John Freeman is no a happy chap

There will be lots of spin on the numbers to justify the campaigns instituted to say that it worked, was successful , etc...it is very difficult to gauge whether turnover was due to course attendance unless that can be sifted out / separated from online betting...then one can say that on course turnover increased and it was due to increased course attendance which was a result of the campaigns instituted...

Maybe the mystery Aussie punter made a return...bet a few Aus dollars and with the Rand as weak as it is, it boosted pools significantly...nothing at all to do with on course attendance !!

TNaicker wrote: There will be lots of spin on the numbers to justify the campaigns instituted to say that it worked, was successful , etc...it is very difficult to gauge whether turnover was due to course attendance unless that can be sifted out / separated from online betting...then one can say that on course turnover increased and it was due to increased course attendance which was a result of the campaigns instituted...

According to the release ONCOURSE TOTE turnover hit a record high and that is the only way to measure success at the event(there is no mention of total tote turnover which would include branches and online). If there are 100 000 people there and none have a bet what's the point. If on-course tote turnover went to a record level then whatever was done must be a success based purely on the increased turnover. The only way that that could be wrong is if major amounts of free betting vouchers were given away?

TNaicker wrote: There will be lots of spin on the numbers to justify the campaigns instituted to say that it worked, was successful , etc...it is very difficult to gauge whether turnover was due to course attendance unless that can be sifted out / separated from online betting...then one can say that on course turnover increased and it was due to increased course attendance which was a result of the campaigns instituted...

Maybe the mystery Aussie punter made a return...bet a few Aus dollars and with the Rand as weak as it is, it boosted pools significantly...nothing at all to do with on course attendance !!

I am sure you are right ,but even if we give the benefit of the doubt to on-course increases ,lets look at it:
Lets assume that the normal Kenilworth meeting has 3000 racegoers(very generous I would guess) .
Let us assume because its Met day an extra 1500 attendees who are "punter" types.
That would suggest a minimum 50% increase of on course turnover (excluding the fact that a lot of punters up the spend in the excitement of big meetings and there was also 50% more races(and an extra Jpot, than a normal day)
So,unless the on-course turnover was more than double,I suggest the "partygoers"(25.000 of them) never spent a cent ,punting!...................perhaps why they never disclose the figures.

Apologies @mr h...didn't read earlier posts about on course tote turnover being up to record high...my oversight...that can only be due to additional attendance / more people having a bet or same / fewer people having larger bets...if due to increased feet at course then campaign can claim success as, I assume, intention is to get more people to attend the courses...

rob faux wrote:

TNaicker wrote: There will be lots of spin on the numbers to justify the campaigns instituted to say that it worked, was successful , etc...it is very difficult to gauge whether turnover was due to course attendance unless that can be sifted out / separated from online betting...then one can say that on course turnover increased and it was due to increased course attendance which was a result of the campaigns instituted...

Maybe the mystery Aussie punter made a return...bet a few Aus dollars and with the Rand as weak as it is, it boosted pools significantly...nothing at all to do with on course attendance !!

I am sure you are right ,but even if we give the benefit of the doubt to on-course increases ,lets look at it:
Lets assume that the normal Kenilworth meeting has 3000 racegoers(very generous I would guess) .
Let us assume because its Met day an extra 1500 attendees who are "punter" types.
That would suggest a minimum 50% increase of on course turnover (excluding the fact that a lot of punters up the spend in the excitement of big meetings and there was also 50% more races(and an extra Jpot, than a normal day)
So,unless the on-course turnover was more than double,I suggest the "partygoers never spent a cent ,punting!...................perhaps why they never disclose the figures.

Rob the figures are based on last year's Met Day not on any other Racing Day , at least that's how we worked in here on Vaal and Turffontein races. So like for like and the same demographic that attended last year resulted in a record amount bet at the course. I would say that with the history of the Met if a regular punter in the Cape wanted to attend he would as the publicity has been there for years. So the increased turnover is "New or Day-tripper Money"

TNaicker wrote: Apologies @mr h...didn't read earlier posts about on course tote turnover being up to record high...my oversight...that can only be due to additional attendance / more people having a bet or same / fewer people having larger bets...if due to increased feet at course then campaign can claim success as, I assume, intention is to get more people to attend the courses...

