What else does Joyce Julius evaluate?

[Turn13]

In another thread, JoeBob mentions details about Joyce Julius reports that weren't found on a recent IRL press release.

I am wondering - what other events or series does Joyce Julius evaluate? If they do CC, what kind of comparative value is indicated there?

[cruise control]

Here. Just mosey around. It will answer all your questions.

http://www.joycejulius.com/

[Brantoc]

http://www.joycejulius.com/PressReleases/pr_feb_24_2005.htm

one race = much of the IRL total exposure??

[indycool]

bkeske seems to be able to find the ALMS and CC Julius numbers each year......maybe he's seen 'em.

[downtowndeco]

http://www.joycejulius.com/PressRele...eb_24_2005.htm

one race = much of the IRL total exposure??

The 500 is not a bad thing to have in your corner, eh?

[Ken]

The 500 is not a bad thing to have in your corner, eh?

DD......is it true that 5th place runner-up and former winner Buddy Rice recieved zero exposure during the race?

[Chitownfan]

DD......is it true that 5th place runner-up and former winner Buddy Rice recieved zero exposure during the race?

Is it true that the 2003 series Champion of CC can't get a sponsor-even from Canada?

[Ken]

Is it true that the 2003 series Champion of CC can't get a sponsor-even from Canada?

yes

[downtowndeco]

DD......is it true that 5th place runner-up and former winner Buddy Rice received zero exposure during the race?

I honestly don't know. If that was the case it would be an anomaly (sp?) Do you think he'd trade in his Indy 500 win (which I'm he sure he got an OK return on) for a win & the exposure it would bring for a win in Denver? San Jose? Cleveland? Houston? Montreal? Mexico City?

My point is if he got stiffed on exposure in this years 500 that would be a bit of an out of the ordinary situation. When you add the numbers of the 500 & the rest of the IRL season vs any other OW series in the US (ie;CC) it's not even close. And if there was not enough return for sponsors to stay in the IRL, well, then man, CC is so far behind that it isn't even funny....

[Ken]

but do you really think a potential sponsor won't read the whole report and go...'zero,,,,Hmmmmm'.......?

can you evaluate the IRL on it's own merits, or is the only way to make it look good is compare it to that 'other' series?

[Ken]

dd...the above post was in response to Ctown...but I suppose the same questions apply.....

also you ask about trading for denver etc........I'm not sure, have you seen the CC #'s?

anomoly?.....so a mid season spike in ratings is a 'trend' but a zero exposure is an 'anomoly'........well, if you say so

[indycool]

Ken, I think ZERO exposure for a fifth-place finisher IS an anomaly, but he was not in contention for the win and there was a compelling storyline at the head of the pack during the "500." Rice, also a former winner, was never in contention. I think ZERO is odd, but minimal coverage doesn't surprise me on either.

We can certainly evaluate the Indianapolis 500 on its own merits at a 6.5. We can evaluate it in '04 when its 4-plus rating was the highest of any open-wheel race and can add it was almost DOUBLE the ratings for the whole CC season.

The '05 CC Nielsen numbers that I know offhand:

--Toronto and Montreal headed the season with 1.0s.
--Cleveland headed the U.S. races at .9. (Both of these were in a release posted at Mark C.'s site that was unattributed).
--Surfers was a 0.1, 0 share, 92,000 households
--Mexico City was a 0.1, 0 share, 77,000 households for the pre-race show and .1, 0 share, 67,000 households for the race itself, a real oddity.

Sure, a potential sponsor is going to look at the report....but I doubt he's going to look at the fifth-place finisher in the "500" and say, "gee, I don't want to sponsor THAT guy." A POTENTIAL sponsor is going to look at POTENTIAL exposure. If the fifth-place finisher had crashed instead, there would've been exposure. That's "rub of the green" (and why airlines don't sponsor race cars, because they don't want to see a picture in the paper or video of a crashed vehicle with "US Air" on the side of it).

[Ken]

Ken, I think ZERO exposure for a fifth-place finisher IS an anomaly, but he was not in contention for the win and there was a compelling storyline at the head of the pack during the "500." Rice, also a former winner, was never in contention. I think ZERO is odd, but minimal coverage doesn't surprise me on either.

