DH's Potential for Mass Viewership Outside of MTB Participants

I've been thinking a lot on this as well, especially after listening to Bruni's interview with Jackie. I agree that the lack of head2head racing is one of the major distinguishers from F1. This affects the sport in a variety of ways. It's also one of the things that athletes and fans list as a reason for loving the sport: you're not competing against each other, you're competing against yourself and the track. So the vibes and community are positive (countless MTB racers talk about the toxicity of the BMX scene in their interviews as a reason for falling in love with MTB instead of BMX as they got older). But that drama and team principal feuding and animosity between drivers is one of the things that people love about F1. But we don't (and hopefully will never) have that in MTB.

Another is the inability to watch all the action from a good viewing point as an on-site spectator. You're faced with the choice of climbing up the track and seeing very limited parts of people's runs (with zero real understanding of what's happening unless you have cellular data and can watch live timing or the broadcast) or going to the finish and watching on the big screen. I'm not saying that attending a DHI race in person is a crappy experience, but it's not the same spectacle and viewing experience as F1 can provide... and the format itself prevents it from replicating it.  

On top of that, I just don't see the mass appeal. I was at a NICA race on Saturday during the MSA race. I was on my phone following live timing while at the race. I tried to strike up multiple conversations with other folks at the event about the DH race, and no one even really knew anything was happening. And this is among a group of mountain bikers. Who knows, though, maybe if Tom PIdcock says it's his favorite thing to watch.. the XC crowd will get more into it?

DH will never be F1 unless some billionaires decide to bankroll it.  So don't hold your breath.  And even then I'm sure the UCI, etc would find a way to not pay the riders any better.

DH will never achieve mainstream viewership. It's more boring than baseball if you're not a dedicated fan. Anyone who tells you DH is about to "break through" is selling you a bridge. The Rampage broadcast could achieve mainstream viewership in theory, but the way they broadcast it live is SOOOOOO long and boring, and it's a just once-a-year event which makes it hard for people to attach to. As it sits, watching a live Rampage broadcast is a mix of boredom, white hot panic, and frustration.

Funny. I almost started a very similar thread. 

Just so we are clear, I tried to distill Bruni's rant into one hypothesis. Please clean this up if I'm wrong...

Hypothesis: If you cut the field to a more elite group you will be able to put on a better race with better TV qualities which will amount to higher dollar sponsors for those at the top. 

Listening to Bruni walk us through his logic I have to say, I do not agree. I've heard similar things for more than 2 decades, and it doesn't seem to me that this is how the sport works, especially against the backdrop of a bazillion other ways the content consumers (us) are being "attention hacked". What we all fail to recognize is its not 2003 anymore. What is "on TV" has a lot less value than it did, because our eyeballs are spread so much thinner when it comes to vying for attention. In the words of Reed Hastings, the competition for Netflix isn't Hulu, its time itself. 

That all being said, I'm actually surprised DH has done as well as it has the last 5+ years considering this headwind, and I think its awesome riders like Bruni can make a real living. However, we have to drop this stupid F1 analogy. The only thing I see us having in common with F1 is the fact its racing and there are wheels. The rest could not be further apart. We need someone who has a vision for mountain biking's real future as a sport, not someone trying to borrow a different sports present as a benchmarked goal for our future. It flat won't work. 

Redbull was most certainly on the right path with their personality-centric series and the way Warner and the likes really got into the "drama" and social component of the sport. This is where fandom is really bread, IMO. I'd also wager (pun intended) sports books need to start making odds on DH racing if we really want to see an increase in viewership; gambling always does wonders for any sport (for better and worse). 

Most importantly, the way the athletes build and distribute their own content is really what will tie this together. The social media piece, as much as I cringe writing this, is really where the juice lays. These guys will be media powerhouses, and tying the racing with the content is how it'll actually grow **in the future**. 

As to how elite you need WC racing to be...I don't know. I kind of think the way its been with the likes of the Denim Destroyer coming out of nowhere or a Dylan Maples top 10ing a racing is part of why I tune in. 

We all wish what we did mattered more or paid more, so I get where Bruin is coming from, I just don't think this hypothesis holds water...past, present or future.

High level DH racing as a sport is more akin to world cup alpine downhill ski racing than all these other sports it's compared to (F1, moto-whatever) in my opinion, and can maybe get to that eventual level. It's not all that relatable to the public at a high level, requires a high level of technology, money and training, but you can still go by a lift pass and participate as a punter at the local hill. 

