Interesting Discussions Regarding the MRA Race Series

[Blue Junk]

... is there any buisness that is charging less out there?

Yes, lots. In fact even more than that... Sorry, maybe you weren't serious.

[sheispoison]

I agree with Bart. There's no reason that endurance on it's own should be that cheap. I like the idea of raising the cost a bit for endurance only and maybe lowering it a bit if you couple it with sprints. I'm sure there's a happy medium somewhere in that.
carl

[T Baggins]

I don't claim to be a business man but I would think it is better to lower the price and draw more people. Is it better to charge $200 and have 5 entries or charge $150 and have 10 entries?

In a market where you have an infinite number of potential customers, then yes I think that works. We don't have that luxury, we have a very small, captive clientele.

If we cut the fees by half (for example) then we'd need twice as many racers to sign up just to break even. That will never work when already 75% of the active membership is showing up on average. Even if we cut it by 25% as in your scenario - our best possible return is only slightly more than the discount - and only if it entices EVERYONE to attend ALL races.

We have something like 185 "regular" licensed racers (meaning they race our series primarily, and aren't once a year out of towners...) and our average turnout is about 130+/- riders.

The likelihood of a fee reduction resulting in all the other riders showing up at all the races is small. Not everyone is fully committed to a full season, regardless of cost.

Really what we need is more racers, and more MRA members doing EVERYTHING they can to attract people to our series as spectators, SuperStreet, and ultimately new Racers.

In the meantime, the guys who are hard core are gonna have to step it up if they want to see the MRA continue to succeed.

[graphite675]

Really what we need is more racers, and more MRA members doing EVERYTHING they can to attract people to our series as spectators, SuperStreet, and ultimately new Racers.
.

I guess this is all a catch22?

I will say that most people I see on the street and ask, "hey why not come out and try a race" The general response is "it's too expensive" so is raising entry is only going to put them further away from trying?

I'm just throwing ideas and thoughts out there, I really don't know what the right answer is but I keep thinking raising cost is only going to hurt our numbers?



.

[jmaher]

Initial start up costs (the bike especially) held me up. I think many beginners question if they want to put 4k into something they may turn into scrap or simply not enjoy the sport. I could be wrong, but if $1.5k - 2k bikes were easy to be found, perhaps that might get a few more people out there?
Regarding an earlier comment about endurance being good practice, that may be but for me it is a race that I try as hard at as sprints.

Joe

[random hero]

Random thought.... What about combining the endurance class, and lengthening the race, accompanied by a entry fee increase? I'm not knocking our endurance races... but is 30 min really an endurance race?

I for one am a BIG fan of endurance, from a personal standpoint I'd love to see a shift towards a team or solo style, 60-90 min races. Get some competitive grudges going, smack talking... the fun stuff I think it would be sucessfull, who knows. From having a "team" standpoint it would be fun... for the guy who just show up to pay the $60 and do 1 race... maybe that would hurt them. But you might see some of the endurance only guys team up and have even more fun.... just a random thought.

[N1K]

That would be cool and then with the 4 hr. There would probly be more guys run for points this way and you wouldnt have to wonder if your gonna get that ten min. break or not between the two.

If this was not to change how bout you don't get the cheap pricing with out signing up for a sprint . So you would get a 3 pratice session,7 lap sprint and a 30 min endro for less then what it would cost you to run two sprints and now since you've paid the way in to sprints you might as well run another one.

[peteyt328]

I like that idea Luke. I'm sure this was already brought up, but I think the way they did endurance out in Utah was ideal. 1.5 hour race you could do team or solo, $50 charge for the extended track time only paid once per team or individually if you fly solo, then each racer just paid for it as if it were another sprint race. This does 2 things; keeps people from riding 2 days of morning practice and 30 min of race time for half the cost everyone else is paying for a 7 lap sprint race, and makes it affordable for people who are already signed up for 3 or 4 sprint races to add endurance. I have had interest in running endurance in our club but to pay $70 to add that when I could add another sprint race for $20 just isn't worth it. With this structure I could find two team mates, pay $35 total and get 30 minutes of track time. The question is, would this drive some of the people away that only run endurance because its cheap? I think most people that enjoy endurance would continue to run it, plus it would encourage some of these people to register for additional sprint races since they wouldn't be paying $120 to add a single race, but half that. I also think the option to do it as a team makes it more fun and would encourage some people to sign up that normally wouldn't.

This is just my $.02. I know we run things the way we do now for a reason and I'm sure the board members have considered these things before. I also know that some people will probably think this is a terrible idea, but I'm just trying to throw some ideas out. From a riders standpoint this format just seems to make more sense and nobody is getting "free" track time. It seems to me that the change in fees and the increase in entries for people who usually just do sprints would more than make up for any lost entries due to prices.

