport, they are going by ratings, which is dependent on middle class boomers who gravitate to what they grew up watching on TV.
I think we've been looking at this the wrong way for a long time at least as far as distance running is concerned.
I did a race last year (NYC Marathon) where there were something like 50,000 people actually participating.
Play to your strength. Distance running is one of the largest if not the largest participation sports in the country. There are huge opportunities there.
I wonder what % of participants in NYC marathon could name the top pros in the field?
Doesn’t seem to be the case in Europe. Just America has empty stands.
Others countries do a better job marketing their top stars and don’t suffer from an over saturation problem like the US. Hence why I specified the US in my original post.
Take Oslo Diamond League for example. It is THE track meet of the season for Norway, nothing else comes close and it takes place in the capital city not some nowhere town like Eugene. And they are marketing it around Jakob going up against a stacked field. And you can guarantee it will be packed and loud.
This is fair for Oslo, but I've been to Stockholm and Zurich and don't remember any special focus on Swedish or Swiss athletes, and the stands were packed. (I also am pretty sure Stockholm did not have beer or gambling, for those who point to that, altho Zurich had both)
It was ages ago so I don't really remember, and obviously a really small stadium, but I think the old Golden League meets in NYC would sell out? Huge Jamaican contingent
Track and field has the highest participation rates of all sports at the high school level in the US. It is not a niche sport.
Maybe we need to get a common definition of what a niche sport is but I think track qualifies. You're right about the high participation rate in US high schools and what I've found when I've gone to "big" meets is that it's very hard to find spectators who do not have some personal connection to the sport, e.g. ran cross country and/or track themselves in school, have kids or grandkids or a significant other who does or did run cross country or track, etc. That looks to me like a niche sport. But it's not difficult at all to go to a professional or college football game and find fans who never played at all.
Others countries do a better job marketing their top stars and don’t suffer from an over saturation problem like the US. Hence why I specified the US in my original post.
Take Oslo Diamond League for example. It is THE track meet of the season for Norway, nothing else comes close and it takes place in the capital city not some nowhere town like Eugene. And they are marketing it around Jakob going up against a stacked field. And you can guarantee it will be packed and loud.
This is fair for Oslo, but I've been to Stockholm and Zurich and don't remember any special focus on Swedish or Swiss athletes, and the stands were packed. (I also am pretty sure Stockholm did not have beer or gambling, for those who point to that, altho Zurich had both)
It was ages ago so I don't really remember, and obviously a really small stadium, but I think the old Golden League meets in NYC would sell out? Huge Jamaican contingent
To quote Moneyball, what's the problem you're trying to solve? Loads of people complaining or throwing in ideas but they all seem to be solving different problems. Is there a problem at the moment? Why is it a problem?
There's a solution that's rarely ever considered that could build professional track & field into a popular spectator activity: Make it into a true team sport, palatable to an average sport's fan's attention span. Two to two-and-a-half hour meets. Concurrent field and running events. A combination of relays and individual events. Team points for placing, as well as bonus points for tiered time and distance achievements.
Require, say, 20% minimum of the talent to be state/region-grown. Beer, hot dogs, chipotle bowls, sushi in the stands. Consider multi-team competition at each event, not merely dual or tri-meets; whatever is manageable. Start with say, 12 core teams: 2 from California, 1 Pacific Northwest, 2 Texas, 1 Mountain State, 2 Northeast, 2 Southeast, 2 Midwest, or some other configuration, and divide into two conferences, West and East. 6 'regular season' meets, 1 playoff semifinal meet each conference, 1 dual meet championship.
Build teams with enough talent and depth so that individual performers only have to compete in, say, half of the regular season meets to qualify as team members. Lease existing stadium space, get sponsorship money to pay athletes scaled pay for each meet competed, plus bonuses for individual performances attained, points contributed towards team wins (more for playoff wins). Lots of advertising on singlets, shorts, warmup suits, around the interior of the track, etc. Hire announcers with the chops of a Phil Liggett & Paul Sherwin duo to promote spectator awareness, knowledge, and excitement. Introduce performers before each meet (especially the stars) with some flourish.
For the meet-ending relay(s), allow top-paying spectators to enter the infield and root for their relay performers alongside the track, inside roped boundaries. Have a few security guards posted on site for good measure. Actually provide a track PA system that works.
Just a few ideas for starters. Yes, domestic and international meet schedules will be disrupted. Obviously. Work with those the best you can, think outside the box. The goal is to promote track and field for everyone, draw multitudes more fans to the sport. I mean, what is more basic to every human being and admirer of athletic form and performance than running, jumping, and throwing?
