About Me
Alex Meshkin is a technology executive and serial entrepreneur having founded or led organizations in healthcare, digital media, sports, and global outsourcing services.
Meshkin is Executive Chairman of huvi, a social commerce platform, enabling consumers to buy and sell digital movies. huvi works in partnership with major Hollywood studios to reduce piracy, monetize consumer to consumer transactions and enable a secondary market for digital goods.
More recently, Meshkin co-founded a health IT Company where a team of leading health care providers, technology entrepreneurs and product development ninjas are building a platform to improve collaboration and communications in healthcare.
In 1999, at the age of 19, Meshkin launched his first consumer internet start-up and experienced the ups and downs of entrepreneurship. In the years that followed, Meshkin became the CEO of Toyota Motorsports’ flagship NASCAR racing team, Bang! Racing. Toyota selected the young Meshkin from 83 NASCAR race team candidates; to lead Toyota’s factory supported NASCAR racing team. Toyota’s partnership with Meshkin created one of the most successful racing organizations in its first year of operations.
In 2004, Bang! Racing made NASCAR history – setting numerous milestones. As the principle owner of Bang! Racing, Meshkin became the youngest team owner in NASCAR history and the team became the most successful first year NASCAR race team – winning Toyota’s first two races in their inaugural season.
Bang Holdings, the parent company of Bang! Racing was also a success off the race track. In its first year of operations, Bang generated over $15 million in revenues; partnered with Vertrue to form a joint venture; and with their strategic technology partner eBay created and operated a NASCAR consumer membership and affinity marketing club.
By the age of 23, Meshkin was one of NASCAR’s elite team owners and a recurring guest on Fox News Channel and CNBC Squawk Box; and featured in numerous publications, including Fortune, Sporting News, Racer, Associated Press and Sports Illustrated.
Bang! Racing sponsors included, Toyota Motor Sales, DuPont, Viacom (Showtime Networks), Line-X, Valvoline and Snap-On Tools. In 2005, the race team was acquired by Toyota Motorsports and Bill Davis Racing. The technology divisions were merged in 2006 into Cloverleaf Partners and the NASCAR membership club became FastTrack Savings operating as DealPass.com.
Prior to Bang! Racing, Meshkin founded and operated a global software development company with a focus on healthcare and pharmaceutical platforms with clients such as Johnson & Johnson and Eli Lilly.
Additionally, Meshkin served as Director of Product and Strategic Development of cyberCFO, a venture funded financial services firm and later as VP and GM at Cloverleaf Partners. Meshkin started his digital media entrepreneurial career at the age of 19, when he founded and led the first online “points” based dynamic commerce/auction model.
To learn more about Alex Meshkin, please visit his blog at http://alexmeshkin.com and LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/meshkin. Check out his videos on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/alexmeshkin
Getting NASCAR Out of Reverse: Digital Strategy
The “secret” is out: NASCAR is facing significant problems. Since 2007, when the downturn became more pronounced – NASCAR’s management has attributed their accelerated drop in race attendance, corporate sponsorship deflections, and decline in television viewership to the faltering economy. But clearly, any objective person should recognize the economy has only heightened the fundamental flaws of the NASCAR business model and strategy. As many know, I have written extensively about the problems within NASCAR – so I will not beat the dead horse. However, I do hope Brian France is reading my suggestions and perhaps will answer the call to establish a viable business model and new strategy. As a long time fan, I was extremely fortunate to realize my dream at the age of 23; when against all odds, I became a NASCAR team owner and lead Toyota’s Flagship team to its first NASCAR victory in 2004. It would be wonderful if every young talented and aspiring driver (and maybe owner) could have the same opportunity and thrill of fulfilling their dreams. Unfortunately, the NASCAR I grew up morphed over the years to alienate their grassroots. Today, unless you have wealthy parents there is little chance and more likely, no chance of reaching the dream of becoming a NASCAR driver.
What most fans don’t realize is an insider’s little known secret – nearly ALL NASCAR teams are financial failures. Even the most successful teams, such as Hendrick Motorsports or Penske Racing – are dreadful businesses – and would be unsustainable if not for their wealthy owners. Unlike nearly every other sport, where the most successful and popular teams are profitable and have long term shareholder value, the on-track success or even popularity of a NASCAR team has little impact on the financial results of the team. It is shocking to learn that the operating budget cannot even be met for a team that wins every single race, when the race winnings are barely 40% of the operating budget. How can teams survive – and even more so, how can this sport survive?