We can certainly evaluate the Indianapolis 500 on its own merits at a 6.5. We can evaluate it in '04 when its 4-plus rating was the highest of any open-wheel race and can add it was almost DOUBLE the ratings for the whole CC season.

The '05 CC Nielsen numbers that I know offhand:

--Toronto and Montreal headed the season with 1.0s.
--Cleveland headed the U.S. races at .9. (Both of these were in a release posted at Mark C.'s site that was unattributed).
--Surfers was a 0.1, 0 share, 92,000 households
--Mexico City was a 0.1, 0 share, 77,000 households for the pre-race show and .1, 0 share, 67,000 households for the race itself, a real oddity.

Sure, a potential sponsor is going to look at the report....but I doubt he's going to look at the fifth-place finisher in the "500" and say, "gee, I don't want to sponsor THAT guy." A POTENTIAL sponsor is going to look at POTENTIAL exposure. If the fifth-place finisher had crashed instead, there would've been exposure. That's "rub of the green" (and why airlines don't sponsor race cars, because they don't want to see a picture in the paper or video of a crashed vehicle with "US Air" on the side of it).

the trend for ten years has been a decline in ratings....therefore the midseason spike must also be at this point an 'Anomoly'....many here have claimed it as a trend...it's not

and when looking a sponsorship.....I agree a sponsor must look at potential, and the potential for zero exposure is real....that's also the 'rub'

did Argent thru Danica see a huge #?..absolutely.....but outside of an wire to wire win will it be as great in 06'?.....time will tell, but if late season ratings and attendance are a indication, the novelty has worn off.....than again there looks to be less cars on the grid to divide time amongst....

06' will be interesting for sure.......

and again, have you actually seen the CC #'s?...

[Turn13]

I'd sure be interested to see them.

[Rommey]

Ken, I think ZERO exposure for a fifth-place finisher IS an anomaly, but he was not in contention for the win and there was a compelling storyline at the head of the pack during the "500." Rice, also a former winner, was never in contention. I think ZERO is odd, but minimal coverage doesn't surprise me on either.

How many other non-contenders got zero exposure? How many other non-contenders got more than zero exposure? So 5th is not in contention, but 4th is "almost winning"?

As for zero exposure for Rice...baloney, if for no other reason than the association with his teammate (you know the one getting all the attention?). Zero exposure for the defending champ? Well that says a lot of what prestige being a former winner has, doesn't it?

We can certainly evaluate the Indianapolis 500 on its own merits at a 6.5. We can evaluate it in '04 when its 4-plus rating was the highest of any open-wheel race and can add it was almost DOUBLE the ratings for the whole CC season.

OK, for a second let's just keep it to the IRL. If we want to compare the I500 on its own merits, then it should stand up againts itself and previous races. How about looking at the I500 ratings for the past ten years. Let me know if the 6.5 was following the trend over that period or was it different?
(Starting in 96: 6.6, 6.6, 5.5, 5.0, 4.4, 5.2, 4.8, 4.2, 4.1, 6.5)
That is a general downward trend, except for a slight upturn in 2001. 6.5 in 2005 is an anomoly, not a continuation of the trend. Now if the 2006 race generates a 6+ rating, then the 6.5 could be seen as the start of an upward trend. The 6.5 is about 10 times better than the remainder of the IRL season average (.6875 average), which had four races at or above 1.0 besides the I500. Why don’t you concentrate on the series that has the I500, instead of comparing it to CCWS? I don’t think anyone is saying that the I500 isn’t a big race, both in attendance and relative ratings. But I think its a little disingenuous to keep use the stats from the I500 as the barometer for the entire IRL. Its such an anomoly in that no other event is conducted the same way (pole day, 33 starters, etc). As for the 6.5 rating for I500, how does that stand up to Nascar? Without looking, I’d be willing to say that a few run-of-the-mill Nascar races got 6+ ratings, and I believe most (if not all) were in the 4.0 area.