I would also hope that this may bring in enough extra money to keep the prices on sprint races where they are because we can't continue to raise the prices $10-20 a year. I know it doesn't seem like a lot but when we are paying as much as we do every race weekend, every little bit counts. Everyone keeps wondering why we are losing racers, then we proceed to jack the price up higher to compensate. What if we tried lowering the price as an incentive to bring out all those riders who are sitting on the sidelines ready to race but can't quite convince themselves that $250 is worth two hours of track time for the weekend. I know its a big risk to take as a club, but as an example, if we lowered costs $10 and that got one person to come out and register for 4 races, that would cover the drop in costs for almost 25 racers. If that got 5 people to come out we'd be making a profit. I know its different in Utah since Miller subsidizes the clubs racing, but for the last race they cut the practice fees in half since they were having issues with attendance, and they ended up with a really high turnout and I don't know anyone that didn't ride on Saturday. Was it enough to make up for the drop in costs? I dunno. Just another idea...

[peteyt328]

Wow, that was really long.. sorry!

[Munch]

Lots of good ideas floating, hopefully some stick in the end.

Any thoughts about a bring a friend discount? Make it something like they cannot have raced with the MRA in the last 2-3 years, and they can race for something inexpensive. This might draw some people back in that have the bike and gear, but have been out of it for a bit.

A second idea might be a refer a friend discount. While everyone should of course be promoting the club, but maybe a $50 discount off your license fees or something for every NEW member you get to sign up?

[T Baggins]

What about this as a possible solution:

First Race $100 (a race is a race is a race, doesn't matter if sprint or endurance)

Second Race $90 (only a very few people do both endurance "only" - most also do sprints so this would have very limited impact on the "both" endurance guys)

Third Race $40

Fourth and beyond $20

so $190 for two, same as now

$230 for three, $20 more than now

$250 for four, $10 more than now

That addresses the "it's to expensive" as now our first race is the same cost as superstreet which anyone can afford. And, it conceivably could bring in some guys who aren't racing at all now to do just one race a day...

It also addresses the disparity in cost for Endurance as they now pay more than previously, and the sprint guys pay less now than previously - for the first race.

Understand this could backfire in a big way, but I'm willing to consider something like this if it has support.

The average entry per rider is just under $180 for the year, which means many are doing just two sprints, and many are doing just endurance. If we bring up the cost of endurance, and everyone else keeps doing the same - that in and of itself will increase the average. Then if we have sprint guys add endurance cause it's only another $40 ... then that gets them more track time, and the club more money.

***Caution - riding the bikes is the expensive part of all of this... the more track time you have, the higher the cost to keep the bike running. Fuel, tires, maintenance are going to far outweigh the nominal extra cost in entry. So if you have a fixed budget, you're still gonna run out of money at some point - and quite possibly sooner if you add classes. Just sayin...

[peteyt328]

I agree, tires are and will continue to be my biggest expense every weekend. The more I ride, the more rubber I will need!

But you have my vote for that pricing structure, I think that makes more sense and will provide the club a higher net income per weekend.

Also, something I've been preaching for 2 seasons now and will continue doing so; I think we need to move Amateur GTO earlier in the day and it's not just because I race in that class. When I started riding almost every Novice would race both Nov races and both Am races and that is no longer the case. The Am races could potentially be our largest grid with all novices plus a handful of experts. I have talked to 15-20 racers as to why they aren't running Am O and its unanimous, the time is terrible. Now I realize nobody wants to stick around until the last race on Sunday, but the club is taking a much bigger hit having that class at the end of the day than if it were one of the smaller classes. If one of the Am races were before lunch Sunday, and one shortly after I guarantee we would see a big increase in entries for this class. I don't know how to push this any further since its not a rule change but if there's a way let me know.

[jeff healy]

I like the looks of it!

[rybo]

I agree with Tony -

The "too expensive" part of racing isn't just the entry fees.

I went to Miller this past weekend, and aside from being able to stay with friends for the weekend (cheapest) the cheapest part of that trip was the entry fees. I don't think that they alone are the barrier to participation.

Yes, some busineses are lowering their prices, but at what cost? Are they truly cutting into their profit margin, or are they substantially lowering the quality of their product to do so?

If the MRA could cut your entry fees $20 a weekend by hiring one ambulance instead of two, would that be acceptable? Do you think that it would ACTUALLY bring more people out to the track?

What if we cut the number of corner workers in half?

What I'm getting at here is that a small reduction of entry fees is possible, but only at a substaintial cost to the quality of the program.

I agree fully with Tony that reducing the entry fees is unlikely to generate a large increase in the number of racers, the market is already very very small - is $20 less the difference between 100 and 150 racers showing up? I'm pretty sure not.