Some may argue an antiquated assessment – successful on-track performance will translate into more sponsorship dollars. However, in today environment the annual NASCAR team budget (each car) exceeds $20 million dollars.
With that being said, NASCAR has the potential to unlock opportunities to revive the financial outlook of the sport. But it must begin with reacquiring all the digital rights that have been irresponsibly divided and parsed between Turner Sports and Sprint. NASCAR needs to stop licensing and giving up rights for short term financial gains of the sanctioning body and recognize that the digital channel may be the last and best hope for teams to survive. This begins with a cohesive digital strategy that works across all broadcast partners – instead of isolating TNN (Turner) from Fox, ESPN, and NBC. If NASCAR.com is going to offer a live simulcast of races during TNN broadcasted races, which I support, NASCAR needs to find an acceptable business model to extend this platform to all broadcast partners. While this would be a good foundation, the real opportunity is to unlock real-time data from the on-board black boxes (telemetry) and team communications to a broader set of partners and participate with revenue sharing agreements to monetize these underutilized assets. (NASCAR Must Embrace New Media: Proposal Attached).
Netflix Streaming: Separating Fact from Fiction
As someone on the front lines of the digital content industry I often hear entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and many tech bloggers speak about the Netflix Streaming service becoming the de facto digital movie experience ultimately cannibalizing Video On-Demand (VOD) or Electronic Sell-Through (EST). While I am a huge fan of the Netflix “experience” that includes streaming to most internet connected devices, I do not believe Netflix Streaming is the “Holy Grail” for digital movies. What I do believe is that Netflix Streaming is NOT a competitor for VOD or EST, but rather is an alternative for Pay TV services such as HBO, EPIX and Showtime.
Digging deeper into the marketplace, one recognizes that the content available on Netflix Streaming is at best equivalent to Pay TV. For further clarification, 80% of DVDs, VOD or EST purchases occur in the first 120 days after the release to DVD – well before the Pay TV window or availability on Netflix Streaming. (Note: New Release DVDs are available for rent on Netflix 28-days after release).
But even more revealing, the available content on Netflix Streaming may become increasingly more difficult to expand. Back in 2008, Netflix signed an agreement with Starz to gain backdoor access to Disney and Sony Pictures’ movies during the Pay TV window. However, the deal expires in 2011 and Disney has recently made a concerted effort to renegotiate its Starz deal to circumvent Netflix’s ability to renew its Starz license. With this being said, it appears difficult at best for Netflix to maintain the Starz relationship and its considerable portion of the content available for streaming. Conversely, if Netflix is successful in renewing its license with Starz my estimates would place the licensing cost at upwards of $300 million a per year or about $20 per user, which could drive up the monthly subscription price.
Many believe that the uncertainty surrounding its license with Starz was a driving force behind its deal with Epix. While much has been made by the media of the deal with Epix to provide Netflix the ability to stream movies from Lionsgate, Paramount (excluding DreamWorks) and MGM, the movies won’t be available until 90 days after the Pay TV window or approximately 1 year after the initial DVD release. While this is still a big win for Netflix, it has little negative effect on the VOD or EST marketplace. However, on the other hand, Netflix has a major impact on consumer behavior – by shifting more consumers away from physical discs – digital then becomes the primary method for consumers to watch movies. Unlike the music industry, where the most devoted music consumers can opt to subscribe to Spotify or Rhapsody to gain access to ALL music they want to consume, the movie industry is vastly different and is unable to support an all you can eatmodel for its premium content. Currently, consumers who want to digitally “rent” or to “own” a new release or recently released movie must choose an alternative to Netflix Streaming – which currently is only a la carteservices.
As Netflix has demonstrated, the Connected TV and Set-Top Box marketplace has transformed the digital entertainment landscape. I believe the result of this transformation will be demonstrated in the next few years with consumers gaining more choices in how they watch movies and will ultimately shift the power from cable and TV service providers into the hands of innovative services providing consumers with anytime, anywhere access to their favorite movies. The future for digital entertainment is bright – and I predict dramatic innovations for 2011.
