MotoAmerica TV Schedule

[#1Spies Fan]

I know that MotoAmerica is racing this weekend with MotoGP but I cant seem to find it on TV. Are they showing it on random days like AMA did in the past after the event. If anyone knows what time it is airing that would be great.

 

[Map8]

Races are shown tape delayed. Haven't found any information about showing full races or how the TV package works. CBS Sports cable network has a one hour show scheduled for 3:30pm on Sunday, May 19th. http://www.cbssportsnetwork.com/schedule/cbssn You will have to click on 19th to see listing. Gonna be tough or impossible to avoid spoilers.

The MA press release about TV also states:

Extensive digital coverage of the MotoAmerica Series, including event highlights, features and other content will also be featured on www.Torque.TV.

No details on what the "extensive digital coverage" means.

 

[stangmx13]

MA said previously that races would shown at least one week later, on weekend afternoons.

 

[Moose]

Sad to say, but economics still do not support live broadcasts of motorcycle roadracing in the USA. Maybe MotoAmerica will get better shrift on this after it's freshman year but I kind of doubt it. Even MotoGP doesn't get that much attention from prime time TV over here. There just isn't an economic scale available here in the US to support full on TV production costs for this sport along with a live TV timeframe. NASCAR has it because there are 10's of millions of viewers for it and that's what is needed to support well paid advertising and well paid advertising is what justifies the costs of full on TV production along with live airtime.

Until there is a way to justify $30k a weekend (at the bare-ass minimum) for TV truck costs along with the channel space needed, you will not be getting full production value live TV on this sport here. The only other way you will get live viewing is to find a way to bring TV production and streaming costs down to under $10k per race weekend. This is possible but only by lowering technical production standards a good bit. A full blown TV sports truck and the crew needed to operate it is not a cheap commodity nor is the airtime needed for live viewing during a prime weekend time spot. Internet streaming will work for airtime given a "pay-per-view" modus but the technical production costs are still to be surmounted.

My guess is that "extensive digital coverage" will not mean exactly what we hope it will mean, but we will just have to wait and see. Even if we get a decent level of coverage this year it ain't gonna be live and the real question is "will it last"?

 

[peterhively]

http://www.roadracingworld.com/news...e-announced-for-first-two-motoamerica-rounds/

 

[berth]

Sad to say, but economics still do not support live broadcasts of motorcycle roadracing in the USA. Maybe MotoAmerica will get better shrift on this after it's freshman year but I kind of doubt it.

Motorcycle racing simply isn't appropriate for live broadcast, at least not on American TV. Overseas, they may be more flexible with their scheduling. But certainly not here.

There's just no way to guarantee that the race and the time slot will actually meet up. A single red flag can ruin the broadcast. In fact, it can throw off the entire event. AMA being both a pro-am event along with the lack of run off on our tracks, Red Flags are common.

You rarely see a Red Flag in GP, with their acres of run off, most bikes simply slide off in to the abyss, away from the racing. American tracks aren't built that way.

Remember pace cars at the 200? That worked SO well. Pace cars and full course yellows is what keeps a NASCAR/Indy race on time. There have been more than one NASCAR race that was effectively under yellow almost the entire race, and it finished on time. It was a crummy race, but, hey, it fit the time slot.

I have no problem watching a delayed race. Same day broadcast is optimal. Record the races in the afternoon, broadcast them at 7/8/9pm. Plenty of time for editing out the mishaps.

Live broadcast on the web is fine, there's no scheduling conflicts. I thought the Daytona coverage this year was spectacular, and that was a LOOOONG race. TV would have absolutely killed it.

It's hard enough to get bike racing on TV at all, I guarantee you they won't pre-empt anything to finish a race.

I'm reminded years ago listening to the Long Beach Gran Prix on the radio, driving up from San Diego. The race had, like, 5 laps to go when they cut the feed to get in to their scheduled Hockey PRE-GAME show.

