I used to live in the UK and loved how horsey it was. The Christmas show at Olympia is still my all time favorite event!
There are significant cultural differences between the two parts of the world, though. Horses and the equestrian lifestyle in general are more commonly part of the culture in the UK, and the popularity of apps like “spectator scoring” for dressage competitions in Europe generally are not part of the typical experience here - the European audiences are typically pretty darn knowledgeable and will generally score competitors quite similarly to the official marks from the judges.
I think about shows like the Hampton Classic - which normally has a large vendor area, food options etc - which draw a lot of spectators, but they are the exception rather than the rule. (For the record, Devon is another such show, and there ARE grandstands, not just fancy private boxes, but at the moment, spectators are not permitted at shows due to Covid.) But again these are long-running shows who have been part of their communities and big social events for decades. The typical 'big box" type shows are an entirely different animal, and much less interesting to the average consumer.
That said, I used to go to some of the local affiliated shows in my area when I lived in the UK, and they weren’t terribly different from what I see at our local rated shows. Some family and friends helping the riders, cheering them on and so on, but not huge crowds.
When I see this (larger) conversation, I always wonder what exactly the goal is. Do we really want huge crowds? Or do we want sponsors (implying a need for huge crowds) … but only because what we really want is money to subsidize our expenses for participation?
When I see this (larger) conversation, I always wonder what exactly the goal is. Do we really want huge crowds? Or do we want sponsors (implying a need for huge crowds) … but only because what we really want is money to subsidize our expenses for participation?
[/QUOTE]
I think we want whatever makes the sport more accessible to not just the top .01%. That could be sponsorship (Crowds or media coverage is normally part of this) as sponsors typically don’t sponsor things out of charity. They want people seeing they are sponsors of the event and it in turn drumming up business for them.
USEF needs folks with marketing backgrounds and business backgrounds not life long horse people. Assuming this comes as no shock to a lot of people on this forum but for a few this might ruffle a couple feathers - Most lifelong horse people are terrible business people.
Not saying that in derogatory way either - My background is business and I couldn’t train a horse for the life of me. Know your strengths and supplement your weaknesses with people that know their craft.
Once upon a time, the then AHSA (and then Fed) had a pretty serious marketing committee with a lot of knowledgeable and experienced marketing and sponsorship people on it. I was one of them. There were some really good programs and concepts developed but the committee was summarily disbanded without implementing any of those ideas when the USEF was established.
I’m sure this has been said in the five pages of comments, but maybe not.
There is no incentive for USEF to do anything.
They are making money off us. We will continue to pay ridiculous dues and fees because we have no choice. If you want to show seriously, USEF is the only game in town. As long as they can sit back and collect, they have no incentive to change.
When we start voting with our feet and our wallets, then change will happen.
I was talking with my trainer about this last night after our lesson. Her insight was along the lines of DawgLady’s statements above; as long as there are (even just a select few) people paying these outrageous entries, USEF has no incentive to bring in sponsors to absorb the costs of putting on events. She said that often the larger Grand Prixes, 4*, etc. will typically have a lower entry than the amateur and junior rider classes.
Regarding the sponsorship dollars not trickling down to the ammies… wouldn’t increased sponsorship dollars reduce the amount USEF “needs” to charge in order to keep putting on shows?
Once upon a time, the then AHSA (and then Fed) had a pretty serious marketing committee with a lot of knowledgeable and experienced marketing and sponsorship people on it. I was one of them. There were some really good programs and concepts developed but the committee was summarily disbanded without implementing any of those ideas when the USEF was established.[/QUOTE]
USEF has a Chief Marketing Officer, Vicki Lowell. Who spent a long time (i.e. decades) doing marketing at Discovery Communications and Procter & Gamble before taking the role at USEF. So the business background is there.
An issue with sponsorship of an entire sport is that it can interfere with and damage the value of individual sponsorships. We’ve seen this a lot in track and field, where Nike sponsors USATF, but individual athletes may be sponsored by different companies (i.e. New Balance, Adidas, Oiselle). Two examples of potential conflicts.
at our national championships and Olympic trials, there have been repeated events where there was an appearance of favoritism towards an athlete individually sponsored by Nike. Things like an athlete getting a wildcard slot at the track trials over someone else with a faster seed time.
athletes sponsored by someone other than Nike get placed in a tough spot when they make it to the Olympics or World Championships, and are no longer allowed to promote their personal sponsor. Emma Coburn, who is sponsored by New Balance, brilliantly worked her way around this when she won a bronze medal at Rio, and then took her New Balance shoes off and draped them over her shoulder, so that the New Balance brand was visible.
(note: and yes, part of the restrictions that Coburn was under were IOC restrictions. But some were also USATF restrictions pushed by Nike).
We’ve already seen a bit of this conflict with the tensions between Rolex and Longines.
Anyway, it’s certainly true that USEF has marketing people on staff. Whether or not they are invested in creating programs to improve accessibility and lower costs is perhaps questionable.