Digital Content: It’s not Access or Ownership but BOTH
Throughout this country, in conference room after conference room and boardroom after boardroom, executives of content companies strategize how to respond to the alarming trends associated with owning physical media content. This has been mainly reflected in the downturn in CD and DVD sales. More recently, games have been added to the list. Many in the media industry are frustrated by the slower than forecasted growth of electronic sell-through or download to own content. And, specifically in the music industry, many are split between two ideologies for monetizing digital content – Ownership vs. Access.
While many believe that Spotify and/or Mog are going to transform the music industry and somehow replace the revenue from the fast eroding music purchaser, I am doubtful this approach will save the industry. Furthermore, this dialogue camouflages the true problems with digital sales. In the physical world, Ownership and Access are clear cut user experiences each with their own value proposition. In the Digital Age content is easily available through illegal file sharing, and digital ownership experiences are limited and governed in a way that challenges the integrity of the intended experience. Therefore, if media executives are committed to electronic sell-through or download to own content, they must re-examine how they define digital ownership and encourage meaningful innovations.
Again, looking at the music industry, Lala introduced a novel access based business model – but failed to gain traction because of other more compelling (free) access models in the marketplace. Without question “free” access is highly desirable for consumers, but content owners and entrepreneurs have yet found a profitable monetization strategy. In December, when Apple acquired Lala, most industry insiders recognized Apple’s desire to transform iTunes from a pure download to own experience to a cloud-enabled ownership model. The complexities of music licensing however, may prevent this vision coming to fruition.
In the music industry, there are competing opinions of what is meant by “Digital Ownership”. Michael Robertson, an outspoken critic of the licensing practices of the industry, founder of MP3.com and current CEO of MP3tunes.com, has spoken frequently that consumers should have the right to stream their personal owned music from personal lockers or cloud services without the service provider being responsible paying additional royalties to labels. But labels on the other hand, contest this position and argue that cloud based streaming constitutes a different licensing right than electronic sell through and thus triggers additional royalties.
No matter which side of the argument your business interests may place you, the greater argument where I believe most would agree is that increasing the rights associated with “Digital Ownership” will make digital content more attractive to consumers, thereby making them more likely to become purchasers.
Those who believe that consumers want Access and don’t care about Ownership may be right. But then again, it may be those who believe that consumers want to own content, who are correct. Regardless, both sides would likely agree that Digital Ownership needs flexible usage models that include anywhere, anytime access – and responsible sharing or trading, otherwise, it is just not an attractive enough proposition to purchase digital content. Without innovation around Digital Ownership, the media industry may not have a choice – leaving them without an electronic sell through option to monetize digital content.
Just as technology has created unprecedented opportunities for Access models, the same holds true for commerce models that deliver on the promise of Digital Ownership. To date, there isn’t a single digital music, movie, television, book or gaming service that has delivered a Digital Ownership experience that exceeds the physical media experience. Until entrepreneurs and content owners effectively deliver on the promise of the Digital Age – none of us will fully embrace digital content ownership.
(Disclaimer: I am the CEO of huvi, a digital media service that is under development that promises to revolutionize what it means to own digital content.)
Innovation in eCommerce: Commerce 2.0
Earlier today, I read an interesting post by Josh Kopelman of First Round Capital and subsequent comments from Fred Wilson, at Union Square Ventures. Both men are well respected early stage investors and have demonstrated significant investor acumen.
Josh Kopelman pointed out some fascinating empirical evidence to support the need for massive innovation in the ecommerce marketplace.
- More than half of today’s top 15 most trafficked websites today did not exist back in 1999. That is not a surprise, as Facebook, Youtube, Wikipedia, Myspace, Blogger, Live.com and Twitter are all new — and are representative of the massive amount of innovation and disruption that has occurred in the last decade.
- Yet, of the top 15 most trafficked eCommerce websites today, just one of them did not exist back in 1999 (NewEgg – which launched in 2001). Which means that over 90% of the top eCommerce websites are over 12 years old! That is pretty remarkable to me — and reflects an amazing lack of external innovation (and disruption).
As Josh Kopelman further points out, the online shopping paradigm is finally changing. In the past year, there has been an increasing amount of innovation, including, group buying, private shopping sites and alternative payment technologies.
As an entrepreneur and ecommerce innovator, I believe the best is ahead of us. The future of ecommerce a/k/a Commerce 2.0 is a future whereby the service itself will be able to generate traffic in much of the same ways that Twitter and Facebook have transformed social media.
