(This is the final segment of a three-part series. The first two articles were: “Why Horse Racing Declined,” Horse Racing Business, March 21, 2009 and “In Search of a Future,” Horse Racing Business, March 28, 2009.)

Last week’s article discussed the concept of a business model. A key component, in fact the sine qua non of a business model, is a customer value proposition (CVP). A CVP encompasses the benefits an organization is offering to potential customers if they purchase or consume its products and services. For example, Wal-Mart focuses on utilitarian value, as defined by product quality vs. price. By contrast, Tiffany & Company tenders something quite different, as it provides the finest products, a strong dose of prestige, and lofty prices.

The CVPs developed by individual racetracks can and should be quite different, as local conditions dictate-consider New York Racing Association’s summer racing at Saratoga as compared to its winter racing at Aqueduct. Moreover, all racetracks have separate CVPs for their on-track patrons and for their advance deposit wagering customers. These are as different as stock brokerage services packaged by Merrill-Lynch and E*Trade.

Well-meaning people, ranging from fans to longtime industry participants, are wont to express their convictions that racing’s fortunes would be enhanced if racetracks were only to adopt, say, the Keeneland CVP, or the European CVP, or the Hong Kong CVP, etc. This is equivalent to saying that all retailers would improve their lot if they were to follow the highly successful Wal-Mart CVP, or the Nordstrom CVP, or the Target CVP.

In reality, each racetrack has to craft its own CVP around the circumstances in which it operates: the demographics of the target market, the weather, the economic profile of the market area, and so on. Trying to force a Monmouth CVP into a Hawthorne environment would not be a good fit at all.

The nomenclature”the racetrack industry” is much too broad for purposes of crafting and tailoring CVPs to market areas. Simply put, there is no generic CVP-or one size fits all-that will work across racetracks. There are tracks that are successful providing ambience, others that are working people’s tracks, some that are racinos, and a number that are basically television studios supplying simulcast signals. An executive of a major racetrack told Yours Truly that his company could make a better profit if it had no live racing at all and operated as a bare-bones simulcasting and advance deposit wagering facility. A West Virginia legislator recently remarked that state law could be changed to enable Charlestown and Mountaineer to abolish live racing and have the tracks concentrate on alternative gaming and off-track betting. A proposal like this has also been introduced as a bill in the New Hampshire legislature.

Another often-heard opinion is that racing needs a commissioner (or even federal regulation) to oversee the sport in the United States, which is wishful thinking.  In the first place, under federalism, the states have the power to regulate commerce within their boundaries. Additionally, as with the major sports leagues, a commissioner must have real legal power to enforce conformance by franchisees.  Independently-owned racetracks are unlikely to cede their authority to a league office.

Because racing is a decentralized industry, the job of tailoring a winning CVP rests with the individual racetracks. In fact, that is where racing’s fate will be determined…in the trenches, so to speak.

Elements comprising a racetrack’s CVP include the level of racing, the takeout on handle, facilities and creature comforts, customer service, parking, food quality, and prices. One track can be successful blending these in a certain way, while another track is profitable by deemphasizing on-track amenities and instead focusing on gamblers who bet remotely.

Some racetracks will craft their customer value proposition around both gambling and the sporting aspects of racing, others will mostly emphasize gambling and cater to people so inclined with handicapping contests and the like, whereas a very few tracks may gloss over horses and gambling altogether and instead offer a setting to congregate and socialize, say, “where the surf meets the turf.”

The debate about whether horse racing is a sport or gambling is a forced and unnecessary dichotomy. Ideally, to aficionados, racing would be presented as a sport. To estimate if this appeal would work or not one only has to go to horse shows, where there is no legal gambling, to typically find sparse crowds. Las Vegas attempted to promote itself as being as much about family-oriented entertainment as gambling…and retreated to a “What happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas” message. The degree to which a particular racetrack promotes racing as a sport, or as gambling, is a key aspect of the business model it develops for its circumstances, so there is no pat answer, but gambling must always be an attraction of the CVP.

Part and parcel of a racetrack’s CVP is its approach to dilemmas that are public-relations landmines and can and do turn people off to horse racing. The way that each track handles such issues is critical to its success over the long term. For instance, Presque Isle Downs in Erie, Pennsylvania, has put a premium on the safety of racehorses and jockeys by installing a Tapeta racetrack designed by former trainer Michael Dickinson, who has a deserved reputation for putting the welfare of the horse first. (I once heard him say that Thoroughbred races should be started like harness races, behind a moving vehicle with a gate attached, because the Thoroughbred starting gate is the most perilous place for horses and jockeys.)  Another example:  Suffolk Downs has made a statement about horse slaughter by instituting a zero-tolerance policy of banning any trainer caught shipping animals from the racetrack to a slaughter house.