Does a successful end result mean DH gets the occasional in-season Saturday mid-day timeslot on your favorite mass sports market TV provider, like alpine skiing?  Is there some comparable series or model from alpine ski racing that can elevate DH?

rampage is a RB "signature series" event.  in the past they have a condensed 1hr version they have shown on NBC (US tv station). 

i was thinking about the same comparison to alpine skiing.  then again, lots more people ski downhill than mountain bike downhill.

also, all this talk of "lets turn downhill into X" just doesn't make sense. what's wrong with letting downhill be downhill?

For now, but as the snow gets thinner every year, I think more people will look at those dirty bikes and think "oh I'll have a go"

Not to mention as ski seasons get shorter, I do think ski areas will start packaging in summer activities to your seasons pass

I think mtb on the whole is on the rise and will continue to be for a long time.  But international dh racing is a very small part of it and just about everything eso is doing is hurting the very healthy place it grew to be when it was broadcast for free at a high level by redbull.

if prototype bikes have to have a cloth diaper to conceal them on race day, i think we have a ways to go before F1 status.

kidding...i love this discussion and the responses so far.

i'm not too worried about downhill. the mainstream moon is always promised by some pitch-maker, it's never delivered, and yet the DH bikes keep smashing, and the privateers keep camping.

Bring back the merch store.... vital branded frame diapers.

In all seriousness I would pay money for some "do not post to Vital" stickers.

https://www.redbull.com/us-en/recap-videos/uci-mountain-bike-world-cup-2022-val-di-sole-downhill-recap

another example of redbull doing everything better for a mainstream fan.  Eso isn’t doing recaps even close to this level.  

fwiw, mtb world series insta page has a lot of race day clips that keep people updated in near real-time. i personally don't care at all about such a way to watch/keep up, but maybe the kids and sponsors do. the # of likes on the posts are decent, but not sure what kind of actual value that is.

I agree with Jeff that the value of being on TV, or the value of a mass-market live broadcast, is questionable. IMHO, a well-produced 20-minute highlight reel with high-quality commentary/analysis will probably draw more viewership than an hours-long live broadcast. Look at the Tour de France, for instance. Anecdotally, none of my coworkers watched stages in full this summer but most of them were watching the highlights. Almost every one of the extended highlights videos that NBC Sports put up on YouTube this year has 300K views. I don't have viewership data for the livestreams but I would be surprised if any of them reached 300K simultaneous viewers. I know there are hardcore MTB fans that will still want to watch a live broadcast. But I'm not sure how many people have the combination of attention span and free time to watch a time-trial format race in its entirety. The whole idea of "We just need to make it TV-friendly, and then it'll really take off!" seems like antiquated logic.

1.  DH racing is not comparable to alpine ski racing b/c you can't get on course & stay on course as a spectator. That is a big advantage in drawing money to the resorts for a World Cup.
2.  World Cup experiences success in the 60 man field b/c it does allow for a finale with either surprise gypsy times OR a guy like Gwin or Amaury (both outside protected) to get through to qualifying for finals with damaged equipment or wrecks. It's inevitable in this sport unlike moto or F1.  You WILL fall. Your equipment WILL break.  

3. Cutting the finale to 30 riders turns the fan experience into a moot point. You'll just have people at the final rock feature and the finish line.  Nobody is spending a day on the hill for 10 women & 30 men. I've been to DH races since 1992. Honestly...nobody is going to go up a 2 mile track for 1.5 hours.  Sure, you could haul 5k fans up the lift to sprint to prime spots, but then you couldn't race.
4.  30 person field removes the need to FUND a team for a World Cup. That's 7 trucks with 4-5 riders max. Not even worth the exposure to make the trip for most industry players
5.  Fan magnetism - The draw of a large field and all of the GYPSIES from their home town/country draws eyes & fans to the sport, the venue, the pits.  I've been to a NASCAR race w/ 100k people.  It SUCKS to walk the arena lots and there are maybe 2 dozen companies with booths set up for fans. 
6.  Attrition - 30 man field could turn boring so quick with multiple injuries. & honestly...it could kill the sport

7.  To be an ELITE sport...you've got to have ELITE fans with elite money.  The worlds richest people aren't flying into a ski resort in the summer to stand on a dirt hill, there are no luxury boxes, no pit row, no RV parking in the infield, no air conditioned anything.  SuperCross & MotoCross are huge money and have you ever seen them zoom in a SkyBox filled with well to do folk? NOPE!  

