rec.autos.simulators

by **Art McEwe** » Wed, 24 Oct 2001 00:12:20

If newspaper reports are to be believed (see:
http://c***te.bcentral.com/c***te/stories/2001/10/15/story6.html) it's
the end of speedvision as we know it.

It's perfectly understandable from a marketing/advertising format, there's
more money to be made showing cars with "Tide" on them for 50 million
viewers then there is showing Formula Fords with "this space for rent" on
the side for 5-10? million viewers.

Instead of moaning about it, let's convince FOX that it's worth creating
"Speedvision2" for all the road racing, rallying, motorcycle, powerboat,
etc.. fans out there..

by **Kirk Hous** » Wed, 24 Oct 2001 01:40:31

"We don't think it can be just NASCAR 24 hours a day out of the gate,"
Brooks says. "It will have some other racing elements. That's probably the
right mix to get us started."

Sounds like they're just throwing in open wheel so all of us don't freak out
then they'll slowly phase it out. Hopefully somebody picks up the slack

by **Scott B. Huste** » Wed, 24 Oct 2001 01:38:21

Well, considering Speedvision was PROFITABLE, it would indicate there is a
market for that kind of channel with limited to no NASCAR racing.

So even though a new channel would not get NASCAR items, it could still be
profitable. Any angel investors who are interested can email me directly ;)

Scott
PA-Scott

> "We don't think it can be just NASCAR 24 hours a day out of the gate,"
> Brooks says. "It will have some other racing elements. That's probably the
> right mix to get us started."

> Sounds like they're just throwing in open wheel so all of us don't freak
out
> then they'll slowly phase it out. Hopefully somebody picks up the slack

> > If newspaper reports are to be believed (see:
> > http://c***te.bcentral.com/c***te/stories/2001/10/15/story6.html)
> it's
> > the end of speedvision as we know it.

by **btgos** » Wed, 24 Oct 2001 04:25:08

Again, "profitable" here is the key word. Speedvision was profitable because
it showcased material that was, with the exception of the F1 telecast,
almost given to them, they didn't pay much for programming. If all you show
are programs that you are getting for a bargain, then it is easy to become
profitable. Think back to when ESPN was first starting. We all saw alot more
of those whacky sports...like Irish Football and Hurling. That is what
Speedvision has been showing, cheap sports.

btgoss

by **Scott B. Huste** » Wed, 24 Oct 2001 05:01:20

Perhaps, but I happen to find 'cheap sports' like World Rally, SCCA
Run-offs, SCCA Trans-Am, various touring and GT races, and the various
vintage racing shows quite entertaining and enjoyable.

Hell, as far as I'm concerned they can save some more money and drop F1 as
well too. Not a huge market for Americans as we won't get up to watch the
race considering most of us use F1 races to help us GET to sleep! ;)

Scott
PA-Scott

> Again, "profitable" here is the key word. Speedvision was profitable
because
> it showcased material that was, with the exception of the F1 telecast,
> almost given to them, they didn't pay much for programming. If all you
show
> are programs that you are getting for a bargain, then it is easy to become
> profitable. Think back to when ESPN was first starting. We all saw alot
more
> of those whacky sports...like Irish Football and Hurling. That is what
> Speedvision has been showing, cheap sports.

> btgoss

> > Well, considering Speedvision was PROFITABLE, it would indicate there is
a
> > market for that kind of channel with limited to no NASCAR racing.

> > So even though a new channel would not get NASCAR items, it could still
be
> > profitable. Any angel investors who are interested can email me
directly
> ;)

> > Scott
> > PA-Scott

rec.autos.simulators

Speedvision to become NASCAR channel

Speedvision to become NASCAR channel

Speedvision to become NASCAR channel

Speedvision to become NASCAR channel

Speedvision to become NASCAR channel

Speedvision to become NASCAR channel