At my company huvi, we are developing a next generation digital media marketplace that will transform how consumers buy, share and consume digital content.
NASCAR in the Next Decade: The Storylines that will Shape the Future
It is not possible to predict the road NASCAR will travel by the time we reach the final 2019 checkered flag, but it will be entertaining to speculate.
This decade begins as NASCAR tail spins in the wrong direction it’s a sharp contrast to the beginning of the last decade when NASCAR viewership, attendance and corporate interest were all surging. Today, all of those trends are in reverse, and this decade will truly define whether NASCAR remains as a mainstream sport or becomes another fledgling motorsport series.
I believe the major stories and events that will affect NASCAR in the coming years will have little or nothing to do with on track racing. So let me begin with a few predictions before we take our first green flag of 2010.
The Car of Tomorrow (COT)
By any account other than driver safety, the COT has been a miserable failure, and many point to the introduction of the COT as a defining moment in the accelerated decrease in fan interest. Since making its debut, the COT has been one of the most controversial rule changes to be introduced in NASCAR. There is no question that NASCAR will eventually make changes to their ill advised COT design, but the question is how dramatic and rapid will changes be introduced. I believe this decision will define the sport in the coming decade, because unless on-track racing significantly improves, NASCAR is doomed to become a second-rate sport with limited commercial exposure.
The Fall of Brian France
Mayfield vs. NASCAR is a fight NASCAR wishes it never fought. First, let me provide a bit of background information. In 2008 NASCAR implemented a clandestine drug testing policy where they refused to provide competitors a list of banned substances. And in 2009, long time driver Jeremy Mayfield, was the first driver to face a suspension for use of a banned substance. The drug was later identified as Methamphetamine, or more commonly known as Meth. (See my blog post in the summer of 2009 for more information – NASCAR in Peril: Victory for Jeremy Mayfield in Drug Testing Legal Battle). What NASCAR didn’t anticipate was Mayfield fighting back and filing a lawsuit to reinstate his license to drive in NASCAR. Both sides have won important decisions, but the court fight continues. However, just recently this soap opera is becoming even juicier, the U.S. District Court has ruled in favor of Mayfield to require sensitive documents about Brian France’s third (or fourth but who’s counting) marriage to be unsealed. Many insiders believe evidence will come forward further tarnishing Brian France’s ability to continue to lead NASCAR into the next decade.
Sprint as the Title Sponsor of the Cup Series
The elephant in the room is the pending expiration of the sport’s lucrative sponsorship agreement with Sprint as title sponsor of the NASCAR Cup Series. Back in the summer of 2003, when Sprint (f/k/a NEXTEL) agreed to a 10 year agreement with NASCAR, no one expected the rapid decline of fan interest and corporate sponsorship within just a couple of years. Ironically, Sprint too has blood on their hands for the sponsorship troubles of racing teams, which contribute to the overall problems in the sport. Sprint pushed out and prevented several companies from sponsoring racing teams, including AT&T Wireless who was prepared to enter NASCAR in 2004 as a primary sponsor, but Sprint through their exclusivity agreement with NASCAR, prevented AT&T from entering the sport. And then, after AT&T Wireless merged with Cingular Wireless (who was grandfathered into sport through their existing sponsorship agreement with RCR), Sprint pushed AT&T Wireless out once again. This was basically the same story for Verizon Wireless and Alltel. But I digress, we are discussing the future, and following the expiration of the current agreement with Sprint there is little doubt NASCAR will be left without a title sponsor of the Cup Series. And with the falling value of the title sponsorship rights, I expect NASCAR to be forced to sell the rights for a deep discount. But like everything else in NASCAR, the teams will bear the brunt of the negative financial consequences.
New Television Contracts
Not unlike, the situation with Sprint as the title sponsor, agreements with the existing television partners expire in a couple of years. And, with the enhanced competition from the NFL, all signs point to a significantly lower value being attributed to the NASCAR contract. The reduction in the sport’s revenues will further hamper smaller NASCAR teams from competing and consequently continue the most alarming trends of decreased fan viewership, attendance and corporate sponsorship.