Racetracks devoting more than lip service to reform-like Presque Isle Downs, Suffolk Downs, and others-will honestly and credibly be able to communicate to the public that they are sincerely addressing the underbelly issues of racing.  That will enhance their CVPs.

Even here, though, there are important distinctions to be drawn and generalizations are inappropriate. Every track, for instance, should not be painted with the same negative brush concerning such problems as catastrophic injuries and breakdowns. While breakdowns during races plague Thoroughbred racetracks, they are much less of a concern for harness and Quarter-Horse tracks. Standardbreds and Quarter horses don’t break down in the midst of races to the degree that Thoroughbreds do. Further, all Thoroughbred racetracks do not have the same incidence of breakdowns.

People who care deeply about horse racing and the animals involved are rightly concerned with catastrophic injuries, drugs, and slaughter.  If these black-eye issues are to be mitigated, racetracks will need to address the problems head on, for two reasons.  First, it is the ethical/moral course of action.  Second, doing so is good for business–companies that behave in a socially responsible way have a lot to offer and promote.  By acting in the interests of horses and jockeys, the racetracks will put a patina on their CVPs that will appeal to customers who might otherwise spurn the sport.

What about racetracks that primarily run low-level claiming races? If they crack down on the practice of medicating unfit racehorses, will there be enough entries to put on the show? The answer is very straightforward: If a racetrack has to rely on sore and gimpy racehorses whose ailments are masked by drugs, then its CVP is so weak that it may not be sustainable, or at least not very profitable.  From the standpoint of equine welfare and racing’s image, this is a case of addition by subtraction. 

Racetracks that are able to craft CVPs attractive to their target markets, beginning with a laser-like focus on customers and including a zeal for the safety of the stars of the show, will do well. The free market works and it rewards companies that provide what the target market wants…and punishes those that don’t.

Copyright © 2009 Horse Racing Business



Ohio has three Thoroughbred racetracks that are located in the Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Columbus metropolitan areas.  Four Standardbred racetracks are in or near Cleveland, Columbus, Toledo, and Lebanon. 

Thistledown, home of the Grade II Ohio Derby, in Cleveland is owned by Magna Entertainment, but is for sale as the parent corporation is desperate for cash.  The Standardbred racetrack in Toledo, Raceway Park, is also owned by a publicly-traded company, Penn National Gaming, as is the harness track in Columbus, Scioto Downs, which is part of Mountaineer Gaming Group.

These seven racetracks are all having hard times, so much so that the Ohio State Racing Commission hired a consulting firm to make recommendations in the final quarter of 2008 because the Commissioners candidly admitted that they were bereft of ideas about what to do.  Ohio’s agribusiness breeding industry is fading along with the racetracks.  The cause is not due solely to competition from gaming in states contiguous to Ohio, but that is the lion’s share of the problem.

Full-scale casinos operate in Indiana, Michigan, and West Virginia, and Pennsylvania has slot machines.  Only Kentucky, across the Ohio River to the south, does not have some type of alternative gaming.  River Downs in Cincinnati is impacted by a nearby Indiana casino; Raceway Park in Toledo is close to Detroit; and the Cleveland-area racetracks have been badly damaged by the slot machines and racing at Presque Isle Downs in Erie, Pennsylvania (Thoroughbreds) and The Meadows Racetrack and Casino south of Pittsburgh (Standardbreds).   They also must contend with the full-fledged casino at Mountaineer Casino and Racetrack in Chester, West Virginia (Thoroughbreds). 

Ohio held statewide plebescites on casinos in 1990, 1996, 2006, and 2008.  The votes in favor of casinos were 38%, 38%, 43%, and 37%, respectively.   These initiatives all made the fatal mistake of restricting the locations where the casinos would be built, so, as a consequence, the areas of the state left out voted no.  In three of the four failed ballot initiatives, the county or counties for which a casino was proposed voted affirmatively.  This indicates that were all regions of the state to be cut in on the action, especially the population centers, a casino referendum might well pass.

In the 1990 referendum, only Lorain (near Cleveland on Lake Erie) was to get a casino with the vague possibility of later expansion to other parts of Ohio.  In 1996, riverboat casinos were proposed for four counties, three in Northeastern Ohio and the other in Hamilton County (Cincinnati).  In 2006, the ballot language permitted two casinos in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) and at the State’s seven racetracks.  Most recently, in 2008, the proposal was for a single casino resort in one of Ohio’s poorest counties.   Penn National Gaming spent $36 million to defeat this measure in order to protect its properties–the Argosy Casino in Lawrenceburg, Indiana, and Raceway Park in Toledo.  Moreover, the Ohio State Racing Commission urged a no vote.

A ballot initiative would have a far stronger chance of approval if it were to specify casino permits for Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Toledo, and, perhaps, for the Lake Erie Islands, near Sandusky, and Youngstown.  The likelihood is that cash-starved big city mayors and county commissioners would rally support.   