Hockey. Pre-game. And they couldn't hold it 10m for the race to finish.

So, taped delay is the way to go, IMHO. It provides the most consistent coverage in a TV friendly format. You can make an actual show of it, with interviewing riders pre-race (OFF the grid in fact), interviews post-race, they can slip in a "story behind the rider" with the racing in the corner where they KNOW nothing "interesting" is going to happen, etc. And barring some tragic event, most folks can stay away from the Interwebs for a few hours to avoid spoilers.

 

[twistybits]

Motorcycle racing simply isn't appropriate for live broadcast, at least not on American TV. Overseas, they may be more flexible with their scheduling. But certainly not here.

There's just no way to guarantee that the race and the time slot will actually meet up. A single red flag can ruin the broadcast. In fact, it can throw off the entire event. AMA being both a pro-am event along with the lack of run off on our tracks, Red Flags are common.

So, taped delay is the way to go, IMHO. It provides the most consistent coverage in a TV friendly format. You can make an actual show of it, with interviewing riders pre-race (OFF the grid in fact), interviews post-race, they can slip in a "story behind the rider" with the racing in the corner where they KNOW nothing "interesting" is going to happen, etc. And barring some tragic event, most folks can stay away from the Interwebs for a few hours to avoid spoilers.

There is a way to go, the way I watch all MotoGP - live streaming. The cable industry is still big enough to have the inertia to go on for quite some time, but their destiny is written on the wall.

 

[stangmx13]

other events that have a chance of running long manage to finish up. its just a matter of popularity, or lack there of. Supercross could red flag every race and run 1hr long and FOX Sports would still show the whole thing. but unlike Supercross (probably), MA pays to get on TV. so CBS doesnt have any skin in the game when it comes to fitting in the entire race. it all comes down to popularity and the chance of making $$. when/if MA becomes popular enough to charge TV stations to show their content, we wont have any of these issues.

but all that really doesnt matter in the short term. i expect that we'll have live streaming before we get live TV, and thatll suit me just fine even if i have to pay for it.

 

[Moose]

but all that really doesnt matter in the short term. i expect that we'll have live streaming before we get live TV, and thatll suit me just fine even if i have to pay for it.

That is exactly my bet once the powers that be at MA wake up and smell the coffee. It's really the only way to go with their product in this (the US) market IMHO. Once you make the decision to stream all that's left is to decide the level of technical coverage (camera angles, level of production value). Many ways to technically tackle this and many of them are a lot cheaper than full TV sports production level with all the entailed crew and gear costs. Once you decide to stream you have suddenly changed the game as far as what the audience can be provided. No big problem to provide long run broadcast periods that include all the practices and qualifying sessions too.

 

[stangmx13]

That is exactly my bet once the powers that be at MA wake up and smell the coffee. It's really the only way to go with their product in this (the US) market IMHO. Once you make the decision to stream all that's left is to decide the level of technical coverage (camera angles, level of production value). Many ways to technically tackle this and many of them are a lot cheaper than full TV sports production level with all the entailed crew and gear costs. Once you decide to stream you have suddenly changed the game as far as what the audience can be provided. No big problem to provide long run broadcast periods that include all the practices and qualifying sessions too.

how so? wouldnt u want to produce the exact same quality of content for live streaming as u would for live TV? graphics, camera angles, announcers, a director running the show, etc. how is it cheaper online?

 

[Moose]

how so? wouldnt u want to produce the exact same quality of content for live streaming as u would for live TV? graphics, camera angles, announcers, a director running the show, etc. how is it cheaper online?

A full sports grade production TV truck with full crew to field a dozen cameras plus some amenities is a $30-50k proposition for 3-4 days onsite. This is without extensive additional production capability, just a bare bones camera line cut with roving color commentator and some small amount of graphics production amenities. Step it up to Nascar or MotoGP grade production coverage and you are talking $80-100k of cost to do full production for a race weekend at a minimum.