The Retirement of Today’s Superstars
It’s no secret that Jeff Gordon has been suffering from significant back pain stemming from an on track accident. So the question begs, when will one of the greatest and most popular drivers hang up his racing helmet? Could the dominance of Jimmie Johnson accelerate Jeff Gordon’s retirement? And more so, Jeff Gordon isn’t the only NASCAR star that could retire in the next decade from full-time racing. Is it possible, if Dale Earnhardt Jr.’s performance doesn’t dramatically improve that he might head towards an early retirement? These questions will surely plague NASCAR in the forthcoming decade and could have far reaching effects on the entire sport. Even though in the past several years neither Gordon nor Earnhardt have been top performers on the track, they still remain the top two fan and sponsor favorites. And during a time when NASCAR is desperately trying to stop the hemorrhage of fan and corporate interest, the retirement of one or both iconic names could be devastating.
My negativity is an attempt to bring forth positive change to NASCAR. It is horrifying to watch a sport I have watched most of my life be destroyed. But without question, NASCAR, under the leadership of Bill France Sr. and Bill France Jr. made many wise decisions which helped to elevate the sport to the peaks in 2004. Unfortunately, the management decisions of NASCAR in the last half of the past decade have grossly undermined the sport. Even though the previous generations of the France Family were successful shepherds of NASCAR, under the faltering management of Brian France – NASCAR has failed its competitors, fans and sponsors. If the France Family truly loves NASCAR – then they must consider selling NASCAR to a new ownership group, who is prepared to rebuild the sport before all remains is a storied past.
End of an Era: NASCAR Scene Ceases?
2009 was a dreadful year for the print publications and it appears a mainstay in the NASCAR industry is also on the brink. It’s no secret that after the boom years of NASCAR earlier this decade, advertisers and sponsors have left the sport in droves – but until now the primary victims were racing teams. But on Monday, this time it was NASCAR Scene and its website, Scene Daily.
According to Daly Planet, it’s rumored the title that launched in 1982 lost almost its entire staff on Monday. It is run by the American City Business Journals, which is based in Charlotte. ACBJ is owned by Advance Publications, which publishes magazines such as The Sporting News, Vanity Fair, and GQ.
One thing is clear, print media and NASCAR is a lethal combination in today’s economic times. Let’s just hope that management at NASCAR begins to listen to their fans and competitors and bring about the right change to invigorate the sport’s fan base and advertisers.
NASCAR in Peril: Victory for Jeremy Mayfield in Drug Testing Legal Battle
Earlier today, Jeremy Mayfield was granted preliminary injunction from the U.S. District Court in Charlotte, NC – lifting his suspension levied by NASCAR – so he will be allowed to race this weekend at Daytona. This initial victory for Mayfield presents potential challenges for NASCAR and their credibility.
For those who are unfamiliar with the complexities of the judicial system, the legal threshold for receiving equitable relief is “irreparable harm” and without a question, IF Jeremy Mayfield is innocent, his continued inability to race, meets and exceeds this threshold for the U.S. District Court to intervene and provide relief to Mayfield. Or in the words of U.S. District Court Judge Mullen:
“Harm to Mayfield significantly outweighs harm to NASCAR”
While many in the NASCAR community may see this court proceeding as an isolated issue between Jeremy Mayfield and NASCAR – I believe this case could have significant rippling effects on the entire sport. Ultimately, it will challenge the “dictatorship” of the France Family and most likely require far greater transparency in NASCAR’s future actions. NASCAR’s arrogance may have finally caught up with them. Unlike any other major sport, NASCAR refuses to publish a list of banned substances – and Jeremy Mayfield claims (through his attorney) that NASCAR’s drug testing program does not meet federal workplace guidelines or follow proper procedure of SAMHSA [substance abuse and mental health services association].
But the greater dilemma that NASCAR faces is how to proceed with the ongoing Jeremy Mayfield legal battle. After NASCAR spokesman, Ramsey Poston, made accusations that Mayfield tested positive for methamphetamines, NASCAR would face a significant credibility challenge if they decided to settle the continued legal actions of Mayfield to circumvent continued discovery and future hearings/trials. However, on the flipside, the continued legal battle (Permanent Injection Hearing and Possible Civil Trial for Financial Damages) could expose very damning evidence for NASCAR and other competitors. It’s no secret that NASCAR “plays favorites” with their application of the rule book and other policies, so IF other competitors have tested positive for banned substances, and NASCAR failed to enforce their “policy”, it could cause severe and lasting damage to NASCAR. So everyone, watch out in the days and months ahead – lots of debris could be flying through the air.