Interested in really cheap racing? Get a ninja 250. Interested in cheap racing on a 600cc bike? Buy 99 R6, be eligible for a ton of classes and run take offs. Do the math and you're quickly going to discover that either of these two moves will save you more money than a reduction in entry fees ever could.

[gsnyder828]

What about this as a possible solution:

First Race $100 (a race is a race is a race, doesn't matter if sprint or endurance)

Second Race $90 (only a very few people do both endurance "only" - most also do sprints so this would have very limited impact on the "both" endurance guys)

Third Race $40

Fourth and beyond $20

so $190 for two, same as now

$230 for three, $20 more than now

$250 for four, $10 more than now

That addresses the "it's to expensive" as now our first race is the same cost as superstreet which anyone can afford. And, it conceivably could bring in some guys who aren't racing at all now to do just one race a day...

It also addresses the disparity in cost for Endurance as they now pay more than previously, and the sprint guys pay less now than previously - for the first race.

Understand this could backfire in a big way, but I'm willing to consider something like this if it has support.

The average entry per rider is just under $180 for the year, which means many are doing just two sprints, and many are doing just endurance. If we bring up the cost of endurance, and everyone else keeps doing the same - that in and of itself will increase the average. Then if we have sprint guys add endurance cause it's only another $40 ... then that gets them more track time, and the club more money.

***Caution - riding the bikes is the expensive part of all of this... the more track time you have, the higher the cost to keep the bike running. Fuel, tires, maintenance are going to far outweigh the nominal extra cost in entry. So if you have a fixed budget, you're still gonna run out of money at some point - and quite possibly sooner if you add classes. Just sayin...

Tony - I like the direction, but wonder if this is too much of a change/gamble at this time.

What would be nice is to see a sensitivity analysis of this and other options (like mine from a few pages ago, your original suggestion and some others) that looks at revenue impacts based on assumptions of net increases/reductions of endurance/sprint racers. Different suggestions may have the same net revenue outcome if participation doesn't change, but may vary wildly if participation does. Understanding the risk reward will certainly enhance the decision process.

Don't know if Dirk is looking at this - but I'd be happy to put that analysis together if he's not.

g

[monument mike]

What about this as a possible solution:

First Race $100 (a race is a race is a race, doesn't matter if sprint or endurance)

Second Race $90 (only a very few people do both endurance "only" - most also do sprints so this would have very limited impact on the "both" endurance guys)

Third Race $40

Fourth and beyond $20

so $190 for two, same as now

$230 for three, $20 more than now

$250 for four, $10 more than now

That addresses the "it's to expensive" as now our first race is the same cost as superstreet which anyone can afford. And, it conceivably could bring in some guys who aren't racing at all now to do just one race a day...

=D>

Interested in really cheap racing? Get a ninja 250. Interested in cheap racing on a 600cc bike? Buy 99 R6, be eligible for a ton of classes and run take offs. Do the math and you're quickly going to discover that either of these two moves will save you more money than a reduction in entry fees ever could.

=D> \/

[dirkterrell]

Don't know if Dirk is looking at this - but I'd be happy to put that analysis together if he's not.

g

I am watching.I coach football and when the season is over in a few weeks, I'll be able to really dig into the participation analysis.

[graphite675]

I agree fully with Tony that reducing the entry fees is unlikely to generate a large increase in the number of racers, the market is already very very small - is $20 less the difference between 100 and 150 racers showing up? I'm pretty sure not.

.

I agree that lowering entry fee a little will not bring in Large numbers of riders but I am pretty sure raising the fees will definitely Lower the number of riders. $20 doesn't sound like a lot but every little bit helps. That may be the difference in someone adding a extra class or not?

I like what Tony proposed with the $100/$90/$40 etc. flat fee. It's the same we were paying last year but at least it's not a increase.


.

[JimWilson29]

What about this as a possible solution:

First Race $100 (a race is a race is a race, doesn't matter if sprint or endurance)

Second Race $90 (only a very few people do both endurance "only" - most also do sprints so this would have very limited impact on the "both" endurance guys)

Third Race $40

Fourth and beyond $20

so $190 for two, same as now

$230 for three, $20 more than now

$250 for four, $10 more than now

That addresses the "it's to expensive" as now our first race is the same cost as superstreet which anyone can afford. And, it conceivably could bring in some guys who aren't racing at all now to do just one race a day...

It also addresses the disparity in cost for Endurance as they now pay more than previously, and the sprint guys pay less now than previously - for the first race.

Understand this could backfire in a big way, but I'm willing to consider something like this if it has support.

The average entry per rider is just under $180 for the year, which means many are doing just two sprints, and many are doing just endurance. If we bring up the cost of endurance, and everyone else keeps doing the same - that in and of itself will increase the average. Then if we have sprint guys add endurance cause it's only another $40 ... then that gets them more track time, and the club more money.