Shoot, the possibilities are endless. During the, say, 2 and a half hour competition, you could have team members racing the marathon distance on a circuit course video streamed to your phone that would be timed to end right after the last team relay event; marathoners chosen from a decent sized stable of runners each meet so as not to burn talent out. Imagine 3-4 male 2:13-2:16 type male and 2:30-2:38 type female marathoners each straining towards the stadium finish line to give their entire team that chance at a victory and a higher payday for their side. Exciting, huh?
For a team event to be plausible, they would have to train together as a team, at least in the same location. But distance runners tend to congregate at altitude and sprinters tend to congregate at sea level. Hard to build a team when they are half a continent apart.
People often throw the team idea out there but Tennis and Golf aren't team sports.
It's marketing and I really think the horrible tv coverage has something to with it.
Here's is one situation. It's long so if you want to move on, I understand:
Last year, a local "star", now away at college, qualified for the USATF Championships in a mid-d event. He had the World Qualifying Time.
Local social media lit up with people like me explaining the process and when to watch on NBC.
Our little community was excited and many people tuned in.
1. NBC didn't introduce the whole field- they obsessed over two runners.
2. The first half of the race he was mixing it up with the leaders, they never mentioned his name. Still obsessing over the two runners.
3. Cut to commercial (of course) come back, he's out of the picture.
4. The race ends, the camera goes to the winner walking, jogging whatever as everyone else crosses the line.
5. They show the results but only show the top 8.
He basically didn't exist to NBC.
There were a lot of angry people who will never bother watching track again who MAY have become casual friends if NBC had actually called the race.
Maybe we need to get a common definition of what a niche sport is but I think track qualifies. You're right about the high participation rate in US high schools and what I've found when I've gone to "big" meets is that it's very hard to find spectators who do not have some personal connection to the sport, e.g. ran cross country and/or track themselves in school, have kids or grandkids or a significant other who does or did run cross country or track, etc. That looks to me like a niche sport. But it's not difficult at all to go to a professional or college football game and find fans who never played at all.
That is entirely a function of more than 100 years of the mainstream culture promoting football first, with 24/7 coverage the last two decades. If track and field had one tenth of the media coverage (TV, newspapers, sports talk shows ..) and kept it up for 20 years, it would easily be a major sport in this country, with everyone knowing who the top athletes are.
I believe there is an American cultural bias against track and field because so many people in the sports world (media executives, talk show hosts, etc.) know they could never keep up with the fastest people in track, so they gravitate to the other sports where they can develop other skills to make up for their lack of speed. Fast people can play any sport, but only the fastest can continue on in track and field. So the attention and money goes to football, even though track and field has better athletes who are just as deserving of attention.
People often throw the team idea out there but Tennis and Golf aren't team sports.
It's marketing and I really think the horrible tv coverage has something to with it.
Here's is one situation. It's long so if you want to move on, I understand:
Last year, a local "star", now away at college, qualified for the USATF Championships in a mid-d event. He had the World Qualifying Time.
Local social media lit up with people like me explaining the process and when to watch on NBC.
Our little community was excited and many people tuned in.
1. NBC didn't introduce the whole field- they obsessed over two runners.
2. The first half of the race he was mixing it up with the leaders, they never mentioned his name. Still obsessing over the two runners.
3. Cut to commercial (of course) come back, he's out of the picture.
4. The race ends, the camera goes to the winner walking, jogging whatever as everyone else crosses the line.
5. They show the results but only show the top 8.
He basically didn't exist to NBC.
There were a lot of angry people who will never bother watching track again who MAY have become casual friends if NBC had actually called the race.
Yes, I believe marketing is the problem. ESPN has disappeared track and field from their online sports lineup, you have to go deep into the selections to even find mention of it and it only shows up if there is a live meet going on. They don't advertise track and field. During the track meets, they run ads for football and basketball, I never see ads for track meets at any time, except 30 minutes before the meet starts.
And yes, most coverage is terrible. The scenario you described is multiplied by every race NBC has broadcast over the past 40 years. They lose viewers every time they broadcast a meet. The announcer seems annoyed that they have to be there, so they only announce the winner and the camera misses the most exciting part of the race, great athletes killing themselves to get a better place. There are hundreds of amazing stories within every single race, but they ignore them all. Maybe there is a big upset for fifth place, or they beat someone for the first time, or run a PB, or there is an up and coming runner, or a veteran who is trying to make a comeback. Nobody could become a fan by watching the broadcasts they put out, you have to already be a fan and have the live results on your phone for it to be worthwhile. I just realize now that I have my phone out during every race I watch on TV because I know the broadcast won't give me the whole story.
With the marketing, they are really missing out. Football is the number one combat sport in our country’s culture, but track and field is the number one non-confrontational sport.
