C4 ratings catastrophe for The Derby

I'm with Harry and dan. It's irrevisible. It's an old mans sport I the main and the drop off of figures is probably those that have croaked. Having said that they are probably still watching decomposing in their bedsit somewhere

But field sizes and presenters and "quality" (the derby is quality isn't it? ) are nit be issue. Younger punters domt want to know on a day to day basis but still gravitate to the day out aspect. I just think that those that really follow the sport (especially flat) have dropped off a cliff in last two decades

Bbc should have stuck with it but they are obsessed with the farce that is f1. The public still believes that real sporting events are on bbc or sky. They assume that the backwater that is c4 says it all about the game

Racing uk could have promoted the sport to a new audience by being free to air. 40000 subs is hardly with the effort is it? Their coverage and quality should have picked up a new channel hopping audience .
 
simmo said:
Field size is everything for punters already interested in the sport and for bookmakers. They are not the ones that are causing low viewing figures for the Derby.
Click to expand...

Exactly

30 runner 5f sprints will do nothing for figures . And they are boring
 
clivex said:
I'm with Harry and dan. It's irrevisible. It's an old mans sport I the main and the drop off of figures is probably those that have croaked. Having said that they are probably still watching decomposing in their bedsit somewhere

But field sizes and presenters and "quality" (the derby is quality isn't it? ) are nit be issue. Younger punters domt want to know on a day to day basis but still gravitate to the day out aspect. I just think that those that really follow the sport (especially flat) have dropped off a cliff in last two decades

Bbc should have stuck with it but they are obsessed with the farce that is f1. The public still believes that real sporting events are on bbc or sky. They assume that the backwater that is c4 says it all about the game

Racing uk could have promoted the sport to a new audience by being free to air. 40000 subs is hardly with the effort is it? Their coverage and quality should have picked up a new channel hopping audience .
Click to expand...

Agree with Grey and most of this bar the BBC/F1 point, remember they lost the rights for most of the races a few years back.

Getting rid of the all-weather and other similar moon man ideas would bankrupt the sport.
 
Yes. Aw is nothing to do with it at all. In fact it's kept racing in the box on occasions

But they only lost the derby recently . I hate f1 I will admit
 
Take away the glitz and glamour of big race meetings like the Derby and Ascot, and racing is a minority sport followed by those in the minority.

The do-gooders who wanted rid of Big Mac, and those who pretend the sport isn't ultimately about gambling, and the lure of gambling, are all part of the problem.

A minority sport followed by a minority of people. I couldn't care less if it was scrapped from Channel 4, I'd still watch it when I could as would anyone with an interest. Maybe that is common sense.
 
Last edited:
Racing has been my obsession since the age of 10 but I would have to agree that it is an old mans game as far as betting goes.
Regarding ch4 -Claire Balding has a tremendous sense of her own importance-Tanya -the most inarticulate presenter I have ever seen.Jim McGrath is excellent and Francome is badly missed.
 
The horse racing levy wouldn't have helped; since whenever it was applied, bookmakers have done their damndest to focus betting attention away from our sport. When I first punted it was horses, dogs or nothing at all.
 
Francome and Down should have been first on the list of the producers.Cunningham is an absolute c@@@ of a man.McGrath is so condescending I could put my foot through the screen.Tanya looks as if she's had a nervous break down,or two.Balding is good but has far too many commitments elsewhere.C4 look after what you got (real racing fans)...a bird in the hand and all that.
 
Lots of good points being made.

In terms of the day's coverage on TV, it was good that they were broadcasting from only one meeting, due deference to the occasion, I thought, and the ratings have nothing to do with the show. I wonder what the viewing figures might have been like if it were still run on a Wednesday. Probably about half of what they got on the day.

It was also a lovely day in many parts of the country so people were out and about.

My brother - in some ways more avid than me in that he goes to the bookie's every day to read the Racng Post - was on the phone to tell me he was out and about on the day and dropped in to our sister's just in time to see the race. She goes mental on Grand National day. Totally gripped by the event. But she didn't even know the Derby was on (not that she'd have made a point of watching it).

But my brother asked her if they could watch the race so they tuned in and my sister picked Australia because she liked the colours. She was reportedly just as mental during the race as she would be for the National.

I don't think C4 realise what promoting the race extensively in advance could do for the viewing figures.

Eastenders is the biggest load of cack on TV yet it's still watched by millions because the BBC promote it ad nauseam (to me at least). They were also great at promoting the National meeting (as were C4 last year).

Maybe C4 don't care too much about the figures but I'll bet Investec does.

I thought Tanya was actually in good form on Saturday. The chap Gleeson is a bit annoying but I'm not sure how best to relate market activity. There has to be a way of being knowledgeable and insightful without a gimmick. Tanya tries to do that but often has to play alongside buffoons. I think they should hire the Williams girl (the bookie) for these days.

Down is a must, Francome a luxury but worth bringing in on the big occasion.