Now if you were to utilize 7-8 robotic camera systems along with a stripped down production system and just provide decent on-track coverage of circulating racers along with a single roving camera for color footage and interview work, keep the production value simple and just ship out what is needed to follow the action then you can put this figure under $15k, maybe even a lot less if you are smart about it technically. Crew is a huge cost, it takes a small army to do this, a single camera operator alone can cost $2k to support for an entire event, even more if you have to room and board them along with transport. A good camera director and engineering grade techs cost even more to hire.

Not selling to a real TV audience, scale the package down and provide just what is needed to follow the action reasonably and maybe the economics will work. Try to fly too high production-wise and the economics will not work over the long haul, true TV production is really expensive, there are alternative ways to skin this cat once you analyze your product and market properly.

 

[Moose]

Lets pursue the numbers a tad further, say you do a pay-per-view live stream with full sports level production coverage using 10 camera truck at a hard cost of $35k including all crew support requirements. Now add $5-8k for the streaming backbone service to deliver the content (streaming multi-cast points are not cheap). Add another $3k to get the bandwidth at the track needed to have a 5-7k upload speed connection installed for the event. Now your hard costs are at about $45-50k.

Figure this market is good for 4000 viewers at best and say you charge them each $10 for a full coverage login pass. That's not quite break-even. Only get 2500 viewers who pay, you ain't gonna do it for very long like that. You need a guaranteed viewer subscription base of 5k or more at $10 a pop every race, all season long to make the economics work. But that's just over break-even, why bother for the long haul if there is no real profit in all that work. Get a sponsor you say, fine, easier said than done. Not so simple a nut to crack unless you lower your sights a little and understand the market to enable you to provide a cost effective solution that works long term.

BTW, I work in the TV production industry

 

[berth]

His point is that the production of the video need not be related to the medium through which is it distributed.

It's fine to argue that a "TV Production" would have a higher budget because the actual return is higher. But there's no reason that a "web" production can't be televised, nor a "TV" production can't be web cast.

I would have had no problem watching the Daytona Web Cast on TV. I thought that was a really excellent production.

What it lacked mostly was a crew down in the pits during the race. They had a camera, but not an announcer. I was completely happy with the track call being broadcast, since those guys seemed to actually be watching the race vs a committed announcing team shoved in a box somewhere staring at monitors.

They also lacked the coordination between the announcers and the cameras, there didn't seem to be much coordination via a director/producer. But even still it was an excellent broadcast.

Finally, they didn't have the real time telemetry, nor any bike cams. I didn't miss any of it. The racing alone was good enough to be caught up in it without the gee gaws. I'm happy with little more than rider position and lap times, frankly. Perhaps I'm not a sophisticated consumer.

 

[Dmitriy]

I really don't understand why they want to pay for a tape delayed CBS slot (a week later) over a tape delayed (hours if need be) youtube upload.

Heck Youtube will even let them do 4k now, So grab a few prosumer grade 4k cameras record to flash memory, bring everything to an editing booth - cut together a quick race and upload to youtube in 4K/slow-motion/etc... you are bound to get more viewers then a CBS slot a week later. There is NO POINT of doing a live cut if you are producing for a tape delay - the equipment cost alone like Geoff mentioned is too prohibitive.

 

[Moose]

His point is that the production of the video need not be related to the medium through which is it distributed.

It's fine to argue that a "TV Production" would have a higher budget because the actual return is higher. But there's no reason that a "web" production can't be televised, nor a "TV" production can't be web cast.

I would have had no problem watching the Daytona Web Cast on TV. I thought that was a really excellent production.

What it lacked mostly was a crew down in the pits during the race. They had a camera, but not an announcer. I was completely happy with the track call being broadcast, since those guys seemed to actually be watching the race vs a committed announcing team shoved in a box somewhere staring at monitors.