For football, they play up the essence of the sport: the battles in the trenches, the big hits, the amazing plays made by great athletes.
For track and field, they miss the essence of the sport: the hard training it takes to even get to the starting line, the ability to perform at the highest level possible, the incredible effort it takes to move ahead of the competition. They should be playing up the health and performance aspects of track and field, because it is very different from combat sports.
A few weeks ago my wife and I tuned into the Mountain West meet. Normally I would have just watched by myself, but since one of my wife had a connection to one of the athletes she watched with me. Her complaints, which I think could be made for almost any meet.
1. She had a hard time identifying the athletes on the backstretch. She’d have the same problem in a pro race with everyone wearing one of the cookie cutter pro uniforms. Track uniforms should be distinct. You should at a glance be able to identify the team or runner across the field without relying on the bib or hip number.
2. Too long between races. Why did we need 30 minutes between the women’s and men’s steeplechase? Why did we need to wait 15 minutes between heats of the 200m? Breaks between events should be limited to 10 minutes between events (exception for the hurdles) and 5 minutes between heats.
3. The lack of commentary. Why was I excited about 6th and 7th place in the women’s steeplechase? Because those ladies made a big move in the penultimate water-jump to secure 4th-7th for their team. Announcers need to hype up everything on the track. When the first finishes the camera needs to stay on the action. We don’t need to see the winner walking around, lying down or whatever.
4. Lack of personality. She felt like the interviewers asked benign questions and got benign responses. When New Mexico missed the conference record be 0.02 seconds in the 4x4 she felt like team acted like they had won a workout. Encourage celebrations. Encourage personality. They don’t need to be jerks about it or go over the top like WWE, but give us something. Do you know why people remember Pre and he has a cult following ? It wasn’t just because he was a great runner: he had personality. He gave you something to cheer for or against.
Track fans need to accept that it's a niche sport and act "better then" about it.
Kind of like soccer fans twenty years ago.
Who cares if the masses like it?
The walmart crowd is never going to like track or running, be happy about that!!!!
It's a small elite sport for the best athletes in the world
It is about fairness. You said they are the best athletes in the world, they absolutely deserve recognition as such.
They are the best athletes in your city, they should be on the front page of the local sports section. They are the best athletes in your state, they should be on the TV news and their meets should be shown on the local sports station. They are the best athletes in the country, they should be on SportsCenter and all the other national sports media. They are the best athletes in the world, but nobody in this country knows how to cover them.
This post was edited 13 minutes after it was posted.
I think we've been looking at this the wrong way for a long time at least as far as distance running is concerned.
I did a race last year (NYC Marathon) where there were something like 50,000 people actually participating.
Play to your strength. Distance running is one of the largest if not the largest participation sports in the country. There are huge opportunities there.
I wonder what % of participants in NYC marathon could name the top pros in the field?
I couldn't name any of the Boston Celtics when the playoffs started, and honestly I'd be hard pressed to name one now, that said, I did watch a couple of their playoff games as a casual basketball fan.
NYC Marathon had 10's of thousands of participants and 10's of thousands of spectators. And the top Pro's got PAID, so I'm just not sure what the problem is other than we need more of that.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
Maybe we need to get a common definition of what a niche sport is but I think track qualifies. You're right about the high participation rate in US high schools and what I've found when I've gone to "big" meets is that it's very hard to find spectators who do not have some personal connection to the sport, e.g. ran cross country and/or track themselves in school, have kids or grandkids or a significant other who does or did run cross country or track, etc. That looks to me like a niche sport. But it's not difficult at all to go to a professional or college football game and find fans who never played at all.
That is entirely a function of more than 100 years of the mainstream culture promoting football first, with 24/7 coverage the last two decades. If track and field had one tenth of the media coverage (TV, newspapers, sports talk shows ..) and kept it up for 20 years, it would easily be a major sport in this country, with everyone knowing who the top athletes are.
I believe there is an American cultural bias against track and field because so many people in the sports world (media executives, talk show hosts, etc.) know they could never keep up with the fastest people in track, so they gravitate to the other sports where they can develop other skills to make up for their lack of speed. Fast people can play any sport, but only the fastest can continue on in track and field. So the attention and money goes to football, even though track and field has better athletes who are just as deserving of attention.
Media coverage follows interest. Of course media coverage also generates interest so you can have a momentum thing at work. But when I took up the sport in 1967 track was getting a LOT more media coverage than it does now and in the following twenty years it went from being a peripheral mainstream sport to what to me looks like a classic niche sport. Media executives, talk show hosts, etc. certainly know they can't keep up with the fastest people in track but that has nothing to do with the sports that get coverage. How many NFL players can they keep up with? How many MLB pitchers can they throw as well as?