I don't think having more people at the course is the ultimate aim - increased turnover is all that really matters - that can come in the form of co-mingling or increased turnover at the course and totes.

mr hawaii wrote:

rob faux wrote:

TNaicker wrote: There will be lots of spin on the numbers to justify the campaigns instituted to say that it worked, was successful , etc...it is very difficult to gauge whether turnover was due to course attendance unless that can be sifted out / separated from online betting...then one can say that on course turnover increased and it was due to increased course attendance which was a result of the campaigns instituted...

Maybe the mystery Aussie punter made a return...bet a few Aus dollars and with the Rand as weak as it is, it boosted pools significantly...nothing at all to do with on course attendance !!

I am sure you are right ,but even if we give the benefit of the doubt to on-course increases ,lets look at it:
Lets assume that the normal Kenilworth meeting has 3000 racegoers(very generous I would guess) .
Let us assume because its Met day an extra 1500 attendees who are "punter" types.
That would suggest a minimum 50% increase of on course turnover (excluding the fact that a lot of punters up the spend in the excitement of big meetings and there was also 50% more races(and an extra Jpot, than a normal day)
So,unless the on-course turnover was more than double,I suggest the "partygoers never spent a cent ,punting!...................perhaps why they never disclose the figures.

Rob the figures are based on last year's Met Day not on any other Racing Day , at least that's how we worked in here on Vaal and Turffontein races. So like for like and the same demographic that attended last year resulted in a record amount bet at the course. I would say that with the history of the Met if a regular punter in the Cape wanted to attend he would as the publicity has been there for years. So the increased turnover is "New or Day-tripper Money"

I understand ,but lets do that comparison anyway ...................the point is that how many "big days" do you need to make a difference and ,as I have said many times ....what difference does it make to the industry ,ongoing!

.................anyway this argument of whether parties increase racegoers /punters on a permanent basis,is all worn out ..........................financials say it doesn't!

I was laughing from the time they started pissing money down the tubes advertising the "Bands" and not the MET itself on TV.....

Nobody listens and all you get is a pile of excrement as an answer that turnover was up.... R1 is up.

Whoever is controlling the marketing spend is accountable and in my business they would have been sent packing ages ago.

If you want to increase attendance & turnover then get the people who drive the industry the forgotten PUNTER to the course on the day. Stop wasting money on bands and TV ads and give punters betting vouchers, subsidised decent venues, subsidised food & drink and watch them bet and introduce new people to the game.

If you want to hold a music festival then do so but I forgot, you are taking punters money and hosting music festivals when punters are trying to punt..... makes sense

I understand where you guys are coming from but in my opinion you are missing the point made here. Horses and load music dont mix....full stop. Horses are highly strung and load music can cause serious injuries to the animal and jockey. Welwitscha did a flick flack in the saddling enclosure some years back because of the band being right next to the enclosure. On these big days when our best horses are on show we have these friggin bands blearing away. A tragedy waiting to happen.

I'm a long time racing fan and race goer but for the life of me i would struggle to attend a 12 race card and I love racing .

The operators realise that the new race fans need to be entertained with something other than racing and food .

Having these mammoth cards in one day is probably the wrong way going forward if we want the new racing fans..

Two day festivals would work imo, have a Ladies day with fashion shows etc on the Friday ( music after racing ) and maybe one major race.

The load the Saturday with quality racing

2 days with 20 000 is better than one day with 30 000 ?

Racing is a dying pastime or we would not be having this discussion. The Derby, Million Dollar and Majorca were basically a purists race-day with racing being the primary attraction - and the net effect for a free race-day was POOR public attendance except in the sponsors tents. Now a meeting that you paid to attend is up on last year not because of the Racing(Derby and Majorca dropped from event) but because of the side shows. As a purist this hurts but as a realist I can see that without the party Racing is doomed as there is ZERO interest in punting horses among the under 30's. Who is to blame for that is another story.

I was at the Met on saturday and also found the loud music annoying, but i think for the success of the day this is important. I must just be managed properly.
There was enough time between races to have your music and fashion shows etc. but once the horses are saddled up and going to the start the music must stop.
But reading the official reply this will probably happen next year this way or another.