Survey Size & Makeup

• 53 responses
• 12 lodged at the track,
• 41 by Email
• 30 from Racers / Owner Racers / Owners
• 7 from Crew members
• 2 from Media
• 2 from Stewards / Office Holders
• 1 from a Sponsor
  • 36 declared ANDRA members,
  • 13 SCO SCS
  • 14 SS/A & S/ST
  • 7 Other classes not all specified
  • 2 AA/MB

• 17 were from non members
• State of Origin
• 7 from Qld
• 10 from NSW
• 5 from Vic
• 3 from SA
• 12 from WA
• 16 State not identified

Comment:  Although not a large survey, the promptness of returns in such a short time coupled with all respondents clearly identifying themselves and writing in extensive additional comments, indicate strong feelings about the issues covered – at least within their group / classes.  There was a conspicuous absence of any Group 1 responses and so there is an obvious bias to the Sportsman classes.

THE TV Coverage

Q3.  Are you satisfied with the TV Cover?

Response options; Not at all – Partly – Its Ok – Fully satisfied

• 16 Not at all satisfied  30% dissatisfied   ]
• 22 Partly satisfied                             ] ]….72% some dissatisfaction
• 11 It’s okay                                       ]..66% some satisfaction
• 2 Fully satisfied   0.04% fully satisfied
• 2 Nil responses

Q19.  How do you rate the coverage of Group 1 & 2 racing?

Response options; Poor – Okay – Good – Very Good

• 5 Poor
• 15 Okay              ]
• 16 Good              ]
• 15 Very Good      ]……..82% Okay to Very Good
• 2 No response

Comment:  Q3 selected responses and Q4 written in responses reveal dissatisfaction in a personal sense (i.e. how it impacts on them), but general satisfaction that it is good for the sport.  The number & extent of the written in comments (50 of them or 94% of respondents), firstly indicate a very strong belief from the personal perspective that concentration at the elite end delivers no benefit to individuals at the Sportsman level and secondly, for the sport overall, may not serve to attract newcomers, is less entertaining due to repeats, wash outs, oil downs etc which don’t show the elite level in a good light.  The link to the levy was emphasised in almost every written in response.

Q20 sought suggestions for improvement and 47 respondents (89%) wrote in ideas.  Q21 sought suggested exclusions / changes and 24 responded to that.  Those responses very much confirmed the Q4 responses.  Q22 sought specifics on classes to exclude or include and 34 responded to that with overwhelming support for excluding nothing and including Sportsman classes with finals at the very least.

Q23.  Is the current time slot good for the sport?

Response options; Yes – No

• 27 Yes
• 24 No
• 2 Nil response

Comment:  Opinion is divided, but it appears not to be an issue with little written in comment to provide direction.

TV Coverage and Racer Sponsorship

Q18.  Do any of your sponsors watch the 1HD program?

Response options

Track survey; Yes or No (interpreted as Some or None)

Email survey; Some – Most – All – None

• 20 Some watch  ]
• 9 Most watch   ]….66% some to all Sponsors view the show
• 6 All watch       ]
• 12 None watch        22% are non viewers
• 6 Nil response

Q14.  Have any of your sponsors commented on the TV coverage to you?

Response options; Yes / No

• 21 Yes
• 27 No
• 5 Nil response

Q16.  Would you gain more from your sponsor if your class was covered?

Response options; Yes / No

• 39 Yes
• 9 No
• 5 Nil response

Q17.  Has your sponsor asked if you are going to be televised at any time?

Response options; Yes / No

• 31 Yes
• 17 No
• 5 Nil response

Q13.  Has the TV coverage helped you with sponsors?

Response options; Yes / No

• 3 Yes
• 48 No
• 2 Nil response

Q25.  Would a season roundup DVD of your class with some general promotional content assist you in approaching / rewarding sponsors?

Response options; Yes / No

• 48 Yes
• 3 No
• 2 Nil response

Comment: This series of questions was included because of the expectations that arose (fairly or otherwise) from the imposition of the TV levy.  The racers clearly expected to reap sponsorship benefit from TV exposure that has not been realised, at least at the Group 3 & 4 level.  Sponsors are less concerned with the content (classes included) but are concerned that the potential for their exposure is not being realised.  It can be interpreted that respondents see this as putting fragile sponsorship arrangements at risk and has the potential to be a divisive issue.

A season summary DVD was strongly supported.  The question was included because initial indication was that it was a minimum expectation – a fall back if nothing was going to air.  The risk of loosing hard won sponsorships, perhaps to the elite level that’s televised or to the tracks was cited verbally by a small number of respondents (but not included in their written comments).

The TV Levy

Q5.  All racers pay a scaled fee to have TV coverage of the Group 1 & 2 classes at events.  Do you feel that the fees for Group 3 & 4 are;

Response options; too low – about right – too high – should not pay

• 1 Too low
• 9 About right
• 25 Too high
• 15 Should not pay ……28%
• 3 Nil response

Q7.  Should Group 3 & 4 pay at all?

Response options; Yes / No

• 25 Yes
• 22 No
• 6 Nil response

Comment: There is belief that Groups 3 & 4 should pay something if they are to be included in the TV coverage but nothing if excluded.  The strength of the 29 (54%) written in comments indicate this is a significant issue amongst racers that needs to be addressed.

ANDRA Relationship

Q8.  Do you feel we need an ANDRA representative for each Class / bracket?

Response options  Yes / No

• 44 Yes
• 4 No
• 3 Indifferent
• 2 Nil response

Q9.  How do you rate communications with ANDRA?

Response options; – Poor – Satisfactory – Good – Very Good

• 34 Poor      64%
• 5 Satisfactory
• 5 Good
• 2 Very Good
• 5 Unaware
• 2 No response

Q24.  Do you feel that you are informed of progress of our sport by ANDRA?

Response options; Yes / No

• 4 Yes
• 45 No
• 4 Nil response

Comment: These responses indicate a need for improvement in communicating with members / interested parties and perhaps a need to restructure.  It may be that members see discussions on new tracks, arrangements with promoters, TV arrangements and a perceived focus on the Group 1 level as distracting attention from respondents.

The Future

Q10.  Five years from now will there be more or less racers in the sport?

Response options; More / Less

• 17 More
• 35 Less
• 1 Nil response

Q12.  Do you think there will be growth in the numbers moving up the classes?

Response options; Yes / No

• 28 Yes
• 22 No
• 3 Nil response

Comment: Opinion was 2 to 1 that there will be less racers overall in 5 years time.  Written in comments relating to these questions make it clear that cost of participating is an issue, particularly in relation to WSID.  (That venue also drew some wider criticism).

Q12 was intended to explore whether there would be an accelerated move to a higher proportion of upper end vehicles (a change in the mix) as a result of the “that’s where the TV exposure is” and or cost pressures.

Q11 sought suggestions for increasing the number of racers and 33 or 62% responded suggesting, lower fees, improved treatment of racers, tracks in all States and communications / consultation.

Q26 sought any additional comment and 32 responded.

NOTE:  A copy of this summary document has been forwarded to the ANDRA CEO and Divisional Directors with all of the written in comments included as dot points (with the order jumbled to prevent alignment) and no information that would allow any individual to be identified.

Thank you for completing the survey.  It is hoped that it will prompt further discussion on the future direction of the sport and lead to positive changes.