Chief Stipe Posted September 8, 2021 Share Posted September 8, 2021 25 minutes ago, the galah said: The reality of exporting harness races to say australia is our product,is i believe tarnished by the less attractive,less integrity perceived australian harness product. Wouldn't a key metric(s) be: The number of races exported that were televised overseas. The number of races commingled. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the galah Posted September 8, 2021 Share Posted September 8, 2021 22 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: Where is the quantitative evidence to support that? Is the impact greater or less than having a field smaller than 8 horses? Regardless what can HRNZ do change the favourite metric? SFA. Well thats why they changed the handicapping system. So yes they can do a lot about it. Stupid thing was how they let things slide so much before they took any action.And field size the same thing. It was the ridiculous penalty free wins which allowed 8 win horses like border control start in 1 win races that saw fields with nominations close to 30 ending up with fields of 6 or 7.It was the previous Handicapping system which favored the elite at the expense of the average which helped drive overall participation down. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the galah Posted September 8, 2021 Share Posted September 8, 2021 22 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said: But what impact does 60 seconds have? Should the metric be less than 3 minutes? What is the difference in revenue for a race that runs 1 min 10 seconds late as opposed to running on time? There was a 6% "improvement" in this metric but only a 2% improvement in export revenue. The fact is export revenue is dictated by broadcasting decisions that appear to be made outside the direct input of HRNZ. Woodham as a past employee of TAB NZ will be across that though won't he? Well you can't watch the trackside coverage in australia.tI may not happen as much now but many times they would take an australian race running late and transfer it onto their 2nd,less watched racing channel. So i can't see them not doing the same to nz races. Have you not thought running races on time would be viewed as of importance to those overseas as being relevant as to how much product they would take? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 35 minutes ago, the galah said: Well you can't watch the trackside coverage in australia.tI may not happen as much now but many times they would take an australian race running late and transfer it onto their 2nd,less watched racing channel. So i can't see them not doing the same to nz races. Isn't that the metric that should be measured? 35 minutes ago, the galah said: Have you not thought running races on time would be viewed as of importance to those overseas as being relevant as to how much product they would take? Yes but 60 seconds is meaningless particularly if you don't measure the direct impact. You are only focussed as well on the Export market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Stipe Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 45 minutes ago, the galah said: Well thats why they changed the handicapping system. So yes they can do a lot about it. Where's the quantitative evidence that having a less than $2 favourite has a significant impact on wagering revenue? What has more impact a $2 favourite or a 7 horse field? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.