Home » Blogs » Troy Harrison's Blog

Thoughts on "Internet Negativity"

Posted by Troy Harrison at 09:42:31 PM

It's become something of an excuse for everything that goes bad in racing.  It's called "Internet negativity," and you see racers, fans, and promoters blaming it - and each other - for low crowd counts, low car counts, disputes between racers, etc.  But is that really what the problem is?  I'm not so sure, and I've been watching Net rumors and other gossip for a long time.  I've even been in the middle of it.

To really understand why the Net (and its posters and message boards) have become such a convenient scapegoat, you have to first understand how information about our sport was communicated.  Auto racing has always been something of a bastard stepchild to news organizations (at least until the recent NASCAR surge).  The papers would (grudgingly) print results and some small stories, but few newspapers would actually send a reporter to the local short track.  There were some exceptions - for instance, Dick Fensler of the Topeka Capital Journal was as good a motorsports writer as there ever was, and he and Jim Meyer did a great job of covering Fairgrounds racing for many years - but for the most part, whatever appeared in the local paper was something that was produced and sent out by the promoter or his designated PR guy.

That wasn't all bad, of course.  Some of these writers (Jim Conaway comes to mind) did a great job coming up with interesting and entertaining stories for the local paper, and there's no doubt that their work helped the track attract fans.  BUT - with the exception of those tracks that had actual newspaper writers assigned to them - whatever news got to the "outside world" was promoter-approved and in many cases, promoter paid for.

That's not to say there wasn't a grapevine and rumor mill - but it was a lot smaller and more confined.  Rumors of who was done dirty by who, etc. was communicated one-on-one, not in a mass fashion.  Even the fans in attendance likely had little knowledge of what actually happened in the pits.

Bottom line - for a lot of years, promoters had it pretty good.  They could put on a six-hour marathon suckfest of a show and it smelled like a rose when it hit the newspaper.  The Internet has changed all of that.  It's impossible to keep secrets nowadays.

After a decade of watching Internet fan rumors and gossip about racing, I've come to this conclusion:

About half of what's written is true and factual as written.

About ten percent is pure crap with no relationship to the facts.

The remainder has some basis in fact, but may be exaggerated to fit personal agendas.

When you look at it, the vast majority of what's posted about our sport has basis in fact.  That's not bad; heck, I'd put that up against any sport.  But here's the rub, and this is why promoters get upset about "negativity:" they can't do things behind closed doors anymore.  Whatever happens on Saturday night, good or bad, is going to hit the Net by Sunday morning.  That's a pretty uncomfortable feeling for some, and some track operators are having trouble dealing with it.  I can think of a few examples, some from "big time" racing and some from local racing.

Several years ago, I did a little bit of writing about the Indy Racing League.  One such article was a bit of an expose' on how a popular team's new driver had bought the seat.  Ridebuying was a hot topic in the IRL at the time, since that was one of the things that the IRL was supposedly going to cure.  And few IRL fans wanted to believe that this popular "example of the IRL" team would sell the ride.  But sell it they did, and I knew it, and had the quotes on record to prove it.

Predictably, I was ripped to shreds on IRL fan forums, called a "rumormonger," etc.  I was reading one such thread when my cell phone rang.  It was one of the owners of the team in question, who asked without preamble, "How in the HELL did you know?"  The answer was simple.  The driver selection didn't make sense any other way, and I called a couple of sources on the inside who confirmed it and even gave me the amounts.  I'd gotten the story right - but because it was supposed to be secret, I was the bad guy.  The messenger was shot.

On a more local basis, I was taken to task by a local promoter who was upset that I had written about low car counts at his track.  Again, the story was correct - the car counts WERE low at his track.  He was upset because he said that my story would deter people from attending.  I got him to admit that what would deter people was, in fact, the low car counts - not my reporting on them.  The bottom line was that he didn't want people to find out about the empty pits until they'd been to his track once and he'd gotten their money.  The fact that they'd not come back because of the ACTUAL low car counts wasn't a problem to this guy.

In neither case did the upset person question the facts of the story - they were just upset because they didn't want it talked about.  Too late.

Already this season we've seen issues such as frame rails, shock absorbers, air cleaners, intake manifolds, black flags, fuel leaks, and safety crews become matters of public discussion.  The issues themselves still would have happened in the past - but promoters would have been able to keep them quiet.  No more.  The most common response from promoters is to demand that the aggrieved party call the promoter and discuss it behind closed doors.  That just doesn't work today.  Promoters are perfectly willing to use the Net to communicate their public relations message; they now need to adapt to the new openness of discussion.

In this spirit, I can think of a few guidelines for promoters in dealing with "Internet negativity" and using Net discussion to their advantage.

No secrets.  Promoters must first understand that secrets aren't going to be kept nowadays, so they might as well adapt and work within this environment.  Message control means more than a boilerplate story and results.  If there's controversy, promoters might as well get their side of it out first.  They look weak and untruthful when they end up responding after a Net stink is raised.  If someone is DQ'd in the tech lanes, for instance, the story issued might as well include the DQ and the specific rule violated.  Most of the time, people consider the first reporter as the correct one.  If, on the other hand, promoters are getting ready to do something that they feel needs to be kept secret - they might stop and ask themselves why they're doing it at all.

Be professional.  Some PR people have chosen to wallow in the gutter with insults, rather than cogent discussion.  They only hurt the image of their track.  Also, the age-old response, "You don't have all the facts" isn't good enough anymore.  Put the facts out there, and let the chips fall where they might.

Make fullest use of what you have.  Did you know that Fortune 500 companies spend millions to create what we have on Racinboys and other racing forums?  I'm talking about "focus groups" - when you get representative customers in a room and have them discuss what they like and dislike about their product.  Viewed the right way, a racing forum is the ultimate focus group - why not use it to its best advantage?  The Net fans are the most passionate and most interested; even their negative comments have value.  These fans (and racers) are usually trying to provoke positive change through their posting, and by posting they feel more involved with their favorite racetrack.  All of this is good, if used correctly.

Use social media.  More and more, people are using social media sites like Facebook and Myspace to help them plan their lives and their activities.  If race tracks aren't represented, they're losing out.  "Friend lists" are a great way to communicate with your most hardcore fans and most likely customers.  It's cheap (free) and easy.  Linked In is a good way to network for sponsors and commercial support.

Understand that 100% message control no longer exists.  The days when the only message communicated to the public were the promoter's message are gone.  That bell cannot be un-rung, so the track operator might as well get involved.  And they can't do so selectively anymore.  The promoter who ducks a pointed question about an unfair disqualification in one thread, while posting a new and improved purse structure in another, isn't a promoter who generates trust among his competitor base.  It's time to recognize and adapt.

The Internet can be a great tool for promoters, and should be a vital part of their marketing and PR programs.  But to use it effectively, blaming "Internet negativity" should be a thing of the past.  The promoter's job is to convert the negatives into positives.

 

To post a comment, please login first:
Username: Password:

Forgot your password? click here
New User Register for FREE Now