8.  Discovery/ESO sees value in monopolizing a sports category to PACKAGE it in to a Sports viewing package you have to BUY to access your various sports.  They want to monopolized advertising dollars, not raise the sport of mountain biking.  You like F1, you like moto, you like GNCC, Rally, Hard Enduro, Tour de France?  Well pay up and you can see bits and pieces of it via their streaming platform partners.  That's all.   

Discovery/ESO has NO plans to raise the sport. They want to CONDENSE IT. Package it up tight in a short format for quick consumption so that a marketing segment is CAPTIVE.  

RedBull...they wanted to grow their branding and develop a captive audience for the consumer most likely to choose their products.  They didn't want to monopolize ad revenue.  Whole different end goal.

In europe someone like Ted Ligety can't buy dinner without someone paying for it. In the US he does the race-skiing in between the poles like the NASTAR, only on black diamond trails. Alpine skiers in many parts of europe are proper famous.

I think to continue to develop and mature this sport we probably need a bit of a lot of things. Will the number of riders that qualify for a final impact viewing experience, and probably bring in some viewers? sure, but I think to a much greater degree we need storytelling and drama. A few here have mentioned pushing the personal stories and the drama of the race, the tension. I totally agree that those stories can draw people in. I would argue that most people could give a f*ck about the driving in F1, they probably just watched drive to survive, and now they are invested emotionally in heroes and villains and upsets, and comebacks. If there is a relevant comparison, and something to learn from F1, personally I think that is it. 

If we want better pay for athletes, better coverage, better support of young riders, I dont think rearanging the way riders qualify for a race is the core of the issue. We have to go out and cultivate new viewers, we have to friggin go and steal viewers from sportsball on saturday and sunday. We have to build better bike trails in thier neighborhood so thier kids can go try and do jackson goldstone impressions.  For instance, how do people even find out about this? Am I hoping my cousin in finance stumbles accross vital raw one day and is hooked? Other than the green website and the red website where do people even have an entry into this? Maybe Redbull? My immediate concern is I see the quality of coverage of the MTB world in its already limited avenues going south at a noticeable rate. Then on top of that, we have a rough year ahead for elite level teams and this industry generally. Then we also have WBD faffing about which always concerns me. 

I get the desire to compare this to other sports but the issue is if we dont make our own culture appealing to a larger audience then incentives for sponsors to invest will continue to be limited. Again, I will just emphasize the importance of storytelling. Fans want to get to know athletes in every sport. The amount of drama that is offered up in a world cup weekend these days is actually pretty unreal for XC and DH (maybe enduro? couldnt tell ya, hard to figure out what happens with those races. Mostly I see practive vids, some racing highlights, and a results sheet) and I think there is a lot of opportunity in that. Really, I cant blame them for wanting to consolidate, where there are no dollars, there is no business. DH biking by itself is very hard to sell to people.

If anything it adds to the 'F1-ness' if it's covered up. In high end motorsports hiding is the name of the game. Red Bull was very unhappy when Perez binned it in Monaco as the car was lifted off the track, showing off the until then secret design of the floor. Moving walls in front of garages had to be banned through a mandate to stop teams from hiding. Porsche used a cover on the front of the 919 (Le Mans car) to cover the trick suspension they had in 2015, etc. Hiding stuff adds to the mystique. But I do admit it's a factor for the most diehard (technical) fans.

You can't compare the two, doesn't stack up when you think about the money involved and minute advantage they get doing tricky stuff with carbon fibre, other teams will reverse engineer this in F1, or more likely try get them a technical foul. If Specialized takes their sock off, are there suddenly going to be a bunch of ripoffs next race? Not likely. More interesting is the suspension tech that they have kept hidden... And while it's interesting to us nerds, it's probably infinitely more interesting to Fox, SRAM et al.

Regarding viewership, I can only give you anecdotes... since we seem prone to comparing F1 to DH, most Australians can tell you who Mark Webber, Daniel Riccardo or Oscar Piastri are... but none of them will have heard of Sam Hill, Jared Graves, Tracy Hannah, Troy Brosnan etc.

The issue is we can appreciate how phenomenal these DH racers are, because most of us have seen a proper DH track and understand how bonkers it is. Most people who aren't fans don't get it... it's someone riding a bike fast down a hill..... they don't appreciate that the winners were split seconds apart at the end of a minutes long course, and how nuts this is.

My old man watches all the road bike tours. Can tell you all the teams, riders, history blah blah. My argument to him is I can ride the courses they ride, no where near as fast and I'd need a lot of rest, but if I chose to with an unlimited amount of time I could do it. 99.9% of people couldn't ride a WC DH course, and would be blown away if they walked one. But not many people appreciate the nuance, which is why DH will remain a niche sport.