I'm warming to Cunningham. I think his sectional expertise is seriously underplayed.
 
If it's down to the presenters then the unavoidable conclusion is that viewers prefer Carson and Parrott to Luck and Tanya because Persad and Balding are common factors.
I'd go along with it being a racing problem rather than C4 but events screened on BBC tv have massive plugs on their radio network. This year, the 7 o'clock sports news on 5 Live didn't even mention the race.
 
i think the lack of interest in the sport just reflects the changes in society. Many young people in particular have no interest in sport except football.

i also believe that Eastenders is an interesting measure of what people expect from TV...in fact soaps do reflect our society at that moment in time with their content and characters. The characters on it used to represent a fair reflection of society...over the last few years its took a downturn..most of the characters on it represent the sort of level i usually avoid on a bus..or anywhere....is that now reflecting what our society has turned into??. But even though i personally now find it repellent to watch we have millions of people who want to be entertained by it...a sad reflection on society as a whole imo...but i am old and maybe out of touch.

I don't see your average eastenders viewer being remotely interested in the Derby or trying to find the winner of a 5f sprint at Beverley. In fact i don't see any hobbies or interests being that appealing if a show that like that represents what a lot of people do in their spare time.

I don't think the choice of presenters makes a jot of difference and is actually pretty irrelevant if a large section of society is never going to be interested in the sport. I also don't think it matters who is presenting the show even amongst people who are interested in racing..as this thread proves. Not long ago we had people delirious that Mac & co were outed and such as Cunningham was brought in..he was a very popular choice as i remember..now look at the opinions of him just on this thread.

Whoever you have on there will be liked or disliked equally..or people will start liking someone then after seeing them for a month or two change their minds. I would like to see Matt Chapman on there for a start..but if that was announced i would think many would not want it. He'd liven t up a bit though.

If people really do believe its down to presenters..then its no use getting in boring people..like many on here asked for not long ago. It does need colour whether you personally like that or not...young people in particular like colourful characters...at the moment..there aren't any on there.

I used to not like Richi...but tbh over time i've warmed to him...he is an upbeat person and has blossomed imo..his interview with Richard Hills after the Oaks was special...some will have not liked that..i thought it was good stuff.

I think that homing in on presenters is just scratching the surface. Society is changing..but racing doesn't seem to be able change enough within its framework to target the young imo. Maybe there is just a lack of interest generally in hobbies and interests as a whole.

i've probably talked some crap there..but maybe some points have relevance. I don't know the answer or cause as i'm sure many people don't..but i do think its a big picture situation rather than anything racing is doing particularly wrong
 
Every sport other than football is a minority sport. That said, I believe racing is still the second most-attended sport in the country which, whilst probably a bit misleading, is not nothing.

Like EC I'd be hugely surprised if changing the presenters makes a significant difference. DO and archie have touched on something important though; BBC1 gets a shedload more casual viewers than C4 and the BBC promoted big events like the National, Derby and Royal Ascot in primetime which at least let people know when these events were on. Losing even the limited coverage that the BBC had has removed the sport that much more from the national conciousness.
 
I disagree with EC1's point about youngsters only being interested in sport. Cycling and darts have seen massive increases in TV viewing in the UK over the past 2 years.

Marketing has a lot to do with it.

For instance, here in Ireland, GAA and rugby union are marketed very well, and have increased in popularity since I were a lad.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
Every sport other than football is a minority sport. That said, I believe racing is still the second most-attended sport in the country which, whilst probably a bit misleading, is not nothing.

Like EC I'd be hugely surprised if changing the presenters makes a significant difference. DO and archie have touched on something important though; BBC1 gets a shedload more casual viewers than C4 and the BBC promoted big events like the National, Derby and Royal Ascot in primetime which at least let people know when these events were on. Losing even the limited coverage that the BBC had has removed the sport that much more from the national conciousness.
Click to expand...

yes..the BBC1 slot is very important...very important...its a good job its not Channel 5 thats got it or there would only be 3 people watching
 
Last edited:
Cycling owes a lot of that to Nationalism.

Darts is interesting. It's jazzed up to the gills and has the advantage of always being on at night for it's main events. How about a 7pm off time for the Derby on a Sunday evening televised on the Beeb, viewing figures would go through the roof.
 
Last edited:
I think it is more to do with marketing than nationalism. It is no coincidence that Sky are sponsoring the big British team in cycling.

Marketing makes a difference. Let's see how many of the people below enter a team in the free to enter World Cup competition after this post. Many of them may be lured by the cash prize, the chance to prove themselves top dog on the forum, but maybe it is the power of suggestion.