***Caution - riding the bikes is the expensive part of all of this... the more track time you have, the higher the cost to keep the bike running. Fuel, tires, maintenance are going to far outweigh the nominal extra cost in entry. So if you have a fixed budget, you're still gonna run out of money at some point - and quite possibly sooner if you add classes. Just sayin...

Tony - I like the direction, but wonder if this is too much of a change/gamble at this time.

What would be nice is to see a sensitivity analysis of this and other options (like mine from a few pages ago, your original suggestion and some others) that looks at revenue impacts based on assumptions of net increases/reductions of endurance/sprint racers. Different suggestions may have the same net revenue outcome if participation doesn't change, but may vary wildly if participation does. Understanding the risk reward will certainly enhance the decision process.

Don't know if Dirk is looking at this - but I'd be happy to put that analysis together if he's not.

g

An analysis will give us some results to look at with the current pricing structure but would be unable to show us if those that only enter the endurance races would continue to do so with this proposed pricing change. It might actually take polling the membership or those that only run endurance.

[peteyt328]

I agree that there are cheaper ways to race but not competitively. I'm 6'2" - 200 lbs, I'd be dragging knee(s) on the straight on a 250! I could race a 10 year old bike on crappy tires and maybe do well in modern vintage but get whooped in everything else. I know bike isn't everything but at some point you start sacrificing lap times running crappy equipment, and then I might as well be doing track days. This is why we see so many novices complete their first season then fade away the following year. As you get faster everything becomes more expensive and contingency money is harder to come by. Not saying there is a solution to this but if I can't do well in my races than I will start riding a full day for $150.

[gsnyder828]

An analysis will give us some results to look at with the current pricing structure but would be unable to show us if those that only enter the endurance races would continue to do so with this proposed pricing change. It might actually take polling the membership or those that only run endurance.

Agree 100% - it would not show us *likelihood* of participation variation, as you describe above, but that's not the point of the analysis.

If done correctly, the analysis would allow each suggested pricing structure to be put next to each other and compared based on relative participation rate increases and decreases among rider groups.

The point of the analysis is to look at relative risk of each option. As you suggest - polling might help predict expected behavior (i.e. pricing elasticity), and that would certainly help in making an informed decision.

For example:
2 theoretical pricing structures (A & B) could be developed that drive the same revenue with current participation levels. But one of those, option A, may result in significantly less revenue than option B as participation decreases, while not producing significantly more revenue than B as participation increases. In that case - option A is much riskier than option B.

That's a simplified example... but hopefully that clarifies the intent of what I'm suggesting.

[T Baggins]

And now we're at the crux of the biscuit as Frank Zappa said...

This will show us what it does to revenue if current participation continues but does not predict well the change in revenue if participation changes too.

That's why the price for two sprints is unchanged, as it is the safety net. Endurance is our "upside potential" in this pricing scenario...

My non-official data says most people who do sprints do two, and most people who do endurance (only) do one.

So this is a non-increase for the two sprint guys, and a modest increase for the endurance guys. It promotes cross-participation into the sprints for the endurance guys, and vice versa for the sprint guys. If they can add endurance for $40 maybe they will??

What it doesn't tell us is:

how many will quit endurance at $100 (or will quit doing one of the two endurance - though the new entry fee for one is more than the prior entry for two... so it's still a cash-positive if people drop one)

My gut says 4 people will quit altogether, and two will drop one of the two.

how many will START racing (totally new guys) sprints if they're "only" paying $100 to do just one

My gut says zero people, as they can already do superstreet at this price.

how many sprint guys will add endurance, either as an additional race, or as a good value practice

My gut says 9 people.

how many endurance guys will add sprints now since the hurdle isn't as high to cross-over

My gut says 4 people.

how many sprint racers will drop down to just one race now since it's cheaper than before

My gut says zero, unless they go to endurance as a last-resort value race... and at least they'll be spending $100 now instead of $60, and they'll still have a venue to race in at a lower cost instead of quitting altogether.

[KFinn]

wow, your gut is amazing. Mine only tells me when I am hungry and when I shouldn't have eaten something that I did.

[rybo]

how many will START racing (totally new guys) sprints if they're "only" paying $100 to do just one

My gut says zero people, as they can already do superstreet at this price.

How many superstreet riders will be more willing to make the jump to racing if the cost for one race is the same as superstreet? What if it means that they get additional track time due to practice?

I'm starting to like this idea more and more --

[gsnyder828]

And now we're at the crux of the biscuit as Frank Zappa said...

This will show us what it does to revenue if current participation continues but does not predict well the change in revenue if participation changes too.

<snip lot's of tony's gut>

Tony - no, a sensitivity analysis will predict the change in revenue caused by variances in participation - up and down - for any given pricing structure. That's the point of the analysis...

I must not be explaining it well... but like I said, I'm willing to put it together if needed.