Even with Rampage or Joyride, you can sit someone down who knows nothing and they can appreciate the spectacle, but DH? Nah, I say this as someone who loves the sport, but I've plently mountain biking friends who know nothing about DH. That probably tells more than anything else.

There is a lot to disagree with the UCI/WB proposition.
Before we even try to discuss how to get to this mass viewership, there are other questions.
Do we really need mass viewership? I'm not sure.
Who's going to benefit from it? Just a few
Is there other successful stories of sport becoming better, more inclusive, and cheaper because of mass viewership... or is it the opposite: a sport get more media coverage because the sport is more inclusive, organized, and relatable? I've seen BMX, Rollerblade, and even Skate going up and down or more precisely from core to mainstream and back to core.
If you remember it was a time were DH was on Eurosport with sponsors like Grundig, Diesel, and others. Did it help make the sport better... not at all. It just made it crash harder because corporations have no loyalty or long-term commitment, they just jump to the next shiny thing.

The sport grew because of your local trail builders, your local race promoters, and in some places the local sports federation.
Things grow from the bottom and get squashed from the top.

I've always genuinely loved MTB especially DH for what it is and it always hurts my feelings when someone wants to make MTB something else. It goes from Wanabee moto riders making Braap noises to WB suits and elite riders dreaming of big F1 payback.
We love DH because it's one run with 5 people on a podium because it's accessible enough for a kid with big dreams to compete. Thinking that changing all that will make it better is just really stupid.

Making the sport more inclusive and more trail access will do better at growing the sport, the athlete's revenues, and the viewership than making the most aspirational competition a dull elitist scripted show buried behind a paywall!

@Bob Chicken fair points. A plot twist though, most people would die on the Streif, yet Kitzbuhel ski DH race is still mythical for normal people. Even your slalom course is bonkers steep (just looking at the slope in Kranjska Gora is insane), and the racers do it when it's basically iced over for the slope to hold up for all the competitors.

In that vein DH technically has a chance if you want to make it big among the normies (not trying to say it makes sense of course, just saying IF you would want to make it big like skiing).

I don't follow downhill skiing, not heard of this race, but I come from a flat dusty place. No doubt it's followed but do they compare elevating the coverage to F1? But it's a good point in that if you don't follow this stuff, how would you know how hard it is, and how will you grow to appreciate it? You won't, regardless of how much ESO thinks they can change the world.

It's like Isle of Man TT. Insane with way more consequence. But unless you know about it, are you going to follow it or understand how mad it is?

Bruni already works for a multi billion dollar company, what makes him think that there being more money in DH will result in it making it's way to his pocket?

"1.  DH racing is not comparable to alpine ski racing b/c you can't get on course & stay on course as a spectator. That is a big advantage in drawing money to the resorts for a World Cup."

the comparison is being made from a race format perspective, not spectator perspective. 

in downhill skiing, spectators aren't allowed on/near course because of safety for both competitors and spectators, as race speeds routinely hit 80mph or higher. when there's a crash, the racer slides for loooooooooong distances (hence all the catch nets that line the course).

if anything, the UCI could only dream about pulling the kinds of crowds that FIS (alpine ski) world cups do.  puts world cup mtb to shame.  best numbers i ever heard for a UCI WC crowd were at lenzerheide, something around 25k spectators. Schladming FIS events routinely draw roughly twice that; 45-50k. 

I'm having a hard time following all the people who argue that having 30 people in the finals will eliminate the possibility of a breakout performance. They are not limiting the entries to 30, so you could still get someone with a high number plate who puts in a strong qualifying run. And this really isn't much different than it has ever been.

That said, I do understand they want to have fewer riders total, and I think this makes sense. There are plenty of riders who show up to a world cup with literally no chance of qualifying. This causes a lot of problems with wait times during training, and with pit space. 

And lastly, to those who ask what is different about ski racing that makes it work: they have a strong feeder series in the Europa Cup. Nobody goes to a world cup without first competing in continental cup races. Think of any major sport, and there are professional paid feeder series or leagues where athletes can show they are ready for the top level. The UCI does not have that. I think Bruni is correct in saying that the world cups need to be pared down, and that the way to make it happen is for the UCI to commit to supporting multiple proper feeder series on multiple continents.