Maybe it is how simple it is to click on the link below. Or just that you need to select 6 teams, so knowledge of football is not a pre-requisite.

http://www.talkinghorses.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=20036

Gamla Stan
Bonjers
moehat
reet hard
Walsworth
Colin Phillips
edgt
LUKE
links781
Part time punter
Ardross
granger
G-G
Desert Orchid
SlimChance
HawkWing
SteveM
 
simmo said:
A quite bizarre statement.
Click to expand...
Bizarre statement in what sense? From me? A layperson, who exactly?
I'm easy when it comes to racing. If I want to watch a race I know exactly how to do it, subscribe to a racing channel or watch it in a bookmakers. Or go to the track.
We don't live in an idealistic world anymore ...remember,...channel 4 will only be able to sell a dead donkey for so long, and keeping it on the television as some sort of sentimental gesture facilitated for-and-by bookmakers seems bizarre.
I'm a fan of racing, but I don't feel the show works. If I was in charge on channel 4 I'd probably let it go, but I'm not and thus you don't have to get too worked up :)
 
Last edited:
TV racing is not targeted at gambling degenerates, nor is it where horse racing marketing is being aimed. This is why it is failing. Jolly hockey sticks, magnificent noble 4 legged heroes, posh tosh will only attract a very small short term audience. Horse racing needs to fight back against one armed bandits, online gaming, bingo etc. and get the compos back on board.
 
Last edited:
marble said:
Bizarre statement in what sense? From me? A layperson, who exactly?
I'm easy when it comes to racing. If I want to watch a race I know exactly how to do it, subscribe to a racing channel or watch it in a bookmakers. Or go to the track.
We don't live in an idealistic world anymore ...remember,...channel 4 will only be able to sell a dead donkey for so long, and keeping it on the television as some sort of sentimental gesture facilitated for-and-by bookmakers seems bizarre.
I'm a fan of racing, but I don't feel the show works. If I was in charge on channel 4 I'd probably let it go, but I'm not and thus you don't have to get too worked up :)
Click to expand...

Bizarre in that it comes from a horse racing afficionado. I can't think of a single person (other than you) interested in any sport that wouldn't rather that they be able to view their sport of choice without paying extra or leaving the house.
 
:lol: Nice one, AC.

I hope Frankie brings insight as well as enthusiasm. At London 2012, Matt Smith's ongoing analysis of the gymnastics kept me watching them.

We need Frankie to tell us how the race is likely to unfold (it won't always work out that way) in advance, whether they are likely to come down one side of the track rather than the other (might not work out that way) on the basis of his having walked the course with other jockeys that morning (rather than turning up straight from the golf course).

I remember the day I went to Newbury Jinnyj was able to identify which horses were looking fit and well and which weren't. It's no use someone coming on after the race and saying Australia looked much better on Saturday than he did at Newmarket. We need someone with a genuinely expert eye for these things telling us TV viewers.

Simon Holt will occasionally highlight ones that move particularly well or badly.

This obviously takes us back to the old 'eyecatchers' caption on C4, but that was meaningless as they only put the caption up as they were entering the stalls. Simon Holt did it at Haydock a couple of weeks back. As the were almost all in, he said, "I can pass on a strong word for Black Shadow. He's very well regarded..." Thanks, Simon. I take it your money was already on by then? (The horse ran a fine second to a proper job.)

I hate tickertape feeds on screen but I could put up with them if they imparted genuinely useful information from expert observers, eg 'London Lad will improve a lot for this run...Glasgow Kiss looks to have run up a bit light...Dessie's Joy very colty...very very colty...it's twoo...it's twoooooo...'
 
Desert Orchid said:
:lol: Nice one, AC.

I hope Frankie brings insight as well as enthusiasm. At London 2012, Matt Smith's ongoing analysis of the gymnastics kept me watching them.

We need Frankie to tell us how the race is likely to unfold (it won't always work out that way) in advance, whether they are likely to come down one side of the track rather than the other (might not work out that way) on the basis of his having walked the course with other jockeys that morning (rather than turning up straight from the golf course).

I remember the day I went to Newbury Jinnyj was able to identify which horses were looking fit and well and which weren't. It's no use someone coming on after the race and saying Australia looked much better on Saturday than he did at Newmarket. We need someone with a genuinely expert eye for these things telling us TV viewers.

Simon Holt will occasionally highlight ones that move particularly well or badly.

This obviously takes us back to the old 'eyecatchers' caption on C4, but that was meaningless as they only put the caption up as they were entering the stalls. Simon Holt did it at Haydock a couple of weeks back. As the were almost all in, he said, "I can pass on a strong word for Black Shadow. He's very well regarded..." Thanks, Simon. I take it your money was already on by then? (The horse ran a fine second to a proper job.)

I hate tickertape feeds on screen but I could put up with them if they imparted genuinely useful information from expert observers, eg 'London Lad will improve a lot for this run...Glasgow Kiss looks to have run up a bit light...Dessie's Joy very colty...very very colty...it's twoo...it's twoooooo...'
Click to expand...

I know what you are saying DO. One of my favourite mammaries from Cheltenham this year was to lean against the rail with Grey and Edgt when they were parading for the bumper (holy of holies) and having Edgt give his opinion on the conformation of the horses.

He really is quite attractive when he talks horsey. I nearly flipped.
 
Back
Top