Viable for those with sponsors, maybe.
I have to think that entry fees at a commercially owned purpose-built
facility are going to be higher than what we're currently paying. Unless
that pavement is being used for something else all week, the owner is going
to have to charge quite a bit to recover the cost of all that tarmac and
the insurance costs that will come with "racing." Do we really think TV
stations are going to have the kind of money rolling in from advertisers
that they are going to cover the cost of these sites? It sounds like
production costs are already prohibitive. It's not much of a spectator
sport live, so ticket sales aren't going to do it. It seems like it would
have to be entry fees. And how many of these facilities can we support,
nationally? Enough for everybody? After all, everybody is going to have to
deal with lot owners who have been exposed to Madison Avenue's hype of
Solo2.
If there were a way to differentiate ProSolo2 as the televised sport, so
that those of us who autocross at the local level can remain
uncontaminated by the publicity, I'd say fine. It won't scare away our site
owners and we can play inexpensively on the weekends for bragging rights.
(or in my case, for seat time.) Maybe those of us who autocross outside
SCCA could go back to calling it gymkhana.
Of course, I could be wrong, and it might be like golf, purpose built
facilities that aren't prohibitively expensive for Joe Public to use (but
expensive to build) with well-sponsored, televised events of a something
that wouldn't seem to be a spectator sport. But I can think of a lot of
reasons golf courses might be different, starting with the fact that you
can play when there isn't an event scheduled, and you don't need a dozen
guys to chase your ball for you.
Phil Vanner
I'm not a Luddite, really, but just because it looks like progress, doesn't
necessarily mean it is.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gemery@aol.com [SMTP:Gemery@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 1999 3:32 PM
To: autox@autox.team.net
Cc: pvannner@pclink.com
Subject: RE: Why not? / Autox on TV
Phil Vanner wrote:
>Watching solo2 on TV ain't worth it, if it means it going to be
>harder for me to *do* it. A few guys might get to play in front
>of the cameras to the detriment of us all.
I would think that TV exposure/sponsorship would make it
easier to obtain sites for the simple reason that dedicated
autox facilities would become economically viable.
George Emery
gemery@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/gemery/scorpion.html
|