I'm sure there is a thread from 20 years ago on RideMonkey that basically has many of the same talking points. The big point I'm trying to make is mountain biking is mountain biking. Its not road cycling, F1, moto, ski racing or ________. It has its own nuances, fans, athletes etc. The faster we all build the sport around what makes this sport great, not what makes other sports great, the better off we'll be as athletes, fans and companies. This isn't to say there aren't some generalities in sport that we can borrow from, but it is to say these hyper specific comparisons aren't super helpful. 

Robot is right, most forms of mountain bike racing are boring. Hell, I'm a huge fan and honestly didn't watch much of the series this year due to difficulties tuning in (and when I did I was bored). Small digression here, but one of the best things that ever happened for guys like me to really become a fan was the VitalMTB slideshows way back when. While I still love the format, what really made them special was how in touch Sven was with the sport, the questions he was able to ask and the answers he got from the athletes all in one place in a skippable viewer. I liked the content so much, I even made my own version of the player I could make content with! (and still have hosted out there to this day!)

This type of content is really what drew me back to DH MTB and had me really hooked on watching the race come Saturday (or Sunday). It set the storylines and gave me a behind the scenes look as to who was feeling good, who was feeling off, what parts of the course were tricky etc. This is the type of thing that creates fandom. Ultimately, its the personalities that creates fans (see also: Deion at CU) more than the athletic ability displayed on the device. 

What am I saying? The right storytelling is what would actually increase viewership and the underlying value of the sport. This doesn't come from one documentary, one website, one type of content; it comes from a thousand little things, some of which are already happening, many of which aren't. One by one, they don't amount to much, but as a whole it would change the way DH MTB is perceived, viewed and enjoyed. 

Will this happen? My bet is on no. It'll be the same thing it was this season, with a few tweaks, and that's okay. Its still the best time to be alive and the best time to be a mtn biker, even if our athletes aren't perceived in a fair light relative to their ability. 

EDIT: Side point - best thing currently going in DH mtb in this vein is the B-Line podcast. I always pulled for Dak as an American, but now I extra-mega pull for him, and I absolutely LOVE the insights he gives. I tune in more for what he has to say, than watching the racing itself. I'm probably an N=1, but there might be something to learn here...

I wonder why any organizer would invest in building up a national or continental race series and aim to include a level of riding just a step below the top 60 or top 30 who would be fighting to qualify in international elite DH at a different track on any given weekend. Why aim for a level of rider rewards, media coverage, fan engagement, etc. just a step below, for the purpose of feeding the international organizer your best talent. There are people giving examples of sports where this works, but there are counterexamples that could be worth looking at.

American outdoor motocross doesn't position itself as a feeder to international MXGP. It seems like it's always a storyline when one of MXGP's best comes over to American MX and SX, like they graduated up.

Recall the international sprinter who had just won a bunch of gold in his sport in a true international comp, saying something about how the NBA shouldn't call itself a world competitive org and the NBA title holder aren't 'world' champs, and that guy was roundly criticized. The NBA might be national/continental, but they are the top compared to any international org.

So if a group of investors were mulling over building a mtb series that could cost nearly as much as UCI elite racing to operate, and stood to make less revenues than UCI racing because it was designed not to overshadow the international series, why would they do that? Is it a volume thing, cheaper tickets but huge numbers of fans following their home region? Someone must have the executive summary of the business plan that would make this work on a napkin somewhere

DH racing is inherently boring. Masked bike riders going down the same 3ft wide piece of mountain. 

It is really the rider created content that has turned me into a fan. The track walk videos provide a guide and context to the nuance of the track that cannot be seen at race speed. The vlogs give me an opportunity to get to know the people behind the goggles. I want to see Bernard get that win because he wants it so bad to cap off a career. I want to see Dak do well so he can finish his home improvement projects. Even down to all the characters in Enduro that Jack has shared his spotlight with. Without this context DH racing is terribly repetitive.

I think the F1 analogy is because it struggled with some inherently boring racing over the years. "Drive to Survive" brought those subplots to the forefront and gave F1 a boost, especially in the US where it has seemingly always struggled to gain a foothold. I can see where outsiders could see the potential to do the same for DH.

The issue with this logic is the "Drive to Survive" strategy has already been exhausted. DH is too late to the table. The shark has been jumped. With each new sport that releases its behind the scenes reality series the market gets more diluted and the premise looks more tired. The success was as much to do with the novelty as it was with the subject matter, and now that the novelty has turned to patina so has the general publics interest in F1. 

DH racing isn't meant of mass viewership. It is a niche inside of niche inside of another niche.