October
JanuaryRespect the consumer
Further to Peter Mair's letter (2/1) re the comments made by the National Horse Racing Alliance to the Productivity Commission, we now have the written submission from this organisation posted on the PC website.
Many of us were intrigued as to what "facts" the NHRA would come up with to justify its assertion that the vast majority of punters have no interest in obtaining better odds. The best they seem to be able to come up with is: “This can best be illustrated by the fact that — as anyone who attends race meetings will know — many punters will bet with the tote rather than with bookmakers (although the odds to be paid are then unknown) ...”
I regularly attend Saturday race meetings at Rosehill Gardens and sometimes bet on the tote. However, in common with most people at the track, my win bets on the tote are placed after comparing the tote odds to those of all the on-course bookmakers fielding and my judgment that the final tote odds will be better. If I believe the bookies’ odds will be better I bet with one of the bookies offering the best price at the time. That is why there are massive boards in the betting ring showing the bookmaker fluctuations and the comparable tote prices for the four main states’ racing.
The notion that most punters have no interest in better odds is ludicrous, patronising and typical of the contempt in which many in the racing industry establishment hold the punter/consumer. It is interesting to contrast the NHRA submission with that of the RICG (Racing Industry Consultation Group), which at least admits that there is a balancing act between the interests of the consumer and producer sides of racing. Presumably this acknowledgment of punters’ interests was a step too far for the breeders who appear to driving the agenda of the NHRA.
It is also difficult not to laugh when the NHRA chastises the PC for making a statement which they deem to be "speculative at best and certainly without empirical support" but then come up with the following piece of speculation stated without any empirical support: “We have not been able to accurately estimate the net subsidy of the racing product by breeders … on balance it appears that … breeders subsidise the racing product heavily and that their contribution is at least equal to the contribution made by punters.”
Most analyses have shown that the biggest funder of the racing industry is the punter, followed closely by owners (indeed the NHRA submission details this). Both groups need to be looked after and treated with respect by the industry if it is to survive and grow.
The current court cases and the Productivity Commission report should be acting as a wake-up call to the racing industry establishment to treat consumers with the respect they receive in all other areas of the economy — if not then they are in for a major shock over the coming years.
Ryde (NSW)