In the past, the major political movers and shakers of both political parties have weighed in against expanded gambling–most notably, onetime Republican governor and now U. S. Senator George Voinovich–who is retiring in 2010-and the most recent past governor, Republican Bob Taft, and the current governor, Democrat Ted Strickland.   Strickland is a former Congressman and Methodist pastor with an earned doctorate in psychology from the University of Kentucky.  He has the reputation of being fair-minded and honest. 

To Voinovich’s credit, while he has campaigned against alternative gaming and casinos, he has supported pari-mutuel wagering on horse racing because of the agribusiness supply chain behind it.  The significant economic impact of the horse industry and horse racing in Ohio is substantiated in the American Horse Council Foundation report by Deloitte and posted at Ohio Thoroughbred Breeders and Owners.

In the midst of the current Ohio budget crisis of mammoth proportions (around $7 billion), Strickland is wavering on his opposition to expanded gambling.  In 2008, he lent his support to letting the Ohio Lottery install Keno in bars, restaurants, and racetracks.  In early January 2009, Strickland said:  “I think it is impossible to know how deep this recession is going to be or how long it is going to last.  I am therefore willing to keep an open mind and listen to whatever argument that may be brought to me regarding gambling.”   

The Governor has already met with Penn National Gaming officials.   Penn National’s proposal, which has not yet been formalized, would be on the November 2009 ballot and would put casinos at all seven racetracks and maybe at other venues.  My Ohio Entertainment, the organization behind the failed 2008 casino ballot initiative, is proposing another referendum for November 2009 that would allow casinos in Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Columbus, plus the possibility of two additional locations.

The President of the Republican-controlled Senate says that he personally opposes gambling but would at least consider supporting a ballot proposal for the sake of assisting Ohio’s economy.  The new Speaker of the House, a Democrat, is an outright advocate of expanded gambling for the Buckeye state as a means to create jobs and bring in revenue.  Ohio’s largest newspaper, The Plain Dealer, on January 11, 2009, ran an editorial titled “It’s time to get casinos and their taxes and jobs.”  The co-authors were the president and the CEO of the Greater Cleveland Partnership.

Two days prior to the Obama inauguration, Ohio’s Democrats celebrated at a plush dinner and ball at the Renaissance Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC, complete with music by the 235-member marching band from Ohio State University.  The cost was partially underwritten by sponsors, who paid anywhere between $10,000 to $75,000 each.  One of the sponsors was none other than Penn National Gaming.

As with previous casino proposals, there will be plenty of opposition from assorted organizations and individuals.  For instance, a Plain Dealer columnist wrote on January 18, 2009:  “Circulating in Columbus is a scheme to install video lottery terminals (‘VLTs,’ a sanitized term for slot machines) at Ohio’s horse-racing tracks and in a couple of downtowns…Except for the Bushes and the Clintons, no one has made a greater sense of entitlement than Ohio’s horse-track owners…The real object of VLTs will be, by Statehouse fiat, to further enrich people who are plenty rich already…”   (An objective observer who reads this columnist regularly quickly discerns that he often advances ad hominem arguments like this one and is resentful towards anyone who might make a profit that, in his view as a self-appointed moral arbiter, is excessive.)

Whether the racing agribusiness in Ohio receives help or not depends on four key eventualities.  First, the Governor will evaluate his re-election chances for 2010 by weighing the pros and cons of his offering tacit support for expanded gambling.  The deepening budget crisis will have a lot to do with his decision; if Ohio gets sufficient federal bailout funds from the Obama administration, then the gaming revenues will not look as attractive, given the Governor’s re-election risks of alienating important constituencies.  Second, if two or more competing casino proposals make the November 2009 ballot, the likelihood is that they will fail.  A focused effort is required.  Third, even if a casino initiative passes in a statewide vote, Ohio’s seven racetracks may or may not be included as sites.  Lastly, the odds of passage are increased if all of the major population centers are allowed to have their own casinos.

A perfect storm will have to occur for Ohio racing to be extended a lifeline in the sea of competition it finds itself drowning in from surrounding states.  Otherwise, the prognosis is grim.

In a battered state economy that is so dependent on the shaky “Big Three” automobile manufacturers, Ohio needs every job source it can get.  The unemployment rate is 7.8% and rising. 

Ohio’s racetracks employ many people and account for considerable local and state tax revenues, as do the independent contractors like trainers, veterinarians, and feed suppliers, whose businesses depend on the racetracks and the farms.  Horse racing is a sizeable agribusiness in Ohio and should be cultivated by elected officials.   One sure way to do that is to allow the racetracks to be more competitive so that their customers are not so easily lured to the racinos and casinos in nearby states.

 Copyright © 2009 Horse Racing Business