Chrysler Bankruptcy: The Future of NASCAR Teams Hang in the Balance
Questioning the future of Dodge’s continuing involvement in NASCAR is nothing new – back in September 2008, I wrote about the pending withdrawal of Dodge from NASCAR and unfortunately this appears to be the plan for 2010. (http://tinyurl.com/dlymm8)
Many, at first glance, didn’t feel that the Chrysler bankruptcy filing on Thursday would have any effect on the Sprint Cup teams backed by Dodge. And Chrysler was quick to issue a statement on Thursday reaffirming their commitment to NASCAR. It really should not come as a surprise that the new management from Fiat realizes the current iteration of the COT and the marketing platform offered by NASCAR is too expensive and doesn’t align with their new focus. Fiat/Chrysler’s new focus is on small fuel efficient cars and not on outdated large cars that inspired the NASCAR “Car of Tomorrow”.
Many sources strongly believed that Chrysler (Dodge) may pull its NASCAR funding in 2010. As many know, Dodge already slashed its motorsports budget by 30 percent this year. Then the question becomes this: What would happen to the teams that Dodge financially supports, if indeed they pull their support? That is the great unknown.
As I have professed for over two years, NASCAR is facing a crossroad; but yet, it continues down an ill-fated pathway of an outdated “Car of Tomorrow” instead of adopting a fresh approach that would leverage “green technologies” such as, biofuels and renewable energy, and a branding platform that is attractive to companies like Fiat. As I stated in July 2008,
You must wonder – why is NASCAR asleep at the wheel? Over the past decade, NASCAR has developed a phenomenal market platform for all types of companies – but without the financial and marketing support of the carmakers – NASCAR teams can’t afford to operate.
The time is now for NASCAR to embrace tomorrow’s future – alternative energy and fuel efficiency branding is required for the long-term viability of the sport as a marketing platform for the automotive manufacturers. (See: http://tinyurl.com/cwcjpj)
I am a strong believer that negative events create opportunities. NASCAR and the Big 3 (GM, Ford and Chrysler) at one time were going down a parallel road, but unfortunately as NASCAR started to become a rapidly growing mainstream sport in the early part of the decade and corporate sponsors rushed into the sport with their large marketing budgets looking to tap into this brand-loyal demographic, NASCAR lost sight of the value proposition and ROI required to keep the Big 3 involved in NASCAR. In the next couple of years, many will ask, why didn’t NASCAR do more to keep the Big 3 involved? The answer is quite simple, NASCAR and their Teams have a huge disconnect, and what’s good for NASCAR isn’t always what’s best for their Teams. Unlike all other major sports, like the NHL, NBA, MLB, and NFL; NASCAR team owners don’t have any say in the direction and decisions of the sport, nor do they participate in the financial upside during the good times. But what I do know is that they do bare the majority of the consequences during the difficult times. When Chrysler/Dodge leaves NASCAR, many teams will suffer and likely shutdown, but NASCAR Corporate will face very little short-term repercussions.
With the economic recession, dreadful environment for automakers and falling ratings of NASCAR racing, NASCAR has the opportunity to implement needed changes to put the sport in a position for growth and long term sustainability.
The solutions and answers for NASCAR are quite simple: race a car that is aligned with the automakers objectives, provide a fair distribution of revenues to competitors (teams), implement rigid cost controls; and, equally as important, please allow the drivers the freedom to race without the fear of penalties for relatively harmless actions. NASCAR, after all is said is done, should be entertainment.
NASCAR’s Business Model Hits the Wall
The Associated Press (AP) has reported Brian France, CEO of NASCAR, has directed his management to work with teams in developing new business models that can help them withstand the current economic crisis. As we are all aware, NASCAR teams rely on corporate sponsorship to fund the majority of their operating budgets, which is substantially different than any other major sport. Whereas, NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB teams participate in higher levels of revenue sharing as a result of a franchise business model.
“We’re trying to do more with less. That’s the difficult part of this economy,” France said following his state-of-the-sport address to media at NASCAR’s Research and Development Center. Just back in December, NASCAR issued a statement stating that NASCAR heading into 2009 was “strong”.
This outlook is a rather quick reversal, but perhaps the gravity of the current economic climate and mass sponsor deflections is making an impact.
Doing more with less? Working with teams to develop new business models? I apologize, but in my humble opinion, it’s a little too late for a half-baked plan. But even worse and what is frustrating is NASCAR’s continued unwillingness to restructure the distribution of television revenues to rightly supplement teams’ operating budgets.