They also lacked the coordination between the announcers and the cameras, there didn't seem to be much coordination via a director/producer. But even still it was an excellent broadcast.

Finally, they didn't have the real time telemetry, nor any bike cams. I didn't miss any of it. The racing alone was good enough to be caught up in it without the gee gaws. I'm happy with little more than rider position and lap times, frankly. Perhaps I'm not a sophisticated consumer.

This is what I am getting at, lower the production requirements (or viewer expectations if you will) and you now have an affordable product. Insist on high level production quality and you don't. Heck, a set of properly positioned still cameras arranged in a multi-cam split view showing all the bikes going around all areas of the track at a glance and you have a very simple product to deliver when you add any form of decent live announce audio that is calling the visible action.

 

[Moose]

I really don't understand why they want to pay for a tape delayed CBS slot (a week later) over a tape delayed (hours if need be) youtube upload.

Heck Youtube will even let them do 4k now, So grab a few prosumer grade 4k cameras record to flash memory, bring everything to an editing booth - cut together a quick race and upload to youtube in 4K/slow-motion/etc... you are bound to get more viewers then a CBS slot a week later. There is NO POINT of doing a live cut if you are producing for a tape delay - the equipment cost alone like Geoff mentioned is too prohibitive.

Ayup, technical requirements for live demand that all the cameras tether to a home point for instantaneous signal delivery to the production truck, this costs a whole lot of moolah. Shoot standalone camera/recorder EFP mode at all the important track points, edit later and you have a much cheaper product. But the CBS marquee here is what seems to have the MA folks intoxicated. You don't have to use traditional production modus if you analyze your market and delivery medium and scale the production to what you are trying to accomplish

 

[thedub]

Ayup, technical requirements for live demand that all the cameras tether to a home point for instantaneous signal delivery to the production truck, this costs a whole lot of moolah. Shoot standalone camera/recorder EFP mode at all the important track points, edit later and you have a much cheaper product. But the CBS marquee here is what seems to have the MA folks intoxicated. You don't have to use traditional production modus if you analyze your market and delivery medium and scale the production to what you are trying to accomplish

Can you just go down there and stream it from your iPhone please?

 

[stangmx13]

This is what I am getting at, lower the production requirements (or viewer expectations if you will) and you now have an affordable product. Insist on high level production quality and you don't. Heck, a set of properly positioned still cameras arranged in a multi-cam split view showing all the bikes going around all areas of the track at a glance and you have a very simple product to deliver when you add any form of decent live announce audio that is calling the visible action.

now i get what u are saying.

this is arguably why FansChoice was somewhat successful last year. everyone expected POS coverage and was fine when it was slightly better than that :laughing

unfortunately for MA, im expecting Dorna quality coverage on CBS. it might happen this round if they paid Dorna to use their cameras (AMA Pro did prev at Laguna). but we prob shouldnt expect that level of expertise for the next couple of rounds. Dorna has released videos showing how much effort that put in to recording the race year after year. MA wont have any of that at other tracks. i guess we'll find out pretty fast though.

 

[Moose]

Can you just go down there and stream it from your iPhone please?

LOL, maybe not such a bad idea in some form or another

Seriously though, something in that range but a tad better could easily be done to provide a level of live coverage IF the powers that be wanted to do so. But somehow I think they think no one wants anything less than full production value and this is where the wheels are falling off the wagon on getting anything done to provide a live product of any sort

 

[Map8]

I hear you on the production value, though I was happy enough with FansChoice for free.

I think the issue with TV is not CBS or MotoAmerica but the old media mindset of the moto industry. The U.S. OEM distributors and big aftermarket companies are convinced nothing can replace TV for exposure. Teams large and small all stated that sponsors want a TV package. The moto industry want commercials before, during and after the race and they must not feel they could get the same ROI from live streaming or archived watch-at-your-convenience YouTube videos.

I don't agree but I don't get to make the decisions. Maybe when I'm King of All Motorsports. :laughing