The last session before lunch focused on the idea of creating a pot of money to fund marketing and innovation in harness racing
. The suggestion, put forth by moderator Dean Hoffman (former executive editor of Hoofbeats magazine), was that a fund could be created by setting aside 10 per cent of the money from purse pools. The diverse panel had a variety of viewpoints on that particular idea, and though all agreed that such a fund could and should exist, there were differing opinions on where those dollars should come from.
"I agree that funding investment in innovation is probably a worthy venture," began Tom Broadhurst, a director of Standardbred Horse Owners Panel (SHOP). "How much do you fund this venture with? That remains to be seen.
"Owners are not likely to fund the 10 per cent. Owners put the product out there, pay the training expenses, the upkeep and everything else that goes with owning a standardbred horse."
Moira Fanning, director of publicity for the Hambletonian Society was next to comment,
"Stop calling it a sport," insisted Fanning. "It's not a sport. It's a gaming product. And unfortunately, we've found out that it's not an appealing product. Face that."
Fanning cited some positive examples of Pennsylvania tracks that had put some money into marketing, but was unwavering in her belief that purse money was untouchable for this type of venture.
"Uniform drug testing models, for example, are a good thing. I think we can agree. But how do you fund it? For 10 years they have been trying to figure out a fair and equitable way to do this."
The stakeholders in this industry have been turned upside down, Fanning suggested, considering that the trainers and drivers are the stakeholders. "If harness racing ends tomorrow, it ends for them. If you think 10 per cent is a lot, that's fine. Put it in your pension plan instead because you're going to need it way sooner than you think."
"It's a simple question for me to answer," rebutted Darryl MacArthur, Vice-President of OHHA. "No. If I'm an individual who owns a horse and it's not my primary source of income. If that horse doesn't work out, as they often don't, I'm out $15,000 to $20,000. 10% off the top? I think that with the issues that we are competing against -- that's just one more thing that will send people elsewhere.
"The idea of having a pool of money to fund the sport is a great one," he agreed, "but what's the business model? Who will be the benefactor? Who will manage it? Who will govern it? Any improvement will be shared. Going forward, until there is a commitment from all industry stakeholders, it would be hard for our group to say yes, this is a good idea."
"It really frustrates me," MacArthur went on, "that people continue to say that racetracks and horsepeople are receiving a subsidy from slot machines. This is revenue that comes in because of the positioning that we have in the gaming industry. To me this is not a subsidy, we have been in a position to offer gaming. We have the facilities that were politically acceptable, there was an area where people were comfortable with gambling, and we made them available knowing there was a benefit to us on the back end of that."
Kathy Wade-Vlaar, Manager of Industry Marketing for Standardbred Canada began with a statistic on marketing budgets. "One thing you should know is that in 2008, $8 million was spent on marketing horse racing - both standardbred and thoroughbred. Lotteries spent $227 million. What is the single most important thing that we need money for? Is it marketing? I think it's business development first, and then marketing after. We need this money to drive innovation. $21 million for things like distribution, a lottery style wager, a racing series, Canada One -- our national product, new wagering models, Adrenaline."
"Once we come up with the programs and bring the racing and wagering products where we need to be -- then we can pour money into the marketing.
"If there is a fund like this in the future, who is to administer this fund?" asked Hoffman. "Who decides what we spend, where we spend it, how we spend it?"
"First I'd like to say that I disagree with Darryl," Wade-Vlaar said, citing examples from other industries where the participants support innovation.
"But if this was going to happen," MacArthur responded, "perhaps the model changes how the purse money comes in. If you say there are additional revenues coming from down here," he waved his hand around chest level, "and then we take 10% off the top, that's fine. But a 10% hair-cut off the top? The first response will be no, and the next will be, if there is going to be any discussion, obviously the horsepeople will be involved in it."
"I think for the initiative, you need to have all the participants on side," he added. "I think we're putting the cart before the horse. I think it just boils down to a difference of opinion. Where else is the money coming from, and how does it get distributed after the fact?"
"Whatever groups are responsible for putting the funds into the fund," agreed Wade-Vlaar, "should have some say, some responsibility in administering that fund."
"Another big problem that harness racing has is that harness racing has no benchmarks," Fanning intejected. We have no way of measuring what's working and what's not, she suggested. "Does harness racing know where its play comes from or why? Who would administer it? Let's figure out where it's coming from first," she exclaimed. "Is it fair to take it from the purses? No! Why aren't others included?," she asked. "Why aren't the veterinarians (for example) included?"
"We do need innovation," commented Broadhurst. "We (owners) are certainly prepared to put some funding into some promotion, or some different promotion, of the sport. But just taking 10 per cent? The biggest problem we face is that we are an industry that is so fragmented. Tracks need to interact with owners, with horsepeople. We need to talk about innovation and promotion together. Who would administer? Maybe Standardbred Canada, Maybe OHRIA. In reality, it has to have a buy-in of all the stakeholders. Our biggest problem really is getting together and talking. We think too much about the past. Waiting 18 minutes to a new person coming into a facility? It's just dead time to them. Provide some entertainment. I think the first thing we need to do is talk to each other."
The discussion then turned to a partnership with the thouroughbreds.
"In a perfect world, that would be great," Broadhurst replied. "Unfortunately, there are conflicts between the two breeds. They're chasing, in essence, the same betting dollar. They have a lot less racing. Maybe that's the answer. Maybe we have too much racing. Many think I'm a heretic for saying that, but maybe it's true."
"That would obviously be a component in any plan," added MacArthur, "we would definitely want to work the thoroughbred aspect into it as well."
"You know, standardbred racing is all about participation," he continued, "and we don't play into that at all -- as opposed to thoroughbred racing. On the standardbred side, we know, you can be involved with him on a daily basis. It's something that I think we've failed to recognize internally and to promote. I, for the life of me, do not understand why don't have our paddocks more available to the public."
He suggested that roadblocks such as getting an ORC license, red-tape, etc -- making it difficult for people to gain access -- may be limiting the best part of our sport, which is the participation.
"The world has changed, and the industry hasn't changed at all," suggested an audience member from Quebec, "with the exception that we used to be self-supporting. There are a thousand reasons for us to say no to this, but there is one reason to say yes -- survival. I don't minimize the difficulties, but we've got to get our act together."
"Don't believe it can't happen here," he said of the situation he witnessed in Quebec. "It can happen anywhere. All the arguments you're making are arguments we consistently made in Quebec," he said in response to MacArthur's arguments. "And things can change like that," he insisted, snapping his fingers.