What NASCAR needs is a business model which more closely replicates Formula 1 or a franchise structure like every other major sport. As a fervent advocate for team rights, I have repeatedly voiced the need to develop a franchise model that would enable teams to weather macroeconomic difficulties; and subsequently, become less cyclical and more stable during recessions and economic turmoil. The time for leadership, sacrifice and decisive action on behalf of the France Family is NOW. But to the contrary, the Brian France plan is nothing more than reinforcing their past strategies of working with teams to help locate and secure sponsors. While his intentions may be honorable; they are nevertheless naïve when considering there is a global economic recession; and specifically, when the NASCAR industry is in a depression of historic proportions. At this moment, I don’t believe there is a single corporation that is considering spending $15-$30 million required to fund a primary sponsorship program for a NASCAR Sprint Cup team. So I am rather befuddled with Brian France’s simplistic strategy to save the sport, which unfortunately in its current form will contribute to the sport’s certain collapse.
Is it possible that the past success of NASCAR is blinding Brian France from seeing the light? Reflecting back to 60 years ago to the earlier days of NASCAR, Bill France Sr. (Brian France’s grandfather) executed a flawless business plan to convince the then stock car racers and event promoters to become part of his newly formed organization and sanctioning body (NASCAR), whereby he gained complete control over stock car racing. The foundation of NASCAR’s “business model” problems ironically stem from the grand success of Bill Sr. and his unilateral control of a racing empire, including control over the majority of racing venues (International Speedway Corp) and the stock car sanctioning body. Over the past half-century, teams competing in NASCAR relied almost exclusively on corporate sponsors to fund their operations – enabling the France Family to retain a majority of the sports revenues and amass a large network of racing venues, and establishing NASCAR Holdings, an incredibly profitable wholly owned private company.
Those times have dramatically changed and for too long, NASCAR teams have tolerated the exploitation and willingly bore the total burden to exclusively fund their operations through advertising and sponsorship. The rapid increases in costs of racing and teams’ operating expenses of the past 5 years, combined with the minimal increase in sponsorship value – have brought the teams’ very existence into question.
One must wonder, how long can the France Family continue their racing monopoly? Historically, race teams have avoided conflict with the France Family; and the only entities to challenge the France Family’s monopoly have been race track owners, such as Burton Smith and Speedway Motorsports. Even through the France Family has weathered many possible anti-trust challenges with settling most disputes outside the judicial system; I believe the current financial crisis and advertising recession is about to test the resolve of the France Family and their prehistoric business model.
In a stark contrast to the past decade, NASCAR is falsely promoting an image of growth and strength by stating that 15 new organizations have applied for licensing to compete in the Sprint Cup Series. What they fail to mention and what many novices are unaware – almost all of those “new” teams are merely opportunistic racers attempting to profit by a method called: “start and park”, which allows them to collect sizable race winnings (in comparison to their expenses) with a team and car specifically built to just run one or two laps, enabling them to collect profits – all without adding ANY value to the sport. What a sad day it is for the diehard NASCAR fan.
As many of you know, I was the founder of Bang Racing which was NASCAR’s most successful first year team in history. At the young age of 23, I built and operated this highly successful team and we made history finishing 2nd in our first race (Daytona) and winning our 13th race (Michigan International Speedway), which was the first win for Toyota in NASCAR history. While all this is now historical facts found in the archives of NASCAR history, what is typically not understood is that even as a very competitive team, our business model was fundamentally flawed because generating a profit was nearly impossible. Simply put; the cost of running a NASCAR team far exceeds its sponsorship/advertising revenue potential and without significant “business model” changes by the France Family, teams are doomed for failure.
NASCAR must be the only sport where the most profitable teams are the biggest losers’ and where finishing dead-last or not even attempting to win makes more money than being a top competitor. Something is dreadfully wrong when the most competitive teams with great on track performance cannot survive because the costs of running their teams far exceed their revenue potential. The problem is clear: without teams receiving a larger share of the sports’ multi-billion dollar television contracts – there will be no strategy that can make viable a long-term solution for the sport – that is the simple reality.
However, being the “optimist”, I hope Brian France and will realize quickly that his family has the unilateral ability to deliver the change in business model the teams and sport require to survive.




